Aint that right?
Printable View
Aint that right?
I agree, what restrictions do you propose.
I have proposed barring government workers (other than the military) and anyone who gets a penny of government money from voting because they have a conflict of interest.
I'm open to the possibility of taking the vote away from women because they have shown a tendency to vote for government that violates the rights of others.
We need to raise the voting age to 30, wisdom and experience should be required of those who choose our government representatives.
The excuse for lowering it to 18 was the draft but that was ended as it should have been.
Any other suggestions.
That's right.
All that matters is what the government does.
If it does good things because people vote for good things, good.
If it does good things in spite of people voting for bad things (or with the people not being permitted to vote), just as good.
Voting is only ever a means to an end (and not usually a useful means for advancing libertarian ends).
At least you admit you are a restrictionist.
Why exempt the military? There are plenty who make a life-long career out of it, and prone to incite conflict of interest. Wasn't there something about "standing armies" way back then? Or have you forgotten about that?
My proposal is a simple one and somewhat already exists: members of a community vote what is in their best interest. However they are not permitted to vote on anything that would affect another community outside of their own... education being a perfect example. Raising the age to 30 I disagree with; if a 19 year old works hard on a farm to supply food, or a 22 year old entrepreneur manufacturers a cool side-arm gadget, they ought to have the right to engage in their own local community.
The Fed.gov has NO right being involved in education (Common Core), retirement (SocSec, 401K, etc.), or medical decisions/regulation.
Back to MY proposal.
First off, rally the "let's-pretend-we-are-republicans" and DEMAND that they end the welfare system once and for all, and if the republican constituents are serious about it, they should make it known that failure to end the welfare system once and for all would result in immediate removal from office. Legitimate cases of need can and should be handled locally - NOT by the state or Fed. The 10th is there for a reason, even though it was written with loopholes by the statists.
Second, without a job, one can not vote. If one votes and then decide that he/she no longer wants to work, voting rights become thereby revoked.
I think if/when people are serious enough, this can steer communities in the right direction, and those that do not like the community are free to leave and seek another.
Not only is it not a right, but inasmuch as we're talking about voting for politicians empowered with imposing laws on unconsenting people, it's positively wrong. It shouldn't exist at all.
"politicians empowered with imposing laws on unconsenting people"
I agree.
But it is a right for citizens of the United States to vote.
Amendment 15 - Race No Bar to Vote. Ratified 2/3/1870.
1. 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.
Voting is much more than a right. It's a duty, and a privilege.
Lol, I'm supposed to guess at what he really means instead of what he wrote? Solving riddles? Why can't he just write what he means then so that it is not a riddle?
And nothing I said supported government to solve problems. In fact I was agreeing with him here...
"but inasmuch as we're talking about voting for politicians empowered with imposing laws on unconsenting people, it's positively wrong".
Know what? you could benefit from actually reading words. And if he had any integrity he would back me up that I was actually agreeing with him, not opposing him.
Know what? If it were not for true human nature concerning the lack of respect for one another and the current population numbers, Not having any government would actually work and I would fully support the concept. But reality dictates human nature can never be changed.
Yes, liberty is composed of restrictions on tyrants.
Because it would be immoral to send them to kill and die on the orders of politicians they had no say in choosing.
The same logic doesn't apply to kops because the level of violence they face is much less and is a known and constant factor.
They tend to oppose war and big government, a huge amount of Ron's support came from the military in case you forgot.
The founders gave us a standing navy and because they disagreed about standing armies they compromised and placed a two year limit on the army's budget but that limit has never been allowed to expire because a standing army is necessary as the backbone of our defensive forces and to train the militia.
That is not a question of who is allowed to vote but of what issues should be handled at what level of government, in general I agree that any issue should be handled at the lowest level of government capable of handling it.
Younger voters lack wisdom and experience and are far more likely to vote for bigger government, the exact age when one should be allowed to vote can be debated but it is too low now and younger citizens should no more be allowed to vote than children should be allowed to have a say in running a family's affairs.
You are absolutely correct.
I support all efforts to end welfare and to educate Republicans.
That is a bad idea, it makes the definition of a job a government matter, it is better to simply deny the vote to anyone who gets a penny of government money, perhaps even including the employees of government contractors.
There is a clear and distinct difference between restricting and restrictionist. I would tend to lean toward the former. You are the latter.
Clean that up. It is a gibberish contradiction.Quote:
Because it would be immoral to send them to kill and die on the orders of politicians they had no say in choosing.
The same logic doesn't apply to kops because the level of violence they face is much less and is a known and constant factor.
Many, not huge. 1. I was on the campaign trail. 2. many ex-military that I speak to believe "we are over there to fight for our freedoms here." Many current military that I speak to join because they believe there are little options elsewhere to make money. Many current military join because they have a big-tough-bad-ass-do-something mentality. Many current military believes it is the "patriotic" thing to do.Quote:
They tend to oppose war and big government, a huge amount of Ron's support came from the military in case you forgot.
Please get out into the real world and ask real world questions. It is not that difficult, and they will not bite your head off.
Clean that up. It is a gibberish contradiction. The militia that I associate with obtains no training, or funding, whatsoever from any "standing army". Some were in the military, but that is the extent of it.Quote:
The founders gave us a standing navy and because they disagreed about standing armies they compromised and placed a two year limit on the army's budget but that limit has never been allowed to expire because a standing army is necessary as the backbone of our defensive forces and to train the militia.
In order to vote what issues should be handled requires people to do the voting. Therefore it is a question of who is allowed to vote. Certainly if one owns property or a business, regardless of age.Quote:
That is not a question of who is allowed to vote but of what issues should be handled at what level of government, in general I agree that any issue should be handled at the lowest level of government capable of handling it.
Who sits there and determines appropriate age? Door to door nannies? "Papers please?" I know many young folks who stand by liberty (take YAL, for instance), and many middle-aged folks who believe a welfare system is for the good of all people. Shall we skip every other age bracket, perhaps?Quote:
Younger voters lack wisdom and experience and are far more likely to vote for bigger government, the exact age when one should be allowed to vote can be debated but it is too low now and younger citizens should no more be allowed to vote than children should be allowed to have a say in running a family's affairs.
I know ;-)Quote:
You are absolutely correct.
I don't. I support all efforts to end welfare and to educate ALL people. A lot of democrats voted for reagan, and of course Ron Paul in case you forgot.Quote:
I support all efforts to end welfare and to educate Republicans.
Quote:
That is a bad idea, it makes the definition of a job a government matter, it is better to simply deny the vote to anyone who gets a penny of government money, perhaps even including the employees of government contractors.
I can bend. But before I do I must contemplate that.
Swordsmyth Freedom Index Score: 20%
PAF Freedom Index Score: 100%
;-)
LOL
The only restrictions I support are required to maintain liberty.
Read it again, the military is not required to face any violence during peacetime but in wartime they face hell on earth, kops face criminal violence which is always a factor and is much less severe than warfare.
The support from the military was disproportionate compared to their numbers, they are much more likely to be anti-war because their lives are on the line and they tend towards conservatism and smaller government because they tend to be aggressive self-confident types who aren't looking to be dependent on others.
It is in no way a contradiction, you don't seem to understand the meaning of that word.
We do not have a proper militia in this country and it is only as well trained as it is because it has so many ex-military members who give the civilians the benefit of the training they received from the standing army.
You also simply need a professional military as the backbone of your defenses.
You could claim that anything was a matter of who was allowed to vote by that standard.
It is a different question that may be affected by who is allowed to vote.
You pick an age based on overall voting trends, neuroscience and observation of the average level of wisdom and experience, currently that age is set at 18 which is definitely too low, I propose 30 but anything higher than 18 would be an improvement, perhaps 25?
I did not say I opposed efforts to educate democrats but they were not what you were discussing and they are much less likely to listen these days and so spending time on them is less efficient.
LOL
Award yourself all the prizes you want and it won't change reality or whose system would better preserve liberty.
I'm not able to verbalize it well but isnt it somewhat intuitive that voting is not a right, that its something tangible, it requires some form of registration unlike natural or intangible rights like speech, self defense, due process, having an opinion etc.
Rights cannot be taken away although we know government constantly shits on and tries to.
We need an entity that's free from human flaws to rule over us, so that the evil humans don't rip us off and enslave us.
:info: That's where the Republican & Democrat party comes in.
Voting can and does violate others rights if they are on the opposing side. Basically it is a “democracy” where mob overrules. The flip side of that is that if one engages in voting it can be considered a wild-card “contract”, so, win or lose, one must accept the outcome.
Which begs further questions:
If you are born on land which is out of your control (nature chose for you), should you be subject to others whims even though you are born with natural rights and choose not to play (vote)?
The majority of people in this country no longer vote, either because of laziness, busy, or many cases lost faith in the system and no longer participate (due to big money, lobbyists, etc). So if they choose not to play, should they be subjected to mob rule of which they oppose?