• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should people on welfare be allowed to vote?[W:504]

Should be on welfare be allowed to vote?

  • Yes

    Votes: 99 82.5%

  • No

    Votes: 15 12.5%

  • Other

    Votes: 7 5.8%

  • Welcome To Costco I Love You

    Votes: 11 9.2%
  • Total voters
    120
Gimmesometruth said:
Straw, I never said it was. Try reading what I posted more carefully.

Again, a baseless claim since, again, "privilege" is never once mentioned in the Constitution in relation to individual voting rights.
Click to expand...

The fact that each amendment only prohibits the right to vote for certain classes of people proves my point nicely. It might say the right to vote many times over, but the Constitution treats voting as a privilege granted to certain groups of people.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry you are wrong....



Section. 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.


rights do not have Qualifications requisite.

rights require no action from government for a right to be exercised,...but privileges do require an action.......voting cannot be accomplished without government action.

the constitution states voting cannot be denied for certain reasons.
Click to expand...
Standing on your head continues. Not only have you not shown that "privilege" is stated in connection to the right to vote, you continue to miss that the protection of rights is the primary function of the USC. Protection of rights comes after an attempt to curtail. The right to free speech is not total, absolute....or are you going to argue that it is a "privilege" too?
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
The fact that each amendment only prohibits the right to vote for certain classes of people proves my point nicely. It might say the right to vote many times over, but the Constitution treats voting as a privilege granted to certain groups of people.
Click to expand...
WTF? Each amendment concerning voting rights PROTECTS the right of classes that were once infringed upon.

FFS, stop standing on your head.
 
ernst barkmann said:
your statement eludes to that two people 1 with a vote, can use his vote to prevent the 1 without a vote from owning property both would be vying over.

right to property.... is a natural right...votes cannot take it away from those with no property [land].
Click to expand...

Without the means to acquire property any right to have it is meaningless.

And the centralization of the vote to the few would certainly mean that fewer people would have the means to acquire property. WE've seen that happen in plutocratic societies in the past.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Standing on your head continues. Not only have you not shown that "privilege" is stated in connection to the right to vote, the protection of rights is the primary function of the USC. Protection of rights comes after an attempt to curtail. The right to free speech is not total, absolute....or are you going to argue that it is a "privilege" too?
Click to expand...


the constitution speaks of natural rights, and privileges that is all.

natural rights do not require anything from government at all, and their are no qualifications to exercise a right.

privileges require a government action for the privilege to be exercised......the constitution states that you cannot be denied the vote because of race or sex.

my right to exercise free speech does not require government to do anything....


when rights are exercised ..government just stands back and does nothing.

when a privilege is exercised...government action is required........because government creates privileges, and government must uphold its own privileges, not the people.
 
Nilly said:
Without the means to acquire property any right to have it is meaningless.

And the centralization of the vote to the few would certainly mean that fewer people would have the means to acquire property. WE've seen that happen in plutocratic societies in the past.
Click to expand...

how can you be stopped from acquiring property since it is a right, and the legislature a person would vote for, has no authority to create or abolish a right.
 
AlbqOwl said:
This is such a difficult question when it is evaluated objectively and outside of partisan propaganda, political correctness police action, and other emotion-charged responses.

I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who pay no federal taxes would have ability to vote for people who pledge to raise taxes on everybody else.

I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who are little or not at all affected by increases in property taxes have ability to vote on initiatives that will raise those taxes for property owners.

And I have long thought it extremely unfair that those who are supported by the rest of us have ability to vote for those who pledge to keep the gravy train going for those who are supported and thereby increase the burden on those of us who are footing that bill.

It is the righteous sense that those who pay the bills should be the ones to vote on how much of those bills they are willing to pay.

And that righteous sense is made very difficult weighed against the concept of one citizen, one vote.
Click to expand...

Your logic takes away the right to vote from: ALL public servants. That includes the entire military, even retired war veterans. All Government employee's, renter's/leases, snowbirds, etc.

In fact to take away more voters rights all a government would have to do is change the tax code.
 
ernst barkmann said:
how can you be stopped from acquiring property since it is a right, and the legislature a person would vote for, has no authority to create or abolish a right.
Click to expand...

Because, as I already said, without the means to exercise a right, the fact that it is 'natural' is meaningless.

Legislature by the rich may not be able to remove the actual right to property, but it can certainly hinder the ability to acquire the means by which one acquires property. Which in effect, causes the same thing.
 
ernst barkmann said:
the constitution speaks of natural rights, and privileges that is all.

natural rights do not require anything from government at all, and their are no qualifications to exercise a right.

privileges require a government action for the privilege to be exercised......the constitution states that you cannot be denied the vote because of race or sex.

my right to exercise free speech does not require government to do anything....


when rights are exercised ..government just stands back and does nothing.

when a privilege is exercised...government action is required........because government creates privileges, and government must uphold its own privileges, not the people.
Click to expand...
You still cannot fathom the basic point, whatever imagined "natural rights" a human supposedly has, those real, actual rights that you have protected by the US Govt are spelled out by the Constitution. Again, just because a person thinks he might have a "natural right" to yell fire in a crowed theater, it doesn't mean it is going to be protected by the USG.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Your logic takes away the right to vote from: ALL public servants. That includes the entire military, even retired war veterans. All Government employee's, renter's/leases, snowbirds, etc.

In fact to take away more voters rights all a government would have to do is change the tax code.
Click to expand...

The people who want a plutocracy always draw the line of whether someone deserves a vote underneath themselves. Anyone who relies on government any more than them is not worthy of the vote. Nevermind the fact that we all rely on services provided by the government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
how can you be stopped from acquiring property ...
Click to expand...
Are you seriously going to ignore the history of minority discrimination of property purchases....and then understand that law ending said discrimination was created?

Step down from your Ivory Tower.
 
Nilly said:
Because, as I already said, without the means to exercise a right, the fact that it is 'natural' is meaningless.

Legislature by the rich may not be able to remove the actual right to property, but it can certainly hinder the ability to acquire the means by which one acquires property. Which in effect, causes the same thing.
Click to expand...

ok, i going to concede to your point...however both sides poor and rich can use the system for their benefit....

however if we had stayed true to no forced taxation, and the social welfare state not being created, we would have have this issue which currently on the table..which is people voting for politicians who promise them material goods and sevices.

the super rich to not vote to get whether want from congress by voting, but by lobbying and promising to help reelect and bribe.
 
ernst barkmann said:
ok, i going to concede to your point...however both sides poor and rich can use the system for their benefit....

however if we had stayed true to no forced taxation, and the social welfare state not being created, we would have have this issue which currently on the table..which is people voting for politicians who promise them material goods and sevices.

the super rich to not vote to get whether want from congress by voting, but by lobbying and promising to help reelect and bribe.
Click to expand...
Hogwash, and you are arguing for a return to the denial of voting rights for those without real property, you want voting only for White male property owners.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Your logic takes away the right to vote from: ALL public servants. That includes the entire military, even retired war veterans. All Government employee's, renter's/leases, snowbirds, etc.

In fact to take away more voters rights all a government would have to do is change the tax code.
Click to expand...

Why should public servants be allowed to vote?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Are you seriously going to ignore the history of minority discrimination of property purchases....and then understand that law ending said discrimination was created?

Step down from your Ivory Tower.
Click to expand...

discrimination.......what does the constitution say?

it states that governments will not discriminate.

it states that privileges are granted[by government] then they must be granted to everyone....unless the state can show its in the interest to to grant such a privilege via a court.

nothing in constitutional law states that a person cannot discriminate...because the constitution does not apply to Citizens or business.

the constitution only prohibits, treason, counterfeiting, piracy, slavery and tax evasion...via federal law.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Hogwash, and you are arguing for a return to the denial of voting rights for those without real property, you want voting only for White male property owners.
Click to expand...

how would i want that?......

what i want is a end to forced taxation, and the social welfare system,. so the problem of using voting by people for material goods and services, will not be a factor..

my post has nothing to do with race or sex.......you only wish to mix that into the threads i have talked about, for the instrument of demonization.....which is a tactic used on this forum many times.
 
ernst barkmann said:
discrimination.......what does the constitution say?

it states that governments will not discriminate.

it states that privileges are granted[by government] then they must be granted to everyone....unless the state can show its in the interest to to grant such a privilege via a court.

nothing in constitutional law states that a person cannot discriminate...because the constitution does not apply to Citizens or business.
Click to expand...
Uh, government was discriminating against ownership of property by minorities, it happened because people through the arm of govt believed they could discriminate against minority ownership of property. The right of those minorities had to be established in law before it was protected.

See how that works?

A guy with a gun expanding on "natural rights" is not guaranteed anything.

the constitution only prohibits, treason, counterfeiting, piracy, slavery and tax evasion...via federal law.
Click to expand...
Wrong, the Constitution prohibits the infringement of voting rights of many classes too, your absolute is shot down again.
 
ernst barkmann said:
how would i want that?......

what i want is a end to forced taxation, and the social welfare system,. so the problem of using voting by people for material goods and services, will not be a factor..

my post has nothing to do with race or sex.......you only wish to mix that into the threads i have talked about, for the instrument of demonization.....which is a tactic used on this forum many times.
Click to expand...

Then I would suggest you do a Richard Branson and find your own island in the pacific. Taxation and welfare are part of what make the most prosperous and desirable countries in the world prosperous and desirable. Do you think it's a coincidence that all the most highly developed countries in the world have a strong taxation system and social safety net?
 
ernst barkmann said:
how would i want that?......
Click to expand...
How would you? I am arguing you are expressing it by arguing against the expansion of voting rights protections via Constitutional fundamentalism.....as you always do.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
You missed it, that is the view shared by Nilly. It is "ernst" you should posting this to. He is questioning the validity of having those without real property a right to vote.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I also have argued a rationale for why it is dangerous for those whose property will not be affected having ability to vote property away from others. Which is what Ernest is also arguing.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Your logic takes away the right to vote from: ALL public servants. That includes the entire military, even retired war veterans. All Government employee's, renter's/leases, snowbirds, etc.

In fact to take away more voters rights all a government would have to do is change the tax code.
Click to expand...

My logic takes away the right to vote from nobody. And the government has been using the tax code to take away people's rights for a very long time now. What I am arguing for is a system in which everybody suffers the same consequences--good or bad--of the votes they cast. And if we don't have the political will to restore that system, then at least make it more difficult for one segment of society to vote to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
 
AlbqOwl said:
My logic takes away the right to vote from nobody. And the government has been using the tax code to take away people's rights for a very long time now. What I am arguing for is a system in which everybody suffers the same consequences--good or bad--of the votes they cast. And if we don't have the political will to restore that system, then at least make it more difficult for one segment of society to vote to benefit themselves at the expense of others.
Click to expand...

You're system makes it much easier for one segment of society to benefit themselves at the expense of the others. At the expense of those who you arbitrarily disallow to vote!
 
AlbqOwl said:
Sorry but I also have argued a rationale for why it is dangerous for those whose property will not be affected having ability to vote property away from others. Which is what Ernest is also arguing.
Click to expand...
Which is a diversion from the context of the point that was being discussed. If you cannot bring yourself to understand that you are in agreement with Nilly on the point you responded to, so be it....but to divert from it with a non-sequitur is just the sort of disingenuous posting you ascribe to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom