Message from @radeon
Discord ID: 380770818419982336
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?
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.
So for example, someone who's commited a serious enough crime can no longer legally purcahase a firearm. Similarly, it might be reasonable to limit that person's ability to contribute to decisions on when firearms should be used, or perhaps what restrictions there should be on the purchase of firearms.
did I do a smart, Dan? I hope so because I don't think the proper conclusions on this subject are quite so obvious, and I'm still trying to figure out what I think
i think its fair
i think the only other point that could be made is if a felon gets his rights taken away you dont get to pick and choose which ones you get back
so if you want to give a felon the right to vote back
you better give them the right to firearm ownership as well
i think a better question comes into the idea of positive and negative rights