Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Who Should Vote?

BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 5:01:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I saw another thread offered the idea of allowing only taxpayers to vote. I really don't like this idea for two reasons:

1.) It seems to accept the notion that paying taxes is the main measure by which we evaluate how much one "gives or takes" to the larger society. A notion that strikes me as quite wrong.

2.) People's tax burden is not really a matter of personal control. If the government cuts taxes to a point where only 25% of people pay taxes, is it fair for only this 25% of people to get to vote?

Still, there is a real problem of misinformed people voting in large masses. After all, as Bryan Kaplan has pointed out, there is no rational incentive for voters to become informed.

I think there are a few possible solutions here:

1.) Instead of demonizing voter ID laws as "racist", we should see them as a measure that essentially helps cream the crop of voters. In other words, voters that don't have a photo ID probably have no business having a vote in the first place.

2.) Have some sort of "awareness" test required to vote. I know there are a lot of practical issues involved here, but, if we could find away to minimize these, this could do a lot in making sure that only those who understood the issues got to vote.

3.) Initiate a poll tax. This has the side benefit of raising revenue. Also, if people are willing to put some money up to vote, that probably means that they are at least somewhat well informed on the issues since they now have a financial stake in their vote.
YYW
Posts: 36,375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 5:06:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 5:01:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
I saw another thread offered the idea of allowing only taxpayers to vote. I really don't like this idea for two reasons:

1.) It seems to accept the notion that paying taxes is the main measure by which we evaluate how much one "gives or takes" to the larger society. A notion that strikes me as quite wrong.

2.) People's tax burden is not really a matter of personal control. If the government cuts taxes to a point where only 25% of people pay taxes, is it fair for only this 25% of people to get to vote?



Still, there is a real problem of misinformed people voting in large masses. After all, as Bryan Kaplan has pointed out, there is no rational incentive for voters to become informed.

I think there are a few possible solutions here:

1.) Instead of demonizing voter ID laws as "racist", we should see them as a measure that essentially helps cream the crop of voters. In other words, voters that don't have a photo ID probably have no business having a vote in the first place.

2.) Have some sort of "awareness" test required to vote. I know there are a lot of practical issues involved here, but, if we could find away to minimize these, this could do a lot in making sure that only those who understood the issues got to vote.

3.) Initiate a poll tax. This has the side benefit of raising revenue. Also, if people are willing to put some money up to vote, that probably means that they are at least somewhat well informed on the issues since they now have a financial stake in their vote.

The central issue of this debate misses the principle objective of how the tax system should work. Everyone should pay taxes, but not everyone should pay the same percentages. A progressive tax system, then, is the answer to this debate.
Tsar of DDO
Lordknukle
Posts: 12,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 5:10:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 5:06:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:01:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
I saw another thread offered the idea of allowing only taxpayers to vote. I really don't like this idea for two reasons:

1.) It seems to accept the notion that paying taxes is the main measure by which we evaluate how much one "gives or takes" to the larger society. A notion that strikes me as quite wrong.

2.) People's tax burden is not really a matter of personal control. If the government cuts taxes to a point where only 25% of people pay taxes, is it fair for only this 25% of people to get to vote?



Still, there is a real problem of misinformed people voting in large masses. After all, as Bryan Kaplan has pointed out, there is no rational incentive for voters to become informed.

I think there are a few possible solutions here:

1.) Instead of demonizing voter ID laws as "racist", we should see them as a measure that essentially helps cream the crop of voters. In other words, voters that don't have a photo ID probably have no business having a vote in the first place.

2.) Have some sort of "awareness" test required to vote. I know there are a lot of practical issues involved here, but, if we could find away to minimize these, this could do a lot in making sure that only those who understood the issues got to vote.

3.) Initiate a poll tax. This has the side benefit of raising revenue. Also, if people are willing to put some money up to vote, that probably means that they are at least somewhat well informed on the issues since they now have a financial stake in their vote.

The central issue of this debate misses the principle objective of how the tax system should work. Everyone should pay taxes, but not everyone should pay the same percentages. A progressive tax system, then, is the answer to this debate.

We do have a progressive tax system....
"Easy is the descent to Avernus, for the door to the Underworld lies upon both day and night. But to retrace your steps and return to the breezes above- that's the task, that's the toil."
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 5:15:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 5:01:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
I think there are a few possible solutions here:

1.) Instead of demonizing voter ID laws as "racist", we should see them as a measure that essentially helps cream the crop of voters. In other words, voters that don't have a photo ID probably have no business having a vote in the first place.

2.) Have some sort of "awareness" test required to vote. I know there are a lot of practical issues involved here, but, if we could find away to minimize these, this could do a lot in making sure that only those who understood the issues got to vote.

3.) Initiate a poll tax. This has the side benefit of raising revenue. Also, if people are willing to put some money up to vote, that probably means that they are at least somewhat well informed on the issues since they now have a financial stake in their vote.

Question: do you believe that the people should have the right to choose their own government?

If yes, then please define "the people".
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 5:49:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 5:15:58 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:01:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
I think there are a few possible solutions here:

1.) Instead of demonizing voter ID laws as "racist", we should see them as a measure that essentially helps cream the crop of voters. In other words, voters that don't have a photo ID probably have no business having a vote in the first place.

2.) Have some sort of "awareness" test required to vote. I know there are a lot of practical issues involved here, but, if we could find away to minimize these, this could do a lot in making sure that only those who understood the issues got to vote.

3.) Initiate a poll tax. This has the side benefit of raising revenue. Also, if people are willing to put some money up to vote, that probably means that they are at least somewhat well informed on the issues since they now have a financial stake in their vote.

Question: do you believe that the people should have the right to choose their own government?

If yes, then please define "the people".

I believe in self governance to a certain degree.

But, if you think not allowing everyone to vote violates this, then you obviously have to favor eliminating the voting age.

There's a reason we have a voting age. We don't think that, as a whole, people under 18 are well informed enough to vote. No reason why the principle that only those who are either well informed or willing to put some resources forward to vote shouldn't extend beyond that.

It would certainly make for better leaders.

Democrats tend to oppose this sort of thing more because they think it would lose them votes (don't listen to any BS about universality of voting. It really is about coalitions). But, I ask the Democrats, what does it say about your voting base if requiring some basic knowledge to vote would reduce their numbers so much?
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 5:57:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think only I should be allowed to vote, it's pretty clear that the rest of you knuckleheads have been doing it all wrong for years.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 6:08:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 5:06:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:01:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
I saw another thread offered the idea of allowing only taxpayers to vote. I really don't like this idea for two reasons:

1.) It seems to accept the notion that paying taxes is the main measure by which we evaluate how much one "gives or takes" to the larger society. A notion that strikes me as quite wrong.

2.) People's tax burden is not really a matter of personal control. If the government cuts taxes to a point where only 25% of people pay taxes, is it fair for only this 25% of people to get to vote?



Still, there is a real problem of misinformed people voting in large masses. After all, as Bryan Kaplan has pointed out, there is no rational incentive for voters to become informed.

I think there are a few possible solutions here:

1.) Instead of demonizing voter ID laws as "racist", we should see them as a measure that essentially helps cream the crop of voters. In other words, voters that don't have a photo ID probably have no business having a vote in the first place.

2.) Have some sort of "awareness" test required to vote. I know there are a lot of practical issues involved here, but, if we could find away to minimize these, this could do a lot in making sure that only those who understood the issues got to vote.

3.) Initiate a poll tax. This has the side benefit of raising revenue. Also, if people are willing to put some money up to vote, that probably means that they are at least somewhat well informed on the issues since they now have a financial stake in their vote.

The central issue of this debate misses the principle objective of how the tax system should work. Everyone should pay taxes, but not everyone should pay the same percentages. A progressive tax system, then, is the answer to this debate.

I think the tax code should be either flat or slightly progressive. I mean the ENTIRE CODE.

As a general rule, state and local taxes are regressive. So, in order to counteract this, the federal code needs to be at least somewhat progressive.

As a whole, our code today is slightly progressive.

Even though I think taxes are too high and complicated today, the level of progressivity is just about right.

But, we also need to recognize that paying taxes is not the way we should how much people "give back".
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 6:09:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 6:08:29 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:06:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:01:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
I saw another thread offered the idea of allowing only taxpayers to vote. I really don't like this idea for two reasons:

1.) It seems to accept the notion that paying taxes is the main measure by which we evaluate how much one "gives or takes" to the larger society. A notion that strikes me as quite wrong.

2.) People's tax burden is not really a matter of personal control. If the government cuts taxes to a point where only 25% of people pay taxes, is it fair for only this 25% of people to get to vote?



Still, there is a real problem of misinformed people voting in large masses. After all, as Bryan Kaplan has pointed out, there is no rational incentive for voters to become informed.

I think there are a few possible solutions here:

1.) Instead of demonizing voter ID laws as "racist", we should see them as a measure that essentially helps cream the crop of voters. In other words, voters that don't have a photo ID probably have no business having a vote in the first place.

2.) Have some sort of "awareness" test required to vote. I know there are a lot of practical issues involved here, but, if we could find away to minimize these, this could do a lot in making sure that only those who understood the issues got to vote.

3.) Initiate a poll tax. This has the side benefit of raising revenue. Also, if people are willing to put some money up to vote, that probably means that they are at least somewhat well informed on the issues since they now have a financial stake in their vote.

The central issue of this debate misses the principle objective of how the tax system should work. Everyone should pay taxes, but not everyone should pay the same percentages. A progressive tax system, then, is the answer to this debate.


I think the tax code should be either flat or slightly progressive. I mean the ENTIRE CODE.

As a general rule, state and local taxes are regressive. So, in order to counteract this, the federal code needs to be at least somewhat progressive.

As a whole, our code today is slightly progressive.

Even though I think taxes are too high and complicated today, the level of progressivity is just about right.

But, we also need to recognize that paying taxes is not the way we should how much people "give back".

A flat tax with a cap on deductions would probable generate more revenue.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 6:10:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 5:10:54 PM, Lordknukle wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:06:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:01:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
I saw another thread offered the idea of allowing only taxpayers to vote. I really don't like this idea for two reasons:

1.) It seems to accept the notion that paying taxes is the main measure by which we evaluate how much one "gives or takes" to the larger society. A notion that strikes me as quite wrong.

2.) People's tax burden is not really a matter of personal control. If the government cuts taxes to a point where only 25% of people pay taxes, is it fair for only this 25% of people to get to vote?



Still, there is a real problem of misinformed people voting in large masses. After all, as Bryan Kaplan has pointed out, there is no rational incentive for voters to become informed.

I think there are a few possible solutions here:

1.) Instead of demonizing voter ID laws as "racist", we should see them as a measure that essentially helps cream the crop of voters. In other words, voters that don't have a photo ID probably have no business having a vote in the first place.

2.) Have some sort of "awareness" test required to vote. I know there are a lot of practical issues involved here, but, if we could find away to minimize these, this could do a lot in making sure that only those who understood the issues got to vote.

3.) Initiate a poll tax. This has the side benefit of raising revenue. Also, if people are willing to put some money up to vote, that probably means that they are at least somewhat well informed on the issues since they now have a financial stake in their vote.

The central issue of this debate misses the principle objective of how the tax system should work. Everyone should pay taxes, but not everyone should pay the same percentages. A progressive tax system, then, is the answer to this debate.

We do have a progressive tax system....

We have a progressive Federal tax code. If you include state and local taxes, which are quite regressive, it is still progressive, but only slightly.

Again, the problem I have is with the complexity of the tax code as well as taxes being high overall. The level progressively seems about right to me.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 6:11:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 6:09:26 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:08:29 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:06:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:01:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
I saw another thread offered the idea of allowing only taxpayers to vote. I really don't like this idea for two reasons:

1.) It seems to accept the notion that paying taxes is the main measure by which we evaluate how much one "gives or takes" to the larger society. A notion that strikes me as quite wrong.

2.) People's tax burden is not really a matter of personal control. If the government cuts taxes to a point where only 25% of people pay taxes, is it fair for only this 25% of people to get to vote?



Still, there is a real problem of misinformed people voting in large masses. After all, as Bryan Kaplan has pointed out, there is no rational incentive for voters to become informed.

I think there are a few possible solutions here:

1.) Instead of demonizing voter ID laws as "racist", we should see them as a measure that essentially helps cream the crop of voters. In other words, voters that don't have a photo ID probably have no business having a vote in the first place.

2.) Have some sort of "awareness" test required to vote. I know there are a lot of practical issues involved here, but, if we could find away to minimize these, this could do a lot in making sure that only those who understood the issues got to vote.

3.) Initiate a poll tax. This has the side benefit of raising revenue. Also, if people are willing to put some money up to vote, that probably means that they are at least somewhat well informed on the issues since they now have a financial stake in their vote.

The central issue of this debate misses the principle objective of how the tax system should work. Everyone should pay taxes, but not everyone should pay the same percentages. A progressive tax system, then, is the answer to this debate.


I think the tax code should be either flat or slightly progressive. I mean the ENTIRE CODE.

As a general rule, state and local taxes are regressive. So, in order to counteract this, the federal code needs to be at least somewhat progressive.

As a whole, our code today is slightly progressive.

Even though I think taxes are too high and complicated today, the level of progressivity is just about right.

But, we also need to recognize that paying taxes is not the way we should how much people "give back".

A flat tax with a cap on deductions would probable generate more revenue.

Yes. But, generating more revenue should be the goal of tax reform.

A flat tax on the federal level would be more economically efficient. However, having a progressive federal code is necessary to make up for the regressivity on the state and local levels.

If we want to have real tax reform, we need to reform the entire tax code, including state and local taxes.
tmar19652
Posts: 727
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 6:14:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 6:11:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:09:26 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:08:29 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:06:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:01:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
I saw another thread offered the idea of allowing only taxpayers to vote. I really don't like this idea for two reasons:

1.) It seems to accept the notion that paying taxes is the main measure by which we evaluate how much one "gives or takes" to the larger society. A notion that strikes me as quite wrong.

2.) People's tax burden is not really a matter of personal control. If the government cuts taxes to a point where only 25% of people pay taxes, is it fair for only this 25% of people to get to vote?



Still, there is a real problem of misinformed people voting in large masses. After all, as Bryan Kaplan has pointed out, there is no rational incentive for voters to become informed.

I think there are a few possible solutions here:

1.) Instead of demonizing voter ID laws as "racist", we should see them as a measure that essentially helps cream the crop of voters. In other words, voters that don't have a photo ID probably have no business having a vote in the first place.

2.) Have some sort of "awareness" test required to vote. I know there are a lot of practical issues involved here, but, if we could find away to minimize these, this could do a lot in making sure that only those who understood the issues got to vote.

3.) Initiate a poll tax. This has the side benefit of raising revenue. Also, if people are willing to put some money up to vote, that probably means that they are at least somewhat well informed on the issues since they now have a financial stake in their vote.

The central issue of this debate misses the principle objective of how the tax system should work. Everyone should pay taxes, but not everyone should pay the same percentages. A progressive tax system, then, is the answer to this debate.


I think the tax code should be either flat or slightly progressive. I mean the ENTIRE CODE.

As a general rule, state and local taxes are regressive. So, in order to counteract this, the federal code needs to be at least somewhat progressive.

As a whole, our code today is slightly progressive.

Even though I think taxes are too high and complicated today, the level of progressivity is just about right.

But, we also need to recognize that paying taxes is not the way we should how much people "give back".

A flat tax with a cap on deductions would probable generate more revenue.


Yes. But, generating more revenue should be the goal of tax reform.

A flat tax on the federal level would be more economically efficient. However, having a progressive federal code is necessary to make up for the regressivity on the state and local levels.

If we want to have real tax reform, we need to reform the entire tax code, including state and local taxes.

What we need more than anything is to simplify the tax code to something you can read in an hour.
"Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." -Ronald Reagan

"The notion of political correctness declares certain topics, certain ex<x>pressions even certain gestures off-limits. What began as a crusade for civility has soured into a cause of conflict and even censorship." -George H.W. Bush
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 6:20:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 6:14:03 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:11:59 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:09:26 PM, tmar19652 wrote:
At 1/25/2013 6:08:29 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:06:09 PM, YYW wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:01:46 PM, BigRat wrote:
I saw another thread offered the idea of allowing only taxpayers to vote. I really don't like this idea for two reasons:

1.) It seems to accept the notion that paying taxes is the main measure by which we evaluate how much one "gives or takes" to the larger society. A notion that strikes me as quite wrong.

2.) People's tax burden is not really a matter of personal control. If the government cuts taxes to a point where only 25% of people pay taxes, is it fair for only this 25% of people to get to vote?



Still, there is a real problem of misinformed people voting in large masses. After all, as Bryan Kaplan has pointed out, there is no rational incentive for voters to become informed.

I think there are a few possible solutions here:

1.) Instead of demonizing voter ID laws as "racist", we should see them as a measure that essentially helps cream the crop of voters. In other words, voters that don't have a photo ID probably have no business having a vote in the first place.

2.) Have some sort of "awareness" test required to vote. I know there are a lot of practical issues involved here, but, if we could find away to minimize these, this could do a lot in making sure that only those who understood the issues got to vote.

3.) Initiate a poll tax. This has the side benefit of raising revenue. Also, if people are willing to put some money up to vote, that probably means that they are at least somewhat well informed on the issues since they now have a financial stake in their vote.

The central issue of this debate misses the principle objective of how the tax system should work. Everyone should pay taxes, but not everyone should pay the same percentages. A progressive tax system, then, is the answer to this debate.


I think the tax code should be either flat or slightly progressive. I mean the ENTIRE CODE.

As a general rule, state and local taxes are regressive. So, in order to counteract this, the federal code needs to be at least somewhat progressive.

As a whole, our code today is slightly progressive.

Even though I think taxes are too high and complicated today, the level of progressivity is just about right.

But, we also need to recognize that paying taxes is not the way we should how much people "give back".

A flat tax with a cap on deductions would probable generate more revenue.


Yes. But, generating more revenue should be the goal of tax reform.

A flat tax on the federal level would be more economically efficient. However, having a progressive federal code is necessary to make up for the regressivity on the state and local levels.

If we want to have real tax reform, we need to reform the entire tax code, including state and local taxes.

What we need more than anything is to simplify the tax code to something you can read in an hour.

That would be ideal.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 6:20:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 5:49:35 PM, BigRat wrote:
I believe in self governance to a certain degree.

Then you apparently don't believe in democracy.

But, if you think not allowing everyone to vote violates this, then you obviously have to favor eliminating the voting age.

There's a reason we have a voting age. We don't think that, as a whole, people under 18 are well informed enough to vote. No reason why the principle that only those who are either well informed or willing to put some resources forward to vote shouldn't extend beyond that.

The voting age requirement has nothing to do with your made up principle that voting is only for people who qualify as being "well informed". In our society we all have rights. I have the right to choose where I want to live, whether I want to donate blood, whether I want to have a drink etc... In short, we have the right to make our own decisions. We do not grant this right to children because we do not consider children to be ready to make their own decisions. If children are not ready to make their own decisions, then they certainly are not ready to make America's decisions.

Using the voting age as an argument against a universal right to vote is no different then arguing that people should have to pass a test before being considered a legal adult.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 8:10:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 6:20:24 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/25/2013 5:49:35 PM, BigRat wrote:
I believe in self governance to a certain degree.

Then you apparently don't believe in democracy.

But, if you think not allowing everyone to vote violates this, then you obviously have to favor eliminating the voting age.

There's a reason we have a voting age. We don't think that, as a whole, people under 18 are well informed enough to vote. No reason why the principle that only those who are either well informed or willing to put some resources forward to vote shouldn't extend beyond that.

The voting age requirement has nothing to do with your made up principle that voting is only for people who qualify as being "well informed". In our society we all have rights. I have the right to choose where I want to live, whether I want to donate blood, whether I want to have a drink etc... In short, we have the right to make our own decisions. We do not grant this right to children because we do not consider children to be ready to make their own decisions. If children are not ready to make their own decisions, then they certainly are not ready to make America's decisions.

Using the voting age as an argument against a universal right to vote is no different then arguing that people should have to pass a test before being considered a legal adult.

If it's a right, we grant it to everyone. Period. So, either you support eliminating the voting age or you oppose universal voting rights.

So, let us sweep aside this silly but illogical argument about "everyone having a right to vote". I would rather look at this from a practical standpoint.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 11:10:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 10:47:46 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
Why should anyone vote?

Good question.

There's a real case to be made against voting. However, in this question, I assume that we have a state and that we use voting to decide many of the leaders of the state.

I ask that question in that context.
Franz_Reynard
Posts: 1,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/25/2013 11:13:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 11:12:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
As long as the people who aren't allowed to vote aren't coerced through gov. violence to follow laws, I"m fine with that.

So, if the government doesn't coerce you in to a date with me..?
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 1:02:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 11:12:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
As long as the people who aren't allowed to vote aren't coerced through gov. violence to follow laws, I"m fine with that.

By nature, they would indeed have to be coerced to follow laws.

In order to get rid of state coercion, one would need to eliminate the state (I'm guessing your an anarchist or market anarchist).

But, I am not an anarchist. I think we need to at least have some state (albeit a smaller one than we currently have), and I think we are better off with some restrictions on who has a say in who leads this state.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:39:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 8:10:12 PM, BigRat wrote:
If it's a right, we grant it to everyone. Period. So, either you support eliminating the voting age or you oppose universal voting rights.

Do you believe liberty is a right?

Should children have liberty?
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 6:51:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 1:02:53 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/25/2013 11:12:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
As long as the people who aren't allowed to vote aren't coerced through gov. violence to follow laws, I"m fine with that.


By nature, they would indeed have to be coerced to follow laws.

In order to get rid of state coercion, one would need to eliminate the state (I'm guessing your an anarchist or market anarchist).

But, I am not an anarchist. I think we need to at least have some state (albeit a smaller one than we currently have), and I think we are better off with some restrictions on who has a say in who leads this state.

If people have to stake or say in society, they should not be forced to follow laws. You can lead yourself. That's your problem, not mine. Don't try to lead me.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 12:42:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 2:39:05 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:10:12 PM, BigRat wrote:
If it's a right, we grant it to everyone. Period. So, either you support eliminating the voting age or you oppose universal voting rights.

Do you believe liberty is a right?

Should children have liberty?

Yes, liberty is a right in my view. Liberty is a right in a way that voting isn't.

As you'll note, the rights that were spelled out were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Voting is just a means to make sure these rights are protected.
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 12:43:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 6:51:17 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2013 1:02:53 AM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/25/2013 11:12:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
As long as the people who aren't allowed to vote aren't coerced through gov. violence to follow laws, I"m fine with that.


By nature, they would indeed have to be coerced to follow laws.

In order to get rid of state coercion, one would need to eliminate the state (I'm guessing your an anarchist or market anarchist).

But, I am not an anarchist. I think we need to at least have some state (albeit a smaller one than we currently have), and I think we are better off with some restrictions on who has a say in who leads this state.

If people have to stake or say in society, they should not be forced to follow laws. You can lead yourself. That's your problem, not mine. Don't try to lead me.

I think that's a defensible attitude, but I assuming we have a state in this question.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 1:10:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 12:42:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/26/2013 2:39:05 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:10:12 PM, BigRat wrote:
If it's a right, we grant it to everyone. Period. So, either you support eliminating the voting age or you oppose universal voting rights.

Do you believe liberty is a right?

Should children have liberty?


Yes, liberty is a right in my view. Liberty is a right in a way that voting isn't.

As you'll note, the rights that were spelled out were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Voting is just a means to make sure these rights are protected.

Ok so liberty is a right. Glad we agree. However you failed to answer the second question: Do we grant liberty to children? I really don't think I need to explain why the answer to this question is an obvious no. Therefore a right is not something which children automatically have, and arguing that children not having something excludes it from being a right is false.

Curious, since you don't believe voting is a right, then when you hear the term "a government by the people" how do you define "the people"?
BigRat
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 1:51:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 1:10:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:42:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/26/2013 2:39:05 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:10:12 PM, BigRat wrote:
If it's a right, we grant it to everyone. Period. So, either you support eliminating the voting age or you oppose universal voting rights.

Do you believe liberty is a right?

Should children have liberty?


Yes, liberty is a right in my view. Liberty is a right in a way that voting isn't.

As you'll note, the rights that were spelled out were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Voting is just a means to make sure these rights are protected.

Ok so liberty is a right. Glad we agree. However you failed to answer the second question: Do we grant liberty to children? I really don't think I need to explain why the answer to this question is an obvious no. Therefore a right is not something which children automatically have, and arguing that children not having something excludes it from being a right is false.

Curious, since you don't believe voting is a right, then when you hear the term "a government by the people" how do you define "the people"?

Actually, yes. As far as government goes we *should* grant liberty to children.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:01:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/25/2013 11:12:34 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
As long as the people who aren't allowed to vote aren't coerced through gov. violence to follow laws, I"m fine with that.

And how on earth do you propose to do that?

Non-voters can rape, pillage, and steal and nothing happens because they can'tvote?

Non-voters can do inside trading?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 2:02:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 1:10:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/26/2013 12:42:31 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/26/2013 2:39:05 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 1/25/2013 8:10:12 PM, BigRat wrote:
If it's a right, we grant it to everyone. Period. So, either you support eliminating the voting age or you oppose universal voting rights.

Do you believe liberty is a right?

Should children have liberty?


Yes, liberty is a right in my view. Liberty is a right in a way that voting isn't.

As you'll note, the rights that were spelled out were life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Voting is just a means to make sure these rights are protected.

Ok so liberty is a right. Glad we agree. However you failed to answer the second question: Do we grant liberty to children? I really don't think I need to explain why the answer to this question is an obvious no. Therefore a right is not something which children automatically have, and arguing that children not having something excludes it from being a right is false.

Curious, since you don't believe voting is a right, then when you hear the term "a government by the people" how do you define "the people"?

We don't grant liberty to children?

So why can't the state medically experiment on orphans being cared for using state funds?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2013 10:55:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 1/26/2013 1:51:06 PM, BigRat wrote:
At 1/26/2013 1:10:50 PM, Double_R wrote:
Ok so liberty is a right. Glad we agree. However you failed to answer the second question: Do we grant liberty to children? I really don't think I need to explain why the answer to this question is an obvious no. Therefore a right is not something which children automatically have, and arguing that children not having something excludes it from being a right is false.

Curious, since you don't believe voting is a right, then when you hear the term "a government by the people" how do you define "the people"?

Actually, yes. As far as government goes we *should* grant liberty to children.

So if my 5 year old wants to go to Vegas for the weekend I should have no legal right to stop her?

You also dodged the question I asked: when you hear the term "a government by the people" how do you define "the people"?