Nope, I don't want the government to have the power to strip any of us of any of our rights.
1. That was more a political decision that shouldn't affect the individual (regarding this issue). The individual is more of a pawn in stuff like that. The concept remains.Fair questions.
1. As we saw prior to--I think it must have been the last mid-term elections--there was some debate about extending unemployment benefits out to 99 weeks. It became a point of debate in the last elections. Benefits did get extended to the 99 weeks and people were able to obtain far more than what they contributed. A better way would be to reduce taxes so people could put away money to support themselves in case they find themselves unemployed.
2. More people are on food-stamps than ever before and stories of it's abuse are plentiful. As such, if you're on food-stamps you don't get to vote.
Then you're an anarchist.
Lol, Okay if you say so. I've been called worse.
If the government cannot suspend or terminate any of our rights, then there is no government. Government can suspend or terminate virtually any right via due process. Liberty is suspended via incarceration and regulations. Property is suspended by legal penalties and judicial processes. Life is terminated via the death penalty.
Discounting the weight of a person's vote based on the extent to which they independently manage their affairs is not arbitrary. In fact it is even less arbitrary than having zero voting power at age 17 to suddenly having 100% of one vote at age 18.
Well there are entire states where there is no state income tax. Should those people have their rights stripped from them too?
No, I disagree. You want to strip people's rights who are of age and have not committed any crimes.
Nope, I don't want the government to have the power to strip any of us of any of our rights.
you mean they pay no federal either?
This mischaracterization flies in the face of the thorough rationales I have provided for my opinion. It does not strip them of any right, it simply aligns voting power with the extent to which a person is an independent adult, which is measured by the degree of dependence on the collective for their basic daily needs that they CHOOSE to accept. It is no more unjust than disallowing minors to vote, because they too are considered dependents (not capable of or acknowledged as having financial and legal autonomy).
Fully financially independent emancipated minors should even have a full vote. Whereas adults whose primary needs are met 100% by government assistance programs should have zero vote.
Most people, even those on public assistance of various kinds, would still at least have partial votes, under my plan.
Obama just stripped millions of choosing what doctors and treatments they get, are you ok with that?
No kidding, what you're missing is that voting IS a right, not to be removed by government force due to arbitrary reasons.
I think that for many people it isn't a CHOICE.
No, but they pay less taxes than others, so perhaps we should strip them of their right to vote too. Oh, let's just take ALL of their rights.
You know, I know some poor people that have MUCH more character, personality and morals and values than any wealthy person. I guess people like Paris Hilton, Miley Cyrus etc. get a pass. What makes people think that because a person is having a hard time in life means they somehow deserve to lose any of their rights is beyond my understanding.
I can't answer this because I don't agree with either.
There is something wrong with this system and I can't quite put my finger on it.
I don't want to see voting rights stripped away from people but I see us heading down a wrong path.
It seems silly that people who don't pay taxes (or have a negative tax) get to keep voting to raise the taxes on the people that do.
It seems utterly irresponsible that we can accumulate more debt than we could pay off during our lifetimes, and dump that off on our descendants.
I've suggested that schools start teaching classes about finances, saving and budgeting. People jumped all over me to say that's the responsibility of the parents. Well, apparently parents aren't doing a good job of that or they were never taught themselves.Nobody wants to give anyone a break, but they want to punish them at the same time.
I feel that the lower end of humanity does hamper our ability as a whole but I cannot see any just way to deal with this problem at this time.
I personally would be a supporter of a voluntary global eugenics program and I am surprised the world hasn't put one into motion. Perhaps because it is such a long term en devour with out an immediate benefit to humanity?
If the government cannot suspend or terminate any of our rights for any reason, then there is no government. Government can suspend or terminate virtually any right via due process. Liberty is suspended via incarceration and regulations. Property is suspended by legal penalties and judicial processes. Life is terminated via the death penalty.
Discounting the weight of a person's vote based on the extent to which they independently manage their own adult affairs is not arbitrary at all. It is much less arbitrary than having zero voting power at age 17 to suddenly having 100% of one vote at age 18.
There's nothing unjust about assistance for otherwise autonomous adults coming to an end. And I don't think of people who are dependent on social programs as "the lower end of humanity." It's just that the existence of these programs elicits parasitic behavior from people who are simply choosing the paths of least resistance and acting in what they feel is in their own best interests.
I think eugenics is intended to breed arbitrarily desired characteristics in humans they way we do with domestic pets, plants, etc. It's pretty much a failed idea. But if you mean a voluntary depopulation strategy, there are political and Keynesian economic reasons not to do this. In other words, the world's leaders have embraced methods they think will enable indefinite growth and prosperity and do not acknowledge any need for or benefit to conservatism, prudence, conservation, or sustainability.
There's nothing unjust about assistance for otherwise autonomous adults coming to an end. And I don't think of people who are dependent on social programs as "the lower end of humanity." It's just that the existence of these programs elicits parasitic behavior from people who are simply choosing the paths of least resistance and acting in what they feel is in their own best interests.
I think eugenics is intended to breed arbitrarily desired characteristics in humans they way we do with domestic pets, plants, etc. It's pretty much a failed idea. But if you mean a voluntary depopulation strategy, there are political and Keynesian economic reasons not to do this. In other words, the world's leaders have embraced methods they think will enable indefinite growth and prosperity and do not acknowledge any need for or benefit to conservatism, prudence, conservation, or sustainability.
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?