• 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
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.

Promoting a system and offering a rationale for a system differ? Semantics.

The only alternative to the rationale that you have offered (that it is unfair that some people don't pay taxes but can still contribute to national decisions) is a system whereby some people are denied the ability to vote, based on arbitrary criteria (which you have yet to offer).

That system is wrong.
 
Why don't you offer a rebuttal to what I actually said instead of translating it into something I didn't say?

This was your argument:

"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."

Apparently, you didn't think through the implications of your argument - and I pointed out those implications. It's flatly impossible to vote on issues that affect (and hopefully benefit) one's own economic class without affecting in one way or another the other economic class(es).

There is NO WAY that the rich could vote on issues that affect only themselves without their votes also affecting the poor. There is NO WAY that the poor could vote on issues that affect only themselves without their votes also affecting the rich.

The concept you present is an impossibility. And even if it were indeed possible, it would certainly lead to places none of us want to go.

There are times when simple pragmatism must trump one's personal moral convictions. This is one of them.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop sniping at each other and address the topic.
 
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.

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.

Nothing is going to get me to change an argument I believe in very much and that is supportable with reason and logic. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Stop sniping at each other and address the topic.

But Sarge! I've got 'im in my sights, but now you're telling me not to take the shot? Now I gotta go play nice with the guy? That's in violation of President Marco Rubio's executive order he gave in 2017 that we're not allowed to ever use diplomacy! They do what we say, or we shoot them! Sarge, let me take the shot!!!!
 
But Sarge! I've got 'im in my sights, but now you're telling me not to take the shot? Now I gotta go play nice with the guy? That's in violation of President Marco Rubio's executive order he gave in 2017 that we're not allowed to ever use diplomacy! They do what we say, or we shoot them! Sarge, let me take the shot!!!!

Moderator's Warning:
Don't quote mod boxes.
 
This was your argument:



Apparently, you didn't think through the implications of your argument - and I pointed out those implications. It's flatly impossible to vote on issues that affect (and hopefully benefit) one's own economic class without affecting in one way or another the other economic class(es).

There is NO WAY that the rich could vote on issues that affect only themselves without their votes also affecting the poor. There is NO WAY that the poor could vote on issues that affect only themselves without their votes also affecting the rich.

The concept you present is an impossibility. And even if it were indeed possible, it would certainly lead to places none of us want to go.

There are times when simple pragmatism must trump one's personal moral convictions. This is one of them.

I do not believe it is an impossibility. I believe we once had a system in which people were not allowed to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others. I would like that system restored. In such a system, if you vote for taxes to be raised, you are voting for your own taxes to be raised too and not just the other guy. In such a system, if you vote for the government to provide you with a certain benefit, everybody gets the same benefit without respect for demographics or socioeconomic circumstances.

And I will never agree to vote for government in which pragmatism trumps moral convictions.
 
lol!...IRONY!

proof positive....incoherent

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.

Straw.

Uh, again, get out of the tower and come back to Earth, your magic is powerless.

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?
 
I do not believe it is an impossibility. I believe we once had a system in which people were not allowed to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others.

Are you referring to when only the propertied could vote? Do you not realize that YES, their votes DID directly affect those who were not propertied?

I would like that system restored. In such a system, if you vote for taxes to be raised, you are voting for your own taxes to be raised too and not just the other guy.

And how could such a system be implemented? Details, ma'am, not just a nebulous claim! In the modern era, how does one determine who could and could not vote on what? Just because things might have been (to your mind) possible and moral a century or two ago does NOT mean that such could be implemented today. That's why I'm pressing you for details.

In such a system, if you vote for the government to provide you with a certain benefit, everybody gets the same benefit without respect for demographics or socioeconomic circumstances.

Ah. I smell a flat tax argument, and while the concept of flat taxes sounds really nice, in reality it sucks. Try telling the newly-divorced young woman with three kids and no good career ('cause she was a stay-at-home mom until that bastard of a husband left her) that she's got to pay the same rate of taxation as the rich do.

And I will never agree to vote for government in which pragmatism trumps moral convictions.

Name a genocide - ANY genocide - and you'll find that it was "moral conviction" (often disguised as "religious conviction") that led to that genocide. One person's "moral convictions" is often another person's death sentence - ISIS is all about "moral conviction". To give you an even better example, it's "moral conviction" that fuels the marriage equality debate today.

In other words, ya gotta watch that "moral convictions" claim...because the devil in the details of "moral conviction" is, "whose morals are we going to abide by?"
 
Are you referring to when only the propertied could vote? Do you not realize that YES, their votes DID directly affect those who were not propertied?



And how could such a system be implemented? Details, ma'am, not just a nebulous claim! In the modern era, how does one determine who could and could not vote on what? Just because things might have been (to your mind) possible and moral a century or two ago does NOT mean that such could be implemented today. That's why I'm pressing you for details.



Ah. I smell a flat tax argument, and while the concept of flat taxes sounds really nice, in reality it sucks. Try telling the newly-divorced young woman with three kids and no good career ('cause she was a stay-at-home mom until that bastard of a husband left her) that she's got to pay the same rate of taxation as the rich do.



Name a genocide - ANY genocide - and you'll find that it was "moral conviction" (often disguised as "religious conviction") that led to that genocide. One person's "moral convictions" is often another person's death sentence - ISIS is all about "moral conviction". To give you an even better example, it's "moral conviction" that fuels the marriage equality debate today.

In other words, ya gotta watch that "moral convictions" claim...because the devil in the details of "moral conviction" is, "whose morals are we going to abide by?"

I don't respond to chopped up posts. Sorry. It is too time consuming and too often removes any qualifiers from statements made or changes the meaning by taking it out of context.

Please don't drag a lot of non sequitur and straw man arguments into it. My argument has been very narrowly defined here and to go veering off into different topics will derail the thread.

My definition of morality must be very different from yours. My definition is based on what is right and wrong, and not what is used as an excuse to do whatever.
 
My definition of morality must be very different from yours. My definition is based on what is right and wrong, and not what is used as an excuse to do whatever.

You really don't understand, do you? What YOU personally think of as right or wrong doesn't automatically mesh with the opinions of other people. What YOU think of as 'morally right' may be repugnant to others. The examples of marriage equality and abortion are both great examples - if you think one side of the issue is "morally right", the other side automatically sees your opinion as "morally repugnant".

Who decides, then, which is the true moral "right" or "wrong"? The tens of millions who support abortion rights, or the tens of millions who strongly oppose abortion? The tens of millions who support marriage equality for LGBT's, or the tens of millions who strongly oppose it?

If you'll check, beyond support for our "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the Constitution doesn't really say much about morality, about "right" and "wrong". Think about that.
 
You really don't understand, do you? What YOU personally think of as right or wrong doesn't automatically mesh with the opinions of other people. What YOU think of as 'morally right' may be repugnant to others. The examples of marriage equality and abortion are both great examples - if you think one side of the issue is "morally right", the other side automatically sees your opinion as "morally repugnant".

Who decides, then, which is the true moral "right" or "wrong"? The tens of millions who support abortion rights, or the tens of millions who strongly oppose abortion? The tens of millions who support marriage equality for LGBT's, or the tens of millions who strongly oppose it?

If you'll check, beyond support for our "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the Constitution doesn't really say much about morality, about "right" and "wrong". Think about that.

What you think I understand and what I understand is irrelevant to this discussion as is abortion, LGBT issues, or any other issues of the week.

My argument is focused on one single concept which I believe is within the context and intent of the OP: The morality (or the ethics or the rightness or wrongness or the consequences) of people being able to vote themselves benefits at the expense of others.

Focus on that and we can have a discussion.
 
sorry no, there premise his that if people have nothing at stake, then they will use their vote, by means of injustice to take from others.

which is why voting is a privilege and not a right.
Sorry, yes. The world has evolved beyond simple property ownership as "having something at stake".

Regardless, the premise, while not wholly invalid, is still incorrect... and/or at least incomplete... in it's simpleness. One, virtually everybody votes their own interest. Two, rich people lobby for things to be done in their favor at the expense of others, via injustice if expedient, hence "having something at stake" is hardly an ethical inducing motive.

Madison wasn't necessarily wrong, per se, but he was wearing blinders. He wasn't considering what he as a flaw in some classes with which he disapproved as being common human nature.
 
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.

It does now though. It is much easier for someone who has money to make money. It is much easier for those who control certain properties or assets to restrict how much others can attain of those assets, especially if they have the power of government backing them.
 
It does now though. It is much easier for someone who has money to make money. It is much easier for those who control certain properties or assets to restrict how much others can attain of those assets, especially if they have the power of government backing them.

But the fact that some find it easier to make money does not necessarily make it harder for others to make money. The fact that some are successful in one aspect of business and it is difficult for others to break into that particular business does not prevent people from looking for other ways to make money and acquire property. There are only so many positions in the top law firms, so many professorships in the universities, so many openings in upper management at G.E. There is only so much bottom land in West Virginia, and only so much beachfront property on the coast. But in a free market system in which people have liberty, if a door is closed in one place, there is nothing stopping us from looking for a different one.

Even in less free societies, industrious people seem to manage to find positives. In Medieval Europe, for example, Jews were forbidden to own land. So they went into law and banking and science and shipping instead and prospered that way, a legacy that has continued into modern times. And then they were often resented and demonized because they were so successful and prosperous. :)

But this topic is not about lack of opportunity. It is the danger of one segment of society assuming right to the legally and ethically acquired property of another segment of society. And one segment of society being able to vote itself what it wants at the expense of the other. I should not be able to hinder you in pursing your ambitions and dreams. And I should not be able to vote to get what you have legally and ethically earned just because I didn't do that for whatever reason.
 
But the fact that some find it easier to make money does not necessarily make it harder for others to make money. The fact that some are successful in one aspect of business and it is difficult for others to break into that particular business does not prevent people from looking for other ways to make money and acquire property. There are only so many positions in the top law firms, so many professorships in the universities, so many openings in upper management at G.E. There is only so much bottom land in West Virginia, and only so much beachfront property on the coast. But in a free market system in which people have liberty, if a door is closed in one place, there is nothing stopping us from looking for a different one.

Even in less free societies, industrious people seem to manage to find positives. In Medieval Europe, for example, Jews were forbidden to own land. So they went into law and banking and science and shipping instead and prospered that way, a legacy that has continued into modern times. And then they were often resented and demonized because they were so successful and prosperous. :)

But this topic is not about lack of opportunity. It is the danger of one segment of society assuming right to the legally and ethically acquired property of another segment of society. And one segment of society being able to vote itself what it wants at the expense of the other. I should not be able to hinder you in pursing your ambitions and dreams. And I should not be able to vote to get what you have legally and ethically earned just because I didn't do that for whatever reason.

Except stripping the poor of a vote does hinder them in their pursuit of their ambitions and dreams. No politician is going to cater to a group that does not have a vote.

It is well known in psychology that most peoples empathy does not extend outside of their field of vision. The rich would have no problem (and I state this with certainty because it has happened in the past, and continues to happen today) in enacting laws that secures their own property and wealth at the expense of those less fortunate.
 
Except stripping the poor of a vote does hinder them in their pursuit of their ambitions and dreams. No politician is going to cater to a group that does not have a vote.

It is well known in psychology that most peoples empathy does not extend outside of their field of vision. The rich would have no problem (and I state this with certainty because it has happened in the past, and continues to happen today) in enacting laws that secures their own property and wealth at the expense of those less fortunate.

I cannot imagine how securing one's own property could hurt anybody. And the way to make the vote honorable and honest is to ensure that everybody who votes shares in the benefits or consequences of their vote. We don't WANT politicians catering to anybody. Politicians should represent everybody's interests and not just the special interest group who keeps him/her in office.
 
Sorry, yes. The world has evolved beyond simple property ownership as "having something at stake".

Regardless, the premise, while not wholly invalid, is still incorrect... and/or at least incomplete... in it's simpleness. One, virtually everybody votes their own interest. Two, rich people lobby for things to be done in their favor at the expense of others, via injustice if expedient, hence "having something at stake" is hardly an ethical inducing motive.

Madison wasn't necessarily wrong, per se, but he was wearing blinders. He wasn't considering what he as a flaw in some classes with which he disapproved as being common human nature.

i have made two points which are fact.......voting is not right..because voting is in the hands of states governments making it a privilege ....that the constitution does not create rights, and the USSC to my knowledge as ever ruled on a case recognizing a right to vote.

second point.......that people use their vote to vote for politicians who promise them material goods and services....

lastly .....you are trying to make the connection of voting and lobbying and they are not the same...they are not.

on madison ...who makes the case that history proves that those with no property will used the power of voting my means of injustice to take property from those that do.
 
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.

Then people not on welfare shouldnt vote on welfare. If a person is on welfare and loses it to popular vote they suffer the consequences of that vote. ANd really voting to lower your taxes based on how much is spent on the welfare system is voting for self benefit at the expense of others.
 
Then people not on welfare shouldnt vote on welfare. If a person is on welfare and loses it to popular vote they suffer the consequences of that vote. ANd really voting to lower your taxes based on how much is spent on the welfare system is voting for self benefit at the expense of others.

That is the uncomfortable elephant in the room isn't it though? That people on welfare should not be able to vote on how much welfare they will receive? I would be the first to acknowledge the difficulty in determining how that would be implemented, but that is the issue just the same. Those who vote to receive welfare are doing so at the expense of others because it is those others who give up their resources to provide the welfare. Those on welfare only benefit.

But I disagree that voting to lower taxes is the same thing. Voting to lower taxes may benefit me, yes, but it also benefits everybody who pays taxes. That is the difference between voting for revision in the tax code as opposed to voting for what others will provide you. Lower taxes may be to the detriment of those on welfare--that has not been shown to be a fact but it is an argument that is made. But it is not at the EXPENSE of those on welfare as those on welfare are not required to provide anything to those paying taxes.
 
That is the uncomfortable elephant in the room isn't it though? That people on welfare should not be able to vote on how much welfare they will receive? I would be the first to acknowledge the difficulty in determining how that would be implemented, but that is the issue just the same. Those who vote to receive welfare are doing so at the expense of others because it is those others who give up their resources to provide the welfare. Those on welfare only benefit.

But I disagree that voting to lower taxes is the same thing. Voting to lower taxes may benefit me, yes, but it also benefits everybody who pays taxes. That is the difference between voting for revision in the tax code as opposed to voting for what others will provide you. Lower taxes may be to the detriment of those on welfare--that has not been shown to be a fact but it is an argument that is made. But it is not at the EXPENSE of those on welfare as those on welfare are not required to provide anything to those paying taxes.

They don't get to vote directly on how much welfare they receive though. In fact, the wealthy, especially those with interests in keeping their own working costs low, have more influence via campaign funding and lobbying on how much people on welfare get than anyone actually on welfare.
 
Nothing is going to get me to change an argument I believe in very much and that is supportable with reason and logic. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
The point is, your "arguments" contradict each other, and you fail to recognize this.
 
Why do I have a lot of money and don't feel like I'm being stolen from? It's crazy. I pay taxes because they keep many people - good and bad - from starvation and death. Sure, some abuse that but in general, it ensures the survival of our species and various groups important to our collective knowledge and humanity.
 
Back
Top Bottom