funnily enough

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWa8w0aCdTE

so this is a interesting concept

the best thought on it is the book starship troopers

highly recommend

service earns citizenship

Earning the right to vote seems fishy to me

its obviously wrong

when the state gets to decide who votes on totally obligatory criteria then it is no longer a democracy

plus the whole concept of representetive democracy goes down the toilet

If you cant vote you arent represented

Well nobody was saying the government would decide who gets to vote.

You're making a straw man, friend.

And franti, we already have certain restrictions on voting.

To say 'if you can't vote you aren't represented' misses the point of the representation. The vote doesn't represent you, politicians do.

At least, that's the hope.

So even if you can vote, that doesn't mean your personal interestes are represented. In fact no one's interests are represented 100% of the time.

To be clear Radeon, the US isn't a democracy. It's a constitutional republic.

Direct democracy is basically mob rule and it's a horrible way to do just about anything.

At least of a bureaucratic nature.

i'm against literally all voting restrictions for what its worth

so long as youre a citizen ofc

age limits?

well that too

naturally

what if someone is a terrorist? should there be systems in place to prevent them from voting?

are there enough terrorists to matter? who gets to decide what is terrorism and what isnt?

Terrorism is political violence

Assuming there aren't now, would you change your mind if there was a lot more terrorists in the future?

is war political violence?

Terrorism excludes state military force.

so was the boston tea party a terrorist act? how about the warsaw uprising?

what if one of the states involved is completely unrecognized?

Like the Islamic State?

like kosovo etc

but yes

https://www.bostonteapartyship.com/boston-tea-party-facts

Sure, we can assume those occurences were terrorism by nature.

btp is a horrible example

ok, the entire revolutionary war

well I was gonna just brush over it for sake of argument but Dan piped up

my point is that the word terrorist in modern use simply means attacks from people we don't like

just dont like misrepresentation

my bad on derailing

no prob

there are dozens of events that are technically terrorism that we can easily morally justify

i don't like how terrorist is just a political buzzword

I'll grant you that terrorism is not a clearly defined term, and deciding whether or not to label particular groups or events as terrorist can be tricky.

it can be used interchangibly with "freedom fighter" from the other side

But for the sake of argument, can we not assume that a particular individual is very much a terrorist?

i think its better to actually examine suspented 'terrorists' on the merits of their methods and goals

This is really skirting around the point of my older question, so I'll ask a different one. Should someone with a warrant for murder be able to vote?

to answer your question, no , i dont think we can justify denying voting rights to 'terrorists' because the word terrorist has no clear definition beyond "enemies of the state"

ah ok

with a warrant? them trying to vote would naturally set off a few bells

Not if we don't require IDs.

i would definitely require an ID

and make IDs totally free

Paid for by tax dollars?

well yea i can easily justify taxation if its a benefit given to literally everybody

But not everyone pays taxes.

ID's cant be that expensive

yes but everyone will eventually pay taxes at some point

Not true.

even if its sales tax

unless you live in the woods foraging in which case you probably don't have an ID anyway

So you're assuming that we'll be able to cover at least the IDs just fine because naturally everybody has to pay state sales tax.

if an ID is needed to vote the state should supply them free of charge

What about Oregon? They have no sales tax.

naturally they can't be willed into existence so it will be paid for by tax

So how do they pay for the IDs out of everyone's pocket fairly?

i'm sure they can find the $10 a person they need to make some ID's

Should they charge you $10 for your ID at he DMV?

I mean, you're gonna pay it anyway in sales tax, right?

no, because then you are creating a financial barrier to voting

No, the financial barrier is there no matter where you put it.

That's a pretty basic economic principle.

When politicians say they're going to reduce the cost of healthcare, they don't really mean that.

It's not possible at actually reduce the cost of the healthcare without actually making the service less valuable.

of course

You can only relocate the cost.

im making a special case for things which are actual rights

like voting

i think financial barriers are infringement

what if the state decided to charge $10,000 for ID's? whats stopping them?

then only the super rich would vote.

this is obviously an extreme case

What I'm saying is you literally cannot eliminate the cost. It has to go somewhere.

likewise infringing on the second amendment by requiring permits, stamps etc which are prohibitively expensive

Otherwise the system breaks down.

i get that

i don't mind being taxed for a system I don't use so long as that system is still available to me

for instance the public school system

Let me ask this question, why should everyone have the right to vote? Why is voting a right for all legal adult citizens?

voting isn't intrinsicly a right but you have a right to self-determination and casting your vote is part of that

Voting means defining the extent to which government can use force.

Government being defined as the body which has a monopoly on the justified use of force.

So you could say that voting is exerting force or restraining force.

This is quite different from self-determination.