How much ought one to have read to be a responsible voter? Maybe the western canon...

How much ought one to have read to be a responsible voter? Maybe the western canon, /his/-books about both the world and your country, and lastly some books about the past governments and the parties that you can choose between?

Attached: 1534966358216.jpg (749x852, 49K)

>voting

Attached: 1560181051533.jpg (89x125, 2K)

A certain baseline formal education is necessary, but the Yea Forums tier reading you have in mind is not the essential ingredient. (Ooh, la-dee-dah mister Gucci loafers with his Republic and his Montesquieu). From the point of view of a rational state, or a rationally goverened society (where 'rational' is used narrowly to mean: interested in self-preservation and capable of sustained effort to maintain it), the essential thing is simply to concentrate political power among that class of society which is best able to exercise politics to the end of the self-preservation of the state or society in question.

From this, and in your specific example of representative government with regular voting, it follows that the franchise should be restricted to that class of people who have a stake in the preservation of the society in its present state: traditionally, this would be landed, married men, but since today's marriage is broken (to the point that marriage itself is irrational, in the exact same sense of the word as above), a current adjustment would be: landed family men, or even less sexy, more beta-schlub: fathers with mortgages (repeal the 19th; women by definition are not rational actors). In the American context, age of franchise must of course also be raised from the ridiculous 18 (repeal the 26th), partly in order to ameliorate the regrettable "left" sentiments of the young upon election results, but more importantly because 18 year olds don't know anything about anything. No, being of-age to do this-that-and the other isn't a rebuttal.

>responsible voter
Let´s state the obvious first: Since voting is an action with possible consequences, you are always responsible from a causal perspective.
But you propably asked wheter or not you could be responsible from a moral perspective. This depends on what consequences you seek to achieve with your action (voting/not voting) and if it is likely that those will manifest themself within reality as desired/how likely it is forthem to come true as desired. Simply try to know what you want, how poletics works and aquire some knowledge about history, society and economics.
TLDR: Stop beeing a brainlet, read some books, know what you want.

I didn't ask if I should read or not, or if I should skip voting before having read the necessary material, right now I am just curious as to which literature you would recommend reading to an indecisive 18-year old who will be voting for the first time in two years. Should I read pre-Keynes economists like Adam Smith, Ricardo or dare I say Marx/Engels? Is a good understanding of philosophy required to make the best ethical decisions, or is common sense enough? Should I read fictional books to learn about the human psyche? Or do I sound like a pretentious twat who just wants to sound "enlightened" when making my vote?

The vote should be for 25+ year old men who pay more taxes than they take, have no felonies, and have passed a basic history test (names and dates, not values).
Within 7 days of swearing in the new guard, the borders would be locked down, all inmates in for homicide would be executed, gangs would be violently hunted down, education test averages would jump up 15% when we admit not everybody’s college material, we’d have close to full employment (no work, no pay), and women would be disincentivized to partake in the workforce (raise your fucking kids, you lazy slit) thus, in conjunction with deporting all illegals and halting immigration, leveling off the supply end of the supply/demand working quotas and providing a living wage to any man who wants to work and raise a family.

Remember that democracy is the time period that allows mass immigration. Democracy leads to politicians flattering all voters as smart and equal, because that is what you have to tell them to get their votes. And they want to hear that it’s not their laziness and low IQ that leads to their lower income – it’s someone else’s fault. Democracy therefore automatically leads to the Marxist-promoted egalitarian worldview.
In a democracy, the media owners rule.
The majority of people have a two-digit IQ. No other argument is necessary: that alone shows why we shouldn’t have mass democracy. Strange how mass democracy is presented as the only legitimate system nowadays. Then again, that’s what you hear under every system. But it becomes a comedy when you hear people say that democracy equals freedom. It equals politicizing everything to a degree never before seen in history.

fuck off I don't want you to derail my thread with your ramblings
give me BOOKS, AUTHORS

this should be sufficient

Attached: 1541275203712.jpg (2000x4045, 2.58M)

>Stirner
why? I heard he was a shitty meme and should only be read for entertainment

Voting is gay and retarded, never vote