The Glade 4.0

Religion, as many practice it, openly acknowledges that an innocent, bereft of baptism, is denied entrance to heaven.

To aspire to such yet criticize folks for suggesting there be conditions on voting privileges, characterizing it as being reprehensible ... well, it piques MY curiosity.

So I ask the question. Just for the record, I didn't get an answer that explained it to me. I had supposed there was a "divine right to vote" that I hadn't heard about, but apparently that's not the case.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

The only one I can get behind as an absolute requirement for voting rights is "actually pay taxes."

I do not like the de facto classism that restriction of the vote to landowners/business owners creates. I also think that anything more stringent than "be an American citizen and pay taxes" is open to abuse. Sooner or later, despite what I'm sure are nothing but good intentions on the part of the enactors of this reform, opening the door for restriction of the vote will inevitably allow for restriction of the vote by those with power deem "undesirables." The history of gerrymandering remains immutable proof of that.

Last I heard, every time you buy tires you pay an excise tax. You pay taxes every time you buy gasoline, or many other consumer products. There are lots of hidden taxes that people pay every day, often without realizing it. I'd say that gives everyone a say in having representation in D.C. *shrug*

In my humble opinion, we should not make someone have to own property in order to be able to vote.

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

You also have the option to serve.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Most of those are state taxes.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

In my home, as my kids grew up, they felt they had a right to be considered when important things came up. I always told them that, since my wife and I were paying for the roof over our heads, we get the right to made the decisions.

With no investment, their contribution would have lacked some serious credibility. They had no stake... no commitment to make it work. It would be like me telling you what car to buy or not buy, or where you should live, what your schools should teach, where you worked, what your taxes would be.

Someone who has no investment only cares about an outcome in a theoretical sense, no real consequence will result if there's a wrong decision, so there's no imperative to actually care. AND, the voting rate shows - most don't care about voting. There's a reason for that.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

Think of the opportunity to sell one square foot patches of land to recruit voters! Khross did not give any dimension on the land owning.

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore

He didn't, but I already pointed out that we could.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

There are federal excise taxes, etc, etc. And even if so, do you then argue that people can vote in state elections but not national elections? Given so much interference with state government by the feds?

We are discussing an entirely new system, Ber. The Fed's involvment doesn't exist there.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

That is extremely unlikely to ever see the light of day, esp given the opposition you'll find. I suspect you'd only implement it at the point of a gun. *shrug*

A snowball has a better chance in hell, but I would have said that legislation being passed without a vote wouldn't happen either.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.

That is how every system in the history of man has been implemented.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Beryllin:

When I say 52% of the population has a net-zero or negative tax burden, including payroll taxes, that also includes Federal Excise Taxes. Quite simply, the majority of the people in this country have no vested interest in how the money is spent except to benefit them. Yet, you keep thinking everyone affected by a law has a right to vote in that system; unless, of course, they can choose to go elsewhere.

FarSky:

A business license is generally a very modest 1 time local fee. I never said the business has to be profitable.

_________________

Then what do you gain? Buy a business license and basically do nothing with it and vote as you please, anyway. That's really what this is about, anyway, is it not? Certain voter demographics vote a certain way, usually. That's what you seek to gain, voters who are likely to vote in a way you want them to, or so it seems to me.

Of course! See, everyone affected by the (tax) laws has a right to vote in that system. In addition, so do even more people who aren't affected by those tax laws!

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Oh come now. Lots of systems were implemented before guns were invented!

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

/adds "pointy stick" caveat

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I'm going to ask for further clarification on Khross's response to Bery's hypothetical. Under this hypothetical, obviously the woman in the example does not have the right to vote.

1. What, if any, taxes would she be expected to be paying?

2. What public services, or public-subsidized services, would she be allowed to utilize?

The answers to those questions would go a long way in clarifying this debate.

I doubt there would be many public subsidized services, if any existed at all.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Ok first of all, simply having a buisness license isn't the same as having a buisness, just like haveing a driver's license doesn't mean you own a car.

Second, obviously Khross wants people to vote in the way he agrees with. In his case, however, that is to vote responsibly; i.e. not just for whoever promises to be "for the poor" or whatever will grant them the most largesse. There's noting about people who own homes or buisnesses or who have served in the military that makes them in any way homogenous as a voting block. They just all have some tangible stake in the system.

A person who never serves in the military, never owns property, and never owns any sort of buisness (and a buisness really could be as simple as being the owner-operator of a tractor trailer) has no reason to be allowed to vote. They don't have anything, whether its their home, their livelyhood, or their personal safety that's at risk with the decisions made.

Nothing about this system makes it ok to start building gulags, internment camps, or ghettos, or make people drink at different fountains. Everyone is still a citizen and still has rights. People who can't vote can still protest and petition. They just don't get to directly decide who is going to be in office.

How can we guarantee that there won't be any groups that become victims of legalized oppression? You can't. You can't guarantee that under any system. Under the system we have now, if we ammend the Constitution to say "Asian people can't own guns" then guess what? Asian people can't **** own guns legally. That would be shitty, but it could be done perfectly legally. There is nothing anywhere that says "A sufficiently offensive type of government is always illegitimate".

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

DE: What makes owning a home, business, or serving the military an indicator of being able to vote responsibly?

Money, the basis for 3/4 of Khross's system, can readily be lucked in to. And unless you eliminate all generational transfers of wealth I wouldn't call property ownership de facto evidence of the ability to vote responsibly.

I think a better indicator if the probability of responsible voting would be level of education. Earning a 4-year degree from an accredited university takes work and ostensibly vouches for your intelligence and comprehension skills.

Only state and local taxes.Those offered by her state. After all, I believe in self-determination as far as the states go.

And education is a bad marker, because well, ... look at the status quo, Dedolito.

_________________

An investment in something would indicate an interest in the outcome. A degree is an investment in oneself - land ownership is an investment in the nation.

_________________
In time, this too shall pass.