rabbitcaebannog
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 28, 2013
- Messages
- 10,933
- Reaction score
- 2,274
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
"Freedom"
Red Herring more like it.
"Freedom"
No but, when you get off welfare, please step into the booth.
A better question might be, "If you're on welfare do you always vote for a Democrat?"
State welfare programs..
Encouraging people who have low to no info on the issues to vote is without a doubt one of the worse things that can happen.
Red Herring more like it.
How is that a red herring? Tell me how I am supposed to look at that and conclude that this represents a nation of freemen?
The irony is the opposite is happening.
You're right to point out that both are happening. I don't like that either can use taxpayer money to fund their party agenda. But I'm not aware of any other system sad face. Seems like reducing federal/power and taxes isn't so crazy a solution if both are problematic, or if allowing one necessarily means you're going to get the other.
Encouraging people who have low to no info on the issues to vote is without a doubt one of the worse things that can happen.
It's a red herring because you took my comment and addressed it with something that absolutely nothing to do with it.
So you're not going to answer the question. Got it.
Should they be allowed to vote while on welfare?
Ah go back to the good old days when only landowners could vote.
Child labor laws, throw them out as well, lowers the welfare bill right?
Why? You know what we didn't have back then when the vote was limited? A government that collects 50% of the country's income.
Why? Because every citizen has a right to determine how the country is run. Because the country can only work if the people - all the people - are educated on the issues and exercise their voting rights.
Taxes are too high but what does that have to do with voting? Why is that a justification for not letting the poor vote?
This country worked just fine when half of the population could not vote.
Did you miss my sarcasm?Would be far better than what we have now.
Productivity ends child labor, not laws.
E
I'm struggling to reconcile your idea that disenfranchising and taking away voting rights from millions of people increases anyone's liberty.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe said:As for the moral status of majority rule, it must be pointed out that it allows for A and B to band together to rip off C, C and A in turn joining to rip off B, and then B and C conspiring against A, and so on.
This country worked just fine when half of the population could not vote.
Because the poor, naturally responding to incentives, will vote to enrich themselves, whether it is ethical or good for the long term outlook of the country.
Did you miss my sarcasm?
Or are you for what I posted. if so post that.
Do not the rich also vote to enrich themselves? Don't many people vote their own self interest?
Many classes of citizens.I meant what I wrote.
But for the right, it's only about money.