cropped bannermashup2

From our discussion this afternoon, I really think that citizens that don't participate in society (ie. Pay taxes, have a job, etc) should not be able to vote. Voting should be a privilege, not a right. If you're not contributing to the society you live in, why should you have an opportunity to change it? Change happens through actions, not by being a bystander. Someone made the comment today about housewives, and I would suggest that if they file joint taxes with their partner, they're allowed to vote.

We have historically said that people who are qualified can have the privilege of having a say in society. In the past, voting has been a privilege; those that owned land could vote. Why should those people who are a drain on society have a say? What are they providing back that should qualify them to have a sense of what is best for society?

We talked about people that are on welfare and what they do for the economy. The people that make the least tend to spend a higher percentage of their income. The rich spend less percentage directly into the economy. They reinvest or save the money or it stays in the circle of the rich. What is the cutoff that those on welfare are more of a drain on society rather than an active member of the economy? Only those that take advantage of the system are the real drain on society. There should also be a stipulation that those who are motivated to be involved should have the opportunity to do so and those who aren't motivated are cut off. Pay taxes and then you can decide where the tax money goes.

What about those who are enhanced? What does society owe them? Or potentially more importantly, what do they owe society? We have continued to discuss neuroenhancement and genetic engineering in our sessions. Humans have become the controller of evolution; we are our own god.

Evolution for millennia has been ruthless in terms of who wins and who dies. The less hardy die off, period. The beggars (in Spain and elsewhere) die because they are not the dominate and strong. The strong typically dominate because of advanced technology. Now, the strength could be due to intelligence and processing speed.

Additionally, we now have the technology and wealth to protect the weak that would otherwise die off. We can chose to keep the lower, or less endowed humans safe even though they are not up to the level of the new/modern/enhanced human race.

Or we can chose to let them die off… Which will we chose?

This may be a stretch from voting, but it is comparable. If we don’t let the lowest of us vote, we are considering them not-equal and not worth protection or their survival. Will it hurt the advanced humans if they don’t let the weaker humans vote or participate? Probably. This could potentially be the demise of the human race.