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.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-43255878

@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.

https://youtu.be/IdkPBbztfUU

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?

What on earth is the point you two are arguing @Beemann @Shadows

Fun times?

Service Guarantees Citizenship

Which then got a constitutional integrity argument tacked onto it

@Beemann you are saying that if some does a country a service, they get citizenship

Also, I've never seen a Justicar video where he made sense

@Deleted User that’s what I’m wondering lol

It's Heinlein, Starship Troopers. The vote is attached to service - whether public or military. I'm asking for reasons why it's bad

@Beemann I suppose because voting has historically been the right of the citizen?

Basically the rule is that everyone has a right to be able to serve, so long as they're mentally capable of consenting to the contract, and they must find something for you to do

I wouldn't consider a historical trend to be a good argument. All new ideas buck some historical trend. That being said, society in this hypothetical is split into Citizens and Civilians, with the former having done service

I guess I don’t have a problem per se of requiring service for the vote, but I don’t want to deny citizenship to those who don’t serve, because then they would not be protected by the constitution

Are you advocating for required service for citizens, like Israel perhaps?

It's sort of the other way around

You automatically get your usual set of rights, minus voting. Voting is an earned privilege
Ergo, you're not forced into service, but not serving means you also cannot exert government force over others

Beyond rights protection, of course

I’d have to think about it, but on principle I’m not opposed

Although you’d have to provide an alternative to those who are unable to serve in the military

Military service is just the most obvious course. And again, the idea is that service becomes a right. You cannot be denied the opportunity unless you are mentally incapable of signing a contract

For physically disabled people, for example

Oh ok