Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Do infants, the pathologically disabled, and prisoners also face the consequences of government action?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.
Principles of justice:What's your counter argument?
What an ugly set of principles! Tell me you made them up just now.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.
This sounds like your asking for someone you know.Do infants, the pathologically disabled, and prisoners also face the consequences of government action?
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.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.
So, you have no argument to support your prior false claim of universal suffrage?Because we all face the consequences of the actions of government. ... This sounds like your asking for someone you know.
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.)
Yes, of course How would a state set about putting a stop to it?
It would be rather silly to bar an unconscious person from voting, wouldn't it?
I mean, they would have to wake up to vote, wouldn't they?
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?
Looks like you also have nothing to offer to dispute my argument.
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.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.)
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!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.
Those votes are already legally barred. There is no need for two laws for the one.Well I suppose that depends upon whether or not their significant other is mailing in their votes for them
Voting integrity is already insured, at least as far as the law is concerned.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.
Why not?If you're sentenced guilty of a felony. You can't vote until time is served...
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.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.
You don’t understand why felons can’t vote? Surely you jestI 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?
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?Principles of justice:
- Treat equals equally and unequals unequally in proportion to their inequality.
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.You don’t understand why felons can’t vote? Surely you jest
Yes. They can’t own firearmsYou 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.
I'm definitely on board with that one!Yes. They can’t own firearms
That will never happen. Democrats are too determined to let anyone vote, with no safeguardsWe'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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?