The Glade 4.0

1) Why should people have a choice?
2) What prevents U.S. citizens from exercising the same choice to leave this country that others did to come here?



Well, duh. You're just now noticing this?

Obviously it's about degree. A person with a buisness has a stake in 2 different ways: They have to obey the laws, and they have a buisness. Same with owning property or being in the military.

The degree isn't how much money the person makes, how many square feet they own, or what rank they get to in the military. It's the fact that they have a risk in society beyond that of a person with none of these things.

So, the degree is only "risk over and above what everyone already has as a default". Why does the "stake" one has by virtue of having to obey laws deserve the franchise when some people have other stake over and above that? It takes no effort to be required to obey the law. You're required to obey the law simply by virtue of being part of any society, regardless of what that law might be. That's just a result of humans being social animals.

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

No, I noticed it long ago, that's been the basis of my argument from the start. Getting y'all to admit it has been like pulling hen's teeth; after all, Rynar consistently says "no stake" in his posts.

As for the rest of your argument, it amounts to so much clap-trap. ANY stake in government gives someone an interest in what that government does, like it or not.

Ber:

You didn't respond to my last post. Also "no stake" is applicaple to "in the size and scope of government, in relation to spending other people's money". It may be unintentional, but your editing creates a strawman.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Minors can be prosecuted under the law, they are restricted from driving, and drinking. They have compulsory schooling requirements. They are legally restricted from some sexual activities. They are compelled to be registered by the federal government in the form of a social security number and birth certificate. They are forced to register for compulsory military service as soon as they reach the age of majority, a tactic effectively rendering them unable to protest their enlistment. All this in addition to being compelled to comply with all other laws passed which are applicable to everyone. Yet they have no say in the passage of these laws. You might argue that it is for their own good... but then... you would sound like Khross...

Edit: I just had a thought: an Evangelical Social Democrat is just about the the most bizarre logical conundrum I've ever encountered in my whole life.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Ok, face it, guys. There is no argument you can present that will ever convince me (and I'd argue most Americans would agree with me) that it's a good idea to have a system that places certain citizens in a second-class position because of some arbitrary decision that xyc citizens have a greater stake in the government than abc citizens. Every citizen has a stake in the government if they have to obey the laws that the government passes, and that's enough stake that they should have the vote, imo.

Which would be fine if you hadn't already stated that you are OK with denying the franchise on arbitrary grounds. And you still haven't responded to my last post on the prior page.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Rynar, the closest thing you have to an argument is about children, and even then you fail, because children have to do nothing to gain the vote other than grow older. In other words, live their natural life without artificial barriers thrown in their way. They automatically get the vote.

You fail.

You have placed a barrier and a stipulation, rendering the two as moral equivalents. Furthermore, the barrier is not natural as a vote is not a natural occurance, it is a man made occurance, as is your barrier. In addition, you still haven't met my request to respond to the post I've specified. I'm no longer sure you understand what failure means.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I understand it quite well. Fine, then. One day old babies should have the vote. (Stupid, but if that's what you want) Foreign nationals should be able to vote in American elections. (Even though I have thoroughly explained that 1) People should have a say in what laws they will live under, and 2) foreign nationals made that choice when they moved here from "there", and besides, they still have the vote in the country of their citizenship.) Felons should have the vote (Even though by choosing to disobey the laws they previously had representation to help formulate.)

Anything else stupid you wish to bring up?

I don't feel that anything that we are discussing is stupid. The fact that you would describe it as such is a mark against your dignity, not mine.

At least now you are being logically consistent. I give you respect for that, however, you have yet to acknowledge the actual ramifications of your position given your clarified guidelines.Those being everything you abhor, and know to be wrong.

Also, you still haven't responded to my last post on the last page, and I really wish you would.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

The parts of my post that were in parenthesis are what you should really pay attention to. Dignity has little to do with this; arrogance of some that they should be able to pass laws that apply to other people who have no say in the formulation of said laws is a far greater human condition.

Arrogance, to the point of being despicable.

/sigh

Again, I wish you would respond to my last post on the last page.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Sigh all you want to. It's frustrating to see people who claim to be champions of liberty want to create second class citizens in this country. Don't ever tell me that garbage again, because it's a lie: you are no champion of liberty at all.

Have you even read the **** post?

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Since I have read every post, obviously I have.

I question you because here is what I said:



Which makes your concern irrelevant. Laws dictating coinage, national defense, and taxation wouldn't touch the people you are talking about.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Not necessarily so. I don't care how benevelent you think it might be in the beginning, when you create a group of second class citizens, sooner or later they'll be exploited by people whose scruples are lacking. Federal taxation could be extended to them, for instance. No government you can create will ever be fully capable of restraining the corrupt, and you cannot convince me that people who have a stake in government (and everyone subject to laws have a stake in government) should not have a say in the laws written. I cannot speak for other countries, only this one.

But it seems to me to be particularly odious that you, while claiming to be a champion of liberty, would extend first class citizenship only to those who behave in a way you find acceptable. That is, in my opinion, despicable.

**** **** **** ****. Bery, that's the **** system we already have. You are arguing against penumbra of a penumbra of a possible ghost within a system seeking to fight all of them, in favor of a system you acknowledge has failed for most of the reasons you fear the system I seek might devolve into over the course of a couple hundered years. Penny wise, pound foolish. In addition, as the vote is a human creation, it is a privilege, not a right, as rights are natural or god given, not manufactured. Liberty is a measure of balanced rights, not privileges, which renders any of your frustrated claims about "defenders of liberty" foolish and ill-informed.

You are hurting my brain.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Nice tirade, Rynar. It is a fact that many Americans do not behave in ways I approve of, but there is no way I am so arrogant that I would say to them, "Behave as I approve, or here is the set of laws you will live under and you have no representation in how they are selected or written. If you don't like it, you can leave or change your behavior in an approved way."

Good to see your true colors, Rynar.

now what happens to someone's ability to vote if they lose their property? Through no fault of their own, say eminent domain. Or if their business goes belly up after years of success?

this may have already been covered, but trying to read this thread has become very undesirable.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Bery:

I have come to realize that you are just going to continue to refuse to be logical, or argue honestly.

You take turns either refusing to acknowledge the fact that under the system I advocate, the federal government wouldn't have the authority to pass any laws effecting anyone's personal liberty. Only laws pertaining to taxation (which those who are unenfranchised don't have to pay), national defense (which those who are unenfranchised have chosen to to participate in), and coinage (which is a means of exchange, not an assault on any liberty); or refusing to acknowledge that the slow expansion of government over the course of hundreds of years which you fear would eventually deprive the unenfranchised of liberty has already happened in the system you are defending so adamantly.

You refuse to debate what I am actually prescribing in favor of a list of drummed up and largely inapplicable platitudes.

Let me know when you decide to discuss what is being said instead of what you apparently wish was being said.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I don't know that eminent domain would exist. And if their business goes belly-up? Start another business. This isn't a system that rewards you for past success, it rewards current investment.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

I know quite well what's being said. Let's discuss this from a different angle. What do you think of the Voting Rights Act?

How would you sell this to black Americans, who struggled for so long to gain the right to vote without undue restrictions (such as poll taxes)placed on them? You going to go to black leaders, who will rightfully point out that oodles of blacks will suddenly be no better off than they were in the 60's, because many of them cannot afford to buy property or own businesses. You will point out that the military is an option, and they will totally ruin you in the court of public opinion as a white racist who wants blacks to be your cannon fodder in order to regain what they have now: the ability to vote. The media will eat you alive, Rynar.

You are going to implement what's been proposed at the point of a gun or not at all. If I were you, I would not count on winning that fight.

Again, all systems in the history of man have been implemented at the point of a gun (DE's pointy stick caveet noth withstanding). Reforming an entire system, any system, within the confines of that system, which is already broken or we wouldn't be reforming it, is politically impossible. But then, we aren't talking about politics here, we are talking about complete government reform.

Edit: Not to mention the fact that you sound like Jesse Jackson here. Using race as a divisive wedge issue when race was never a factor in the system, and in the process, intentionally of not, demeaning accomplished people of color like Bill Cosby, Oprah Winfrey, and even Barak Obama. Great job playing the politics of race and victimhood though. Monte needed a replacment in that department.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

Why exactly would we feel compelled to admit something tautological? Duh, obviously someone with a stake has an interest. stake = interest.

However, the "Stake" that everyone has in terms of obeying laws isn't sufficient to justify giving them the vote when they aren't paying for or fighting for the country.

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