02 Mar 15
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIf democracy is the tyranny of the majority then that would only be a risk if white collar fraudsters formed a majority of society. Perversely, from a fraudster's point of view, the more regulation the better. It is only possible to gain advantage by breaking rules if there are rules to be broken. So they might vote for more regulation. The trick with regulation is to make it effective, keeping it simple is the way forward - your fraudsters would hate that.
Yes - we've made prisons into a profitable corporate venture, much to the detriment of many non-violent drug offenders.
Probably the argument goes that a murderer shouldn't be able to vote for legal killing, but do we really think they could win that one?
I suppose my biggest concern with letting felons vote is that white-collar criminals could vote against financial regulation laws.
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'll tell you who I am. I'm the law-abiding citizen. I tend to feel superior to those who don't obey laws, at least when it comes to having the right to vote.
But this applies to any law. If you put people in prison for breaking a law, then don't allow them to vote to change that law, then you are basically subverting democracy. If murderers want murder made legal, let them vote for it: that's democracy. Who are you to say that your view point is superior and they get no say in the matter? Of course you may be ...[text shortened]... (legal or illegal). I believe all residents should be allowed to vote regardless of citizenship.
Historical, those who most effectively practiced Civil Disobedience have been willing to serve the sentence imposed by that law, at least until public pressure freed them and got the law changed. So, if the murderers and drug dealers want out, let them mount a campaign for public support, but don't let them vote.
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSo you're a laissez-faire capitalist then? 🙂
If democracy is the tyranny of the majority then that would only be a risk if white collar fraudsters formed a majority of society. Perversely, from a fraudster's point of view, the more regulation the better. It is only possible to gain advantage by breaking rules if there are rules to be broken. So they might vote for more regulation. The trick wit ...[text shortened]... is to make it effective, keeping it simple is the way forward - your fraudsters would hate that.
02 Mar 15
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemNo, although I realise my point did make me sound like that. Regulations should be no more complex or constraining than they need to be; I'd disagree with a laissez-faire advocate as to what was needed.
So you're a laissez-faire capitalist then? 🙂
On your prisoners vote discussion with twhitehead. Suppose for some relatively minor offence the penalty is a fine or a short prison term. Bob is bang to rights and enters a guilty plea. The judge gives him the choice and as Bob cannot pay the fine he spends a fortnight in gaol. During his time in gaol there is an election and as a prisoner he is unable to vote. Is it just that he is denied a vote given that had he been able to pay the fine he would have been able to vote?
03 Mar 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou liberals make me sick. He should have voted to change the law before he disreguarded it and lost his right to vote.
No, although I realise my point did make me sound like that. Regulations should be no more complex or constraining than they need to be; I'd disagree with a laissez-faire advocate as to what was needed.
On your prisoners vote discussion with twhitehead. Suppose for some relatively minor offence the penalty is a fine or a short prison term. Bob is b ...[text shortened]... he is denied a vote given that had he been able to pay the fine he would have been able to vote?
04 Mar 15
Originally posted by RJHindsI would like to see the situation where his ONE vote would have made the difference.
You liberals make me sick. He should have voted to change the law before he disreguarded it and lost his right to vote.
You MUST be aware you automatically lose the right to vote if you are convicted of a felony. ANY felony.
04 Mar 15
1 edit
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemOnly because you currently are in the majority opinion of what is legal. Would you still be law abiding under prohibition?
I'll tell you who I am. I'm the law-abiding citizen.
I tend to feel superior to those who don't obey laws, at least when it comes to having the right to vote.
Well I don't. I think the whole point of democracy is equal say and no room for superiority.
Historical, those who most effectively practiced Civil Disobedience have been willing to serve the sentence imposed by that law, at least until public pressure freed them and got the law changed.
And they practiced civil disobedience precisely because the disagreed with the system. You seem to be saying the system was OK.
Would you equally support removing the right to vote from all members of a particular political party? After all if they are not happy with it, let them practice Civil Disobedience and get locked up and try and change opinion that way.
05 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseYeah, its the law. If you don't like it, then it is up to you to try to get it changed before committing any felony.
I would like to see the situation where his ONE vote would have made the difference.
You MUST be aware you automatically lose the right to vote if you are convicted of a felony. ANY felony.
Originally posted by RJHindsThe thing I don't understand is why there is such a law. Is it just to punish a wrong doer or do they think somehow felons who vote will be biased in some way detrimental to government? If there are 10 million felons in the US (just a guess) and we have say 200 million voters, then I don't think even if all 10 mil felons got together, it wouldn't be a large enough swing vote to make much difference and I don't think 10 million felons would ever get together in the first place so I have to think it is a life long punishment because you committed a felon.
Yeah, its the law. If you don't like it, then it is up to you to try to get it changed before committing any felony.
The thing there is, you say, steal a car, get 5 years jail time, serve your time, serve your parole time, become a useful citizen and so forth, why should you have a life long ban on voting now that you have been presumably rehabilitated.
To me it smacks of governmental control of the democratic process. If 80% of felons are black, it stands to reason, especially republicans, would want to limit the voting rights of African Americans, just as they did back in the 20th and 19th century, it seems to me more like an attempt to limit black votes than to punish felons.
05 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseYou don't get it because you have a distorted mind. 😏
The thing I don't understand is why there is such a law. Is it just to punish a wrong doer or do they think somehow felons who vote will be biased in some way detrimental to government? If there are 10 million felons in the US (just a guess) and we have say 200 million voters, then I don't think even if all 10 mil felons got together, it wouldn't be a large ...[text shortened]... nd 19th century, it seems to me more like an attempt to limit black votes than to punish felons.
05 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseIt's the law, simply serving his/her term is only part of the punishment for
You should talk. So tell me why a car thief who gets 5 years, serves his time and does his parole perfectly, becomes a model citizen, still has a life sentence in his voting rights?
that crime, losing the ability to vote is another.
05 Mar 15
Originally posted by KellyJayBut if he has been fully rehabilitated why shouldn't he be allowed to vote since he is not going to do another crime for the rest of his life? It just smacks of a number of not very savory things going on in the background.
It's the law, simply serving his/her term is only part of the punishment for
that crime, losing the ability to vote is another.
Not that I have ever been convicted of a felon or anything like that. Just saying 'it's the law' could just mean the law is wrong. It has happened before you know.
06 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseThere is no certainty that he has been fully rehabilitated.
But if he has been fully rehabilitated why shouldn't he be allowed to vote since he is not going to do another crime for the rest of his life? It just smacks of a number of not very savory things going on in the background.
Not that I have ever been convicted of a felon or anything like that. Just saying 'it's the law' could just mean the law is wrong. It has happened before you know.
06 Mar 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI hope he is rehabilitated, that does not follow that he should then be given
But if he has been fully rehabilitated why shouldn't he be allowed to vote since he is not going to do another crime for the rest of his life? It just smacks of a number of not very savory things going on in the background.
Not that I have ever been convicted of a felon or anything like that. Just saying 'it's the law' could just mean the law is wrong. It has happened before you know.
back his right to vote.