Proper Restrictions on Voting

Political Philosophy
21

I honestly have not thought too deeply about the topic, but I have a few ideas. There should be a minimum age requirement and residency for a certain time period. Criminals of a certain degree should be prohibited from voting (would have to think more about specifics). I would like to see some for of simple civics test. I might also consider voting power being tied to wealth in some capacity.

Personally, I consider this sort of thing to be locking the barn door after the horse was stolen–too late, and missing the point. Nothing can fix human nature, and ultimately nothing can create or preserve a good culture but a good philosophy. Draconian voting rules will neither help create it nor retard its decay. Politics is a derivative, not a primary, and thus can’t be fundamentally manipulated via a top-down enforced approach. There’s a reason why “grassroots” is such a big deal–once there is a popular movement about something, attempts to fight it are doomed.

I grant that my personal sphere is pretty small, but from what I’ve seen in many areas we’re living in the lag time between a growing cultural change and the political adoption of that change. (Of course, you could probably say that about any time.) I suspect it’s probably also true that there’s more than one cultural change going on at a given time and which one will ultimately win cannot be known. But I still think that while the political trend is bad, that doesn’t always mean that the cultural trend is equally bad or even the same as the political trend.

22

Personally, I consider this sort of thing to be locking the barn door after the horse was stolen–too late, and missing the point. Nothing can fix human nature, and ultimately nothing can create or preserve a good culture but a good philosophy.

Wouldn’t you agree though that, if only the people who contributed to the federal government in the past four years were allowed to vote in the 2012 federal elections, tomorrow we’d be inaugurating a different President?

Draconian voting rules will neither help create it nor retard its decay.

Why is it draconian to restrict voting for the leadership of a government to the people who contribute to that government?

I understand why everyone’s rights should be protected by a standing government. But why should free riders not only get the benefits of having a government, but get an actual say in who runs that government?

I can’t think of a single reason why that should be.

23

Personally, I consider this sort of thing to be locking the barn door after the horse was stolen–too late, and missing the point. Nothing can fix human nature, and ultimately nothing can create or preserve a good culture but a good philosophy.

…and good people.

It’s generally believed that if the government could be improved by laws regulations and other means, the society would improve. When the truth is that if people refined their own lives, they would improve both society and government. This is because the government is nothing more than the realized demands of the majority.

24

Why is it draconian to restrict voting for the leadership of a government to the people who contribute to that government?

We all contribute to government, most of us do at gun-point.

The government should serve the citizens who ordained its existence in the first place.

The citizens do not -serve- the government. That would imply the government is their master.

Heaven forfend!

I like what V said in the movie: The citizens should not fear the government. It is the government who should fear the citizens.

And one of these days, Guy Fawkes might just succeed.

ruveyn1

25

We all contribute to government

Blatantly false.

The government should serve the citizens who ordained its existence in the first place.

If you expect service without someone paying for it, “ordained” (in the religious sense) is the right choise of words there.

The citizens do not -serve- the government.

No, they contribute to it. Which is the word I used. Too bad you felt the need to change my words before arguing against them.

26

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.

27

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?

28

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

29

“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?

30

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.

31

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.

32

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?

33

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.

34

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.

35

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.)

36

“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

37

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?

38

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.

39

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.

40

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.