PDA

View Full Version : Stossel says some people are too stupid to vote




Matt Collins
09-30-2010, 12:51 AM
YouTube - John Stossel: Some Americans Too Stupid To Vote - 09/28/10 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEgB0rcqgqo&feature=player_embedded)

Sola_Fide
09-30-2010, 12:56 AM
I am interested in what some of you guys here think about voting requirements.

I know some here don't think it is even beneficial to vote at all. But if you do, what should be the requirements? I read a very good article at LewRockwell.com that defended a system of coverture, which is basically voting rights being tied to property ownership.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-30-2010, 12:58 AM
As long as you pay taxes you should get a vote. If you pay no taxes you don't get to vote. (Property ownership is a horrible idea)

Taken a step further, if you receive more benefits than you pay in taxes you get no vote.

Something like that could be tenable I suppose...even though it probably wouldn't solve much in the long-term (Politicians will change the rules because there would be a large welfare base of votes they want).

GreedyHenry
09-30-2010, 01:06 AM
I agree with only property owners voting.

Matt Collins
09-30-2010, 01:10 AM
a system of coverture, which is basically voting rights being tied to property ownership.

I agree with only property owners voting.


But everyone owns property. One's body is one's own property, is it not?

Sola_Fide
09-30-2010, 01:19 AM
I'm going to try to find that article tomorrow when I get to my laptop. I can't remember the details or the arguments right now...:(

EvilEngineer
09-30-2010, 01:23 AM
As long as you pay taxes you should get a vote. If you pay no taxes you don't get to vote. (Property ownership is a horrible idea)

Taken a step further, if you receive more benefits than you pay in taxes you get no vote.


What about those who have retired and now only pull social "in"security? Technically they are now mooching... And statistically they will pull more out than they paid into the system. So even the argument "I paid for it" doesn't hold water anymore.

newyearsrevolution08
09-30-2010, 01:28 AM
everyone should have a voice

just because you are too dumb or what have you says NOTHING, look at our current administration. In that sense EVERYONE who has voted for ANY current and previous election are proving to be fucking idiots based off of the people we actually have IN office.

we are pitiful as far as a nation that should be based on personal liberty.

Sola_Fide
09-30-2010, 01:28 AM
As long as you pay taxes you should get a vote. If you pay no taxes you don't get to vote. (Property ownership is a horrible idea)

Taken a step further, if you receive more benefits than you pay in taxes you get no vote.

Something like that could be tenable I suppose...even though it probably wouldn't solve much in the long-term (Politicians will change the rules because there would be a large welfare base of votes they want).



Good points.

Reason
09-30-2010, 01:30 AM
slippery slope and such

Rocco
09-30-2010, 01:33 AM
I can't believe I am hearing this. This is a forum full of people supposedly dedicated to personal freedom and liberty....who want to take away one of our most sacred freedoms from a significant portion of the population? Imho, some of you really need to take a closer look into what you are saying, because anyone who is truly for liberty would not support taking the right to vote away from a large group of american citizens.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-30-2010, 01:36 AM
I can't believe I am hearing this. This is a forum full of people supposedly dedicated to personal freedom and liberty....who want to take away one of our most sacred freedoms from a significant portion of the population? Imho, some of you really need to take a closer look into what you are saying, because anyone who is truly for liberty would not support taking the right to vote away from a large group of american citizens.

And if that "right to vote" constitutes stealing from your neighbor or imprisoning him/her how again is that liberty?

Sola_Fide
09-30-2010, 01:38 AM
I can't believe I am hearing this. This is a forum full of people supposedly dedicated to personal freedom and liberty....who want to take away one of our most sacred freedoms from a significant portion of the population? Imho, some of you really need to take a closer look into what you are saying, because anyone who is truly for liberty would not support taking the right to vote away from a large group of american citizens.


Why should people have the right to vote to steal other people's property?

cindy25
09-30-2010, 02:09 AM
people who receive government handouts (food stamps, medicaid, medicare, social security, etc) should not vote

JohnEngland
09-30-2010, 02:22 AM
I think there should be a basic test that is attached to the vote. In order for a vote to count, the voter must have correctly answered all the questions. And by "basic", I mean BASIC:

1) Who is the current President?
2) Who is the current vice-president?

If people cannot get these two questions right, their vote is surely irresponsible.

Democracy, whilst important for holding representatives of the people accountable, can be dangerous and should be regulated - which it is today anyway, since the people cannot write the laws of the land! In a pure democracy, 51% of the people would be making the laws.

robert68
09-30-2010, 02:42 AM
And if that "right to vote" constitutes stealing from your neighbor or imprisoning him/her how again is that liberty?

Voting is stealing?

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-30-2010, 02:54 AM
Voting is stealing?

What rock have you been living under? Yes, it is, unless you are a libertarian and vote as a condition of abolishing said institution :p

Vote for me I will give you welfare!
Vote for me I will keep your social security safe!
Vote for me I will extend unemployment!
Vote for me I will make sex illegal!
Vote for me I will tax business!
Vote for me I will make drugs illegal!
Vote for me I will insert theft/imprisonment here.

robert68
09-30-2010, 03:20 AM
What rock have you been living under? Yes, it is, unless you are a libertarian and vote as a condition of abolishing said institution :p

Vote for me I will give you welfare!
Vote for me I will keep your social security safe!
Vote for me I will extend unemployment!
Vote for me I will make sex illegal!
Vote for me I will tax business!
Vote for me I will make drugs illegal!
Vote for me I will insert theft/imprisonment here.

A mere expression of support for something, by an individual, is not doing that something.

amy31416
09-30-2010, 03:34 AM
Can we really trust the government to "regulate" or decide who does and doesn't get to vote?

Seems to me that it's taking one problem and replacing it with something potentially worse. People are forgetting that it's not just the unemployed and poor who make unethical voting choices, there's also a huge voting bloc that votes to steal more money to go blow shit up and build empires--and they generally aren't unemployed and poor, and they often own land.

So how do we deal with them? Or is theft okay when you're contributing?

It's not the easy way, but educating people is the only reasonable answer to me.

Austrian Econ Disciple
09-30-2010, 03:48 AM
A mere expression of support for something, by an individual, is not doing that something.

Actually, it is. It is the same as "hiring" someone to kill your wife or husband, or to burn down your house. Just because you yourself didn't do it personally, but instead contracted it out, doesn't change the fact that you are responsible. To say you didn't steal from your neighbor, because you told the guy three houses down to steal from him and to give to you is irrelevant. You are the thief.

Koz
09-30-2010, 05:40 AM
What about those who have retired and now only pull social "in"security? Technically they are now mooching... And statistically they will pull more out than they paid into the system. So even the argument "I paid for it" doesn't hold water anymore.

Technically Social Security is not a tax, it is 'social insurance' on some paychecks it says SSI which stands for Social Security Insurance. It should say BPS, or Big Ponzi Scheme.

Koz
09-30-2010, 05:47 AM
Oh, and the question of the thread, yes I think there should be some sort of basic requirement to vote.

Be it property ownership, paying more taxes than you get in welfare, or some other sort of requirement, I think the whole thing boils down into being a participant in society.

What I mean is that if you pay taxes you participate, if you own property you participate, if you sit on your ass at home (see section 8 housing) and get food stamps and other welfare you are not participating, you are leeching off of society, or stealing from others. If these types of folks want a vote all they have to do is change thier behavior. So, they are not denied a vote, they just have to more or less earn it.

Stary Hickory
09-30-2010, 06:21 AM
I am interested in what some of you guys here think about voting requirements.

I know some here don't think it is even beneficial to vote at all. But if you do, what should be the requirements? I read a very good article at LewRockwell.com that defended a system of coverture, which is basically voting rights being tied to property ownership.

Well under out current corrupt system you have to consider what a vote can mean. The government has unconstituionally taken it upon itself to forcefully collect from us the products and services of our labor, they have taken it upon themselves to forcefully tell us how to live what we can buy, what we can eat, how we can treat ourselves medically and so on.....

With all of this at stake the demand that a voter be educated on the issues is not at all crazy. The real problem is no matter how smart the voters may be and how smart the politicians they elect they could never be smart enough to centrally plan our economy and the lives of 300 million people. It does, however infuriate me when I see your typical Walmart welfare recipient walking around, knowing that this person probably votes and probably does not even know who the vice president is much less anything about my life or anything else...yet their vote affects me.

This is why Democracy is evil and is doomed to fail when we Democratically use force against innocent and peaceful people.

Original_Intent
09-30-2010, 06:28 AM
I support a few things:

Anyone who receives money from the government in the form of subsidies, welfare, or as an employee is exempt from voting. (Haven't completely thought this through, but it seems like a good idea. I am open to be swayed.

A poll tax. As much as I am not a fan of taxes, this would do a lot to thin out "the stupid vote". It should not be prohibitive, it should just be enough to ensure that the person voting takes some care to their vote.

Possibly only property owners voting. I have heard this was originally how things were set up or intended. I can see some benefits, but again I am open to be shown why this is a bad idea.

RM918
09-30-2010, 06:41 AM
No restrictions. Because then, WHO gets to decide what the 'basic' requirements are, and WHO gets to decide whether or not you meet them? Such a system will never benefit anyone except the oligarchs.

If the government does anything to force you to do anything, you should have the right to change it.

Stary Hickory
09-30-2010, 06:48 AM
I support a few things:

Anyone who receives money from the government in the form of subsidies, welfare, or as an employee is exempt from voting. (Haven't completely thought this through, but it seems like a good idea. I am open to be swayed..

Agree with this 100% if they are net recievers they get no vote. Once they become contributers again they may vote. But it also must be observed that even this is really not nearly without moral hazard. In the free market you have a vote equal to whatever value you bring to the market. You command resources equal to what you bring in. In government even a tiny contributer would have equal access to commanding resource(via vote backed by force). This is a moral hazard and is part of why government is always called a Necessary evil at best.



A poll tax. As much as I am not a fan of taxes, this would do a lot to thin out "the stupid vote". It should not be prohibitive, it should just be enough to ensure that the person voting takes some care to their vote.

I agree here 100%. The tax should be something trivial like one dollar. To vote would cost you a dollar. If you are not willing to pay one dollar to vote then you should not be there at all





Possibly only property owners voting. I have heard this was originally how things were set up or intended. I can see some benefits, but again I am open to be shown why this is a bad idea.

Only objection is this: Any man who has his labor or the products of his labor forcibly taken to support government should be able to vote. Land is nothing more than a store of value, something someone acrues after utilizing his labor to create products and services equal in value(subjectively) as to aquire the land.

I think the founders were mistaken, it was the right idea, we don't want non contributers voting however owning land is earned through labor and human action. To get to the nuts and bolts of it all it is when someone's labor is forcibly utilized by government that creates a moral necessity for giving that person a vote.

Imaginos
09-30-2010, 07:00 AM
I support a few things:

Anyone who receives money from the government in the form of subsidies, welfare, or as an employee is exempt from voting. (Haven't completely thought this through, but it seems like a good idea. I am open to be swayed.

+1

EndDaFed
09-30-2010, 07:02 AM
So if only land owners were able to vote it would just mean that government is a tyranny of the land owners instead of the mob. The fundamental problem would still be unchanged.

EndDaFed
09-30-2010, 07:05 AM
I support a few things:

Anyone who receives money from the government in the form of subsidies, welfare, or as an employee is exempt from voting. (Haven't completely thought this through, but it seems like a good idea. I am open to be swayed.



Does that also mean anyone who works for a defense contractor that is paid by the government also loses their right to vote too? Same would have to hold true for anyone in the employ of the government, military, and any other government related expenditure. That is of course if one wants to remain logically consistent. Also anyone who works for an oil company that benefits from war.

RforRevolution
09-30-2010, 07:07 AM
4 things that would prove absolutely beneficial to the general public:

1) Repeal the 17th amendment. Senators are not Representatives and should not be elected by the people.

2) Ratify Article the First and make it the 28th amendment. The only intended form of democracy we were meant to have is shrinking daily.

3) A very easy test to ensure voter competence as mentioned above.

4) Anyone receiving government money is restricted from voting.

Bruno
09-30-2010, 07:10 AM
I agree with only property owners voting.

If lawmakers only made laws that affected property, that might make sense.

Stary Hickory
09-30-2010, 07:10 AM
Does that also mean anyone who works for a defense contractor that is paid by the government also loses their right to vote too? Same would have to hold true for anyone in the employ of the government, military, and any other government related expenditure. That is of course if one wants to remain logically consistent.

Yeah and to keep going down along those lines what about people who provide goods and services to people who work for the government? They too will see there financial fortunes mixed in with government expenditures. It is never as cut and dry as it seems. But I think the idea is still valid it at least mitigates the corruption to some extent.

But a similar thing can be said for those who work but pay no taxes...they still pay the inflation tax, they still indirectly pay the taxes of others. We have a myriad of voluntary and involuntary associations it's hard to really define neatly when someoneis not a contributer or not. It really is voluntary association versus coerced association. That is the real battle ground...everything else is just subjective.

erowe1
09-30-2010, 07:13 AM
I'm fine with making it more difficult to vote. A poll tax to cover the cost of the election itself seems pretty reasonable to me. But I'm definitely against having any kind of test. The government would control the test and use it to manipulate voters in its favor. Also, it's the highly educated voters who scare me a lot more than the stupid ones.

KCIndy
09-30-2010, 07:25 AM
I think there should be a basic test that is attached to the vote. In order for a vote to count, the voter must have correctly answered all the questions. And by "basic", I mean BASIC:

1) Who is the current President?
2) Who is the current vice-president?

If people cannot get these two questions right, their vote is surely irresponsible.




If - IF - there is any sort of restriction or qualification put on voting, I would be in favor of something like these "political awareness" questions. Maybe there could be a dozen or so simple ones. The potential voter would be allowed to pick the three that he/she would attempt to answer. The potential voter would have to get two of the three correct in order to vote.

Let's face it. If someone is so politically clueless that he can't answer two of the three questions he is allowed to pick for himself, can he possibly have ANY idea about what the current issues are? Is there ANY chance he's really aware of what the Constitution says?

Some possible questions that everyone should be able to answer in addition to the President and VP:

1) Name one of your state's two senators.

2) What is the capital of the United States?

3) Name one right/freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution

4) Name one of the three branches of the Federal government

5) Name one of the nine justices of the Supreme Court

6) What is the capital of your state?


Anyone else have any suggestions for questions?

Toureg89
09-30-2010, 07:46 AM
i don't think there should be any test. but thats not to say that i dont agree with stossel that most americans are too ignorant of political matters.

KCIndy
09-30-2010, 07:49 AM
...I'm definitely against having any kind of test. The government would control the test and use it to manipulate voters in its favor. Also, it's the highly educated voters who scare me a lot more than the stupid ones.


Really??

I'm scared by the stupid ones... the ones who vote for Mitt Romney because he looks like a movie star, but couldn't tell you whether he is running on the Democratic or Republican ticket.... like the ones who would vote for Obama because they see him on TV all the time, but who think Ron Paul is a kook because that's what some guy on the TV said..... like the ones who have never bothered to look up a candidate's political positions but will vote for her because she's promised to give them "stuff" or because she reminds them of dear old mom...

Well, you get the idea.

osan
09-30-2010, 07:52 AM
Well under out current corrupt system you have to consider what a vote can mean. The government has unconstituionally taken it upon itself to forcefully collect from us the products and services of our labor, they have taken it upon themselves to forcefully tell us how to live what we can buy, what we can eat, how we can treat ourselves medically and so on.....

With all of this at stake the demand that a voter be educated on the issues is not at all crazy. The real problem is no matter how smart the voters may be and how smart the politicians they elect they could never be smart enough to centrally plan our economy and the lives of 300 million people. It does, however infuriate me when I see your typical Walmart welfare recipient walking around, knowing that this person probably votes and probably does not even know who the vice president is much less anything about my life or anything else...yet their vote affects me.

This is why Democracy is evil and is doomed to fail when we Democratically use force against innocent and peaceful people.

And this is precisely why we need to be a nation of principles rather than of laws.

We've allowed ourselves to be painted into quite a corner. How to get out of it.

Indeed.

mczerone
09-30-2010, 07:53 AM
The ideal? I guess that would be a system of competing governing firms each devising their own voting criteria (or other means of selecting leaders and policies) as part of market competition.

In our current sub-optimal monopoly system however, which has as its nominal goal to secure liberty and justice for all, voting should be open to every person "subject to the law" - no age restrictions, no property restrictions, no criminal restrictions, and no citizenship restrictions.

Of course you'll get the unthoughtful and selfish voters - but that is a consequence well-known about democracy, that there is a "rational ignorance" among voters who have very little marginal power and have more pressing actual human needs than to learn about politics.

There may be some valid reason to incorporate popular voting into a system, but without competition we can never know if the benefits exceed the costs. Imagine if the procedural rules concerning which shoes to produce were devised by some monopolist - they wouldn't know how to calculate which shoes people wanted, so they might choose a voting system among their customers to pick which shoes to produce or who to hire to fill a management position. But no one would know if these decisions were beneficial, as the monopolist shoe producer would not be able to parse why their shoes were selling or not, or if their profits were maximized. The only real way to know for sure would be to allow other shoe producers to challenge the established business model, tweeking parts here or there, and trying to out-produce the other firms. Voting may still be a part of the system, but the form of voting may change to some other method, or it may be abolished all together once a firm realizes that it is more effective to just put out a variety of products and let the consumers vote with their purchases.

Would the current gov't system be run better if only net-tax-payers were allowed to vote? Or if just Veterans? Or if it were some preference voting method instead of first-to-the-post popular voting? Or if only land owners? Or if only those who passed some test? Or if the voters had to select from short policy statements instead of candidate names?

Maybe. Maybe some of these changes would be better for the well-being of all - but again, this cannot be known in a monopoly system. Any changes to the system would necessarily be contemporaneous to any number of other changes within the system and of exogenous forces (e.g. drought, natural disasters, demographic shift of the population) - and any percieved success or failure could be the result of any of these factors.

On Stossel: this was a very tactless thing to say in a forum where he's limited to a 30 second soundbite. It makes for easy ridicule and shortsighted retorts that could have been more easily refuted in a long-form explanation. He's not wrong in what he says, but he's using a language not understood by the bulk of the audience, including the other media members. And when his statements are interpreted by this crowd, they hear "take away the power from the poor, young, and weak." It would be like an observer saying about the shoe-monopoly that there are voters who really don't think about proper arch support or needing a CEO with experience as an actual shoe-maker, and thus these people shouldn't necessarily be voting. There would be an outcry that he's advocating that these people be stripped of their "right" to help decide the business of the shoe producer. Of course the observer really has the best interest of even those uninformed people at heart, wanting to give them a better shoe and a better price, but the public only equates "getting what they desire" with "having a vote". The real problem is systemic, but any adjustment to the system will be met with ridicule. What is truly needed is a different, competitive, system where the success or failure of different methods can be compared, both in profit terms, and consequentially, in terms of how satisfied the people are.

Monopoly is the problem, voting conundrums are merely a symptom. But while the monopoly exists, it must extend equal treatment to all to be consistent with its principles - and thus open voting should be demanded of it. If such a method is problematic, I suggest striking the root of the problem rather than argue about how to mitigate the effects of the symptom.

Natalie
09-30-2010, 07:55 AM
Some possible questions that everyone should be able to answer in addition to the President and VP:

1) Name one of your state's two senators.

2) What is the capital of the United States?

3) Name one right/freedom guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution

4) Name one of the three branches of the Federal government

5) Name one of the nine justices of the Supreme Court

6) What is the capital of your state?




Those questions reminded me of this video: YouTube - Americans are NOT stupid - WITH SUBTITLES (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJuNgBkloFE)

People incorrectly answered questions such as "How many sides are on a triangle?" HAHAHA! Of course they pick the dumbest responses for the sake of the video, but still...

Anyways, I agree that in order to vote you should have to pay more in taxes than you receive in benefits.

Pennsylvania
09-30-2010, 08:00 AM
Actually, it is. It is the same as "hiring" someone to kill your wife or husband, or to burn down your house. Just because you yourself didn't do it personally, but instead contracted it out, doesn't change the fact that you are responsible. To say you didn't steal from your neighbor, because you told the guy three houses down to steal from him and to give to you is irrelevant. You are the thief.

I don't think that's the same as voting though. I mean, when you contract with someone for a service, whether that service is ethical or unethical, you are purchasing the labor of that person, thus the labor is now yours, and you are responsible for the theft or violent act because you effectively own it.

But in voting, you're basically still just agreeing with a particular act. There is no ownership of labor transferred. I mean if 100 million people all check a box saying they agree with the invasion of Iraq, they're automatically guilty of invading Iraq? I just don't find that convincing at all.

mczerone
09-30-2010, 08:07 AM
I don't think that's the same as voting though. I mean, when you contract with someone for a service, whether that service is ethical or unethical, you are purchasing the labor of that person, thus the labor is now yours, and you are responsible for the theft or violent act because you effectively own it.

But in voting, you're basically still just agreeing with a particular act. There is no ownership of labor transferred. I mean if 100 million people all check a box saying they agree with the invasion of Iraq, they're automatically guilty of invading Iraq? I just don't find that convincing at all.

So (assuming you live under such a regime) if your local, voluntary home-owner's association decided to hold a vote on whether or not to kill a member and bulldoze his house, would a "yes" vote be a benign agreement or a contracted, delegated order to kill?

It seems that your example relies on the scale of the decision making, giving more deference to a larger mob. If one person does this, it's murder. If a small group does this, it's conspiracy. If an overwhelming group does this, it becomes an innocent act of agreement?

erowe1
09-30-2010, 08:08 AM
Really??

I'm scared by the stupid ones... the ones who vote for Mitt Romney because he looks like a movie star, but couldn't tell you whether he is running on the Democratic or Republican ticket.... like the ones who would vote for Obama because they see him on TV all the time, but who think Ron Paul is a kook because that's what some guy on the TV said..... like the ones who have never bothered to look up a candidate's political positions but will vote for her because she's promised to give them "stuff" or because she reminds them of dear old mom...

Well, you get the idea.

I'd rather put my government in the hands of those who vote based on looks than those who vote based on the notion that they know what's good for me better than I do.

The stupid ones are the least of our worries. In fact, we should be careful what we ask for. It may be that the stupid ones help muffle the effect of the evil ones.

osan
09-30-2010, 08:12 AM
No restrictions. Because then, WHO gets to decide what the 'basic' requirements are, and WHO gets to decide whether or not you meet them? Such a system will never benefit anyone except the oligarchs.

If the government does anything to force you to do anything, you should have the right to change it.

Sadly, I must agree. I, too, am open to persuasion contrariwise.

We are either free or we are not. There is NOTHING in between. We either choose to be free persons living in a free nation, accepting all the attendant risks, or we choose some form and degree of slavery. The slavery in question may in fact be very pretty, replete with all manner of shiny things pleasing to the eye, but make no mistake about the fact that it is still slavery. Slavery is by its very fabric arbitrary. That makes it prone to capricious change, and therein lies the great danger.

The USA has never been a free nation, only a far prettier slave state. We celebrate this, but I submit there is precious little to cheer about. This is made evident by our own history of ever greater encroachments on the freedoms (more like privileges) we did manage to retain at one time. One by one, thin slice by thin slice we have been hemmed-in ever more tightly - clearly not an indicator of general freedom.

People either have rights or they do not. If they do, I see no basis for the arbitrary exclusion of anybody from the political process. That is no solution. The real solution is to see to it that people are raised up not to be ignoramuses but rather as intelligent and clued-in adults. The solution lies in the sort of people we hand down to posterity, not the exclusion of those who don't cut the mustard according to some arbitrarily established standard.

Freedom is NOT arbitrary and it is NOT capricious, and that is why so many people don't really want it. Many people want an illusion of freedom that supports the application of force to get what they want and deny all else. That is just slavery with another face painted upon it. Freedom is the Golden Rule: live and let live. Mind your own business as others mind theirs. It is the only sane path forward and we are running from it for all our little legs will carry us. The bitter harvest is upon us.

Pennsylvania
09-30-2010, 08:17 AM
So (assuming you live under such a regime) if your local, voluntary home-owner's association decided to hold a vote on whether or not to kill a member and bulldoze his house, would a "yes" vote be a benign agreement or a contracted, delegated order to kill?

It seems that your example relies on the scale of the decision making, giving more deference to a larger mob. If one person does this, it's murder. If a small group does this, it's conspiracy. If an overwhelming group does this, it becomes an innocent act of agreement?

Since, in the HOA example, nobody has purchased the action of the potential assassin, the assassin is solely responsible for his actions in my opinion, not the voters.

I didn't mean to limit it to large herds either. If a single individual writes a news article in defense of the invasion of Iraq for instance, I still don't consider him a violent person, since so far he has not committed any violence.

osan
09-30-2010, 08:19 AM
I support a few things:

Anyone who receives money from the government in the form of subsidies, welfare, or as an employee is exempt from voting. (Haven't completely thought this through, but it seems like a good idea. I am open to be swayed.

I have advocated this for a long time. Receipt of taxpayer money establishes irreconcilable conflicts of interest. If you're on the tit for more than $zero, your contractual (constitutional) right to vote is void until at least one year has passed since you went off-tit.


A poll tax. As much as I am not a fan of taxes, this would do a lot to thin out "the stupid vote". It should not be prohibitive, it should just be enough to ensure that the person voting takes some care to their vote.

Arbitrary. Cannot agree with you here. I would also point out that the loosely held intent here is to keep "stupid" people from voting. Poverty does not necessarily result from stupidity. I see no reasoned basis for denying people a vote based on financial circumstances. We are not slaves. Are we?


Possibly only property owners voting. I have heard this was originally how things were set up or intended. I can see some benefits, but again I am open to be shown why this is a bad idea.

Similarly arbitrary. Equally significant, it would fail to accomplish the ostensible goal.

osan
09-30-2010, 08:21 AM
I agree here 100%. The tax should be something trivial like one dollar. To vote would cost you a dollar. If you are not willing to pay one dollar to vote then you should not be there at all

Says who? By what standard do you impose this restriction upon free men?

osan
09-30-2010, 08:22 AM
So if only land owners were able to vote it would just mean that government is a tyranny of the land owners instead of the mob. The fundamental problem would still be unchanged.

Precisely so. Well stated.

+1

osan
09-30-2010, 08:27 AM
Does that also mean anyone who works for a defense contractor that is paid by the government also loses their right to vote too? Same would have to hold true for anyone in the employ of the government, military, and any other government related expenditure. That is of course if one wants to remain logically consistent. Also anyone who works for an oil company that benefits from war.

I would answer yes to all of the above. All gov employees at ALL LEVELS, including city dog catcher and the janitors at schools would be excluded from voting precisely because they are part of government.

And to clarify, anyone tied to government by CONTRACT would be excluded. That way, one cannot make the argument that the guy at the bodega selling sandwiches to the senators during lunch are excluded because they are receiving government money. Let us not engage in disingenuous pedantry. :)

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 08:28 AM
this thread is disgusting. TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

Only those who own property, or can pay a tax, or can pass a test can vote!?!?!?!

WTF is wrong with you?! I mean $h!*

Voting is the responsibility of every citizen in a republic. Education of those voting citizens is the responsibility of .... THOSE SAME CITIZENS!!

If you feel there are people too stupid to vote, whose f-ing fault is that??? YOURS! You've fallen down on your responsibility and don't like the result so you want the government to come in and regulate voting in order to save you from yourselves.

HOW PATHETIC! If you live in a republic with a bunch of voting retards, don't throw away the republic, help the retards!

what a shitty way to begin the day; with this thread.

edit: In a republic, a voting retard is infinitely more valuable than an intellectual who makes excuses for not voting.

osan
09-30-2010, 08:34 AM
As long as you pay taxes you should get a vote. If you pay no taxes you don't get to vote. (Property ownership is a horrible idea)

Not sure I can agree with this. A strongly valid criterion is conflict of interest. Recipients of welfare, for example, have a conflict of interest in that they are strongly motivated to vote along a line that may perpetuate their free ride. Big fail.

First, and I am surprised at you for not making note of this, payroll/income taxes should be given the deep six. Barring that, we cap all such taxes at ONE PERCENT, the freedom there being to lower it but never to increase it. Next, all government employees and contractors are EXEMPT from paying this tax and are excluded from having a vote. Problemo el solvo. Comprendo?

erowe1
09-30-2010, 08:35 AM
Only those who ...can pay a tax ... can vote!?!?!?!

WTF is wrong with you?! I mean $h!*

How do you propose that elections be paid for?



Voting is the responsibility of every citizen in a republic.
Why?

osan
09-30-2010, 08:39 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocco http://www.ronpaulforums.com/gfx_RedWhiteBlue/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=2910192#post2910192)
I can't believe I am hearing this. This is a forum full of people supposedly dedicated to personal freedom and liberty....who want to take away one of our most sacred freedoms from a significant portion of the population? Imho, some of you really need to take a closer look into what you are saying, because anyone who is truly for liberty would not support taking the right to vote away from a large group of american citizens.

And if that "right to vote" constitutes stealing from your neighbor or imprisoning him/her how again is that liberty?

Good grief. Can reasoning be more stinky than this?

Seriously D00d, you need to sit in a darkened room, in a very comfy chair, with a glass of GOOD cognac (I'd recommend the Louis, minimally) and think about this several thousands of times until you get it right.

Honestly, I thought you were a whole lot smarter than this. Need we publicly point out the small litany of fatally flawed presuppositions contained in your single line of hopelessly fallacious reasoning? I know you're better than this. You have to be.

jt8025
09-30-2010, 08:40 AM
As far as only those who pay taxes (assuming federal taxes) can vote. What if you made $200k one year and paid taxes and saved your money and didn't work the next year because you didn't have to. The next year you will not have paid taxes and therefore not be able to vote.

Could be a limited problem or one of those things we call unintended consequences.

benhaskins
09-30-2010, 08:43 AM
Not being in agreement with how people vote does not give you the right to take that away.

Imo that is the very nature of big government and something that this forum is supposed to be against.

erowe1
09-30-2010, 08:45 AM
As far as only those who pay taxes (assuming federal taxes) can vote. What if you made $200k one year and paid taxes and saved your money and didn't work the next year because you didn't have to. The next year you will not have paid taxes and therefore not be able to vote.

Could be a limited problem or one of those things we call unintended consequences.

It would have to be a tax system other than the income tax (which I think you'll find many people here don't like to begin with). A simple poll tax would be one way to implement that idea.

erowe1
09-30-2010, 08:46 AM
Not being in agreement with how people vote does not give you the right to take that away.

Why is voting anyone's right?

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 08:48 AM
How do you propose that elections be paid for?


Why?

Wait a minute. You've taken my argument against people being required to pay a tax in order to vote, and twisted it into an argument that there should be no taxes to pay for voting. A very small state sales tax could easily take care of voting costs. It's legal, voluntary, and doesn't dissuade any potential voters from voting.

-----------------------------------
Why? To keep a republic you must exercise it. The republic is the body, the people are it's consciousness. If "you" decided to abstain from exercising your body it will get fat and die early. If the people decide to abstain from voting it will grow obese with power hungry killers and die very early. It is also the responsibility of every citizen to educate themselves.

A republic is only as strong as the people who make it up.

benhaskins
09-30-2010, 08:49 AM
Are you in favor of Autocracy ?

erowe1
09-30-2010, 08:51 AM
Wait a minute. You've taken my argument against people being required to pay a tax in order to vote, and twisted it into an argument that there should be no taxes to pay for voting.
No I haven't. All I did was ask a question.


A very small state sales tax could easily take care of voting costs. It's legal, voluntary, and doesn't disuade any potential voters from voting.
Why should people be forced to pay a sales tax? It seems to me that my voluntary economic exchanges with other people are none of the state's business. Why not have the people who want to participate in any given state function (such as an election) be the ones who have to pay for it or find a way to raise the funds they need to pay for it, without using force to make others pay for it for them? That would truly be a republic with the relationship between the government and the governed being one of consent, not conquest.



Why? To keep a republic you must exercise it. The republic is the body, the people are it's consciousness. If "you" decided to abstain from exercising your body it will get fat and die early. If the people decide to abstain from voting it will grow obese with power hungry killers and die very early. It is also the responsibility of every citizen to educate themselves.

A republic is only as strong as the people who make it up.

This answer is nothing but assertion after assertion. I don't see why any of this is true.

If you really believe that it is the responsibility of all citizens to vote, then one corollary is that you support reducing the voting age to zero. Do you really support that?

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 08:55 AM
No I haven't. All I did was ask a question.

Why should people be forced to pay a sales tax? Why not have the people who want to participate be the ones who have to pay for it?

This answer is nothing but assertion after assertion. I don't see why any of this is true.

If you really believe that it is the responsibility of all citizens to vote, then one corollary is that you support reducing the voting age to zero. Do you really support that?


http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/research/mscartefacts/mscelearning/2009/characters/Images/The%20Scarecrow%201.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

erowe1
09-30-2010, 08:55 AM
Are you in favor of Autocracy ?

As in a monarchy?

No. But given the choice between monarchy and democracy, I think I'd probably choose monarchy.

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 08:58 AM
As in a monarchy?

No. But given the choice between monarchy and democracy, I think I'd probably choose monarchy.

given a choice between monarchy, democracy, and republic, which would you choose?

erowe1
09-30-2010, 09:00 AM
http://www.comp.dit.ie/dgordon/research/mscartefacts/mscelearning/2009/characters/Images/The%20Scarecrow%201.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

I assume you're implying that I made a straw man argument. If so, I don't get it.

Perhaps you're pretending that my questions are statements (as you did in your last post). Or perhaps you don't want to acknowledge the parts of my post that actually are statements. Or maybe you want to revise your earlier claim that voting is the responsibility of all citizens in a republic, but you want to do it in a way that makes it look like you're not revising it.

Then again, who knows? Maybe I really did make a straw man argument. If so, what was it?

erowe1
09-30-2010, 09:04 AM
given a choice between monarchy, democracy, and republic, which would you choose?

A republic.

That's why I support a poll tax. It wouldn't be a republic if people who don't want to participate are forced to pay for the decisions of the people who do. That would be a democracy.

Sola_Fide
09-30-2010, 09:09 AM
this thread is disgusting. TOTALLY UNBELIEVABLE!!!!

Only those who own property, or can pay a tax, or can pass a test can vote!?!?!?!

WTF is wrong with you?! I mean $h!*

Voting is the responsibility of every citizen in a republic. Education of those voting citizens is the responsibility of .... THOSE SAME CITIZENS!!




This to me sounds like Statist indoctrination. It sounds more democratic than republican, more collectivist than federalistic.




Originally posted by erowe1

Why is voting anyone's right?



Great queston!

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 09:11 AM
A republic.

That's why I support a poll tax. It wouldn't be a republic if people who don't want to participate are forced to pay for the decisions of the people who do. That would be a democracy.

Seriously,... that's what you think? or are you playing devil's advocate?

Really not in the mood to have my time wasted.

ChaosControl
09-30-2010, 09:13 AM
Requirements be you're a citizen of consenting age.

Yes some people are too stupid to vote, but we fix that by educating people, not by restricting voting rights.

erowe1
09-30-2010, 09:13 AM
Seriously,... that's what you think? or are you playing devil's advocate?

Really not in the mood to have my time wasted.

Nope. I'm not playing devil's advocate. I agree with Aquabuddha, your idea of a republic sounds to me like a democracy. I'm not a fan of that.

benhaskins
09-30-2010, 09:14 AM
Read the constitution ?

erowe1
09-30-2010, 09:21 AM
Read the constitution ?

Whom are you addressing? And why does it matter?

Obviously the people here proposing that we become more of a republic and less of a democracy are aware that the Constitution, as it now stands, is against them (although we can still count the Declaration of Independence in our corner). There are plenty of other problems with the Constitution as well. But surely we all agree that ideally we should be able to do better than the Constitution as it now stands. Don't we?

benhaskins
09-30-2010, 09:21 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage

History of suffrage in the United States
Main article: Voting rights in the United States

In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not federally (Wyoming being the first state to enstill suffrage). However, the "right to vote" is expressly mentioned in five Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These five Amendments limit the basis upon which the right to vote may be abridged or denied:

* 14th Amendment (1868): Regarding apportionment of Representatives.

* 15th Amendment (1870): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

* 19th Amendment (1920): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

* 24th Amendment (1964): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

* 26th Amendment (1971): "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

In addition, the 23rd Amendment (1961): provides that residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President.

Sola_Fide
09-30-2010, 09:23 AM
Nope. I'm not playing devil's advocate. I agree with Aquabuddha, your idea of a republic sounds to me like a democracy. I'm not a fan of that.



Yes. We have to remember that the suffrage movement was a Statist movement.


We were more free, more unregulated, more Liberty-oriented, more productive, better in every regard, before the suffrage movement, when America had a modified system of coverture voting.

Think about it guys...What has universal suffrage brought us? More Liberty? I don't think so...

benhaskins
09-30-2010, 09:23 AM
Why is voting anyone's right?

you i guess

erowe1
09-30-2010, 09:23 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage

History of suffrage in the United States
Main article: Voting rights in the United States

In the United States, suffrage is determined by the separate states, not federally (Wyoming being the first state to enstill suffrage). However, the "right to vote" is expressly mentioned in five Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. These five Amendments limit the basis upon which the right to vote may be abridged or denied:

* 14th Amendment (1868): Regarding apportionment of Representatives.

* 15th Amendment (1870): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

* 19th Amendment (1920): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

* 24th Amendment (1964): "The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."

* 26th Amendment (1971): "The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."

In addition, the 23rd Amendment (1961): provides that residents of the District of Columbia can vote for the President and Vice-President.

I infer from that post that you support that litany of amendments that have shifted the USA further from being a republic and more towards being a democracy. That's unfortunate.

You should add in other laws too, not just amendments. Don't forget to include the Motor Voter Act on there.

erowe1
09-30-2010, 09:27 AM
you i guess

Did you accidentally reply to the wrong post? Or is this really your answer to my question about why voting is anyone's right?

benhaskins
09-30-2010, 09:29 AM
Infer all you want but I was answering the question. I don't think restricting voting is a solution for not liking the result of the vote.

benhaskins
09-30-2010, 09:31 AM
you asked.

Sola_Fide
09-30-2010, 09:35 AM
Possibly only property owners voting. I have heard this was originally how things were set up or intended. I can see some benefits, but again I am open to be shown why this is a bad idea.


You are right, this was the original intent. Men and families who had a stake in the ownership of their country would elect their leaders.

Also, when the market is free, property is much easier to obtain. So property ownership would not be an overwhelming obstacle like it is now to some people.

Universal suffrage has brought us nothing but more institutional theft. Think about it guys...

erowe1
09-30-2010, 09:35 AM
Infer all you want but I was answering the question. I don't think restricting voting is a solution for not liking the result of the vote.

1) "you i guess" is definitely not an answer to the question of why anyone should have the right to vote.

2) I don't think anyone here used "not liking the result of the vote" as a reason for restricting voting. They support restricting voting as a matter of consistent basic ethical principles, regardless of how any particular vote turns out.

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 09:36 AM
Nope. I'm not playing devil's advocate. I agree with Aquabuddha, your idea of a republic sounds to me like a democracy. I'm not a fan of that.

The federal government should never limit a citizen's right to vote. That doesn't mean that I support 100% democracy. As if every citizen should directly vote on every issue. No way. We elect representatives who vote directly on the federal and even state issues. And this is the thing, we are a democratic republic. We have some of each. And they are supposed to check each other, much like the House and Senate. An elite group vs. the masses. Salvation doesn't rely on the dominance of one or the other, but in both acting out their roles in accordance with the law.

erowe1
09-30-2010, 09:41 AM
You are right, this was the original intent. Men and families who had a stake in the ownership of thier country would elect their leaders.

Also, when the market is free, property is much easier to obtain. So property ownership would not be an overwhelming obstacle like it is now to some people.

Universal suffrage has brought us nothing but more institutional theft. Think about it guys...

That contingency, "when the market is free," seems to be a problem to me. As it is, land ownership is defined by the same government that runs the elections and that benefits from the powers it has accrued from elections throughout history, and a lot of land ownership exists because of various anti-free market privileges the government either gave the present owners or previous owners the present owners bought from, while at the same time, the government has reserved to itself the right to buy land from people without their consent and sell it to others.

benhaskins
09-30-2010, 09:42 AM
Allow me to presume?

If "dumb" "uninformed" "stupid" voters are producing results that you like, I don't think there would be an outcry for changes or restrictions to voting rights.

erowe1
09-30-2010, 09:42 AM
The federal government should never limit a citizen's right to vote.

Should other governments do it?

erowe1
09-30-2010, 09:44 AM
Allow me to presume?

If "dumb" "uninformed" "stupid" voters are producing results that you like, I don't think there would be an outcry for changes or restrictions to voting rights.

I think there would be.

Also, for the record, as I said above, it's not the dumb, uninformed, and stupid voters I'm scared of. It's the highly educated ones that worry me the most.

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 09:57 AM
Should other governments do it?

What other governments?

State governments?
City governments?
Foreign governments?

what do you mean?

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 09:58 AM
I think there would be.

Also, for the record, as I said above, it's not the dumb, uninformed, and stupid voters I'm scared of. It's the highly educated ones that worry me the most.

In other words, it's the evil ones, not the stupid ones. Evil and stupid from your pov.

right?

erowe1
09-30-2010, 10:04 AM
What other governments?

State governments?
City governments?
Foreign governments?

what do you mean?

Any of the above. You specifically said federal government. Did you mean only federal? Or did you mean all governments?

erowe1
09-30-2010, 10:04 AM
In other words, it's the evil ones, not the stupid ones. Evil and stupid from your pov.

right?

Correct.

Sola_Fide
09-30-2010, 10:05 AM
I think this entire discussion is leaving out a vital point:

Voting is theft. There is no way around it. Voting is nominating a person or elite to steal from us and coerce us all.

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 10:12 AM
I think this entire discussion is leaving out a vital point:

Voting is theft. There is no way around it. Voting is nominating a person or elite to steal from us and coerce us all.

Government is force which will likely and does participate in theft. Therefore, participating in that government via voting is participating in that force and theft. That is why those powers were divided and the right to vote given to the people as opposed to a despotic king. In the ideal world, government isn't needed. The human race has not reached that point yet, therefore, by voting you are claiming your portion of that power. If you are a good person who will vote no on taking from some to give to another then you absolutely should.

This is what Dr. Paul has been doing for 30 years.

MRoCkEd
09-30-2010, 10:12 AM
A good reform would be to remove the labels on the ballot indicating party or incumbency status.

I like restricting voting from anyone working for the government or receiving benefits, but not sure how that would be enforced.

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 10:13 AM
Correct.

This is exactly why I completely abhor what you are talking about. You are masking your own autocratic tendencies with a "more republican form of government".

"I am right and therefore only people who are like me should have power over others."

That's bullshit.

erowe1
09-30-2010, 10:13 AM
If you are a good person who will vote no on taking from some to give to another then you absolutely should.

Earlier you said that you would support a sales tax forcing me to pay for your elections. Has your position changed since then?

erowe1
09-30-2010, 10:15 AM
This is exactly why I completely abhor what you are talking about. You are masking your own autocratic tendencies with a "more republican form of government".

"I am right and therefore only people who are like me should have power over others."

That's bullshit.

No I am not. What autocratic tendencies do you think I have that I am masking? And where have I said anything at all about me or anyone like me having power over others? I think I've been pretty consistently against anyone, myself included, having power over others.

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 10:16 AM
Any of the above. You specifically said federal government. Did you mean only federal? Or did you mean all governments?

To be clear the U.S. federal government puts the restriction of citizenship and age on the right to vote. And then even more restrictions for holding federal office. All of these I agree with.

A state like Texas restricts your right to vote on residency within the State.

So to be fair, the right to vote is already restricted. What you are talking about is restricting it further, which I do not agree with.

erowe1
09-30-2010, 10:21 AM
To be clear the U.S. federal government puts the restriction of citizenship and age on the right to vote. And then even more restrictions for holding federal office. All of these I agree with.

A state like Texas restricts your right to vote on residency within the State.

So to be fair, the right to vote is already restricted. What you are talking about is restricting it further, which I do not agree with.

So you no longer believe the following:


Voting is the responsibility of every citizen in a republic.

That's encouraging.

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 10:23 AM
Earlier you said that you would support a sales tax forcing me to pay for your elections. Has your position changed since then?

A state sales tax, not a federal one. If you don't want to pay a sales tax in a particular state you don't have to. You can go elsewhere. Other options for paying for elections would be donations, income through trade, volunteers, etc.

Again, the federal government has (should have) only the responsibility of protect individuals' rights. How to pay for elections is more of a state issue, especially since it is the states who send reps to Washington.

mconder
09-30-2010, 10:27 AM
This piece still misses the point. I could care less that people are knowledgeable about the cult of Washington personalities, but if they are able to identify basic Constitutional principles and express them coherently with regard to current legislation.

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 10:31 AM
So you no longer believe the following:


That's encouraging.


If you're going nitpick my words instead of trying to understand what they mean then I guess I can't stop you.

When I say voting is the responsibility of every citizen, what I mean is (and I'll be as clear as I can here)....

----
All of those individuals who are legally eligible to vote should vote.

----


What this discussion is about is the legal requirements to vote. You want to make it more difficult to vote in order to stave off evil.

I think by further restricting who can vote you are increasing the amount of evil perpetrated by the few on the many.


For those of you who think that allowing more people to vote correlates to how bad things are today.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc

roho76
09-30-2010, 10:31 AM
What about those who have retired and now only pull social "in"security? Technically they are now mooching... And statistically they will pull more out than they paid into the system. So even the argument "I paid for it" doesn't hold water anymore.

This is not mooching. I don't know what the returns are on their initial investment but it is far from mooching. SS is broken that is for sure but they paid their hard earned money into a disastrous program at the barrel of a gun. They have earned what little they get.

erowe1
09-30-2010, 10:37 AM
A state sales tax, not a federal one. If you don't want to pay a sales tax in a particular state you don't have to. You can go elsewhere. Other options for paying for elections would be donations, income through trade, volunteers, etc.


So you think that the only funding the government should be able to get for what it does should be from people who choose to pay to support it through those various voluntary means.

But then, if I opt out of paying, why should I be afforded the same say over how the money is spent as those who voluntarily pay?

Sola_Fide
09-30-2010, 10:41 AM
Post hoc is a particularly tempting error because temporal sequence appears to be integral to causality. The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based *solely* on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Show Pattern


I don't think my argument is based *solely* on the order of events.

There is no argument that Statism is tied to universal suffrage. Look at the communist and socialist democracies around the world - their religion itself is participation in the State by egalitarian suffrage.

benhaskins
09-30-2010, 10:42 AM
Isn't that a result of the effects of inflation rather than them not paying their fair share, or at least a combination of the two ?

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 10:48 AM
So you think that the only funding the government should be able to get for what it does should be from people who choose to pay to support it through those various voluntary means.

But then, if I opt out of paying, why should I be afforded the same say over how the money is spent as those who voluntarily pay?

Because you are not "paying" to vote. You are "paying" to fund the voting process.


edit: You are voluntarily paying to fund the voting process in order to practice and maintain a democratic-repulican form of government. If you feel this is wrong, don't pay. And don't participate. But just because you think this is wrong and you opt out doesn't mean you should be denied the rights the republic is based on. This is the country that even if you break the law you still have rights. (fewer rights, but they still exists)

erowe1
09-30-2010, 10:56 AM
Because you are not "paying" to vote. You are "paying" to fund the voting process.

But what if I'm not paying to fund the voting process, or for any of the things the government elected by that voting process does with the money it gets from those who do pay? Why should I be afforded the same say as those who pay?

And if I am afforded the same say without paying anything, then what incentive does anyone have to pay those voluntary taxes? If they get the same representation without taxation, they might as well just opt out of paying and still keep voting.

And for that matter, if people who don't participate in the taxation should still have the right to vote, then why should it be restricted to citizens? Why not just open it up to everyone, since there would be no real difference between non-tax-paying citizens and non-tax-paying non-citizens.

2young2vote
09-30-2010, 11:03 AM
Ahh, i can see it now: You must donate X amount of dollars to some kind of anti-poverty organization to vote.

Yeah, imposing voting restrictions is going to be like imposing government regulations on the internet. Once it starts, it isn't going to stop until the elite have control.

Nate-ForLiberty
09-30-2010, 11:18 AM
But what if I'm not paying to fund the voting process, or for any of the things the government elected by that voting process does with the money it gets from those who do pay? Why should I be afforded the same say as those who pay?



Because if you base decision making power solely on economic power you are no longer a democracy or a republic. You are a monarchy. Maybe not immediately with one ruler, but eventually the costs of voting will grow beyond even what you have in mind. In real terms, who is in control of the American economy right now? The Federal Reserve. If you make money the requirement for voting you are handing over your voting rights to the banks.




And if I am afforded the same say without paying anything, then what incentive does anyone have to pay those voluntary taxes? If they get the same representation without taxation, they might as well just opt out of paying and still keep voting.

Just like our overlords, you see a vote as a commodity. It is not. Flipping "no taxation without representation" doesn't make any sense at all. Think about that... "no representation without taxation." wtf man.



And for that matter, if people who don't participate in the taxation should still have the right to vote, then why should it be restricted to citizens? Why not just open it up to everyone, since there would be no real difference between non-tax-paying citizens and non-tax-paying non-citizens.

You've got to be kidding me.

My god man. You sound like more of a statist than me and yet you are calling me the statist.

Brian4Liberty
09-30-2010, 11:53 AM
Just for fun, here's some criteria:

- Citizen of the US (and only the US).
- Eighteen years of continuous, full-time residence in the US.
- Not receiving government aid of any kind.
- Net assets must be positive; i.e. no net debt. (That might exclude people like Donald Trump).

Of course it's all a slippery slope (and we do have some people who are not allowed to vote today, like felons).

erowe1
09-30-2010, 12:12 PM
Because if you base decision making power solely on economic power you are no longer a democracy or a republic. You are a monarchy.
I haven't proposed basing decision making power on economic power. I've proposed basing it on participation in funding the things being voted on, as well as the funding of the actual process of voting itself. Naturally, those people who do pay and do vote would not have any right to have their elected representatives impose laws and taxes on those who opt not to participate. I don't see how this is monarchy.

But even given the choice between actual monarchy and your version of a democratic republic (which still strikes me as a euphemism for democracy, and not a republic), I'd probably still choose monarchy.



Just like our overlords, you see a vote as a commodity. It is not. Flipping "no taxation without representation" doesn't make any sense at all. Think about that... "no representation without taxation." wtf man.
I have thought about it, and it still makes perfect sense to me. In fact, isn't that the normal way things are done? If I buy stock in a company, I get to vote for the board. I shouldn't have to have my vote overwhelmed by the votes of other people who didn't buy stock. If I buy food at a restaurant, I get to decide what I want to eat. I shouldn't have to let other people who didn't pay for my food decide for me. Conversely, if I choose not to participate in the funding, I wouldn't consider it any slight against me that those who do pay would want to exclude me from having any say over how their money is spent.


My god man. You sound like more of a statist than me and yet you are calling me the statist.
I don't know anything about whether or not I'm a statist. But I know I never called you one.

erowe1
09-30-2010, 12:13 PM
Ahh, i can see it now: You must donate X amount of dollars to some kind of anti-poverty organization to vote.

Yeah, imposing voting restrictions is going to be like imposing government regulations on the internet. Once it starts, it isn't going to stop until the elite have control.

What do you mean "once it starts"? As if there haven't always been voting restrictions.

tangent4ronpaul
09-30-2010, 12:33 PM
But everyone owns property. One's body is one's own property, is it not?

The gvmt seems to think your body is THEIR property! They tell you what you can and can't put in it, where you can go, now want your medical records and control how you can provide care for yourself, in most professions if you can work in them, etc. Oh, and remember - don't commit suicide - it's illegal to destroy government property!

As to limiting who can vote - how about a Stossol test - if you can't recognize who you are voting for, where they stand on major issues and what those issues are about - they shouldn't be allowed to vote. We don't need more lemmings or party line voters - rather educated voters.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
09-30-2010, 12:54 PM
Oh, and the question of the thread, yes I think there should be some sort of basic requirement to vote.

Be it property ownership, paying more taxes than you get in welfare, or some other sort of requirement, I think the whole thing boils down into being a participant in society.

What I mean is that if you pay taxes you participate, if you own property you participate, if you sit on your ass at home (see section 8 housing) and get food stamps and other welfare you are not participating, you are leeching off of society, or stealing from others. If these types of folks want a vote all they have to do is change thier behavior. So, they are not denied a vote, they just have to more or less earn it.

Starship Troopers had something like that in the plot. You had to serve in the military to earn the right to vote.

-t

erowe1
09-30-2010, 01:32 PM
I don't think my argument is based *solely* on the order of events.

There is no argument that Statism is tied to universal suffrage. Look at the communist and socialist democracies around the world - their religion itself is participation in the State by egalitarian suffrage.

Here's an interesting article where John R. Lott, Jr. shows a clear correlation between women's suffrage and growth of government, in which he addresses the question of causation and makes a good case that the former, indeed, was a cause of the latter.
http://issuu.com/erowe1/docs/lott_suffrage

I think that link should work without having to sign up for the site or anything. If not, let me know.

Clairvoyant
09-30-2010, 02:03 PM
How about if you vote for anything that will initiate violence against someone you will be held criminally responsible? That's the only requirement we need IMO.

Kregisen
09-30-2010, 05:03 PM
@Nate, Erowe1 is making the argument about paying for the elections. It's like any other service in America. Libertarians say pay for what you receive, and today's liberals say the richest pay for everything, and everyone receives it.

There is a cost associated to voting....there's a ballot, there's info on every voter, and there's plenty of overhead such as voting places, voting staff, etc. None of this is free.

If you want to create MORE costs for the rest of your state, PAY FOR IT. That's what a voting tax would do. It's immoral to force someone else to pay for your ballot and your share of overhead, as small as it might be.

This is simply a system for allocating costs to where they come from.


Not to mention a voting tax weeds out all the people who just don't give a damn and know nothing about anything. They vote just so they can say they voted and really couldn't care less.

Seraphim
09-30-2010, 05:13 PM
A mere expression of support for something, by an individual, is not doing that something.

Absolutely, positively WRONG.

If you vote to support something, than you ARE doing that something.

QueenB4Liberty
09-30-2010, 05:20 PM
Everyone here should know by now that the system is rigged. I don't know about anyone here, but I've been trying to "educate" the same people for years, and yet they won't come around. I'm willing to be the majority of the country is this way. Even if they are repeatedly beat over the head with the truth, they don't care.

If no one voted, they'd still elect a Democrat puppet or a Republican puppet, or mandate everyone vote. This is why they hate low voter turnout so much. If we're going to participate in this system of theft, we should at least only vote on referendums. If I'm going to vote to claim my piece of the pie, I don't want some bureaucrat 3,000 miles away from me speaking for me.

Andrew Ryan
09-30-2010, 08:29 PM
Democracy...where the votes of two idiots count for more than that of one wise man.

robert68
09-30-2010, 08:35 PM
Actually, it is. It is the same as "hiring" someone to kill your wife or husband, or to burn down your house. Just because you yourself didn't do it personally, but instead contracted it out, doesn't change the fact that you are responsible. To say you didn't steal from your neighbor, because you told the guy three houses down to steal from him and to give to you is irrelevant. You are the thief.

There’s causation if there's a contract or chain of command. But with the exception of an election where the number of voters is very small, there’s no causal link between one's single vote and future public policy.

Brian4Liberty
09-30-2010, 10:05 PM
Here's an interesting article where John R. Lott, Jr. shows a clear correlation between women's suffrage and growth of government, in which he addresses the question of causation and makes a good case that the former, indeed, was a cause of the latter.


There is Mommy government and Daddy government. We have both. War and welfare.