Message from @Beemann
Discord ID: 531722965428207616
and yet you ask me to respect it
so no, "muh constitution" is not a valid basis for voting as a right, as evidenced by both of our stated positions. You're going to have to dig a little deeper
I'm not asking you to do anything, you are free to push any system you want. I'm telling you, that what you propose is an awful system, i also didn't just say because of the constitutions, i clearly said it also a horrible tier system of voting.
While it may have usefulness, it will make for an unstable 2nd class system.
You made a blunt assertion with no backing. Hardly a convincing argument
you also live in a country where the system has already been implemented in the inverse - people who do not serve have their voting "rights" taken away
Is that the rule tho?
yes
Depending on the state, a federal offense carries with it the removal of franchise for a period of time. Some states dont have a maximum period - removal is indefinite
not signing up for SS by 26 can get you charged, thereby removing your right to vote temporarily or permanently
what's more, this two tier system specifically targets a section of the population based on arbitrary characteristics
so already my suggestion is an upgrade ;)
No, again, i understand those laws. But those don't change the general rule.
what?
>voting is an immutable right
>except when it isn't
how is that not creating an "unstable second tier"?
Are free citizens allowed to vote? Yes. Are their some instances where this can be taking away? Yes (depending on your actions). Does this change the rule that free citizens are allowed to vote? No.
Unless you believe everything can be perfect.
Sorry, a person who does not sign up for service getting their voting rights taken away is a free citizen?
There are very limited instances of that really happening, but i am also one that would like that rule to be changed. None of that changes the general rule.
So what is the specific general rule then?
what rule allows actual honest disenfranchisement based on an arbitrarily implied duty but is still "for everyone"?
One that was better then the previous one (the draft), but can still be better.
sorry, that doesnt answer the question
what is the general rule for voting
that isnt violated by this decision?
I've already said it many times, being a free citizen of the US, means you have a choice to vote or not. And yes, there are some expecting, but you don't negate the general rule because of outliers.
that's not the rule, as per the other rules that exist
*thinks this should of happened in general, so people could link stuff if they want*
We can move it to any channel you like (or DMs if you'd prefer that. Whatever works). That said, I'm gonna go to sleep, because you're now just insisting that I accept a blatantly contradictory set of statements, while also downplaying things that do happen in favour of critiquing things that *could* happen in a hypothetical situation. I'll check messages in the morning if you have any further responses, linked or otherwise. I'm not about to watch a series of longass videos or read a whole book though (I've had both expectations lumped on me in the past, just covering that base well in advance)
Good night my dude, take care
Catch you later.
wew lads - that was quite the wall of text
Shadows hasn’t said anything contradictory as far as I can tell.
You are proposing a system that compels government service in order to get full rights as a citizen. i.e. the citizen isn’t getting full rights because of government encroaching on their rights. How is this any different than the issue with the 2A? People voluntarily commit felonies to get their voting rights temporarily or permanently suspended, but that doesn’t change the fact that the same people previously had the right to vote because they are citizens. I think shadows point is that it is inconsistent to violate one set of rights to protect another.
Plus, how would compulsory government service actually protect rights? There’s no guarantee that people would just adopt a more libertarian/conservative stance on the 2A. The problem is that the gun control freaks don’t understand what actually causes crime to occur, so they pass nonsense laws that don’t affect public safety at all. It just seems as if the goal of this approach is to restrict who gets to vote based on ideological grounds.
@Salacious Swanky Cat
A right is immutable. If it can be taken away, it was never a right
Further, there's no ideological basis. Service can be public service or military. The only requirement is that the individual makes some form of sacrifice (time+effort) to acquire the ability to leverage force against others within the system.
What's contradictory about @Shadows 's position is that, if the constitution were some immutable document, and a real reason to oppose the shift of voting from a right to an earned privilege, then all other constitutional infractions would also be an issue, to the extent that he would be actively fighting against them, no?
And yet instead he made excuses, as to why those infractions are "not bad enough" or "don't really count"
Something cannot be both the source or exhibition of your principles, and also something you can handwave away as it's undermined. That's the inherent contradiction
As to encroachment of rights, that already occurs with voting, as stated prior. What's more, "gun control freaks" depend on uninformed and lazy voters to get laws passed. They do not depend on people who exhibit traits of valuing their freedoms and the responsibilities that come with them. Instead they play to ignorance and fear. They play to selfishness, and a lack of respect for the society one has been born and raised in
There was an anecdote once, about a debate concerning Heinlein's idea of earned voting, in which the opposition was invariably comprised of people who wouldnt serve, and the people who were for it were invariably comprised of people who would. I don't think this is the case across the board, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was *largely* true. People just seem to want a free ticket to the government force lottery, and it's a bit fucked
@Beemann At no point did i say the constitution is immutable... How could that be, we have changed it many times already, i was talking about rights. So what is required to do so is to follow the document to see if you can make the change you desire. And what you suggested will fail as its not constitutional (but i don't mind exploring ideas). Tho i wasn't talking about what you may believe to be the best as merely flawed because its unconstitutional, but because it creates an unbalanced system of second class people who don't get voice in their governance, any system that employs this falls apart as it creates unrest for those without a say.
As for what you believe to be inconsistency in what i'm talking about when it comes to how the constitution has already been abused, so why i've not called out in fiery each and ever time it happens. Well, for one, i wasn't born 100+ years ago when that started, and i won't be around far into the future to prevent it from occurring again, and as i'm merely one person, i can't fix everything that's been abused about it. But you seem to only see the abuses of the constitution, and yes, i see those as well (and some things we do need to fix), but i also see the bolstering of it as well, as we have strengthen many forms of our individual rights then when that document was first created. So yes are system is set up to allow for some push and pull in these things, as to not create even more bloodshed ever time our actions fail our ideals.
If you, or anyone else would like, this has some good points about the last thing i was saying. Feel free to let me know what he gets wrong.
1. You stated that rights are immutable, but have stated that things cannot be done "because of the constitution" when neither of those things have historically been the case, which was 1 point of contention
2. The video is moot. It's not actually what we're discussing. If anything, Justicar's comment re: rights being the antithesis of democracy, can arguably be used in my favour
3. It only creates two classes insofar as people choose to allow it. By this logic, anyone who doesn't register to vote is also part of a "second class", as is anyone prevented from voting due to franchise removal
4. If the constitution is the gold standard, it's not a case of some of of needing to be fixed. It's a case of all of it needing to be fixed.
5. What has been bolstered within the last 100 years?
Fun times?