Democracy is the worst form of government...

[o_mlly]

Because we all face the consequences of the actions of government and the decisions they make about taxation, defense policy, international relations, urban planning, environmental regulations, civil law, etc., etc., etc.

Do infants, the pathologically disabled, and prisoners also face the consequences of government action?

 

[o_mlly]

What's your counter argument?

Principles of justice:

• Treat equals equally and unequals unequally in proportion to their inequality.
• Some Individuals make unequal contributions to the commonwealth.
• Therefore, justice requires individuals who make unequal contributions to the commonwealth to be treated unequally.

 

[Whyayeman]

Principles of justice:

• Treat equals equally and unequals unequally in proportion to their inequality.
• Some Individuals make unequal contributions to the commonwealth.
• Therefore, justice requires individuals who make unequal contributions to the commonwealth to be treated unequally.

What an ugly set of principles! Tell me you made them up just now.

And since you are keen on an ethical framework for the status quo, let's see the ethics of that little pile of unpleasantness.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Do infants, the pathologically disabled, and prisoners also face the consequences of government action?

This sounds like your asking for someone you know.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What an ugly set of principles! Tell me you made them up just now.

And since you are keen on an ethical framework for the status quo, let's see the ethics of that little pile of unpleasantness.

Probably not. These are the ethos trotted out anytime it is needed to retain an exclusion. Just start with a bold claim about a group and then construct it in the same way.

"Non-landowners don't have the same connections to the community."
"Catholics are beholden to the pope."
"Foreigners don't speak our language and won't take in to our culture." (That one's sort of eternal.)
"Free slaves are intellectually inferior and use to dependence on their masters."
"Women are weak minded and properly supervised by their husbands/fathers."
"Blacks have failed to achieve in 100 years of freedom."
"The youth have made no investment in our society to earn their right to vote."

These were the kinds of excuses to exclude non-landowners, non-Protestants, non-English, ex-slaves, women, Black people (again), and the 18-20 year olds from voting. Now we have a retread of the first one, but with net payments to the government instead of land holdings. It's all rather disgusting and un-American.

 

[o_mlly]

What an ugly set of principles! Tell me you made them up just now.

And since you are keen on an ethical framework for the status quo, let's see the ethics of that little pile of unpleasantness.

Glad you liked them. Again, let me know when you anything serious to post. I can't argue with how you feel; do let me know how you think.

 

[o_mlly]

Because we all face the consequences of the actions of government. ... This sounds like your asking for someone you know.

So, you have no argument to support your prior false claim of universal suffrage?

If suffrage is not universal then some may be excluded.

 

[o_mlly]

Probably not. These are the ethos trotted out anytime it is needed to retain an exclusion. Just start with a bold claim about a group and then construct it in the same way.

(All strawmen deleted.)

Looks like you also have nothing to offer to dispute my argument.

Please think critically and refute the premises.

• Treat equals equally and unequals unequally in proportion to their inequality.
• Some Individuals make unequal contributions to the commonwealth.

 

[o_mlly]

Here's two more claims for you to defeat.

• Legal rights are alienable. Being granted by the state, they can be taken away by the state.
• Suffrage is a legal right.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, of course How would a state set about putting a stop to it?

Literacy test. If you can't read a policy, no voting on policy. If you can't read a name, no voting on names.

Anyone failing could requalify next election.

It would be rather silly to bar an unconscious person from voting, wouldn't it?

Well I suppose that depends upon whether or not their significant other is mailing in their votes for them.

I mean, they would have to wake up to vote, wouldn't they?

Not in our current system....no. It's astonishingly stupid but I swear....some people are astonishingly stupid and resist any changes that might ensure voting integrity.

Yes, of course. Many countries allow prisoners to vote. Again, easy to allow, tricky to disbar. What about prisoners on remand (innocent until etc) and prisoners serving their sentences on parole?

If you're sentenced guilty of a felony. You can't vote until time is served. I don't care where it's served. That's not the point.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Looks like you also have nothing to offer to dispute my argument.

Those aren't strawmen. Those were the exact kinds of arguments made in the past about voter restrictions. You find some of them disgusting, don't you, and you don't want your ideas paired up with them? Too bad.

 

[Bradskii]

Someone said that we hold some truths to be self-evident?

Are you referring to: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness?

Is this is what you are referring then I didn't see universal suffrage on that list.

For those rights that are listed, do you agree as to who endowed men with those unalienable rights? If not then where did such rights come from?

Looks like we still need an ethical argument for universal suffrage. (And from non-believers, an ethical argument that any human rights exist at all.)

If there was any group of people and they had to decide on an action then they either all defer to whoever is best suited to make the decision - someone to dictate what the group should do. Or...you vote on it. Apart from everyone doing what they individually think is best (which equates to no government) then I think those are the only two options.

If we go with the second option - democracy, then I think the natural state of affairs would be to include everyone and the debate should be: Do we exclude anyone? We do at the moment as it's age restricted - which is reasonable although somewhat arbitrary, and those convicted of some crimes can't vote - I'm prepared to listen to anyone who would want to change that.

You've suggested that we should exclude those who are a net drain on the state (which would include me at the moment) and you've seen that it didn't get any support. Maybe you have another suggestion for exclusion...

Incidentally, there is a natural tendency to form groups. There are people who are indivdualists in the strictest sense, but we're overwhelmingly a social animal. It helped us survive. Share the labour, share the food, share the shelter - it worked better than going it alone. So we are evolutionary programmed to be inclusive as opposed to exclusive. Except when it comes to in-groups and out-groups.

You have to nominate who is in your out-group. Who we exclude.

 

[Whyayeman]

Literacy test. If you can't read a policy, no voting on policy. If you can't read a name, no voting on names.

Anyone failing could requalify next election.

I am imagining queues forming of people eager to do the test so that they can only then vote. What a strange world you are conjuring!

Well I suppose that depends upon whether or not their significant other is mailing in their votes for them

Those votes are already legally barred. There is no need for two laws for the one.

Not in our current system....no. It's astonishingly stupid but I swear....some people are astonishingly stupid and resist any changes that might ensure voting integrity.

Voting integrity is already insured, at least as far as the law is concerned.

If you're sentenced guilty of a felony. You can't vote until time is served...

Why not?

 

[Bradskii]

Here's two more claims for you to defeat.

• Legal rights are alienable. Being granted by the state, they can be taken away by the state.
• Suffrage is a legal right.

Nobody is going to argue against that. There's nothing to defeat. All you've done is shown that suffrage is enshrined in law. But you should have been more specific in the second point.

Suffrage is a legal right for all (with exceptions as noted).

If you want to change that legal right for all then you need to convince us that there are reasonable grounds for doing so. You haven't yet.

 

[BPPLEE]

I am imagining queues forming of people eager to do the test so that they can only then vote. What a strange world you are conjuring!

Those votes are already legally barred. There is no need for two laws for the one.

Voting integrity is already insured, at least as far as the law is concerned.

Why not?

You don’t understand why felons can’t vote? Surely you jest

 

[Bradskii]

Principles of justice:

• Treat equals equally and unequals unequally in proportion to their inequality.

We're talking about people's rights. The right to vote in this case. Are you saying that we can treat people differently as to their rights if they are, in some sense, unequal? Do we restrict their right to free speech? Or to life and liberty? Their right to education and health? In what sense do you mean that someone is unequal that we can deny them their rights?

 

[Bradskii]

You don’t understand why felons can’t vote? Surely you jest

You can remove a criminals right to freedom as a consequence of his or her actions. Should we remove other rights as well? I have to say I'm ambivalent on this.

 

[BPPLEE]

You can remove a criminals right to freedom as a consequence of his or her actions. Should we remove other rights as well? I have to say I'm ambivalent on this.

Yes. They can’t own firearms

 

[Bradskii]

Yes. They can’t own firearms

I'm definitely on board with that one!

 

[BPPLEE]

We're talking about people's rights. The right to vote in this case. Are you saying that we can treat people differently as to their rights if they are, in some sense, unequal? Do we restrict their right to free speech? Or to life and liberty? Their right to education and health? In what sense do you mean that someone is unequal that we can deny them their rights?

That will never happen. Democrats are too determined to let anyone vote, with no safeguards