Voting is not a right.

[unknown]

Aint that right?

[Swordsmyth]

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.

[r3volution 3.0]

Aint that right?

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).

[PAF]

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.

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.

[Superfluous Man]

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.

[ATruepatriot]

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.

[Superfluous Man]

"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.

I was using the word "right" in a more basic moral sense, not for make believe rights that are just the dictates of politicians in laws they made up.

[TheTexan]

Voting is much more than a right. It's a duty, and a privilege.

[PAF]

I was using the word "right" in a more basic moral sense, not for make believe rights that are just the dictates of politicians in laws they made up.

There again, they do not think in terms of basics; they always look to somebody else's words on a page and government to solve the problems.

You get another + REP

[ATruepatriot]

There again, they do not think in terms of basics; they always look to somebody else's words on a page and government to solve the problems.

You get another + REP

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.

[Superfluous Man]

Lol, I'm supposed to guess at what he really means instead of what he wrote?

I meant exactly what I wrote. I just don't accept the premise that the Constitution is always right.

[ATruepatriot]

I meant exactly what I wrote. I just don't accept the premise that the Constitution is always right.

OK then when it comes to voting what is your cure? Appoint a divine dictator for life? only for a selective few? or no government at all? I know the answer... anarchy and no government at all right?

[TheTexan]

or no government at all?

And end up like Kevin Costner in Water World? No thank you.

[Superfluous Man]

I know the answer... anarchy and no government at all right?

No. I'm not against government. I'm just against the state.

[ATruepatriot]

And end up like Kevin Costner in Water World? No thank you.

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.

[TheTexan]

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.

It's a good thing we have government to protect us from human nature!

[ATruepatriot]

It's a good thing we have government to protect us from human nature!

You are patronizing me again. Honestly... I truly wish it were not so. Like you... I wish we lived in a utopian world of total love and respect for each other, and rules were not even needed to keep the species from killing each other. Nice dream isn't it?

[TheTexan]

You are patronizing me again. Honestly... I truly wish it were not so. Like you... I wish we lived in a utopian world of total love and respect for each other, and rules were not even needed to keep the species from killing each other. Nice dream isn't it?

I couldn't agree more. Without some kind of government to protect us, we'd have roaming bands of thieves stealing 50% of everything we earn through the threat of violence.

It's a good thing we have government to protect us from that.

[ATruepatriot]

I couldn't agree more. Without some kind of government to protect us, we'd have roaming bands of thieves stealing 50% of everything we earn through the threat of violence.

It's a good thing we have government to protect us from that.

Lol... I get the sarcasm. And the government is this way because of that very same reality concerning human nature I speak of.

[Swordsmyth]

At least you admit you are a restrictionist.

Yes, liberty is composed of restrictions on tyrants.

Why exempt the military?

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.

There are plenty who make a life-long career out of it, and prone to incite conflict of interest.

They tend to oppose war and big government, a huge amount of Ron's support came from the military in case you forgot.

Wasn't there something about "standing armies" way back then? Or have you forgotten about that?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Fed.gov has NO right being involved in education (Common Core), retirement (SocSec, 401K, etc.), or medical decisions/regulation.

You are absolutely correct.

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.

I support all efforts to end welfare and to educate Republicans.

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.

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.

[PAF]

Yes, liberty is composed of restrictions on tyrants.

There is a clear and distinct difference between restricting and restrictionist. I would tend to lean toward the former. You are the latter.

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.

Clean that up. It is a gibberish contradiction.

They tend to oppose war and big government, a huge amount of Ron's support came from the military in case you forgot.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

You are absolutely correct.

I know ;-)

I support all efforts to end welfare and to educate Republicans.

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.

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%

;-)

[Swordsmyth]

There is a clear and distinct difference between restricting and restrictionist. I would tend to lean toward the former. You are the latter.

LOL
The only restrictions I support are required to maintain liberty.

Clean that up. It is a gibberish contradiction.

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.

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." 3. 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.

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.

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.

Clean that up. It is a gibberish contradiction. The militia that I associate with obtains no training whatsoever from any "standing army". Some were in the military, but that is the extent of it.

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.

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.

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.

Who sits there and determines appropriate age? Door to door nannies? 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?

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 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.

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.

Swordsmyth Freedom Index Score: 20%

PAF Freedom Index Score: 100%

;-)

LOL

Award yourself all the prizes you want and it won't change reality or whose system would better preserve liberty.

[unknown]

OK then when it comes to voting what is your cure? Appoint a divine dictator for life? only for a selective few? or no government at all? I know the answer... anarchy and no government at all right?

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 $#@!s on and tries to.

[RonZeplin]

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.

That's where the Republican & Democrat party comes in.

[PAF]

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 $#@!s on and tries to.

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?

[Swordsmyth]

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?

You can have voting or you can have tyranny in which you don't even get a chance to have your say heard, the best compromise is to restrict those who tend to vote to violate the rights of others from voting.

[heavenlyboy34]

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.

Winning post, sir. +rep

[RestorationOfLiberty]

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.

No naturalized immigrants can vote, they have shown they are not able to understndn/value freedom

[Swordsmyth]

No naturalized immigrants can vote, they have shown they are not able to understndn/value freedom

That sounds like a good idea, they would gain all the other rights of citizens and their children born here could qualify to vote but they don't get a say in how to run the society that they just joined and don't understand.

[RestorationOfLiberty]

That sounds like a good idea, they would gain all the other rights of citizens and their children born here could qualify to vote but they don't get a say in how to run the society that they just joined and don't understand.

I would push preventing them to vote for at least 3-5 generations...