Hey CBBN, just another bit of ammo for restricting voting rights

Who is running for President?

lol, wish I could say it surprises me.

Small point of clarification, and I know I'm kinda preaching to the choir, but I can't resist the soapbox you just set up. :)

I don't believe there is such a thing as "voting rights". The Founders never expressed a "right" to vote or even to a representative government per se. They laid out the rights of the individual, which were all rights not minimally required for the group to function (i.e. you can't rob someone and take away their rights), and then tried to construct a government structure that could insure those rights.

The government structure itself is totally beholden to the People and to those inherent rights of the People, so there really isn't a "right" to a kind of government. The government form is the means to an ends. If the Founders could have created a magic perfect computer to insure the rights of Man for all Americans they'd have switched that thing on and gone home.

They openly talked about designing a government with as many contradictory forces as possible, what we politely call checks and balances, which were really a series of brakes to prevent government from acting very much or very fast and made it as hard as possible to accomplish anything. They didn't want anything accomplished, b/c they knew government accomplishment often is at the expense of the rights of Man.

They settled on a representative democracy as the best way to reach their goal of a minimalist government with as little authoritarian power over the People as possible and still have a workable government. If you look at the Articles of Confederation they tried to do it without even that much power but it wasn't enough to keep the states in check and deal with foreign powers.

In their original vision there weren't really any national elections, just a confederation of states who decided how their own governments ran. How can they have perceived a right to vote when they tried to avoid even having an election?

The entire system exists only to insure the rights of Man. Democracy is not a goal or necessarily something to be pursued for its own sake, it is simply the best system we've found thus far to insure those rights, but the Founders were very careful to not just make a simple 'majority rules' system. Many of them were terrified of broad majority rule democracy, seeing it as likely to ignore the rights of the minority, to act rashly on impulse with a mob mentality, and otherwise be a failed system.

Gradually we've confused "Freedom" and "liberty" with "democracy". Along with that has come a shift from the right to pursue one's own liberty and happiness with the rights granted us by the state like the "right" to vote.

There is no inherent right to vote. The franchise is extended from the state as a means to run the government that is in the end totally subservient to all the people whether they vote or not. It is a privilege of citizenship, not a right of Man. There is a RESPONSIBILITY however as a citizen to vote wisely and in a well informed manner if you are given the vote. IMO it should only be extended as a privilege to those who are willing to be responsible with it. it's that simple to me.

If you can't name the 3 branches of government, if you can't name the two primary candidates for President, you haven't EARNED the privilege of voting. It isn't your right, so you only get it if you EARN it.

Like everything else, we have turned privileges into "rights", forgotten that our "rights" are inherent and are not the government's to give or take (whether every other person in the nation voted for it or not), and have no understanding whatsoever that with privileges and rights come responsibilities.

I don't want some draconian elite doing all the deciding, the whole point of the American Experiment was to eliminate rule by the elite, but I do want people to either make an effort to be responsible citizens or let those of us who are willing to make that effort drive the bus.

If on election day you don't even know who is running, I'm not taking away your rights when I say you can't vote, I'm trying to keep you from taking away everyone else's through your unwillingness to be a responsible citizen. You open our nation to graft, corruption, subversion of every kind through your inattention.

Which is a very educational way of saying we as a collective of citizens get what we deserve?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

Which is a very educational way of saying we as a collective of citizens get what we deserve?

---

I suppose so.

I think the Founders knew that, which is why they put in so many limits on the system in every way. They fought a civil war in which 1/3rd of the people were on their side, 1/3rd were Loyalists, and disturbingly 1/3rd didn't care.

that's basically how it is now. 1/3rd are basically conservative/libertarian, 1/3rd are basically liberal/socialist, and 1/3rd don't know what those words mean and don't much care. As Hitchhiker's Guide pointed out, the useless 3rd of society.

Given that the experiment designed by the founding fathers is failing in many ways, is that an indication that they did not understand the true frailties of human nature, or is it an indictment of the humans to not understand the great gift they have been given and strive to succeed within it's structure?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

Given that the experiment designed by the founding fathers is failing in many ways, is that an indication that they did not understand the true frailties of human nature, or is it an indictment of the humans to not understand the great gift they have been given and strive to succeed within it's structure?

---

To me it says they understood it all too well and correctly feared it, but no system made by Man, even men who were arguably the most brilliant and selfless group in human history, can overcome the base nature of the species at this point in our evolution.

At some point when people figure out a way to take from others without having to create for themselves they will. What I think they couldn't have seen coming is that once a certain level of prosperity is achieved many who benefit from it will feel so guilty they will actually want those others to take from them and not create for themselves.

It's a bizarre psychology they could never have seen coming b/c at that time no nation was so prosperous that it could have happened. We created our own ends by being so successful people no longer have a proper ordinal point of measurement and we have so many who are of means who never had to do anything for it and thus don't understand they are really just enslaving others with this approach, not helping them.

It's the national version of permissive parenting. Permissive voting I guess. No idea that all they're doing is creating a permanent under class that is now 5-6 generations long. In the end they should feel guilty, just not for what they think.

Is the failure of the experiment proof that humans will only be satisfied in the long run when they are governed by the iron hand? They will suffer many indignities and hardship but they do not have to think unless they are told to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dan_bgblue

Is the failure of the experiment proof that humans will only be satisfied in the long run when they are governed by the iron hand? They will suffer many indignities and hardship but they do not have to think unless they are told to.

---

I've been trying to come up with an ideal political economy that integrates the philosophy of Absurdism. I've become largely an Absurdist but need to integrate the notion of the Rights of Man with the relative lack of meaning of individual life within Absurdism.

The other side of that is creating a predictive model of political economy based on those assumptions and I always end up back at Star Trek. The Trek universe is predicated on Man evolving, growing up. It has some serious issues in how they got rid of the problem of resource allocation through all but unlimited resources yet people still work in restaurants waiting tables, but the basic premise of Man growing up to the point that he can manage himself with relatively few limitations is still sound.

Clearly we're way away from that point. I'll give thought to your question of what I see as the middle point between now and then, but when America is one of the most mature, rule of law nations with the most respect for others of any other nation on Earth and we're so pitiful, we've got a long way to go.

This is why I don't watch the news, don't follow politics any more. It's too depressing and I don't seem to be able to change it.

I always enjoy your comments. Great point about the number of people who actually advocated leaving British rule altogether.

From my perspective aligning 1/3 conservative/libertarian or liberal/socialist is like saying 1/3 UofL/ IU fans. Yeah they hate UK (us) but they are different people and might not really see themselves in the same group.



I consider myself conservative fiscally but believe that complete faith in the market and capitalism unchecked destroys the middle class, turns working people of all colors into serfs and drug companies don't invest in new antiobiotics or actual cures for diseases but can help the richest have the most insanely long last erections.

More moderate on social issues. Think the government should stay out of people's lives and build a great big navy to keep us safe.

We started to lose the American Dream as we embraced a leadership role in world affairs that required us to maintain a large permanent army and law enforcement that can institute a police state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenBBN

I suppose so.

I think the Founders knew that, which is why they put in so many limits on the system in every way. They fought a civil war in which 1/3rd of the people were on their side, 1/3rd were Loyalists, and disturbingly 1/3rd didn't care.

that's basically how it is now. 1/3rd are basically conservative/libertarian, 1/3rd are basically liberal/socialist, and 1/3rd don't know what those words mean and don't much care. As Hitchhiker's Guide pointed out, the useless 3rd of society.

---

I should also say to the OP's comment there are actually several people other than Romney and Obama running for office. And I was shocked to find the candidate that most closely resembled my views (according to an on-line survey) was Jill Stein. Yes. That Jill Stein. Of the Green Party.

While I didn't vote for Jill there is validity to the question of who all of the candidates are that are seeking office.