- 29 Nov 2015 02:33
#14625707
I think my imaginary ideology right now is a form of familism. It would be a form of democracy that works like this. Only members of a "cohesive family" are allowed to vote. This system is opt-in so by default, people don't get to vote. They need to apply first. If any member of the family breaks ties for any reason, everyone in the family cannot vote for several years. The only exception is when making a new family unit.
I don't really like homosexuals but for the sake of political expediency, the only requirements to establish a family would be to have two people serving as the heads of the family and the people under them are their biological or adopted children. The government would not actually manage the nature or rules of the family at all, it would simply check whether the people in it have maintained their declaration of cohesion. There would be a time limit on forming new families barring things like death etc.
The point of course would be to promote the traditional family by making sure that voters are part of a functional family. Like I wrote in another thread, some social liberals imagine that we should be in a form of brotherhood with each other and yet they assume we would not be in brotherhood with our own blood. I think such imaginings misunderstand human nature. If people can't get along with their own family they probably shouldn't be telling other people how to get along with strangers. Certainly there are exceptions to this but at the end of the day, not being able to vote doesn't have much of an impact upon an individual, it's the aggregate effect upon a large society that would matter.
I don't really like homosexuals but for the sake of political expediency, the only requirements to establish a family would be to have two people serving as the heads of the family and the people under them are their biological or adopted children. The government would not actually manage the nature or rules of the family at all, it would simply check whether the people in it have maintained their declaration of cohesion. There would be a time limit on forming new families barring things like death etc.
The point of course would be to promote the traditional family by making sure that voters are part of a functional family. Like I wrote in another thread, some social liberals imagine that we should be in a form of brotherhood with each other and yet they assume we would not be in brotherhood with our own blood. I think such imaginings misunderstand human nature. If people can't get along with their own family they probably shouldn't be telling other people how to get along with strangers. Certainly there are exceptions to this but at the end of the day, not being able to vote doesn't have much of an impact upon an individual, it's the aggregate effect upon a large society that would matter.
Orb Team Re-Assemble!