Collectivism forces working people to provide for the needs of the stagnant.
thumb_up6thumb_downchat_bubble2

More from DeepDishPhilosopher

Humankind went thousands of years with competent people progressing society, while the torpid were forced to at least attempt to contribute or die out. Humanity evolved with the mindset of “If someone does not work, then that person should not eat.” Universal voting gives the entitled population a way to enable their stagnation. There are people that want things for free while ignoring that someone else has to be a producer. These people desiring communal property can become the majority of voters if there are little to no requirements to vote. While the majority of voters could become idle and compensate by voting themselves more welfare, the productive individuals would be meeting the needs of these voters. Politicians would then face a choice of campaigning for either what the majority of voters want as a group (which is their needs being met at no cost to themselves), or what productive individuals want (which is keeping more of what they produce for themselves). The politician campaigning to the majority of voters will win, because after all they have more votes. Since productive individuals would not make the majority of voters, their right to keep what they produce would slowly erode and with it the incentive to work would be decreased. Many once productive people would find themselves switching to a consuming lifestyle if the overall benefit of not working is high enough. This is why societies with low barriers to entry with voting gradually support communal property, and problems come with it. This is from a combination of too many people wanting unlimited things, and too few people producing a limited amount of things. Classical supply and demand. The response is either implement a voting system where only people with economic involvement can vote, or let communal property expand until the system collapses and scarcity forces change to where only producers have control. Either way the result would be the same, but the more civil path is one where economically invested individuals are the only ones allowed to vote.

81 views · Jan 13th
People laugh at conspiracy theorists for saying vaccines with mRNA have a program used to control people. Meanwhile from not a conspiracy theorist: "In simple terms, we can view mRNA as a USB device that cells use to pass information from the computer (DNA) to another device, such as the printer (ribosome)." https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/360574
163 views · Jan 13th

More from DeepDishPhilosopher

Humankind went thousands of years with competent people progressing society, while the torpid were forced to at least attempt to contribute or die out. Humanity evolved with the mindset of “If someone does not work, then that person should not eat.” Universal voting gives the entitled population a way to enable their stagnation. There are people that want things for free while ignoring that someone else has to be a producer. These people desiring communal property can become the majority of voters if there are little to no requirements to vote. While the majority of voters could become idle and compensate by voting themselves more welfare, the productive individuals would be meeting the needs of these voters. Politicians would then face a choice of campaigning for either what the majority of voters want as a group (which is their needs being met at no cost to themselves), or what productive individuals want (which is keeping more of what they produce for themselves). The politician campaigning to the majority of voters will win, because after all they have more votes. Since productive individuals would not make the majority of voters, their right to keep what they produce would slowly erode and with it the incentive to work would be decreased. Many once productive people would find themselves switching to a consuming lifestyle if the overall benefit of not working is high enough. This is why societies with low barriers to entry with voting gradually support communal property, and problems come with it. This is from a combination of too many people wanting unlimited things, and too few people producing a limited amount of things. Classical supply and demand. The response is either implement a voting system where only people with economic involvement can vote, or let communal property expand until the system collapses and scarcity forces change to where only producers have control. Either way the result would be the same, but the more civil path is one where economically invested individuals are the only ones allowed to vote.

81 views · Jan 13th
People laugh at conspiracy theorists for saying vaccines with mRNA have a program used to control people. Meanwhile from not a conspiracy theorist: "In simple terms, we can view mRNA as a USB device that cells use to pass information from the computer (DNA) to another device, such as the printer (ribosome)." https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/360574
163 views · Jan 13th