Kalhoun, you are out of control.

[Shodan]

@Liberal

Gotta disagree with you there, Sho.

Shit, I’m doomed.

That may be true of some felons, but it is also true of some people who aren’t felons. If all laws were ethical and all jurisprudence were just, then you might be able to say that about felons. But when law creates crime just by being written, when enforcement of law is inequitable, and when wealth and power decide how fair a trial will be — there is no correlation between a conviction and civil worth. OJ Simpson gets to vote. Likewise, weasels and pariahs of every stripe, along with complete idiots and ignoramuses, get to vote.

Well, it is not a perfect system, certainly, but I believe you go too far in stating that there is “no” correlation between a conviction and civil worth.

You are clearly correct that weasels, idiots, and ignoramii get to vote. After all, Cynthia MacKinnon had to draw her support from somewhere. And some felon convicted of a crime of conscience would not. But the blunt instrument of the law can do no better than to distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors, and assign greater penalties to the one than to the other. Even if some felonies are not nearly as serious a breach of the social contract than perhaps some misdemeanors.

Felons and ex-convicts, for the most part, are, in my experience, less capable of displaying good judgement and a commitment to the social good than the average schmuck with nothing on his record worse than a parking ticket.

@Kalhoun

What do you think about lifelong welfare recipients and their rights?

I think they are a topic that some people bring up when they would like to change the subject.

If you can point to the Constitutional clause disenfranchising cripples and old people from voting, I would be glad to discuss the case. Otherwise, perhaps we could stick a little closer to the subject.

@Kalhoun

I’m saying that the “mechanism” is stupid. It demonstrates nothing, it ensures nothing and it means nothing with regard to worthiness.

Err - if you read a little more closely, the “mechanism” to which I referred was the mechanism of pardon, and restoration of voting rights, upon some meaningful demonstration that the convict was now a responsible person - acting like a normal citizen for a number of years. So I would disagree that the mechanism demonstrates nothing.

When a felon is released back into society, he no longer has to answer to anyone for any other aspect of his life.

Well, no, as Mr. Moto has pointed out. He is not free to exercise his rights under the Second Amendment. Would you agree that he should automatically be allowed to? Do you support this enfringement of his right to keep and bear arms?

I also believe that many licensed professions are also barred to those with felony convictions. Do you believe that this also is a serious violation of rights? For example, would you agree that no doctor convicted, say, of stealing drugs should be deprived of his right to practice medicine?

His sentence is served and he is deemed worthy to walk free amongst the people he robbed, beat, even murdered. Are you telling me that there is some sort of logic in denying him the right to pull a lever while at the same time allowing him go to bars?

Well, yes, as a matter of fact there is.

I have to run an errand. I will return here shortly.

Regards,
Shodan

[Shodan]

The logic of “He can drink but not vote” is to restrict a felon from exercising rights that directly affect others. A person can drink, even to excess, but still harm only himself. He can drive drunk, certainly, or commit crimes while intoxicated, but provided he does only what another citizen might do while drinking, his abuse of his right to drink does not affect others.

Voting affects others. The effects of voting, therefore, inherently affect others, and society, in ways that drinking (for example) do not. Thus the Constitution, which (or should be) concerned largely with the effects the federal government is allowed to have on citizens, disallows felons from exercising those rights that affect others by affecting the government, and the selection of the leaders of that government.

You can argue that felons ought also to be excluded from drinking or owning guns, but the rationale for these are the same as for voting.

Regards,
Shodan

[Liberal]

It’s not just that it’s not a perfect system. There can’t be a perfect system. It’s that it’s such a terribly, terribly flawed system. It is a system that makes laws, not to protect citizens from their government, but to protect government from its citizens. It is designed for political expediency, and those who prosper in it are those with political clout. The inequities are not rare; they are routine. Vast numbers of the disenfranchised are convicted over nothing more than frivolous prohibitions. A society of free people cannot exist when a system of coercion is engineered to propogate itself.

[Lightnin]

@Shodan

Voting affects others. The effects of voting, therefore, inherently affect others, and society, in ways that drinking (for example) do not.

What harm do you foresee an ex-felon voting into office, especially since they’re unlikely to be any sort of majority?

[Shodan]

@Liberal

It’s not just that it’s not a perfect system. There can’t be a perfect system. It’s that it’s such a terribly, terribly flawed system. It is a system that makes laws, not to protect citizens from their government, but to protect government from its citizens. It is designed for political expediency, and those who prosper in it are those with political clout. The inequities are not rare; they are routine. Vast numbers of the disenfranchised are convicted over nothing more than frivolous prohibitions. A society of free people cannot exist when a system of coercion is engineered to propogate itself.

I guess my point is that even in a purely libertarian republic, the disenfranchisement of felons is justifiable, IMO. If I demonstrate my inability or unwillingness to exercise my rights, without using them to the detriment of others, I lose them. IYSWIM.

I can see your point about laws to protect government from citizens. The disenfranchisement of felons is a law to protect citizens from each other. It is similar to prohibitions from children from voting.

@Lightnin'

What harm do you foresee an ex-felon voting into office, especially since they’re unlikely to be any sort of majority?

Do you mean electing an ex-felon to office, or ex-felons voting for someone else?

In either case, majority doesn’t matter. My vote counts the same whether I am part of the majority or not. Voting is the exercise of a civil right, and it is not legitimate to decide whether or not to allow it based on whether or not it is in accord with the majority. Therefore it makes no difference to the justice or otherwise of disenfranchisement of felons whether or not they are the majority (or if they vote Democratic or Republican or not at all - that was a smear of Mr. Moto by Czarcasm).

If you are going to ask for a cite next on the harm caused by felons voting, that will be difficult to produce, since felons (by and large) don’t vote now. But the prohibition is currently part of the Constitution, and returning the vote to felons is a change. Thus the burden of proof for the change lies with proponents of the change. It is necessary to argue in favor of the automatic return of voting rights to felons, not merely to claim that the change must be made by default. So feel free to make a case in favor.

Regards,
Shodan

[Liberal]

It’s just shit like this, Sho.

[Kalhoun]

@Shodan

You are clearly correct that weasels, idiots, and ignoramii get to vote. After all, Cynthia MacKinnon had to draw her support from somewhere. And some felon convicted of a crime of conscience would not. But the blunt instrument of the law can do no better than to distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors, and assign greater penalties to the one than to the other. Even if some felonies are not nearly as serious a breach of the social contract than perhaps some misdemeanors.

Felons and ex-convicts, for the most part, are, in my experience, less capable of displaying good judgement and a commitment to the social good than the average schmuck with nothing on his record worse than a parking ticket.
I think they are a topic that some people bring up when they would like to change the subject.

In my opinion, anyone who voted for Bush displays no judgement or commitment to the social good. How could an ex-con do worse than the entire republican party?

If you can point to the Constitutional clause disenfranchising cripples and old people from voting, I would be glad to discuss the case. Otherwise, perhaps we could stick a little closer to the subject.

I’m suggesting we DO disenfranchise them under your logic. They’re a drain on society if they’re not working and just sit there using our tax dollars. They have no civic worth (over and above an ex-con, anyway).

Err - if you read a little more closely, the “mechanism” to which I referred was the mechanism of pardon, and restoration of voting rights, upon some meaningful demonstration that the convict was now a responsible person - acting like a normal citizen for a number of years. So I would disagree that the mechanism demonstrates nothing.

Exactly what is the meat of this vague mechanism? “Do you solemnly swear to never be a bad boy again?” Puh-leeze. Show me the substance behind the great plan. Show me what measure of assurance a person could present that couldn’t be presented the day they get out of prison. There is no qualification benchmark for any other voter. The ex-con should not be set to a different standard than the rest of the civilly irresponsible public. The “scarlet letter” mentality serves no one.

Well, no, as Mr. Moto has pointed out. He is not free to exercise his rights under the Second Amendment. Would you agree that he should automatically be allowed to? Do you support this enfringement of his right to keep and bear arms?

Well, I don’t think we should allow 95% of the population to own guns, but that’s another debate. I believe that an ex-con should have his rights restored if his crime was not gun-related (and maybe even if it was).

I also believe that many licensed professions are also barred to those with felony convictions. Do you believe that this also is a serious violation of rights? For example, would you agree that no doctor convicted, say, of stealing drugs should be deprived of his right to practice medicine?

Well, at least the punishment has a direct link to the crime. But no, I do not think a blanket barring is in order. People can turn over a new leaf (or not). There is no test that will definitively determine that either way.

[Lightnin]

@Shodan

In either case, majority doesn’t matter. My vote counts the same whether I am part of the majority or not.

Clearly you haven’t lived in Texas, and attempted to vote for anyone other than Bush in the last two elections.

@Shodan

If you are going to ask for a cite next on the harm caused by felons voting, that will be difficult to produce, since felons (by and large) don’t vote now. But the prohibition is currently part of the Constitution, and returning the vote to felons is a change. Thus the burden of proof for the change lies with proponents of the change. It is necessary to argue in favor of the automatic return of voting rights to felons, not merely to claim that the change must be made by default. So feel free to make a case in favor.

Nope, I clearly said “ex-felons”. As in, voting by people who have served their time. Some states won’t allow that sort of thing, you see- once a felon, even after you served your time, you don’t ever get to vote again. That’s what I was asking- what harm do you see in allowing ex-felons to vote?

However, you’ve raised an interesting point. Are you saying that you don’t think felons (current, out on parole) shouldn’t get to vote because they don’t currently get to vote? Then allow me to change my question- what harm do you see in allowing felons out on parole the opportunity to vote? Constitutionality aside, what harm do you think would result from allowing current felons to vote?

[Kalhoun]

@Lightnin'

Clearly you haven’t lived in Texas, and attempted to vote for anyone other than Bush in the last two elections.

Nope, I clearly said “ex-felons”. As in, voting by people who have served their time. Some states won’t allow that sort of thing, you see- once a felon, even after you served your time, you don’t ever get to vote again. That’s what I was asking- what harm do you see in allowing ex-felons to vote?

However, you’ve raised an interesting point. Are you saying that you don’t think felons (current, out on parole) shouldn’t get to vote because they don’t currently get to vote? Then allow me to change my question- what harm do you see in allowing felons out on parole the opportunity to vote? Constitutionality aside, what harm do you think would result from allowing current felons to vote?

(We keep asking, but we never seem to get an answer to this. Maybe it’s “because dad said so.”)

[Cervaise]

@Shodan

My vote counts the same whether I am part of the majority or not.

Robots vote?

[Ensign_Edison]

Can I just say I find the title of this thread deeply funny every time I see it, for some reason? I think it’s because Kalhoun is so dry and sardonic and self-possessed, the image it brings is someone delivering really cuttingly backhanded compliments to everyone at a gallery opening. Get ahold of yourself, woman! Hee hee hee.

[Kalhoun]

@Ensign Edison

Can I just say I find the title of this thread deeply funny every time I see it, for some reason? I think it’s because Kalhoun is so dry and sardonic and self-possessed, the image it brings is someone delivering really cuttingly backhanded compliments to everyone at a gallery opening. Get ahold of yourself, woman! Hee hee hee.

I picture myself running around with my hair on fire, smoking pot, drinking straight whiskey and popping pills.

Wait…isn’t that what I…oh, never mind.

[Shodan]

@Liberal

It’s just shit like this, Sho.

I’m not following you (possibly because I didn’t read the thread from which the post came). It seems to be about divorce and bigamy. Does that affect voting rights?

@Kalhoun

I’m suggesting we DO disenfranchise them under your logic.

My “logic” is the Constitution, as mentioned. Could you please cite the clause disenfranchising the elderly and infirm?

They’re a drain on society if they’re not working and just sit there using our tax dollars. They have no civic worth (over and above an ex-con, anyway).

Back to this stuff again, are you?

Exactly what is the meat of this vague mechanism? “Do you solemnly swear to never be a bad boy again?” Puh-leeze. Show me the substance behind the great plan.

If you aren’t familiar with the pardon mechanism, I wonder why you are debating it.

Fuck it, you aren’t reading anything even if it is right in front of you.

@Lightnin'

Clearly you haven’t lived in Texas, and attempted to vote for anyone other than Bush in the last two elections.

I have no idea what point you are attempting to make here.

Nope, I clearly said “ex-felons”. As in, voting by people who have served their time. Some states won’t allow that sort of thing, you see- once a felon, even after you served your time, you don’t ever get to vote again. That’s what I was asking- what harm do you see in allowing ex-felons to vote?

Well, congratulations on your ability to restate the question under debate for the last several days, Captain Obvious.

However, you’ve raised an interesting point. Are you saying that you don’t think felons (current, out on parole) shouldn’t get to vote because they don’t currently get to vote?

No, I am saying that I agree with what I believe is the logic underlying the Constitutional provision for disenfranchising ex-felons, and requesting that you make a case for changing the Constitution.

You aren’t really reading for comprehension here, are you?

Here -

If you are going to ask for a cite next on the harm caused by felons voting, that will be difficult to produce, since felons (by and large) don’t vote now. But the prohibition is currently part of the Constitution, and returning the vote to felons is a change. Thus the burden of proof for the change lies with proponents of the change. It is necessary to argue in favor of the automatic return of voting rights to felons, not merely to claim that the change must be made by default. So feel free to make a case in favor.

Try to read this. Let us know which words you are having trouble with.

Regards,
Shodan

PS to Liberal - No offense to you, but I rather doubt that this is going to be a productive thread from this point, as most of the participants (besides you) are either incapable or unwilling to make a coherent point, or understand one from someone else. So don’t take it amiss if I DFTTs.

[Sal_Ammoniac]

Hey, didn’t you know Liberal was a registered Bush hater? That being the case, why doesn’t he come in for the same opprobrium as the rest of us?

[Liberal]

Sho, the reason I gave the link was to illustrate how frivolous and arbitrary many — not just a few rare birds, but many — of our laws can be. There is a difference between a man who was imprisoned for murder and a man who was imprisoned for remarrying after a divorce (as in the link). You would deny the vote to both.

The exercise of power by the governing elite can be massively destructive to everyone in its wake. What I’m saying is that if you want to draw some line, then “felon” is a poor one to draw. As I said in my first post, there are too many felons who have done nothing wrong. The laws they broke were idiotic and Neanderthal in their conception. They are no danger to society; rather, the danger is posed by the forces that made the laws and imprisoned them.

You need to draw a different line.

[Lightnin]

@Shodan

Well, congratulations on your ability to restate the question under debate for the last several days, Captain Obvious.

And yet you keep dodging the damn question. We know you don’t want ex-felons to vote. We know that ex-felon disenfranchisement is allowed by the Constitution. What we don’t know, however, is why you feel that disenfranchisement is a good idea.

@Shodan

No, I am saying that I agree with what I believe is the logic underlying the Constitutional provision for disenfranchising ex-felons, and requesting that you make a case for changing the Constitution.

I’m not asking to change the Constitution, so you can just drop that shit right there. What I’m asking for is your view on the logic behind the disenfranchisement. I’m asking WHY you think it’s a good idea to disenfranchise ex-felons.

@Shodan

You aren’t really reading for comprehension here, are you?

Dude, you are so fucking full of it. Here, let me rephrase, YET AGAIN.

WHAT HARM DO YOU THINK WILL COME FROM ALLOWING EX-FELONS TO VOTE? I’m not asking if disenfranchisement is something that’s allowed by the Constitution. I’m not asking you if you think that’s a good idea, or not. I’m asking you WHY you don’t think ex-felons voting is a good idea.

If you’re not going to answer, just say so, asshole. Own up to it. Be a man.

Fuck you,
Lightnin’.

[Kalhoun]

@Shodan

I’m not following you (possibly because I didn’t read the thread from which the post came). It seems to be about divorce and bigamy. Does that affect voting rights? My “logic” is the Constitution, as mentioned.

Maybe you should review the thread, because we aren’t talking what the law IS. We’re talking about what the law SHOULD be. The constitution has nothing to do with the appropriateness of disenfranchisement; only that there is a document that backs it up. That doesn’t make it right or logical.

Could you please cite the clause disenfranchising the elderly and infirm?

You really aren’t getting this, are you. Go re-read what I said and see if you can grasp it.

Back to this stuff again, are you?
If you aren’t familiar with the pardon mechanism, I wonder why you are debating it.

I don’t need to be familiar with it to know that there is nothing in it that can 1) prove that someone is civilly responsible, or 2) that civil responsibility is a requirement of the right to vote. There is no standard for the reviewers to base their finding on. The pardon process should not be part of a person’s right to vote once their sentence has been fulfilled.

You still haven’t shown what harm is being done to society by letting ex-cons vote.

Fuck it, you aren’t reading anything even if it is right in front of you.

Now that I’ve again stated that the discussion isn’t about the constitution, can you take a moment to answer the question.

[Shodan]

See what I mean, Lib? They simply don’t read.

Regards,
Shodan

[Kalhoun]

@Shodan

See what I mean, Lib? They simply don’t read.

Regards,
Shodan

Yeah, well maybe we’re just too stupid. Can you point out the part about what the harm is in letting ex-cons vote? You actually might have an argument if you do.

[Shodan]

@Kalhoun

Yeah, well maybe we’re just too stupid. Can you point out the part about what the harm is in letting ex-cons vote? You actually might have an argument if you do.

If you didn’t read it the first time, you won’t read it the second either.

Regards,
Shodan