Print

[lordfly]

And we would probably be arguing over who gets to strike the match.

Nah, when something so fundamental gets taken away from us all, the petty forum differences go out the window, and we all get to play with fire.

[Matt (formerly ML)]

The use (or with hold of the use) of the vote is an individuals sovereign right.

You are confusing two very different things. No one has a right to make decisions about other people's lives without their consent. Voting is a blatant violation of the individual rights of people who don't vote. Abstention from voting, for any reason, is not.

There is no way around it: voting is delegated coercion.

[marilyn.monroe]

You are confusing two very different things. No one has a right to make decisions about other people's lives without their consent. Voting is a blatant violation of the individual rights of people who don't vote. Abstention from voting, for any reason, is not.

There is no way around it: voting is delegated coercion.

Anarchy in the USA?

[utility slug]

You are confusing two very different things. No one has a right to make decisions about other people's lives without their consent. Voting is a blatant violation of the individual rights of people who don't vote. Abstention from voting, for any reason, is not.

There is no way around it: voting is delegated coercion.

 *

[lordfly]

You are confusing two very different things. No one has a right to make decisions about other people's lives without their consent. Voting is a blatant violation of the individual rights of people who don't vote. Abstention from voting, for any reason, is not.

There is no way around it: voting is delegated coercion.

Ah, no wonder you have a stick in your craw about elected officials: you're an anarchist.

[MM1]

You are confusing two very different things. No one has a right to make decisions about other people's lives without their consent. Voting is a blatant violation of the individual rights of people who don't vote. Abstention from voting, for any reason, is not.

There is no way around it: voting is delegated coercion.

No, that doesn't sound right.  Whaddya say we put it to a vote?

[Griff]

You are confusing two very different things. No one has a right to make decisions about other people's lives without their consent. Voting is a blatant violation of the individual rights of people who don't vote. Abstention from voting, for any reason, is not.

There is no way around it: voting is delegated coercion.

No confusion on my part... none...

I chose my words with deliberation and for specificity.

Those that choose to live here and not vote have not been coerced or violated. Our compact joining us together in society has been founded upon the principles of representational government, selected by vote. This foundation is well understood and widely acknowledged.

Since you and I have discussed this previously; and we both are crystal clear in our understanding of each other's position, I do not choose to enter into another discussion with you about this.

[Lithunica]

all they have to do is to move the Voting age to 50

[Matt (formerly ML)]

No confusion on my part... none...

Your equating of voting with abstention from voting reveals otherwise.

Those that choose to live here and not vote have not been coerced or violated.

That is patently false. "Love it or leave it" is no more valid today than when Agnew was spouting it.

Our compact joining us together in society has been founded upon the principles of representational government, selected by vote.

Your words betray you. Your use of "our" is a blatant ambiguous collective. (http://www.hevanet.com/kort/KING2.HTM) Even now, you presume to speak on my behalf, without my consent. The principle upon which America was founded is the right of everyone to live their life as they see fit. "The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
US Constitution." (http://tinyurl.com/2puelv)

This foundation is well understood and widely acknowledged.

That doesn't make it right. Do I really have to point out that slavery and genocide are "well understood and widely acknowledged"?

Since you and I have discussed this previously; and we both are crystal clear in our understanding of each other's position, I do not choose to enter into another discussion with you about this.

There's nothing magical about voting in government elections. It's not a sacrament. It's not a duty. And it's certainly not a right. It is, plain and simple, delegated coercion. I see right through your "position". You, however, are still ignoring fundamental concepts which determine right from wrong.

[Boylanjl]

Our right to vote is a privilege that is taken away when you are a convicted felon.   I would raise holy heck if they decided to take away a right that I have defended for 18 years of my adult life. In the instance of a convicted felon, they deserve to loose that right for committing the crimes they have.  Once they have served their whole sentence, probation, prison, and parole, they should be allowed to vote as they have served their debt to society.  To take away a fundamental right such is voting from a law abiding citizen is just wrong.

[SMASH]

Our right to vote is a privilege that is taken away when you are a convicted felon.   I would raise holy heck if they decided to take away a right that I have defended for 18 years of my adult life. In the instance of a convicted felon, they deserve to loose that right for committing the crimes they have.  Once they have served their whole sentence, probation, prison, and parole, they should be allowed to vote as they have served their debt to society.  To take away a fundamental right such is voting from a law abiding citizen is just wrong.

I agree, very well said.

[utility slug]

Your equating of voting with abstention from voting reveals otherwise.
That is patently false. "Love it or leave it" is no more valid today than when Agnew was spouting it.
Your words betray you. Your use of "our" is a blatant ambiguous collective. (http://www.hevanet.com/kort/KING2.HTM) Even now, you presume to speak on my behalf, without my consent. The principle upon which America was founded is the right of everyone to live their life as they see fit. "The American Revolution in fact *died* with the ratification of the
US Constitution." (http://tinyurl.com/2puelv)
That doesn't make it right. Do I really have to point out that slavery and genocide are "well understood and widely acknowledged"?
There's nothing magical about voting in government elections. It's not a sacrament. It's not a duty. And it's certainly not a right. It is, plain and simple, delegated coercion. I see right through your "position". You, however, are still ignoring fundamental concepts which determine right from wrong.

This is ridiculous.

If you don't vote, don't complain.

[Griff]

What Griff said:

Those that choose to live here and not vote have not been coerced or violated.

What ML said:

That is patently false. "Love it or leave it" is no more valid today than when Agnew was spouting it.

Sir,  I NEVER told you or implied telling you to either 'love it or leave it.' As is distinctly obvious by the quotes from each of us above, I clearly said that YOU choose to live here and do so without coercion or violation.

[ShorTea]

all they have to do is to move the Voting age to 50

Cute! but, no I wouldn't give up my right to vote no matter how much sugar & honey or free tea they promised me.

[SMASH]

This is ridiculous.

If you don't vote, don't complain.

Because someone chooses not to vote that does not suspend their right to complain!!

The Supreme Court is in charge of that.
http://www.givemeliberty.org/

Thanks to this:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=War_Powers_Act

Peace.