In other words: idea -> pol.
Everything else you said should get you flagged, but it is popular here so I'm not holding my breath.
Merely being a counter-narrative to some other narrative is not valuable in itself, otherwise all sorts of nonsense would be valuable. Proof that counter-narratives are not automatically valuable: "the moon is made of blue cheese" and "the moon is made of green cheese" provide worthless counter-narratives to each other.
I will edit my comment as well since you edited yours instead of responding. I don’t think the GP’s comment is the equivalent of saying that the moon is made of cheese.
Which is patently absurd on its face. Much like saying the moon is made of cheese.
Edit: I’m done pretending like regressive ideas like removing voting rights from entire segments of the population are points for valid discussion.
First, it's entirely possible that you act against their interest while claiming to care for them. The majority of old Americans currently advocate for policies that will drain the next generation while enriching the aged. This is unconscionable theft from our succeeding generations. It is fairly typical of people to act kind in person while advocating for harmful policies. If this explains you then it doesn't matter that you don't express that you want the worst for them if you nonetheless support policies that vampirize them to fund your retirement in your old age.
Secondly, all disenfranchisement will have false positives. There are 17 year olds that are sensible enough to vote. They still cannot. That is the nature of selecting a line: true nature has a fractal edge and no rule that will fit in a rulebook can capture it all.
0: Which I think can be reasonably interpreted as "the fact that I love my relatives' children and my friends' children means that I do have a vested interest in the future".
We do need to restrict the franchise drastically. I don't know if this is where I'd draw the line, but it is actually one of the better ideas.
Other ideas: net tax payers, veterans, citizens
I don't believe disenfranchising them is the best solution- I might take a Jeffersonian view that in being so illiterate, they are already effectively disenfranchised (someone else is "voting" for them - influencing their choice in a probably undue way).
A better solution would be to find effective ways to educate them
These people cannot all live in the same society and have peace exist. Logistically this problem can’t really be solved peacefully and will eventually boil up. We’re already seeing a sharp ramp up in terrorist attacks across the ideological spectrum
Sometimes, we should let nature play its course. Whoever comes out on top will subsequently canibalize themselves with infighting anyway.
- should not allow franchise holders to arrogate state function to themselves in a snowball manner
- should not allow franchise holders to enhance franchise power
Not in a direct “outlaw this”sense but in a dynamic systems sense. So something like net tax payer is good. If you use it to vote yourself more state benefits you lose the franchise and others can then remove that benefit from you.
It will be hard to handle delayed reward situations (I pay now to get benefit later) so I think the problem is we just don’t have the correct device for this yet.
But the restricted franchise is something I think is very useful. The model of having free riders vote for more free riding is rapidly approaching its limit.