Proper Restrictions on Voting

[moralist]

We all contribute to government

That's true.

For even if you were to purchase just one piece of bubblegum, the money which buys it is also paying for all of the government taxes and regulatory fees which it cost to produce that one piece of gum. The cost of government is imbedded in the selling price of every product and service purchased.

Edited January 21, 2013 by moralist

[Kate87]

What a ridiculous turn this thread has taken. For example, what about disabled people who rely on charity to live? Their voting rights should be removed because they don't own property and/or haven't "contributed" to government?

[ruveyn1]

What a ridiculous turn this thread has taken. For example, what about disabled people who rely on charity to live? Their voting rights should be removed because they don't own property and/or haven't "contributed" to government?

"Contributing to government" is not a proper duty for a citizen. A citizen should be peaceful, law-abiding, pay his taxes and in general not be a menace to society.

ruveyn1

[dream_weaver]

"Contributing to government" is not a proper duty for a citizen. A citizen should be peaceful, law-abiding, pay his taxes and in general not be a menace to society.

ruveyn1

"Contributing to govenment" is not a proper duty for a citizen. A citizen should (ought, duty?) pay his taxes (contribute to govenment?) ? Can you clarify?

[moralist]

What a ridiculous turn this thread has taken.

I believe you'd only be happy if it was turning left.

For example, what about disabled people who rely on charity to live?

Don't you see that protecting private property rights of property owners is what allows them to create wealth so that they can freely express their generousity through acts of charity?

Their voting rights should be removed because they don't own property and/or haven't "contributed" to government?

The reason they shouldn't vote has already been made clear:

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury."

--Alexander Fraser Tyler

Once the takers become the political majority... it's game over.

[Nicky]

What a ridiculous turn this thread has taken. For example, what about disabled people who rely on charity to live? Their voting rights should be removed because they don't own property and/or haven't "contributed" to government?

I already explained why voting is not a right:

The US founders were right that a representative government is in fact a right. But that doesn't mean you have the right to have a government provided for you. It means people have the right to form their own government.

In other words, you have the right to contribute your fair share to your government, and then have a say in its leadership. You don't have the right to not contribute and have a say anyway.

Today's concrete bound approach to Politics turned the principle of self-determination (the right to participate in one's government) into the "right to vote". That is very much representative of the general dumbing down of American politics.

No one has the right to something for nothing. Not you, not me, and not anyone with a disability. Rights are the freedom to act, not the freedom to be given things. A government is an entity created by specific individuals, who use their hard earned wealth, and often risk their lives, to create it. You should only have power over how it is administered if you do your fair share to help it function.

The notion that a disability entitles someone to power over someone else's creation is just irrational, leftist egalitarian drivel. And yes, I already know that you're gonna just ignore my reasoning and keep repeating the same drivel over and over again until you eventually get banned. I just replied to you for the benefit of others reading the thread.

Besides, if someone is mentally healthy but physically disabled, then they shouldn't spend their life on charity, they should perform intellectual work. Someone incapable of intellectual work should definitely not be voting on who governs the country.

Edited January 23, 2013 by Nicky

[Eiuol]

The notion that a disability entitles someone to power over someone else's creation is just irrational, leftist egalitarian drivel. And yes, I already know that you're gonna just ignore my reasoning and keep repeating the same drivel over and over again until you eventually get banned. I just replied to you for the benefit of others reading the thread.

You are equivocating on two meanings of the word "right". In one sense there are rights related to a specific institution, such as stockholders of a corporation have a right to vote on a board of directors because the company made the rules that way. A right to vote in this context implies a similar meaning. At the very least, we probably can agree that some people are granted a right to vote in relation to their connection with a government. Some people have claimed property is a valid criterion for granting a person a right to vote, similar to how stock owners are given a right to vote on a board of directors. Careful of cognitive bias: just because Kate disagrees with you doesn't mean it *has* to be egalitarian liberalism. I think MeganSnow made a similar point anyway, except Kate gave a more particular reason.

If a person does rely on charity and unfortunately no property as land, should they have no say in the government? Why should property be the voting constraint?

[moralist]

If a person does rely on charity and unfortunately no property as land

There is an implication in your use of the word "unfortunately", as if those who work hard to own property didn't earn that merit, that it was just dumb luck.

should they have no say in the government?

Yes. No say.

Why should property be the voting constraint?

Because it would have kept the moochers from becoming the political majority like they are right now.

The earned merit of voting should never have been purposefully degraded into an unearned entitlement. The moochers should have never been allowed to out vote the producers like they have been doing.

I fully understand that what I'm saying has absolutely no power to set public policy, so my own personal response to the present situation is to do my level best to keep getting fleeced down to an absolute minimum.

[AbA]

I think any one who is recieving any form of public assistance (housing, food stamps, unemployment, etc.) should lose their voting priveledges while they're recieving this assistance. If they get their act together and get off it, after a year they get the franchise back. I think this would act to eliminate the chronic parasites who've adopted public assistance as a life style while not unduly penalizing those who just hit a bump in the road and need some temporary assitance to get back to being personally responsible for their own existence.

Additionally I've come to think that their should also be some age requirments to be eligable to vote for various offices that are tied to the age requirments necessary to run for that office. In other words if you have to be at least 35 years old to run for President then you need to be at least that old to participate in determing who gets to fill that office.

As to having to own real property as a requirment to vote.....I'm having trouble with that. For one thing there's a significant number of people out there that have a lot of nice property that they basically aquired thru defrauding others. And then theirs those who've aquired their money to be able to purchase property by preying on the cupidty of the lesser lights among us (TV Evangilists). And secondly, if real estate ownership were a strict requirment for being eligable to vote it would disenfranchise those up and coming members of our society who are trying to be responsible, productive citizens. Case in point would be myself. I've been a renter (of both places to do business and live) my whole life. But yet I've managed to get to 55 and be self sufficent with out needing any of the various forms of welfare.

[mdegges]

I think any one who is recieving any form of public assistance (housing, food stamps, unemployment, etc.) should lose their voting priveledges while they're recieving this assistance. If they get their act together and get off it, after a year they get the franchise back. [[i think this would act to eliminate the chronic parasites who've adopted public assistance as a life style while not unduly penalizing those who just hit a bump in the road and need some temporary assitance to get back to being personally responsible for their own existence.]]

You realize that in 96 'free' welfare ended, right? It was replaced by TANF, a program that has many many restrictions and aims to get people OFF of welfare and on the road towards self-sufficiency. Among it's restrictions, an individual can only be on welfare for a maximum of 5 years during his or her entire lifetime. In addition, recipients have to "participate in work activities" 30-55 hours a week, and they MUST get a job within two years or they will be kicked out of the program.

As an example: In Indiana, the need standard is $320/m for a family of 3. So any family that makes $320 or less is eligible for assistance - of course there's other restrictions, but this is the main one. The maximum income this family can recieve and still be eligible for aid is $378. If this family has NO income, the MAXIMUM they can recieve is $288. (Source:

p. 77-125 of the welfare rules handbook: http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/opre/welfare_rules_databook_2011.pdf)

To put this in perspective, I live in Indiana and my 2br/1ba apartment's TOTAL rent each month is $884 + electric (about $150-200) + internet ($55). That doesn't include food, clothing, tuition for school, or anything else.

Of course TANF is just another example of how redistribution of wealth doesn't really help those in need. How can a family of three survive on a mere $300 a month? But when you say 'chronic parasites' and 'moochers,' who exactly are you referring to? A family of three who survives on $300 a month, attends mandatory work training full-time, must get a job within 2 years, and can only get assistance for a maximum of 5 years?

Additionally I've come to think that their should also be some age requirments to be eligable to vote for various offices that are tied to the age requirments necessary to run for that office. In other words if you have to be at least 35 years old to run for President then you need to be at least that old to participate in determing who gets to fill that office.

Why is that?

But yet I've managed to get to 55 and be self sufficent with out needing any of the various forms of welfare.

The last time I checked, Objectivists seemed to think that it was moral to recieve government assistance (in the form of loans, grants, social security & medicare) but ONLY IF they advocated the destruction of these programs. I really don't know how that would work. (How can you take out federal student loans to pay for college but say that they're evil and shouldn't exist? That's like biting the hand that feeds you.)

Edited January 23, 2013 by mdegges

[ruveyn1]

"Contributing to govenment" is not a proper duty for a citizen. A citizen should (ought, duty?) pay his taxes (contribute to govenment?) ? Can you clarify?

The law requires one to pay his taxes. A citizen should be law abiding. If the law is obnoxious or unjust let Joe Citizen work to get it repealed.

ruveyn1

[Kate87]

Because it would have kept the moochers from becoming the political majority like they are right now.

I think any one who is recieving any form of public assistance (housing, food stamps, unemployment, etc.) should lose their voting priveledges while they're recieving this assistance. If they get their act together and get off it, after a year they get the franchise back. I think this would act to eliminate the chronic parasites who've adopted public assistance as a life style while not unduly penalizing those who just hit a bump in the road and need some temporary assitance to get back to being personally responsible for their own existence.

Are these two comments not moral pragmatism? i.e. disenfranchise people who are unlikely to agree with your political views. Is this not the opposite of a principled approach to politics?

[moralist]

Are these two comments not moral pragmatism? i.e. disenfranchise people who are unlikely to agree with your political views.

I fully understand that the moochers and the government looters who service their demands do not agree with me. Because they comprise the political majority, it is they whose votes created a European style liberal socialist bureaucracy which gives them government food, government insurance, government housing, government education, government daycare, government healthcare, government loans, government grants, government disability, government jobs, and other government benefits...

...and all at the expense of others.

Is this not the opposite of a principled approach to politics?

I just described the principle by which politics operates. Wherever the moochers and looters comprise the political majority... they create large liberal socialist bureaucracies in their own image.

With the understanding that simply stating my opinion of how I think things should be on an internet forum has absolutely no power to set public policy, I focus instead on refining my own responses to the way things are. In a broader sense, the operative question each one of us is on their own to answer: How do you live a good life in an evil world? I found a satisfactory answer to that question to implement in my own life, and am enjoying the results.

Edited January 23, 2013 by moralist

[Nicky]

If a person does rely on charity and unfortunately no property as land, should they have no say in the government? Why should property be the voting constraint?

Read the thread. I've been arguing against property being a constraint. The criteria should be whether someone contributed to the government or not. Just like when voting for corporate leadership.

[SapereAude]

What a ridiculous turn this thread has taken. For example, what about disabled people who rely on charity to live? Their voting rights should be removed because they don't own property and/or haven't "contributed" to government?

First, we need to make sure you understand the distinction between "charity" and "government handouts"

Charity is when people voluntarily give to causes and people they deem worthy of assistance.

If your past posts are any reliable basis for judgement I'm quite sure what you actually mean is "people who rely on the government to steal from the productive and redistribute goods and services to them".

These are entirely different situations.

[Kate87]

First, we need to make sure you understand the distinction between "charity" and "government handouts"

Charity is when people voluntarily give to causes and people they deem worthy of assistance.

If your past posts are any reliable basis for judgement I'm quite sure what you actually mean is "people who rely on the government to steal from the productive and redistribute goods and services to them".

These are entirely different situations.

First I do not support an expansion of welfare transfer payments especially not in England. When I said charity above, I meant charity. But on a separate point I also think that someone's receipt of welfare should also not impinge on their right to vote. Otherwise this would be pragmatism - i.e. the denial of the vote to people who you disagree with. Once such a precedent is set, you could deny people who receive welfare the right to free speech by making it illegal for them to speak in favour of increasing welfare. Moralist replied to my post about pragmatism above, but I would like a better reply please that actually addresses the point of pragmatism.

I already explained why voting is not a right:

Can you elaborate on why voting is not a right and square your thoughts with the following statement from Ayn Rand (bold mine):

The right to vote is a consequence, not a primary cause, of a free social system—and its value depends on the constitutional structure implementing and strictly delimiting the voters’ power; unlimited majority rule is an instance of the principle of tyranny.

According to Rand, there is a right to vote irrespective of the votes value. Also please note when answering, that today's system is not unlimited majority rule.

Edit: I have scratched out the above, because I actually do not understand Rand on this issue at all. Can someone knowledgeable please explain, and let me know why you think her view isn't moral pragmatism.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Kate87

[2046]

Can you elaborate on why voting is not a right and square your thoughts with the following statement from Ayn Rand (bold mine):

According to Rand, there is a right to vote irrespective of the votes value. Also please note when answering, that today's system is not unlimited majority rule.

The right to vote is not a primary means that there is no acontextual right to vote, just like there's no acontextual "right to move around." The right to vote depends on the constitutional structure limiting the ability of voters to violate rights. In other words you have a right to vote, so long as you don't violate rights, and the purpose of a constitutional structure is to limit ability of the government to do this.

[Kate87]

The right to vote is not a primary means that there is no acontextual right to vote, just like there's no acontextual "right to move around." The right to vote depends on the constitutional structure limiting the ability of voters to violate rights. In other words you have a right to vote, so long as you don't violate rights, and the purpose of a constitutional structure is to limit ability of the government to do this.

Are you saying that no one in the UK or USA has the right to vote because the constitutions are not sufficiently limiting of the votes power?

[SapereAude]

First I do not support an expansion of welfare transfer payments especially not in England. When I said charity above, I meant charity. But on a separate point I also think that someone's receipt of welfare should also not impinge on their right to vote. Otherwise this would be pragmatism - i.e. the denial of the vote to people who you disagree with.

First, I have not yet come out in favor of restricting on this basis, so I am not yet ready to argue in favor of it.

I will say however that you are misrepresenting the position of the people advocating for this.

It is not an issue of denying the vote to persons you disagree with (although incidentally someone who lives off of welfare would most likely disagree with a capitalist on many important issues- but again- that is incidental) the issue is to borrow a term from the unionists creating a class of "free riders"- that is- persons who use the resources of something they are not contributing to the good of. Putting aside the trickier question of people who have worked and "contributed to society" their whole lives who suddenly find themselves destitute we have a large segment of our society that have never worked, have always taken the stolen property of others to survive and intend to continue doing so.

I think it is important to ask- if we (we being capitalists/Objectivists) believe in voluntary user fees for a court system, for other government functions in general what would be a proper "user fee" to vote?

Again, I have not made up my mind on this issue- but these are important questions to ask.

edited-typo

Edited January 24, 2013 by SapereAude

[2046]

Are you saying that no one in the UK or USA has the right to vote because the constitutions are not sufficiently limiting of the votes power?

Well no, I think that might be a bit of a jump. I think that quote just means that no one has a right to vote to initiate force and that a constitutional structure ought not allow it to. That would mean that people in the present day US and UK have a right to vote on all kinds of things, whatever they want in fact, they just don't have a right to vote to initiate force. Certainly this might make voting for a lot of things impermissible, but it wouldn't translate to losing their rightly understood right to vote. It would just mean that they never had a right to vote for all sorts of things that they might have thought they did.

[softwareNerd]

If one had a capitalist constitution, there would be no need to restrict people on welfare from voting, since there would be no such people. In general, a capitalist constitution would not benefit from restricting votes based on aspects like property-ownership, or the payment of a poll-tax. While one can make arguments for such things, I don't really think they matter in the larger scheme of things. Statists are rich and poor, and the rich routinely vote irrationally. I would keep in place the two current principles: age of competence, and the idea of a tie to the country-- based on birth/naturalization.

Apart from these, I think a good constitution should have some type of voter test. In the past, literacy tests have got a bad rap, because they have been used as a way to unfairly exclude voters. Any test comes with all sorts of administrative issues that can allow the administrating authority to deny the test to some groups, or make it tough for them, in order to deny them a vote. If this type of fraud can be controlled, I think the constitution should include a short series of (say) 10 questions that a person must answer correctly before they can vote. The constitution would also contain the right and wrong answers to each question: a multiple-choice questionnaire, to remove any element of subjectivity.

I think this would help reinforce the key tenets of the constitution. (See here for more)

Edited January 25, 2013 by softwareNerd

[moralist]

No one has the right to something for nothing.

Do you realize that is now the minority viewpoint?

The majority has clearly and loudly voted for something for nothing... and the government they have created in their own image will give them exactly what they deserve.

So stand clear while they get it.

Edited January 25, 2013 by moralist

[SapereAude]

If one had a capitalist constitution, there would be no need to restrict people on welfare from voting, since there would be no such people. In general, a capitalist constitution would not benefit from restricting votes based on aspects like property-ownership, or the payment of a poll-tax.

But all the administration related to these issues and the actual vote itself would incur expense.

So, while "poll-tax" is an unpopular term I think a reasonable user fee would be necessary to cover expenses.

Poll tax carries with it an implication of excluding people from voting, but I don't think this is neceesarily so- at least no more so than paying a fee to file a contract or what have you.

[softwareNerd]

So, while "poll-tax" is an unpopular term I think a reasonable user fee would be necessary to cover expenses.

Sure, I don't have a big problem with having voters pay something that will cover expenses of one qualifying test, and -- subsequently -- expenses of the vote. As long as it is just that -- i.e. covering expenses and nothing more -- it would be legitimate.

[ruveyn1]

The basic principle is that voting should be part of a negative feedback loop controlling government action. A positive feedback or open loop should be prevented. That means people receiving goodies from the treasury of the commonwealth should not be able to vote themselves more of the same.

It has been pointed out by many, that democracy is inherently unstable. As soon as a politician learns to buy votes by dispensing benefits from the common treasury he and his like will just keep on doing more of the same.

We are already (here in the U.S.) living through that. There is a good chance the system will come crashing down around our ears.

ruveyn1