The Glade 4.0

Actually, that would be you with the bluff and bluster, because I have seen nowhere that anything like this is being considered as a constitutional amendment. As far as I can see, you've convinced no one in Congress to propose such an amendment, and if you ever did, the argument would go pretty much along the lines this thread has and at best your idea would die in committee. It'd not be passed, the states would run pell-mell away from it, and the idea would be so discredited that the authors would be Quayle-ized to the point they'd never show their face in public again. So if you wanna see this implemented, get your gun, get off the computer and stop with your own version of bluff and bluster.

*edit* "Past"? good grief. "Passed".

*edit 2* As an alternative, you could link a news article about Senator Xyz who is proposing such a constitutional amendment. If you're not bluff and bluster, that's already in the works, right?

Beryllin:

Obviously you're simply refusing to read what's written. Let me know the next time a non-millionaire with the backing of billions of special interest dollars wins the Presidency. You already live in a country where the landed gentry rule and write laws for those who are incapable of affecting their politicians. You already live in a nation where the government operates without regard for the will of the governed. The current operation of the United States exhibits and displays ALL of the problems you suggest my system would cause. The current United States is EXACTLY like the system you tell me is wrong-headed. So, why haven't you left yet? Because you can to push a button on election day that does NOTHING to change the course of government? Because you can write to Congressmen and Senators who don't listen to what you have to say? Because you can object to a President who's been openly spitting on the Constitution for a month?

Perhaps, just perhaps, you should read instead of assuming what other people write.

_________________

When the laws of the country tell me that unless I buy into the franchise I cannot vote, when I am told that unless I own property or a condo or a business license or have served 6 years in the military that I cannot vote, come back and tell me that I live in a country that is EXACTLY like the system I tell you is wrong-headed. If the country is EXACTLY like that system, why are you proposing to change the current system? You already have (by your own statement) the system I call wrong-headed.

Bery:

Let me ask you this: Why do you believe those with no stake in the size and scope of government should have a say in how others money is spent?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I've already presented my view on that. If you want to tell people that they have no say in the laws that are passed; that they cannot vote for people to represent them in the law-making body, fine. Exempt them from the laws passed and be done with it. But if you are going to have a legislative body that passes laws that everyone is subject to, then everyone should have a say in who represents them in that legislative body. Otherwise, for the disenfranchised, you have a system that is no better than a politburo passing down 5 year plans, and I don't care how benevolent you think it'd be: a benevolent dictator is still a dictator.

You haven't explained why any of this is the case. All you've done is repeat that everyone should have a say in the law because everyone should have a say in the law.

Not letting people who contribute nothing to the expenses of society vote is in no way similar to a communist Politburo, nor a dictatorship. Those systems don't let anyone vote.

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

Beryllin:

The Current system already has that government handing down 5 year plans. When was the last time your Federal vote made a difference, Beryllin? You are aware that currently there is no legal obligation for your Federal vote to be counted, right? You already live in a system where a real vote comes at the cost of extreme money and extreme economic power. You already live in the country you so despise.

My plan would actually give you the opportunity to actually have a say in your government, because you would no longer be beholden to the uninformed minority that can be bought with a pretty package.

So, you keep trying to tell me what I want is tyranny (it's not). You keep drawing false equivalence, because you cannot accept the fact that there really is an equality of opportunity in my system. In your system, the one you keep defending, there's an equality of outcome: Your vote means nothing.

_________________

That doesn't answer my question, and after reading every single one of your posts in this thread, no where do you answer the question I posed.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

It does answer your question. Everyone who has to obey a single law passed by any government body has a stake in that government. Period.

No. It doesn't. You didn't address anything I said. You are basically just "cut and pasting" at this point. Answer the specific question I asked.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

yes it does, you just don't like the answer.

I asked you what two plus two equals and you said George Washington. Your answer might be an answer to something, but it wasn't an answer to my question, so I'll ask it again:

Why do you believe those with no stake in the size and scope of government should have a say in how others money is spent?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

No, it's fine, Rynar. Beryllin would basically put any power the electorate has in those who will use it for their own gain because they have nothing to lose by voting for the social programs that pay them. He would rather make tax payers slaves to those who choose not to contribute.

_________________

Then he had better celebrate when he is forced to fund abortions.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Your question is flawed, Rynar, which is why I answer it as I do. Everyone who has to obey a law passed by a government has a stake in that government. Your question states that they do not, which is wrong. There is NO ONE who has "no stake in the size and scope of government." If laws must be obeyed by everyone, everyone does have a "stake in the size and scope of government." So I answer it according to what is true, not your incorrect phrasing.

Ber:

This is just poor logic. There is no moral difference between denying the franchise to children, felons, and non-citizens and denying it on other grounds. You are inventing a difference, and then claiming a moral high ground. So I issue you a challenge:

Explain the moral difference. Don't skirt the tough question and say, "They are too irrisponsible, they broke the law, and they are free to leave." Show why you have the moral high ground.

Then, actually answer my question, which is in no way flawed.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Because I believe everyone should have someone to represent them when laws are being written. Why children should not vote is self-explanatory. I never said I agree that felons should not have a vote. Non-citizens are citizens somewhere, and should have a vote somewhere, and your question is still flawed just as I said it is.

Let's go further with this, then. Only evangelical Christians should have the vote, and we get to set the laws for everyone. As a non-evangelical Christian, you have no stake in government, and we pass a law that no business can be open on Sunday and you have to obey that law. Not only that, but you have to go to church on Sunday and give 10% of your earnings to the church each week.

How exactly does being an evangelical Christian give you a stock in government that others don't have? Owning property or serving in the military clearly does; it's your investment or your life at stake.

You can do a reducio ad absurdum by using a case that is not a parallel to the case you're trying to reduce.

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

Simple. Because I believe that if evangelical Christian principles do not guide the nation we'll all be destroyed.

The real issue here, DE, is that I know my scenario is absurd, and you do not understand that what Khross proposes is equally absurd.

You haven't shown how it is equally hooey that people with property or military service have a stake in the nation that those without don't compared to your belief that we must follow evangelical teachings or be destroyed.

One is your belief. The other is observationally true, or do you not think that the decisions of national leaders put military personnel at risk and cost property and buisness owners money?

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

I do not believe it is observationally true, because I still believe that anyone who has to obey the laws of a government has a stake in that government. Just because you don't like like it does not make it untrue.

It is observably true that not all people have the ability to vote in their own nation of citizenship. It is also observably true that non-citizens living in our country do have to pay taxes that they have no say in.

And no, it is not obvious to me why children can't vote. Not any more so than why non-invested citizens shouldn't be able to vote, anyhow.

As to not saying you agree with denying the vote to felons? Then as Khross said, why haven't you left? Why haven't you rebelled? The two restrictions are morally equivalent, and yours is a moral argument.

What bothers me the most about this, is that none of this nonsense even matters, because the federal government would likely not be empowered to pass legislation other than for the purposes of coinage, national defense, and taxation with possibly a few other things I haven't thought of, but none of which would be intrusive to individual liberty under whatever system Khross is prescribing. The types of law that might accomplish those things would be at the state and municipal level, which no one here is even discussing.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

What is observationally true is not affected by what you believe. It is indeed factually true that the decisions of the government can put members of the military at risk. It is indeed factually true that government decisions cost property and buisness owners money that other people do not have to pay.

These people also have to obey the laws. They therefore have the same stake in having to obey the law as everyone else and have an additional stake over and above that - a stake, as I stated, that those without such situation do not have.

Furthermore children, noncitizens, and the mentally incompetant and felons all must obey the laws as well. "They can leave" does not change this fact in the case of noncitizens; citizens can leave as well.

You're offering nothing but your own beliefs as evidence.

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

As I have stated, people should have a choice. By coming to the U.S., non-citizens made a choice.

But, finally, we have something to work with. You finally admit that people whom you want to disenfranchise actually do have a stake in the government, just not as large a stake as business or property owners et al. So you are arguing degree. Interesting. Suppose the day comes when the man who owns a business decides he has a larger stake in the government because he does 2 million dollars business a year, and joe blow down the road does 50 thousand a year. Or the man who owns a 1,000 acre cattle ranch decides he has a larger stake in the government than his neighbor who owns 3 acres and a house. You gonna argue that the small business owner should be disenfranchised because he has a smaller stake in the government? That's what you are arguing now, after all, the only difference is degree.