• 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
roguenuke said:
But if only a small minority gets to vote, what prevents them from changing the Constitution to reenact slavery or indentured servitude, allowing those with the wealth and power to live off the labor of others, only taking care of their very basic needs? You limit voting one way where it is determined by financial assets or income, then you open the door to fix it so only certain majorities can vote, and do so in whatever way you want.
Click to expand...

The vote would not be limited to a small minority since homeownership in America is about 62% and others who don't own their home do own a business or other real property. When only a small minority of Americans are supporting everybody else, we'll be really screwed don't you think?
 
Nilly said:
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!
Click to expand...
The owl is immune to her own irony, and displays it over and over.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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.

Wrong, the Constitution prohibits the infringement of voting rights of many classes too, your absolute is shot down again.
Click to expand...


again the constitution says government cannot discriminate...it does not say people/individuals cannot discriminate.

when a person violates another person rights..its criminal law..not constitutional law.

so the right of people to own property cannot be violated by governments.

the constitution via federal law, prohibtes people from being denied the vote because of race/servitude or sex.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The vote would not be limited to a small minority since homeownership in America is about 62% and others who don't own their home do own a business or other real property. When only a small minority of Americans are supporting everybody else, we'll be really screwed don't you think?
Click to expand...
Equality in society is screwed when a smaller and smaller minority controls a larger and larger share of wealth. Power of vote is restricted by power of wealth.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

the constitution of the founders says nothing about who can vote......be it white or black, man or woman.....the state governments had authority in that area...so race /sex was never part of my argument.

i was making the point that people are using their vote, to vote for politicians, who promise to give them material goods ands services, while making other citizens pay for it via income taxes, because the people receiving those goods and services are not paying income taxes, therefore they don't care about how high income taxes go, because it does not effect them..

when people are not effected by laws, even though laws can be tyrannical......they don't care.
 
ernst barkmann said:
again the constitution says government cannot discriminate...it does not say people/individuals cannot discriminate.
Click to expand...
Still cannot come to terms with the fact that govt did restrict property ownership by minorities and was only reversed by law. Magical "natural rights" did not automatically cause anything to happen.

when a person violates another person rights..its criminal law..not constitutional law.
Click to expand...
Straw.

so the right of people to own property cannot be violated by governments.
Click to expand...
Uh, again, get out of the tower and come back to Earth, your magic is powerless.

the constitution via federal law, prohibtes people from being denied the vote because of race/servitude or sex.
Click to expand...
You are getting closer to the truth, while still ignoring the actual process and chronology of the establishment and protection of those rights.

Edit:

Further, on what logic therefore can you make the argument that a class (those that do not open property) can have their right to vote infringed upon?
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
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?
Click to expand...



forced taxation, and redistribution of wealth violate the founding principles of america, and because it is taking place ......people are using the power of their vote to take from one and give to another....
 
AlbqOwl said:
My argument in no way suggested that any person's vote should count more than any other person's vote.

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.
Click to expand...

So...one's wealth or ownership of property should be used to judge whether one should vote on issues that affect oneself? What about those who are of equal (or greater) intelligence and ability, but whose situation prevented them from achieving wealth or ownership of property? And then there's those who inherited their wealth and prosperity - should they be the only ones who are allowed to vote on issues that affect them?

And you imply, then, that the poor should only be allowed to vote on issues that affect them...and this requires, then, that they would also be voting on issues that affect their poverty...but you also imply that their vote could not affect in any way those who are wealthy and propertied. By the same token, then, the rich could not be allowed to vote on issues that affect the poor...and the very concept is flatly impossible.

The very concept is nauseating.

Go read about the French Revolution sometime, and find out just how bad class warfare can get.
 
Gimmesometruth said:


You are getting closer to the truth, while still ignoring the actual process and chronology of the establishment and protection of those rights.
Click to expand...


i will put my knowledge of rights and constitutional law to the test against you anytime you like...but you have already shown you don't know the law, by making statements of things already.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i will put my knowledge of rights and constitutional law to the test against you anytime you like...but you have already shown you don't know the law, by making statements of things already.
Click to expand...
By ignoring my full response you are clearly showing you do not have the ability to defend against counter-argument.
 
Nilly said:
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!
Click to expand...

Read my lips. I have not promoted a system here. I have simply offered a rationale for one system over another. And the rationale I have offered is mostly an argument to PREVENT some from benefitting themselves at the expense of others.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
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.
Click to expand...

It is not a diversion from the point I have been discussing the entire time. And it certainly is not non sequitur.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Read my lips. I have not promoted a system here. I have simply offered a rationale for one system over another. And the rationale I have offered is mostly an argument to PREVENT some from benefitting themselves at the expense of others.
Click to expand...
And we keep trying to get you to understand that restricting voting rights does exactly that.

Irony missed once again.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Equality in society is screwed when a smaller and smaller minority controls a larger and larger share of wealth. Power of vote is restricted by power of wealth.
Click to expand...

There is no inequality in society unless the wealth held by some prevents others from acquiring wealth. And nobody here has yet made a good argument for how the rich are preventing the poor from becoming rich just because the rich are rich.

The most dangerous inequality in society is to give power to people who suffer no negative consequences of any kind and in fact enrich themselves by what they can require of others at the expense of those others.
 
AlbqOwl said:
It is not a diversion from the point I have been discussing the entire time. And it certainly is not non sequitur.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was.

You already acknowledged that by NOT referring to what point was addressed and to move to discussing something other that what discussed in WHAT WAS QUOTED. You still will not address what I quoted. You want to discuss OTHER THINGS stated by ernst that you agree with.....which was not the topic of what I quoted.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
So...one's wealth or ownership of property should be used to judge whether one should vote on issues that affect oneself? What about those who are of equal (or greater) intelligence and ability, but whose situation prevented them from achieving wealth or ownership of property? And then there's those who inherited their wealth and prosperity - should they be the only ones who are allowed to vote on issues that affect them?

And you imply, then, that the poor should only be allowed to vote on issues that affect them...and this requires, then, that they would also be voting on issues that affect their poverty...but you also imply that their vote could not affect in any way those who are wealthy and propertied. By the same token, then, the rich could not be allowed to vote on issues that affect the poor...and the very concept is flatly impossible.

The very concept is nauseating.

Go read about the French Revolution sometime, and find out just how bad class warfare can get.
Click to expand...

Why don't you offer a rebuttal to what I actually said instead of translating it into something I didn't say?
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Crikey, still trying to argue that income tax is un-Constitutional....sigh
Click to expand...


you see..here you are wrong.....i did not say forced taxation was unconstitutional......i said.....it VIOLATES the founding principles of america......please show me you know something.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Yes, it was.

You already acknowledged that by NOT referring to what point was addressed and to move to discussing something other that what discussed in WHAT WAS QUOTED. You still will not address what I quoted. You want to discuss OTHER THINGS stated by ernst that you agree with.....which was not the topic of what I quoted.
Click to expand...

I disagree, but I just don't have the energy or interest to get into it. Let's just say I acknowledge your opinion.
 
AlbqOwl said:
There is no inequality in society unless the wealth held by some prevents others from acquiring wealth. And nobody here has yet made a good argument for how the rich are preventing the poor from becoming rich just because the rich are rich.
Click to expand...
FFS! Your previous statement that started this entire exchange between us runs completely counter to this statement:

But the fact is, the more prosperous and productive others are, the more opportunity there is to increase their own wealth. You don't prosper by buying and selling property when nobody can afford to participate in the process.

You are arguing for the EXPANSION of participation in property ownership/egalitarianism and away from oligarchy/monopoly/domination of wealth. You don't get to 2-faced argue that property owners should have greater standing when it comes to VOTING.

The most dangerous inequality in society is to give power to people who suffer no negative consequences of any kind and in fact enrich themselves by what they can require of others at the expense of those others.
Click to expand...
Nothing is going to get you to see the irony of this position, the wealthy gain all the time by restricting the voice of those less wealthy.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
when you can sting something together which makes sense of the law, i can answer until then i cant because i don't know what to focus on from you.
Click to expand...
FFS....you try to complain about the incomprehensible incomprehensibly!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom