Old people shouldn't be able to vote

[Andsed]

I am guessing your referring to those under 18? Because I would quite frankly be fine with lowering the voting age to 16.

People under 18, non-citizens, etc. Are these limitations "Undemocratic"?

In a way yes(though not really in the case of non-citizens since it does not make much sense to allow those who are not citizens of a nation vote in it's election.). But I might have exaggerated with my earlier statement. We should not be letting teens and children vote. But aside from that law abiding citizens should not have their right to vote revoked. Especially if the "justification" for taking away those voting rights is due to their political beliefs.

[Blyathuania]

If I'm not represented in government, then it's a tragedy that must be rectified immediately. But why must that privilege be applied to others, especially those who are my ideological enemies?

For the same reasons you have them. Your not anymore inherently deserving of them than other people and rights and political freedoms don’t just not apply to those you do not like. The mere suggestion of taking away voting rights of law abiding citizens simply for their voting habits and beliefs is inherently undemocratic.

> Rights

For all intents and purposes, "rights" are just privileges that a society arbitrarily deems important, backed up with the use of force. "Rights" are nothing but spooks, with no intrinsic existence outside of collective delusion, and such "rights" are only justified if they benefit me.

[Telconi]

People under 18, non-citizens, etc. Are these limitations "Undemocratic"?

In a way yes(though not really in the case of non-citizens since it does not make much sense to allow those who are not citizens of a nation vote in it's election.). But I might have exaggerated with my earlier statement. We should not be letting teens and children vote. But aside from that law abiding citizens should not have their right to vote revoked. Especially if the "justification" for taking away those voting rights is due to their political beliefs.

Why shouldn't we let teens and children vote?

[Deacarsia]

and they are not net tax payers. And you want to abolish things that *would* make them net taxpayers.
Stop dodging the question.

I am not dodging the question! Poor people can be net taxpayers, there is no logical reason why they could not. Not all poor people accept public assistance, and more power to them. Not all rich people pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and shame on them.

The equilibrium most likely would be some poor people cannot vote due to public assistance, while most people can vote as they are net taxpayers. The government should have to justify spending to those who pay for them, i.e. net taxpayers, not those who receive payment, i.e. net tax consumers.

Obviously receivers would prefer to receive more regardless of justification, while payers would prefer that the money is spent wisely. Since a tax cut would either deprive existing taxpayers of their votes or add former tax consumers to the voting rolls, the taxing and spending levels would tend to settle at a socially optimal level.

The point is not to disenfranchise the poor, but to make sure that money is spent wisely, and if welfare is a social priority, then the poor may receive it, but at the expense of losing the ability to vote themselves ever larger benefits. The same applied to the rich receiving corporate welfare, to the elderly receiving old age pensions, to defense contractors receiving military spending, and to anyone who is a net drain on the public till.

I have been cordial up to this point, but my patience is wearing thin. So far, all you have done is move the goalposts and make bald assertions. If you disagree with the idea, which by the way is not my original idea (see here and here), then agree to disagree, as I said in the last message. I do not think that we are going to convince each other, but let other people decide by reading our previous messages.

If you are honest, then we can agree to disagree, but if not, then I refuse to keep feeding a troll.

[Andsed]

For the same reasons you have them. Your not anymore inherently deserving of them than other people and rights and political freedoms don’t just not apply to those you do not like. The mere suggestion of taking away voting rights of law abiding citizens simply for their voting habits and beliefs is inherently undemocratic.

> Rights

For all intents and purposes, "rights" are just privileges that a society arbitrarily deems important, backed up with the use of force. "Rights" are nothing but spooks, with no intrinsic existence outside of collective delusion, and such "rights" are only justified if they benefit me.

Oh great the cancerous ideology of "fuck you got mine" rears it's head once again. Seeing as you clearly don't care about others and their lives I doubt anything I will say will convince you. So I leave you with the golden rules of "treat others how you wish to be treated."

In a way yes(though not really in the case of non-citizens since it does not make much sense to allow those who are not citizens of a nation vote in it's election.). But I might have exaggerated with my earlier statement. We should not be letting teens and children vote. But aside from that law abiding citizens should not have their right to vote revoked. Especially if the "justification" for taking away those voting rights is due to their political beliefs.

Why shouldn't we let teens and children vote?

Honestly I would not be 100% opposed to allowing them to do so.

[Kubra]

and they are not net tax payers. And you want to abolish things that *would* make them net taxpayers.
Stop dodging the question.

I am not dodging the question! Poor people can be net taxpayers, there is no logical reason why they could not. Not all poor people accept public assistance, and more power to them. Not all rich people pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits, and shame on them.

The equilibrium most likely would be some poor people cannot vote due to public assistance, while most people can vote as they are net taxpayers. The government should have to justify spending to those who pay for them, i.e. net taxpayers, not those who receive payment, i.e. net tax consumers.

Obviously receivers would prefer to receive more regardless of justification, while payers would prefer that the money is spent wisely. Since a tax cut would either deprive existing taxpayers of their votes or add former tax consumers to the voting rolls, the taxing and spending levels would tend to settle at a socially optimal level.

The point is not to disenfranchise the poor, but to make sure that money is spent wisely, and if welfare is a social priority, then the poor may receive it, but at the expense of losing the ability to vote themselves ever larger benefits. The same applied to the rich receiving corporate welfare, to the elderly receiving old age pensions, to defense contractors receiving military spending, and to anyone who is a net drain on the public till.

I have been cordial up to this point, but my patience is wearing thin. So far, all you have done is move the goalposts and make bald assertions. If you disagree with the idea, which by the way is not my original idea (see here and here), then agree to disagree, as I said in the last message. I do not think that we are going to convince each other, but let other people decide by reading our previous messages.

If you are honest, then we can agree to disagree, but if not, then I refuse to keep feeding a troll.

Sure there is: by receiving tax deductions and refunds. Which they do under certain income thresholds, regardless of whether or not they receive overt public assistance. You've discussed numerous ideas for *removing* taxes, bringing folks out of "net taxpayer" status, but no policies for making folks such. How else am I supposed to interpret this?

[Chan Island]

Of course old people should be allowed to vote you authoritaian twat.

[Telconi]

> Rights

For all intents and purposes, "rights" are just privileges that a society arbitrarily deems important, backed up with the use of force. "Rights" are nothing but spooks, with no intrinsic existence outside of collective delusion, and such "rights" are only justified if they benefit me.

Oh great the cancerous ideology of "fuck you got mine" rears it's head once again. Seeing as you clearly don't care about others and their lives I doubt anything I will say will convince you. So I leave you with the golden rules of "treat others how you wish to be treated."

Why shouldn't we let teens and children vote?

Honestly I would not be 100% opposed to allowing them to do so.

My daughter said Rapunzel should be president. Kind of a wasted vote IMO.

[Eitoan]

No.

And get off my lawn!

[Blyathuania]

> Rights

For all intents and purposes, "rights" are just privileges that a society arbitrarily deems important, backed up with the use of force. "Rights" are nothing but spooks, with no intrinsic existence outside of collective delusion, and such "rights" are only justified if they benefit me.

Oh great the cancerous ideology of "fuck you got mine" rears it's head once again. Seeing as you clearly don't care about others and their lives I doubt anything I will say will convince you. So I leave you with the golden rules of "treat others how you wish to be treated."

What rational basis is there for me to follow the golden rule, outside of the fear of retribution? And show me how the lives of other beings magically have "value" somehow.

[Cekoviu]

A relevant quote from a great philosopher:
"You don't get to order for the table if you're about to leave the restaurant."
-- Pete Davidson

[Kubra]

Oh yeah, topic relevance.
I got news for ya'll: you will all grow old.

[Cekoviu]

Oh yeah, topic relevance.
I got news for ya'll: you will all grow old.

Incorrect. Society will collapse and most of us will kill ourselves or be killed. For the younger ones, this will happen prior to growing old.

[The East Marches II]

Oh yeah, topic relevance.
I got news for ya'll: you will all grow old.

Are you sure though?

[Deacarsia]

Sure there is: by receiving tax deductions and refunds. Which they do under certain income thresholds, regardless of whether or not they receive overt public assistance. You've discussed numerous ideas for *removing* taxes, bringing folks out of "net taxpayer" status, but no policies for making folks such. How else am I supposed to interpret this?

Tax refunds are not government payment. It merely means that you are receiving money back you already paid in taxes, unless you receive refundable tax credits that bring your balance below zero.

My ideas for removing taxes are a separate matter from the argument. The point is that I am arguing in favor of restricting the vote to net taxpayers, regardless of the tax structure.

The point is not how to make people net taxpayers, or who exactly is a net taxpayer. I argue that allowing net tax consumers to vote is unsustainable, at least in the long-run, regardless of their identities, which neither you nor anyone else has addressed or refuted.

Stop moving the goalposts.

[The East Marches II]

Oh yeah, topic relevance.
I got news for ya'll: you will all grow old.

Incorrect. Society will collapse and most of us will kill ourselves or be killed. For the younger ones, this will happen prior to growing old.

I'm clicking on the desire to know more button

[Totenborg]

Sure there is: by receiving tax deductions and refunds. Which they do under certain income thresholds, regardless of whether or not they receive overt public assistance. You've discussed numerous ideas for *removing* taxes, bringing folks out of "net taxpayer" status, but no policies for making folks such. How else am I supposed to interpret this?

Tax refunds are not government payment. It merely means that you are receiving money back you already paid in taxes, unless you receive refundable tax credits that bring your balance below zero.

My ideas for removing taxes are a separate matter from the argument. The point is that I am arguing in favor of restricting the vote to net taxpayers, regardless of the tax structure.

The point is not how to make people net taxpayers, or who exactly is a net taxpayer. I argue that allowing net tax consumers to vote is unsustainable, at least in the long-run, regardless of their identities, which neither you nor anyone else has addressed or refuted.

Stop moving the goalposts.

And we're arguing that such a set of restrictions will do little more than disenfranchise the poor.

[Cekoviu]

Incorrect. Society will collapse and most of us will kill ourselves or be killed. For the younger ones, this will happen prior to growing old.

I'm clicking on the desire to know more button

The proliferation of poverty, drought, and famine; massive outfluxes of climate refugees; cities, even countries being swallowed by the sea; technological failure; political and economic collapse -- these constitute our near future.

[Kubra]

Sure there is: by receiving tax deductions and refunds. Which they do under certain income thresholds, regardless of whether or not they receive overt public assistance. You've discussed numerous ideas for *removing* taxes, bringing folks out of "net taxpayer" status, but no policies for making folks such. How else am I supposed to interpret this?

Tax refunds are not government payment. It merely means that you are receiving money back you already paid in taxes, unless you receive refundable tax credits that bring your balance below zero.

My ideas for removing taxes are a separate matter from the argument. The point is that I am arguing in favor of restricting the vote to net taxpayers, regardless of the tax structure.

The point is not how to make people net taxpayers, or who exactly is a net taxpayer. I argue that allowing net tax consumers to vote is unsustainable at least in the long-run, regardless of their identities, which neither you nor anyone else has addressed or refuted.

Stop moving the goalposts.

which makes one not a "net taxpayer". That's what net means. If I have a gross profit of 15 million but 15 million in operating costs, I have a net profit of 0. In short, I have not made money.
They are not separate, because the argument that has been made is you want to disenfranchise the poor. If your ideas on removing taxes involve, you know, disenfranchising the poor, I'd say it's *fairly* relevant, no?
Sure sure, regardless of their indentities, which just so happens to include 15 milion low-income americans.

[Kubra]

Incorrect. Society will collapse and most of us will kill ourselves or be killed. For the younger ones, this will happen prior to growing old.

I'm clicking on the desire to know more button

life expectancy is expected to rapidly drop when we switch to a badass raider gang based economy

[The East Marches II]

I'm clicking on the desire to know more button

life expectancy is expected to rapidly drop when we switch to a badass raider gang based economy

Good thing I've already got a V8 with which to ride shiny & chrome. Except instead of riding around with flamethrower guitar set up, I'm capturing Death Grips or my man Viper and making them play for the road warriors.

[Fahran]

A relevant quote from a great philosopher:
"You don't get to order for the table if you're about to leave the restaurant."
-- Pete Davidson

Except that metaphor isn't appropriate for a democratic government. The elderly have rendered service to the state and deserve representation just as much if not more so than people have rendered less service.

[Kubra]

life expectancy is expected to rapidly drop when we switch to a badass raider gang based economy

Good thing I've already got a V8 with which to ride shiny & chrome. Except instead of riding around with flamethrower guitar set up, I'm capturing Death Grips or my man Viper and making them play for the road warriors.

blaring takyon while gunning down effete town-dwellers and mischievous plant-growers.

[Salus Maior]

If you're going to start closing off the vote to significant portions of the population, then we're better without it altogether.

Monarchy time.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Just like there is an age restriction for when people can vote there should also be an age restriction for when people have to stop voting.

These group of people are most actively chased after by politicians to the detriment of young people who are the main or future participants in the economy and future of a country.

Do you agree with this proposition?

In no way do I agree. Besides, many of the people you want to disenfranchise with your proposal are the people that write the laws, so that bill wouldn't even make it onto paper, let alone into a committee. They're not going to screw themselves out of the vote.