Voters License

[FTL]

People must pass a test to get a drivers license in order to show they are able to drive safely.

People should also have to pass a test to show they are informed enough to vote safely.

A lot of people that voted for Mccain, thinks he is anti war. Those are dangerous voters. They need to pass a test to get a voters license before they can vote.

Idiots should not be allowed to drive. Idiots should not be alowed to vote.

[UtahApocalypse]

No GTFO!!

[hueylong]

Are you crazy? Literacy tests were used for 50 years to disenfranchise minority voters. Get a grip.

[susano]

It would never happen, and shouldn't. There are laws in place because of blacks not being able to vote because of stuff like this.

What we do need is voter registration card that is issued to CITIZENS ONLY.

[Abyss]

lol, it sounds great in theory.

But not many people woudl be happy.

[Nate SY]

Libertarian message...

Aren't we supposed to promote freedom for all? Even the idiots?

[FTL]

But don't you think that more informed people would vote for Ron Paul?

It seems that more intelligent folks understand and agree with Ron Paul.

[Nate SY]

But don't you think that more informed people would vote for Ron Paul?

It seems that more intelligent folks understand and agree with Ron Paul.

Yes, but the more informed/intelligent people would be voting on what he stands for, his message. And his message promotes freedom for all people, regardless of their level of intelligence.

A voter test would be against everything we stand for.

[FTL]

Libertarian message...

Aren't we supposed to promote freedom for all? Even the idiots?


Do Libertarians think we should let anyone drive on public roads without some kind of driving test?

Do Libertarians think we should let just any person fly planes or be a surgeon without some schooling and a document that proves you are able to do those tasks safely?

[Goldwater Conservative]

I'm all for it. It goes against the principles of direct democracy, but is perfectly acceptable given that we're a representative constitutional republic. People have to pass citizenship exams that test their knowledge of American history and government, yet just being born here allows one to entirely bypass that process. Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Nate SY]

Do Libertarians think we should let anyone drive on public roads without some kind of driving test?

Do Libertarians think we should let just any person fly planes or be a surgeon without some schooling and a document that proves you are able to do those tasks safely?

Actually a true hardcore libertarian does believe that. It's a persons choice and they have the right to choose that. It's like the free market, it will eventually take care of itself.

ex. The person driving unsafely will eventually get into a crash, if they REALLY are unfit to drive they'll most likely end up dying. Problem took care of itself.

With the surgeon part it's up to the patient. If I wanna let some unschooled person put me under the knife I have that right.

I'm not quite completely Libertarian. More like a federal Libertarian, and a state Conservative.

[Peppy690]

i think they should have an issue's list of all the candidates at every poll location..... perhaps people can research a little before they vote, if they choose to.

or maybe a packet produced by each candidate, and they will all be available at each location

[FTL]

It would never happen, and shouldn't. There are laws in place because of blacks not being able to vote because of stuff like this.

What we do need is voter registration card that is issued to CITIZENS ONLY.



It's not a race thing. All races should have to pass the test.

Maybe a test must be passed in order to get that voter registration card in the first place.

[Edu]

I agree that idiots shouldn't vote. We had protections against that.

We would elect the smartest people we knew to represent us and let them make the choices.

Now people vote for the prettiest face and guy that tells you the best lies.

We also had distributed government, so that one failure for some reason wouldn't take down the whole country. That's no longer true.

WTF have those idiots done to us?

[FTL]

Actually a true hardcore libertarian does believe that. It's a persons choice and they have the right to choose that. It's like the free market, it will eventually take care of itself.

ex. The person driving unsafely will eventually get into a crash, if they REALLY are unfit to drive they'll most likely end up dying. Problem took care of itself.

With the surgeon part it's up to the patient. If I wanna let some unschooled person put me under the knife I have that right.

I'm not quite completely Libertarian. More like a federal Libertarian, and a state Conservative.


The person driving unsafely might crash into you and then you and whoever is in the car with you may end up dying. That usafe driver is doing harm to others.

Unsafe, uninformed voters are doing harm to others as well.

If you want uninformed voters by the masses to outvote the few educated voters, then you have that right to let it happen.

[Nate SY]

The person driving unsafely might crash into you and then you and whoever is in the car with you may end up dying. That usafe driver is doing harm to others.

Unsafe, uninformed voters are doing harm to others as well.

If you want uninformed voters by the masses to outvote the few educated voters, then you have that right to let it happen.

Haha... Your arguing against the libertarian message not me!

But you can't compare a car crash to a vote. A car crash directly harms another person. A vote doesn't.

People deserve freedom! I don't see how you can support the good Dr. and support the removal of any kind of right from any kind of people.

[Goldwater Conservative]

Haha... Your arguing against the libertarian message not me!

But you can't compare a car crash to a vote. A car crash directly harms another person. A vote doesn't.

People deserve freedom! I don't see how you can support the good Dr. and support the removal of any kind of right from any kind of people.

I might get flamed for this, but I think voting has been used to take freedoms more than it has been used to give them.

[Bigvick]

I would agree to a very simple test that quiz's the person on the basic issues of each candidate...

The average person with some basic knowledge would pass the test.....

I really honestly don't think it would change the vote that much...

[FTL]

Haha... Your arguing against the libertarian message not me!

But you can't compare a car crash to a vote. A car crash directly harms another person. A vote doesn't.

People deserve freedom! I don't see how you can support the good Dr. and support the removal of any kind of right from any kind of people.


Idiots with low IQs directly harms me with their votes.

Some folks like to be lead, and told what to do. In a weird way, I think freedom scares some people or maybe they don't understand it. Low IQ sheeps like to be lead around.

I am not trying to argue with you in a mean way Nate. I am just frustrated and trying figure out how it is we have such a screwed up system and what in the hell can be done about it.

[literatim]

Idiots with low IQs directly harms me with their votes.

Some folks like to be lead, and told what to do. In a weird way, I think freedom scares some people or maybe they don't understand it. Low IQ sheeps like to be lead around.

I am not trying to argue with you in a mean way Nate. I am just frustrated and trying figure out how it is we have such a screwed up system and what in the hell can be done about it.

IQ is simply how fast you can process certain types of information. People can be slow and knowledgeable.

[Nate SY]

Idiots with low IQs directly harms me with their votes.

Some folks like to be lead, and told what to do. In a weird way, I think freedom scares some people or maybe they don't understand it. Low IQ sheeps like to be lead around.

I am not trying to argue with you in a mean way Nate. I am just frustrated and trying figure out how it is we have such a screwed up system and what in the hell can be done about it.

Ah don't worry. I wasn't taking it in a mean way. I don't intend to sound angry or mean with you either.

I understand the frustration with the system. I just don't believe the removal of any kind of right is a proper solution. Trust me I feel the same frustration you do.

[FTL]

IQ is simply how fast you can process certain types of information. People can be slow and knowledgeable.


True, I just meant it as a figure of speech.

[ValidusCustodiae]

This is the stupidest thread I've seen yet on this forum.

And that's saying something...

[Proton]

Do Libertarians think we should let anyone drive on public roads without some kind of driving test?

Do Libertarians think we should let just any person fly planes or be a surgeon without some schooling and a document that proves you are able to do those tasks safely?

Libertarians disagree on many things, it is hard to group or collectivize their opinions.

My take is that the roads belong to the government (unfortunate but true), so they can make whatever stupid rules they want. The solution is to get government out of roads. Funny how the liberals who complain about cars and pollution are the first to support urban sprawl through government roads...

Second, private companies own the planes. They should be the ones requiring a certain amount of training. NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
When you say 'do libertarians think we should let', are you implying that 'we' would come to mean the government? Opposition to government force and regulation in the market is what defines us.

The government should not be allowed to tell a company if they can hire a pilot or not. The strange scenario of a company hiring a trained chip to fly their million dollar plane just doesn't make economic sense.

Lastly, voters are dumb. But the problem is not the voters, it is the government. The government should not have the ability to enforce the misguided will of the people. This is why the constitution was created, to limit the power and scope of government.

Cut the government down to a constitutional size, and make it so it doesn't really matter who is president. I see that as the key to liberty.

BTW, does FTL mean FreeTalkLive? If not, you should definitely check out that libertarian radio show:
www.freetalklive.com

[Nate SY]

BTW, does FTL mean FreeTalkLive? If not, you should definitely check out that libertarian radio show:
www.freetalklive.com

I was actually wondering too. I know in leet it's "for the loss" but that doesn't seem to fit. I forgot to mention it in my response.

[literatim]

I personally agree with the voter license idea, but it would need to be on a state-by-state basis.

[Anti Federalist]

I'm all for it. It goes against the principles of direct democracy, but is perfectly acceptable given that we're a representative constitutional republic. People have to pass citizenship exams that test their knowledge of American history and government, yet just being born here allows one to entirely bypass that process. Doesn't make much sense to me.

'Fraid I have to agree.

If you can't pass a written or oral test, say ten or twenty multiple choice questions on some basic government principles and documents, then you should not be allowed anywhere near a voting booth.

When 80% of people can't name one of the ten articles of the Bill of Rights and even more couldn't find Iraq on a globe, they should not have a voice in a process that holds real time, life or death consequences, for people all around the world.

[FTL]

Libertarians disagree on many things, it is hard to group or collectivize their opinions.

My take is that the roads belong to the government (unfortunate but true), so they can make whatever stupid rules they want. The solution is to get government out of roads. Funny how the liberals who complain about cars and pollution are the first to support urban sprawl through government roads...

Second, private companies own the planes. They should be the ones requiring a certain amount of training. NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
When you say 'do libertarians think we should let', are you implying that 'we' would come to mean the government? Opposition to government force and regulation in the market is what defines us.

The government should not be allowed to tell a company if they can hire a pilot or not. The strange scenario of a company hiring a trained chip to fly their million dollar plane just doesn't make economic sense.

Lastly, voters are dumb. But the problem is not the voters, it is the government. The government should not have the ability to enforce the misguided will of the people. This is why the constitution was created, to limit the power and scope of government.

Cut the government down to a constitutional size, and make it so it doesn't really matter who is president. I see that as the key to liberty.

BTW, does FTL mean FreeTalkLive? If not, you should definitely check out that libertarian radio show:
www.freetalklive.com

I agree with cutting the government way back. I do believe the free market can handle most things better than the government.

I know the internet is helping to inform people that previously had no clue. I am one of them. I am still learning and brainstorming.

You say the voters are dumb. That is exactly the problem I'm talking about. It's just hard to get a foot hold on freedom with so many dummies voting willy nilly as if it's American Idol.

Ron paul needs a week long education show on national TV to teach people what is up. I think Ross Perot did somthing like that, but I can't remember.


Yeah I listen to FreeTalkLive almost every day. It's an addictive radio show.

[expatriot]

The person driving unsafely might crash into you and then you and whoever is in the car with you may end up dying. That unsafe driver is doing harm to others.

Unsafe, uninformed voters are doing harm to others as well.

If you want uninformed voters by the masses to outvote the few educated voters, then you have that right to let it happen.

As a libertarian I have mentioned this in recent years as the fundamental failure of the American experiment.
The process of growing a population which no longer believes in the principles
of the Constitution is what doomed America from the start.
From allowing immigrants who did not understand or actually believe in the principles of the Constitution
to a school system that omits the Constitution in favor of espousing a 'beauty contest' perspective of American and World History,
we the American people are reaping what has been planted decades ago.


In early American history the context of 'landed' votes was replaced by literacy tests in some measure, amongst other ideas.
The concept of somehow limiting voters to the knowledgeable fraction
has always been met with furious outrage by those who wish to cede
their freedoms to the largest voting bloc of ignorance.
Those who just don't quite understand how it all works seem to vastly outnumber
those of us who see in crystal clarity how a pretty face with no coherent principles
can pull landslide victories over principled credibility.

At a minimum any society which wishes to be true to itself needs some mechanism
to limit a democratic vote from being performed by those who either lack
the fundamental grasp of the issues or those who simply wish to overthrow
the legitimate freedoms the nation is granted.

If the voting base really understands the issues and then also votes knowledgeably to rewire the government
then such a deed is no longer an affront on reason.

If all the totally clueless people out there who really do want another
100years of war in the Middle East simultaneous with the war on Americans
(called the Patriot Act and the IRS) could demonstrate that
they really do understand the Constitution then it would be simple
to say - hey they understand it and that's what they really want.
Right this moment it is dismally difficult to actually believe there are that many
people Stateside who really believe in the crap that the 'frontrunners' represent.
If it could be believed that they truly think that way then those who
believe in freedom would not waste a moment trying to help,
but would rather devote efforts to resurrecting Freedom somewhere else.

Right now is more reminiscent of those days decades ago
working the livestock pens in west Texas where we were tasked with coaxing
rumbling herds of cattle outweighing us by several orders of magnitude
into going through the right gates. Outnumbered and outweighed,
we had only our agility, wits and maybe a quirt to work with.
That is what this election looks like right now,
but the herds still seem to be running for the wrong gates.



I understand the frustration with the system. I just don't believe the removal of any kind of right is a proper solution. Trust me I feel the same frustration you do.
The right to vote is not guaranteed to those of you born in the U.S..
Currently you earn it by being borne on American soil or to an American parent
(borne to human parents!) and then surviving to the ripe old age of 18 without committing any kind of crime which would remove this 'right'.
and then doing the requisite voter registration hoops.
Otherwise we need to start registering Dogs, cats, monkeys, and whole host of other critters to vote.
The idea of limiting votes still rules our society - why not make it work?
We already classify those who are under the age of 18 as equal to convicted felons
- as people who do not deserve the right to vote.
Why not also exclude those who simply don't understand the Constitution?
Why not exclude as well anyone who cannot correctly describe what any given candidate intends to inflict on our society?
Maybe ballots need to list and describe positions instead of listing candidates' names.
IF you don't like the vote then you should still be able to 'vote with your feet'.
(Thats what I did when the Bush41 was foisted on us.)

The case in point is the voter base for the frothing-at-the-mouth warmongering McCain.
The vast number of those who support this guy and the draft he will be forced to impose on our children
is beyond depressing. By those same 45-70year olds who do most of the voting.
My generation is such a repugnant one I find it embarrassing to even
admit to being a part of such a traitorous bunch of losers.
My last conversation was with someone 53 who seemed to repeat time and again
'the government just isn't doing enough'. Intelligent, he is. Knowledgeable too.
But he was adamant against Ron Paul because he wasn't going to support
the Patriot Act and prevent the Mujahideen from overrunning his home in Round Rock
- he was worried about terrorists being smuggled in across the Rio Grande,
concerned that his taxes were not high enough to pay the real cost of the concentration camp they run in Hutto.
(As someone who has been under gunfire from arabs in the Middle East on several occasions,
I find his fears a simply pathetic echo of what is visible in many places in Texas)
These are people who were never instructed what the Constitution really meant.
They were taught it is an ancient document which we need to revere, not obey.

They don't understand - and their votes count.

With this level of ignorance maybe the presidency should be left to the next episode of American Idol.

[FTL]

Expatriot, that was profound.

[expatriot]

Expatriot, that was profound.

Thanks, Glad someone got something out it.

Occasionally the intersection of my free time coincides with a comment which strikes a nerve.

I keep trying to refine this point, but so far in Libertarian circles it is still
an issue which is a pariah.
Kind of a moot point anyway when referring to the U.S. - it is simply too late.
About a hundred years ago such an idea may have had traction.

But then, as I like to believe, there is always the next time...

[UnitedWeStand]

I am so surprised that noone pointed out that if we give the states or federal government the authority to issue any sort of voting test, it will certainly end with the dissident vote being targetted for disenfranchisement...

I don't want any American to lose the right to vote, especially us=) Let's do our best in the remaining states to enlighten as many as we can.

[expatriot]

I am so surprised that noone pointed out that if we give the states or federal government the authority to issue any sort of voting test, it will certainly end with the dissident vote being targetted for disenfranchisement...

I don't want any American to lose the right to vote, especially us=) Let's do our best in the remaining states to enlighten as many as we can.

QUITE TRUE - The concept is truly a double edged sword at the very least.

As the devil in the details would admonish, however,
each vote submitted in ignorance denigrates all votes submitted in diligent consideration.:eek: (death of a thousand lashes)


Nuff said. Crack the whips and shuffle them herds along!
And get 'em through the right gates this time! :D

[Redcard]

If such a license existed now, I promise you Ron Paul would not even be a choice in this election, and none of us would ever be allowed to vote again.

I'm against this. While the constitution does not directly give each citizen the right to vote, we have implied rights that involve ALL representation in the government that was fought for via the Declaration of Independance.

[familydog]

When a lot of people I know can't tell you the name of their state capital.....it's very tempting to put restrictions on voting.

[hornet]

“The fool has as great a right to express his opinion by vote as the wise, because he is equally free, and equally master of himself.”

Thomas Jefferson

[fj45lvr]

hey our founding fathers had the right kind of requirements on voting...see what has happened when we deviated from their wisdom.

[lastnymleft]

People must pass a test to get a drivers license in order to show they are able to drive safely.

People should also have to pass a test to show they are informed enough to vote safely.

A lot of people that voted for Mccain, thinks he is anti war. Those are dangerous voters. They need to pass a test to get a voters license before they can vote.

Idiots should not be allowed to drive. Idiots should not be alowed to vote.

Chairman Mao would be proud! 60 million Communist Party members currently decide everything for the 1.3 Billion population, for exactly those reasons. Is that the sort of system you want set up?

[davidkachel]

Sigh,

It is so depressing that so few people "get it".
Disenfranchising people will not work because there will always be more people who though "educated" are still ignorant. How many times do we have to see the "educated" vote for social programs that ruin us? This is the same narrow focus that gets us into trouble whether it comes from the left or the right.

1. The vast majority of any population is composed of people who are purposely ignorant of political matters, unaware of the lessons of history, largely uninterested (if not altogether fearful) in what it means to be free and focused almost entirely on "bread and circuses".

2. Any moderately large population, given the opportunity, will vote away its own freedom in a very short period of time. History is replete with examples of peoples cheerfully voting their liberty away... can you say "Venezuela"?

3. Those who wish to be elected to public office seldom have the best interests of their country at heart and certainly do not put those interests above their own. Real statesmen and patriots are few and far between and must as a rule be dragged kicking and screaming to public service.

4. All governments, regardless of "constitution" deteriorate to a state of totalitarianism. There are no exceptions. This is the reason for Jefferson's several quotes about revolution and spilling the blood of tyrants being good for a country.

5. A country with a dictator who genuinely wishes to preserve liberty is vastly superior to a country with a Constitution like ours and leaders who wish to shred it. As we have seen over the last hundred years, the traitors can and will take the most clearly written and most noble clauses and simply distort them (over the span of decades if necessary; they are patient) to mean whatever they want them to mean. A Constitution written by God's own hand is useless if those charged with obeying it have no intention to do so. What is on paper is meaningless. It is what is in men's hearts that matters.

6. The percentage of any population that understands and wants liberty is extremely small (especially when government intentionally omits that part of the general education) and incapable of taking over the government in the face of an ignorant majority always looking to the nanny state for handouts and an entrenched ruling elite willing to use violence to preserve control. The only time the lovers of freedom can take control of a country is when in severe (usually monetary) crisis, the general population turns to them in desperation. However, they do so out of ignorance and anger at the present government for the current state of affairs. They do not actually understand or want freedom or its responsibilities. No sooner will the handful of liberty-minded patriots take control of the government than the voters will again begin to vote for bread and circuses and the evil among us will begin to campaign for public office. The process starts all over again.

7. Though we could expect our fine experiment in liberty to deteriorate into totalitarianism, it might have lasted a bit longer if the founders had added one clause to the Constitution and one marble structure in Washington. Said clause would have provided for a committee of citizens with the power to look at every piece of proposed legislation and every legal ruling and upon discovering a proposal to be unconstitutional or a judicial ruling a "clever" interpretation of the Constitution, immediately ban the offending party from holding public office for life. Said marble structure to be a fine gallows to be used whenever the aforementioned "former" office holders chose to become insistent with regard to their unconstitutional aims.

Though number seven is my personal fantasy, I do believe that a few dozen public hangings of politicians over the years would have served extremely well to preserve the Constitution in far better condition than it currently enjoys. You may be appalled at this, but I'll bet many of the founding fathers would have agreed with me.