Well, not really. You're suggesting a government that imposes strict conditions on who gets to participate in the political process. May be a good idea, but not really a libertarian idea. — Jake

I am suggesting that that be the only thing that government restrict, other than that, whether you choose to go through the system or not, everything would be the same in terms of rights.

You should ask this of those men who drafted those "founding documents" you refer to, one of which claims that it is "self-evident" that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain "unalienable rights." — Ciceronianus the White

It was not taken into account that people would forget the responsibility that comes with rights. As I said, the constitution was drafted with the unspoken assumption that people would simply always remember that rights are fought for.

Well, no, we don't. Except in the rare cases where proposed legislation is subjected to referendum (I know California likes to do this sort of thing), we vote for people who, when elected, adopt laws. That's fundamental to the form of represented government those men who drafted those "founding documents" created. — Ciceronianus the White

True, we are a republic, so people vote on representatives that run on platforms of policy they wish to push through to law, the model was simplified.

I doubt most voters are the megalomaniacs you think them to be. Anyone who votes and thinks that by doing so they are imposing their will on society is delusional. The same may be said regarding anyone who votes intending to do violence if the candidate they vote for is not elected. It strikes me that if what you claim is true, we would have experienced a great deal more violence than we have. There've been quite a few disappointed voters in our history. I personally will not run amuck if I vote for someone who's not elected. — Ciceronianus the White

Well no, I would not say that most voters are not megalomaniacs, but the act of voting is necessarily an indirect use of force whether one is consciously aware of it or not. The majority of the population is apathetic, but those who are megalomaniacs and vote in the name of their own self-righteous virtue are the ones running public "discourse" (if you can even call it that anymore). And there has been a very large increase in the level of political violence in recent years.

The responsibility to follow orders, yes.

If what we hear is true, historically most of us have chosen not to vote in most cases. So, most of us have chosen not to "impose our will" on society. I doubt your fear that too many people are allowed to vote is justified, but clearly you must provide the justification if there is any. — Ciceronianus the White

My fear is not that "too many" people are voting in total, its that there are too many self-righteous people voting and in office that are voting and running things with the intent of dominating their opponents through force.

At what point did I suggest Anarchy, are you conflating a libertarian government with anarchy? I am suggesting limited government, not a nonexistent one. So that people's daily lives are not heavily impacted by government.

And to your second point, I am not talking about a lack of civility, I am talking about the breakdown of the social fabric that keeps us from starting civil wars and killing each other. Today rival political parties are not treated, by their supporters or their opponents, like different ideologies that share a common interest and seek to persuade each other through debate. They are treated like enemies that exist in opposition to everything you believe to be moral, and should be crushed by any means necessary. Listen to the rhetoric on both sides of the political isle in the U.S., it isn't just a lack of civility, neither side is seeking to out class the other, they are seeking to dominate each other, and not through "superior ideas" that might stand on their own merit, they seek to dominate each other in a totalitarian sense, through suppression and misinformation.

I recently made a post about this issue here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4359/the-decay-western-democracy-and-the-erosion-of-civic-virtues

Feel free to reply to my thoughts here or on that thread

Are you suggesting that women don’t have the potential range of shared goals that men have? Or perhaps that homemaking, or any sort of stereotypically feminine goals, don’t qualify as real or meaningful goals?

Not to bring religious ideas into the discussion, but I believe complimentarionism applies to this, in a biological sense. Females evolved to be the primary caregivers of children and the home while men were away, men evolved to compete for domination both over their peers to climb hierarchies and over their environment through hunting and defending their family and/or tribe. Both positions are equally important to survival.

A lot of women relate to each other based solely on gender, this is less of a thing for men. The reason is because of how we're designed biologically and mentally. Women are caregivers and nurturers. They form the core of the 'home and hearth' sphere of our lives and this will often draw women together and promote cooperation.

Men on the other hand have historically been competitive with one another, be it for food, land, resources, and even women. It's not to say that men can't come together because they can. However, for them this tends to be the result of sharing a common goal or objective, rather than being based on gender.

— Antaus

I believe what he is trying to say is that the female biological role naturally avoids conflict and promotes noncompetitive cooperation as it is dangerous to have conflict around young children and infants, therefore females might be naturally better equipped to relate to each other without needing the competition that male-to-male cooperation is usually built on.

I think that since you acknowledge that you feel "unmotivated" because you do not act in your "own best interest" that you actually do have a very clear sense of self. Do you feel as if others are stealing your motivation because they demand so much from you?

@Lone Wolf

No, I dont if anything its the opposite, I feel like the only reason I have any motivation is because of my desire to please those I love.

@Buxtebuddha

I'd, again, pull back a bit and say that I don't think love can ever be too late to foster. It's never too late to do good, to help carry another's suffering and burdens in life

I said this with the idea that having children and creating a family is an important part of creating and strengthening bonds which is of course an idea up for debate, and there is a biological timer on reproduction.