|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 5, 2011 14:07:00 GMT -5
Its not a matter of what I feel, its a matter of what's right. You deny a group of people who otherwise meet the minimum requirements for a say (citizenship, SS number, over the age of majority, etc), you've no right calling your country free. The same could easily be applied to homosexuals in a fundamentalist light. They violate the "natural laws," why would they have a say in a country that is majority heterosexual? "So long as one of us is in chains, none of us are free." Do you agree 5 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote? In case you missed it. |
|
|
|
Post by brandonl337 on Sept 5, 2011 21:29:46 GMT -5
"So long as one of us is in chains, none of us are free." Can I get a source for this? I recognize it but can't place who said it. |
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Sept 6, 2011 2:46:52 GMT -5
That's a very good question...I remember it from some power ballad my dad listens to on occasion, but I'm sure the source is far older than that.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 6, 2011 4:07:08 GMT -5
Do you agree 5 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote? In case you missed it. Didn't answer my question. Do0 you agree 5 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote? And if so (or not) why? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 6, 2011 4:08:20 GMT -5
Do we really need the stupid people's input though? Can't we just give them an elastic band and a potato and let them amuse themselves while we get on with the business of running the country? But then the GOP would have lost 90% of their voters. Right, because there are no stupid, kool aid democrats *rolls eyes* |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 8:14:00 GMT -5
I realize the question isn't posed to me but I'll take a shot at answering it. In the United States, all sovereignty derives from "We the People" (this philosophy is known as "popular sovereignty"). The People vest much of their sovereignty in the states, and the states in turn vest some of their sovereignty in the federal government. Children are people but are not Sovereigns: they are under the custody of other Sovereigns. They therefore have no sovereignty to vest in the government by voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Sept 6, 2011 12:51:17 GMT -5
But then the GOP would have lost 90% of their voters. Right, because there are no stupid, kool aid democrats *rolls eyes* Maybe so, but a loss of 90% of the GOP voters and 80% of Democrat voters is still a Democrat advantage. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 6, 2011 17:07:39 GMT -5
I realize the question isn't posed to me but I'll take a shot at answering it. In the United States, all sovereignty derives from "We the People" (this philosophy is known as "popular sovereignty"). The People vest much of their sovereignty in the states, and the states in turn vest some of their sovereignty in the federal government. Children are people but are not Sovereigns: they are under the custody of other Sovereigns. They therefore have no sovereignty to vest in the government by voting. Yeah... and just look how that "we the people" thing is working out for you *cough* teabaggers *cough* Michelle Bachman *cough cough* |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 17:46:13 GMT -5
You may disagree that popular sovereignty is the best philosophy to adopt in forming a system of government, but it doesn't change the fact that popular sovereignty is the founding basis of the United States, and that that is the answer to your question.
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Sept 6, 2011 18:37:12 GMT -5
I realize the question isn't posed to me but I'll take a shot at answering it. In the United States, all sovereignty derives from "We the People" (this philosophy is known as "popular sovereignty"). The People vest much of their sovereignty in the states, and the states in turn vest some of their sovereignty in the federal government. Children are people but are not Sovereigns: they are under the custody of other Sovereigns. They therefore have no sovereignty to vest in the government by voting. Yeah... and just look how that "we the people" thing is working out for you *cough* teabaggers *cough* Michelle Bachman *cough cough* It's better to let all people, including idiots, have the right to vote, rather than restricting the vote due to arbitrary and subjective lines. |
|
|
|
Post by Dragon Zachski on Sept 6, 2011 18:40:39 GMT -5
Its not a matter of what I feel, its a matter of what's right. You deny a group of people who otherwise meet the minimum requirements for a say (citizenship, SS number, over the age of majority, etc), you've no right calling your country free. The same could easily be applied to homosexuals in a fundamentalist light. They violate the "natural laws," why would they have a say in a country that is majority heterosexual? "So long as one of us is in chains, none of us are free." Do you agree 5 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote? Argumentum ad Absurdium, LHM? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 6, 2011 20:27:27 GMT -5
You may disagree that popular sovereignty is the best philosophy to adopt in forming a system of government, but it doesn't change the fact that popular sovereignty is the founding basis of the United States, and that that is the answer to your question. Um... not really, it doesn't. OK, so universal suffrage is a founding principle of the US (except for women and black people, of course) Other "founding principles" have been changed and dropped in the past, why not this one? You guys tried alcohol prohibition, and it didn't work, so you dropped it. No reason the same can't be done for universal suffrage. I'll point out, by the way, that I'm not saying stupid people shouldn't get a vote. I'm just suggesting that intelligent people should get MORE votes. Thus the outcome is weighted in favour of the candidates favoured by the more intelligent. |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 6, 2011 20:29:08 GMT -5
Yeah... and just look how that "we the people" thing is working out for you *cough* teabaggers *cough* Michelle Bachman *cough cough* It's better to let all people, including idiots, have the right to vote, rather than restricting the vote due to arbitrary and subjective lines. Aside from the fact that the right to vote is ALREADY subject to arbitrary and subjective lines (e.g. age, criminal convictions)... why? Why is it "better" to let stupid people elect morons than impose some sort of system where the outcome is more likely to be beneficial for all? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Sept 6, 2011 20:35:19 GMT -5
Do you agree 5 year olds shouldn't be allowed to vote? Argumentum ad Absurdium, LHM? Not at all. An attempt to clarify a principle. If it is seen as fair and reasonable that 5 year olds don't get to vote (well, OBVIOUSLY they shouldn't, 5 year olds are ignorant, uninformed, and don't have the capacity to evaluate long term interests for themselves or others) than why is it any less reasonable to think that adults with the same level of political understanding and accountability as the average 5 year old should get to vote? My point is that there are people out there who quite literally have less ability to make sensible political decisions than the average 5 year old. I don't see why age necessarily makes their shitty decisions somehow more valid or worthwhile. By the way, none of this is to suggest there is anything BAD or WRONG with stupid and/or ignorant people. But when it comes to decision making, don't you want the people best suited to make them doing it? I think of it sort of like a large building project. Are the brick layers and concreters important? You bet your arse. They are vital! But do you want the bricklayers designing the roof trusses or working out how deep to dig the foundations, or would you rather leave that sort of decision to the civil engineers and architects? |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Sept 6, 2011 20:42:34 GMT -5
Because stupid and ignorant people (provided they aren't deemed mentally disabled) are still Sovereigns. It isn't about being smart enough; it's about the sovereignty of the People.
The United States Constitution does not tolerate classes of people. You cannot have an over-class of intelligentsia (determined by whom? I would add) and and under-class of ignorant subservient runtlings. What you're proposing sounds like something out of Well's The Time Machine.
|
|
