Any decent person would know you’re completely incorrect.
Some sanctions serve other purposes, to be sure.
But nothing in anything you wrote, except the meaningless claim that you and not I understand decency, suggest that punishment for the sake of punishment’s sake is wrong.
Yeah, it’s just punishment. So what?
Well, o-kay, then.
But seriously, thanks for a great new sig line. 
You’re right - I’ve really only demonstrated that we hardly ever engage in punishment for punishment’s sake, that denial of voting rights is an exception in this regard.
Not quite the same thing, perhaps, but given that you believe that applying my concept of morality to our country would destroy us in a couple of generations, what I’ve actually shown should be more persuasive to you.
The Left has done an excellent job of substituting moral claims for argument, while simultaneously decrying right-wing attempts to do the same thing as “legislating morality” or “imposing Christianity.”
Nice job, guys. Very effective.
Is this just meant as a gibe at Bryan Elkers’ general philosophy, or is it a comment on allowing felons to vote? If the latter, I’m curious how allowing felons to vote would “destroy the country in a couple of generations”, because I simply cannot see how.
The idea of denying felons the right to vote seems peculiar to me. If they are like the majority of Americans (sad to say), they won’t be motivated to vote anyway, so the “punishment” isn’t felt at all, and has nothing but a symbolic point. If the felon wishes to vote, but is unable to by a preventive law, you are retarding his rehabilitation and his restroration to society. This is true even if you provide some series of stations he must achieve in order to be re-integrated. And in that case, your putting additional hurdles in his way after he has served his time and otherwise been sent back into society is going to cause a feeling of persecution and resentment. I don’t see the upside on this. It’s going to increase his alienation. It certainly doesn’t help that the disenfranchised population is disproportionately black, which adds a further dimension to this.
It’s certainly likely that in many cases politics plays a part. As Bricker has reminded us, felons seem to be more likely to vote Democratic party (that they are disproportionately black, and blacks tend to lean more to the Democrats might have something to do with it.) And as a recent story on restoration of voter rights states:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/eric-holder-makes-case-for-felons-to-get-voting-rights-back/2014/02/11/b0556492-932b-11e3-84e1-27626c5ef5fb_story.html
You could cynically argue that Holder is urging the repeal of felon disenfranchising for political reasons, but you could as easily argue that actions increasing disenfranchising and overzealous purging of voter rolls is cynically actiuvely disenfranchising more people.
Heinlein stressed that to gain the franchise one had to demonstrate a commitment to society over the individual. My spin on it is if you demonstrate that you value yourself to the detriment of society, then you should lose your franchise. Same in spirit if not actual mechanics.
Well, the comment was directed at RTFirefly, and was intended to convey my horror at the idea of his personal philosophy as a whole being mistaken for a valid governing set of principles for this country.
Does that help?
Why, specifically, do the stations not constitute a valid set of tasks that symbolize the felon’s interest and willingness to rejoin society?
But permanently? We all make stupid decisions when we’re young, and not all felonies are equal.
Personally, I’ve just never understood the purpose of disenfranchising felons. It’s not like it’s a deterrent- “I *would *rob that convenience store, but I might want to vote sometime again in my life,” said no criminal, ever.
Like someone said, above, it just smacks of meanness. If they’ve done their time, they’ve done their time. If you don’t think they’ve been sufficiently punished, don’t let them out.
Here’s another:
I favor leaving open a path for the felon to apply to have his rights restored, but not an automatic restoration. He should have to expend effort.
I’ll let George Orwell answer this utterly silly question on my behalf:
“Now I will tell you the answer to my question. It is this. The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?”
I’m not sure if that counts as a Godwin, but I don’t much care. The question is foolish, and quite surprisingly so.
I admit I’m no expert on Heinlein’s beliefs, and it’s been several years since I’ve read that particular novel, but I’ll have to disagree with the “same in spirit” idea. There’s a passage early on that I recall of a classroom conversation between Rico and Dubois (Rico’s school instructor in “History and Moral Philosophy”). Rico says something about how the two years’ service says something about one’s moral character, but Dubois shoots him down, describing citizens as just as varied in their moral stances as the population in general. The service imparts a respect for responsibility, but truth be told we’re not really given that much information about the political structure except that:
[ul][li]It works; and[/li][li]It works very well.[/ul][/li]Anyway, as a thought exercise, if I start from the Canadian position (no disenfranchisement) and was considering supporting its implementation, it strikes me as logical that the felony should be of a type that showed a specific intent to harm the political fabric, namely (but not limited to):
[ul][li]Treason;[/li][li]Insurrection;[/li][li]Sedition;[/li][li]Murder or attempted murder of government official(s), barring a finding of legal insanity;[/li][li]Acts of terrorism of a political nature; and[/li][li]Electoral fraud or sabotage.[/ul][/li]
I’m not keen on this generic nonsense about harming “the body politic”. That could apply to speeding tickets, if one is fussy enough.
Your religion is leaking through.
(my bolding}
To be fair, CalMeachem prompted the response with “This is true even if you provide some series of stations he must achieve in order to be re-integrated.”
Not being Christian myself, I would have used the phrase “hoop-jumps”.
If it’s a foolish question, then perhaps you can explain your inability to answer it. The Orwell quote above does not.
Punishment is the purpose of a penal system, and the word penal means punishment. A recognized purpose of the penal system is punishment.
Sure it does.
Why do imagine your debate position is enhanced by announcing what you’re keen on? Have you a favorite liqueur preference you’d care to vouchsafe?
Inability? None. Disinterest? Utter.
Careful you don’t hurt yourself spinning in circles like that.
My “announcement” (which I see you took out of context by omitting the lines that preceded it) demonstrates a good faith position in negotiating the idea, i.e. I’m not automatically, ideologically or dogmatically locked into a particular position, but can see an acceptable and rational range of options. If you can get around to demonstrating the (hopefully non-tautological) benefit of disenfranchisement for general felonies and the value of the felon taking “symbolic” steps toward restoration, I’d take that into account. Or maybe you don’t believe I would… whatever.
As for liqueur, I like Bailey’s, but I can’t see the relevance, the worthiness of the analogy or the wit in your attempt at sarcasm.
Your inattention is leaking through. (My bolding)
You’re quite right. I apologize.
You spent at least a bit of effort getting that Orwell quote in there.
So you TRIED to answer it. But you couldn’t figure out how, and thought Orwell was enough of a Godwinish reference that no one would question you.
The person denying the definition is you.
The benefit is punishment.
You’re pretty locked into that. I think less of you due to your obsession with unjustifiable punishment, and I have no intention of arguing with you further on this subject.
Google. Copy. Paste.
Okay, but I’m not answering it any further.
Okay, I’ll resume answering long enough to say “what are you talking about?” but that’s it, really. It’s not an actual request for an explanation, just my way of saying that you are expressing yourself nonsensically. Go ahead and take the last word on this matter.