Message from @Thomas the Sowell Train [USA]
Discord ID: 380769280204996615
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