Advertisement
by The Grey Wolf » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:44 am
by Galloism » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:45 am
by Bari » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:46 am
Galloism wrote:Bari wrote:If they "deliberately" do this, then that implies they go out and vote with the intention of increasing crime. Otherwise, they do none of that deliberately.
They deliberately create the conditions.
They may be blind to the effects. They may be stupid. They may think they can win.
However, they deliberately create the conditions that lead to more violence - an underground drug trade.
by Bari » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:46 am
Galloism wrote:Bari wrote:Simply because I do not want a democracy does not mean I deny its existence. I acknowledge its existence, and I acknowledge the fact that people desire suffrage. We can use that for the advantage of the state.
By taking away suffrage, you use the suffrage that people desire for the state.
Makes perfect sense.
by Galloism » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:46 am
by Galloism » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:47 am
Bari wrote:Galloism wrote:They deliberately create the conditions.
They may be blind to the effects. They may be stupid. They may think they can win.
However, they deliberately create the conditions that lead to more violence - an underground drug trade.
If they are "blind to the effects," then it is not deliberate. "Deliberate" is intentional and conscious. It means they are aware, and they do it intentionally.
by Galloism » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:48 am
by Galloism » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:50 am
Frazers wrote:Galloism wrote:I think we should take driver's licenses away from people who drive drunk and/or terribly stupidly as well - because that's a direct response to the exact problem being addressed.
So we're saying that a vote fraudster couldn't repeat their crime if their individual vote was removed?
Interesting. Could you explain how that works exactly?
by Bari » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:50 am
Galloism wrote:Bari wrote:If they are "blind to the effects," then it is not deliberate. "Deliberate" is intentional and conscious. It means they are aware, and they do it intentionally.
Are you suggesting that someone who votes that a drug should be illegal is not deliberately creating an underground drug trade?
Like it's an accident that they voted that way? Are they from Florida?
by Galloism » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:52 am
Bari wrote:Galloism wrote:Are you suggesting that someone who votes that a drug should be illegal is not deliberately creating an underground drug trade?
Like it's an accident that they voted that way? Are they from Florida?
I am not only suggesting it. I am explicitly stating it.
Prove to me that they deliberately want to attempt to create crime. A vote for a certain position is not prima facie evidence that they want to create crime, because, for all we know, they may believe that it is for the better of society.
Deliberately creating crime does not equal, in any way, deliberately voting for a position that may indirectly lead to more crime.
by The Black Forrest » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:54 am
The Grey Wolf wrote:After they serve their sentence, they should be allowed to vote and run for office, is that really so hard?
by L Ron Cupboard » Sat Oct 18, 2014 9:58 am
Bari wrote:As for the first sentence, then do you think that non-U.S. citizens should be able to vote in a U.S. election if they have reached the age of majority?
Bari wrote:For the second sentence, is it not true that criminals surrender some of their rights to the state once they commit a crime? Is that not how we are allowed to incarcerate them, fine them, seize their property and execute them?
by Galloism » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:01 am
L Ron Cupboard wrote:Bari wrote:As for the first sentence, then do you think that non-U.S. citizens should be able to vote in a U.S. election if they have reached the age of majority?
I don't understand how that follows from what I said, or how it is relevant in this thread?Bari wrote:For the second sentence, is it not true that criminals surrender some of their rights to the state once they commit a crime? Is that not how we are allowed to incarcerate them, fine them, seize their property and execute them?
The state takes specific rights from them according to the sentence they are given (I live in the UK so we always respect their right to life). To me I don't see why if two people commit the same crime, but one of them receives a custodial sentence and the other doesn't. why one of them should be disenfranchised and the other not. I really don't see why loss of the vote should be tied to only a prison sentence. This leaves either any one found guilty loses their voting rights or nobody loses their voting rights; I believe the latter is preferable because it gives an incentive to the state not to imprison too high a percentage of the population. If the prison population is so large it becomes a significant voting power bloc if they had/have the vote, then the government is probably in the wrong.
by Bari » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:02 am
by L Ron Cupboard » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:03 am
Galloism wrote:Like say the 1 in 13 African Americans who cannot vote because they've been disenfranchised?
by Galloism » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:03 am
Bari wrote:Galloism wrote:That's exactly how I felt reading your post.
I will state this as simply as possible. If a person does not have the ability to legally cast a vote, he more likely than not want that ability. If given the opportunity, he will attempt to obtain the ability. A U.S. state has been legally authorized by the U.S. Constitution to disenfranchise and enfranchise criminals, however it sees fit. Therefore, a U.S. state may disenfranchise a criminal upon his conviction. The same U.S. state may also set requirements that, when satisfied, allow for the same criminal to be enfranchised. Those requirements may be whatsoever the U.S. state wants. If the U.S. state requires the no further criminal activity misdemeanor takes place of the aforementioned criminal, then enfranchisement may be employed to cut down on recidivism. If the U.S. state requires that all legal fines and court fees be paid off, then enfranchisement may be employed to collect any debts. Suffrage may be restored to first-time felons, whereafter they may be disenfranchised, again, used to cut down on recidivism. The U.S. state may allow for a petition from the felon to have his suffrage restored; the U.S. state can then require good behavior (i.e., no DWI, no violent crimes etc.) from the felon for a given period of time.
The U.S. state has options. It is not only, "Felons are disenfranchised forever," or, "Felons are not disenfranchised forever."
by Galloism » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:05 am
by Bari » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:07 am
L Ron Cupboard wrote:Bari wrote:As for the first sentence, then do you think that non-U.S. citizens should be able to vote in a U.S. election if they have reached the age of majority?
I don't understand how that follows from what I said, or how it is relevant in this thread?Bari wrote:For the second sentence, is it not true that criminals surrender some of their rights to the state once they commit a crime? Is that not how we are allowed to incarcerate them, fine them, seize their property and execute them?
The state takes specific rights from them according to the sentence they are given (I live in the UK so we always respect their right to life). To me I don't see why if two people commit the same crime, but one of them receives a custodial sentence and the other doesn't. why one of them should be disenfranchised and the other not. I really don't see why loss of the vote should be tied to only a prison sentence. This leaves either any one found guilty loses their voting rights or nobody loses their voting rights; I believe the latter is preferable because it gives an incentive to the state not to imprison too high a percentage of the population. If the prison population is so large it becomes a significant voting power bloc if they had/have the vote, then the government is probably in the wrong.
by Frazers » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:08 am
Galloism wrote:Frazers wrote:
So we're saying that a vote fraudster couldn't repeat their crime if their individual vote was removed?
Interesting. Could you explain how that works exactly?
Well, I mean you have a point there - that's true, and I don't think "take the vote away" is the only thing you should do to a vote fraudster. Prison seems appropriate for subverting the democratic process.
Just like taking a driver's license away from someone doesn't mean they can't repeat their crime of drunk driving.
by Galloism » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:11 am
Frazers wrote:Galloism wrote:Well, I mean you have a point there - that's true, and I don't think "take the vote away" is the only thing you should do to a vote fraudster. Prison seems appropriate for subverting the democratic process.
Just like taking a driver's license away from someone doesn't mean they can't repeat their crime of drunk driving.
So when I want to imprison and disenfranchise someone because they attempted to subvert the democratic process (through terrorist activities) i'm different to you and your view of vote fraudsters how?
by Frazers » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:15 am
Galloism wrote:Frazers wrote:
So when I want to imprison and disenfranchise someone because they attempted to subvert the democratic process (through terrorist activities) i'm different to you and your view of vote fraudsters how?
Hmm, if the goal of blowing someone up was to subvert the democratic process, then I'm sort of on board with disenfranchisement.
But if the goal of blowing someone up was that an italian/chinese eatery should never ever have existed in the first place, I'm less ok with disenfranchisement.
by Galloism » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:16 am
Frazers wrote:Galloism wrote:Hmm, if the goal of blowing someone up was to subvert the democratic process, then I'm sort of on board with disenfranchisement.
But if the goal of blowing someone up was that an italian/chinese eatery should never ever have existed in the first place, I'm less ok with disenfranchisement.
So what in particular about your disenfranchisement limits makes them better than others?
by L Ron Cupboard » Sat Oct 18, 2014 10:48 am
Bari wrote:
Did you not say, "I think everybody who has reached the age of majority should be able to vote?"
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Barinive, Google [Bot], Ineva, Keltionialang, Neu California, THe cHadS, Tiami, Tungstan, W3C [Validator]
Advertisement