Welcome To Costco I Love You
"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt
Keep your religion out of other people's marriages.
Not just welfare reciepients.
Which is why I disagree with limiting JUST welfare recipients from voting. And it's why I say attempts to do such, and only such, are dishonest when they're attempted to be presented as some means of protecting libtery or the integrity of the country or as a means of stopping people from "voting to benefit themselves".
Well first...as I've told all the people who bitch about the constitution or not being "modern" with some of our laws or other things.As far as it goes, I'd rather live under a political system that agrees with me personally instead of being forced to go along with one that I disagree with entirely.
No one is "forcing" you to live in this country.
Second, I expect that everyone would rather live under a political system that agrees with them. And I expect that most people will try to turn the US into such a system; on both sides of the political spectrum.
I at least have a modicum of respect for those that will acknowledge that what they want isn't in line with the constitution, the political philosohpies the government is built on, or other such thing...but it's what they want, and thus they're pushing for it.
That's far better than those who attempt to dishonestly hide their intent, their views, thier purposes, and fraudulently try to sheath themselves in the flag, in the constitution, or in the notions of liberty or freedom. Or who act as if their arguments make logical sense in relation to those things, when in reality they only make logical sense as it relates to their ACTUAL political plans.
If someone wants to come out and say "Hey, I don't want to let Welfare recipients vote because they tend to vote Democrat and I don't want Democrats in control" then I could at least have some respect for that. I wouldn't agree, and I'd think that argument is a horrible one...but I can at least respect they're being honest.
But if someone wants to come out and say "I won't want Welfare recipients to vote because they're 'takers' who will just use their vote to put into power those who will give them more money" then I've got little to no real respect for that, because it's inconsistent bull**** due to their focus on only one of a MULTITUDE of classes of people who could be percieved as "takers" and who use their vote to put into power those who will cause government money to flow into their pockets.
My argument is based strictly on the ethics of Citizen A being able to vote for Citizen B to support him/her. My argument is based strictly on the ethics of those who will incur no consequence of any kind from their vote having ability to vote for how much in taxes others will pay, etc.
My argument is purely philosophical, but it goes to the very heart of what the structure of our social contract and resulting government should be. There is an injustice in a system that allows one group to vote itself benefits at the expense of others.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776
Madison states ...that if everyone can vote, then those with no property will use the power of their vote by means of injustice to take property from those that do.
I am the President see me smile
Why is this the only area where you feel that matters? For instance...My argument is based strictly on the ethics of those who will incur no consequence of any kind from their vote having ability to vote for how much in taxes others will pay, etc.
Why should those who don't pay taxes NOT have a vote on legislators that will determine how much others will be taxed...but those who aren't in the military be able to have a vote on legislators that will determine how much money we'll spend on the military or if they'll authorize military action or, in the case of the President, will be albe to direct the military?
I agree, there's faults in a system that allows one group to vote itself benefits at the expense of others. However, those faults exist across the board. And simply because someone is on welfare does not mean they are not "paying in" to the system. Income Tax is only one method of tax collection.
Now, I've said for some time on this forum, I am in favor of everyone paying at least some amount of income tax. I definitely think there is a problem with regards to the income tax and the politics that can be played with it when everyone doesn't have skin in the game. But I do not believe that removing a fundamental right of citizenship from people based on whether or not they do pay income tax, or whether or not they recieve a particular government benefit, is absolutely wrong and not the correct answer to correct the issue.
And if one will think about it, those on welfare are not the only ones who are not allowed to vote. There's hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of convicted felons who have done their time and paid their debt to society, but are not allowed to vote. And who is it that doesn't want them to vote? Conservatives.
“To do evil, a human being must first of all believe that what he’s doing is good" - Solzhenitsyn
"...with the terrorists, you have to take out their families." - Donald Trump
EVERYONE has the tendancy to use the power of their vote by to gain property that isn't theres. It is a flawed and egotistical thought to believe that somehow those with property are inherently alturistic but those without are not.
The individual making $200k a year using his vote to put a Senator into power who is likely to award his company with the latest missile contract is using the power of his vote to take property (tax revenue) of others and funnel it into his pocket via his company. Simply because he's using his vote to cause other peoples tax money to make him wealthier in a different manner doesn't change that as it's essence, it's still using his vote to get more of the "property" that was taken from others.
Which is why I go back to my earlier statements. My issue here isn't just that it's narrowly and hypocritically focusing in on one particular group of a myriad of potential ones, but that some are laughably attempting to do it under the fraudulent cloak of liberty
For all his caustic analyses of private property and the political economists, Proudhon is among history’s most outspoken and determined critics of communism... Proudhon’s anticommunism became a leading influence on American individualist anarchism, the centerpiece of which was Benjamin Tucker, publisher of the periodical Liberty.
Man of Paradox: Pierre-Joseph Proudhon | Libertarianism.org
"Men did not make the earth ... it is the value of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual property... Every proprietor owes to the community a ground rent for the land which he holds." -- Thomas Paine, Agrarian Justice