The Voting Rights Act is crap

[Fonceai]

@zynner

I wouldn't say your post is outside the mainstream. It's very much IN the stream, just deeper down than most would care to swim, so to speak.

It focuses more on "how much would the tax be" and legitimate issues of literacy, things that need to be addressed when discussing something like a tax.

[underbear1]

Poll taxes are garbage and could be a slippery slope, who's to regulate how high someone might raise this tax?

[CliveStaples]

I'd be sastisfied with a Citizenship requirement. But that's just me and my "xenophobia".

[Fonceai]

@Clive

I'm actually about to finish starting a thread about that very thing... coming soon to a Politics & Government subform near you. I think that once citizenship is ironed out, it will resolve other issues nagging at the gov't.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: tivodan1116 No. There are plenty of rights that citizens enjoy that illegal immigrants do not.

You're misusing the term "right". A right is something that all humans have, no matter what the circumstances. If you have to be a citizen to get it, then it isn't a right -- it's a privilege.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Why would you want to replicate the relationship between the government and the governed of feudal-age Europe?

I don't. What are you talking about?

Quote by: tivodan1116 What happens if the rich voters in your government decide to vote for only representatives who agree to make the following law: "Anyone who does not pay taxes should be summarily shot and their meager property divided among the rich."

An illegal law, under the Constitution. As a libertarian, obviously I would not agree with such a thing, and neither would the population.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Since the people who aren't paying taxes can't vote, they have no way to stop such laws from being made.

That's why the ideal is Rule of Law, not Mob Rule. Our Constitution explicitly forbids such laws.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Your mistake is in thinking that government is only a monetary relationship. As a libertarian, you should realize that there is more to it than that.

No, I think voting should be a monetary relationship. Ideally, voting would not be necessary. The law itself would rule. The only reason a libertarian votes is out of self-defense.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Ok, so do that. What does that have to do with voting?

I think it's pretty clear. The poll tax is a flat tax. Everyone pays the same amount.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Ohh, I see. You want the rich to vote away your liberties instead. You want Bill Gates to take his 40 billion votes to your few thousand and say everyone has to buy Windows Vista within the first week it's out.

No, I want bill Gates to have the same number of votes as me. Accordingly, he should be paying the same amount of taxes as me.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Guess what: Voter turnout is less than 50%. The ill-informed people aren't voting right now, they're staying home...

If only it were so. The people who stay home are apathetic, not necessarily ill-informed.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Because someone disagrees with you does not make them ill-informed (talk about elitist).

I never said any such thing. You have a real penchant for straw men, don't you?

Quote by: tivodan1116 Just because the politicians with your views don't carry the day doesn't mean it's all stupid people randomly whacking levers.

Again, I never suggested such a thing. The fact remains, there are many stupid people out there whacking levers.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Believe me, as a rare libertarian in a very liberal yet very intelligent setting (a NY law school), I can understand that because someone disagrees with me it does not make them stupid.

As can I. How long are you going to keep expounding on something that I never said or suggested?

Quote by: tivodan1116 For what? Again, if you don't think most people voting could pass such an exam, fix the problem, not the symptom.

How about we fix both?

Quote by: tivodan1116 It's not necessary. You could take your militia and overthrow the government and install a dictatorship, like Khadafi, or Pol Pot, or any other one-person rule. Yeah that democracy... THAT's the evil government.

Necessary for liberty, is what I meant to say.

Quote by: tivodan1116 This implies that you think there are uninformed people voting.

Doesn't that go without saying?

Quote by: tivodan1116 The Supreme Court has disagreed with you many times and quite frequently looks at the intentions of a law - when applying strict scrutiny for example. But I guess you think they're ill-informed, right?

Ill-informed, no. Immoral and making horrible decisions for this country, yes.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Ensuring basic rights to all citizens is against the spirit of the Constitution? That's rich. I don't suppose you have anything to back that up?

As evidence I present the Constitution. It is a document that lays out exactly what the federal government can and cannot do. Not until the 14th Amendment was passed did the Feds have any control over states' internal business. This was not an oversight. It was not like, "Whoops! We forgot to add the clause that lets us control everyone in the country!". Read the damn thing and this is clear.

I started a seperate thread on this long ago:
The Fourteenth Amendment: Pure Evil?

Which you've already seen and posted on. If you have something to add to your argument there, why don't you?

Quote by: tivodan1116 How do you preserve the things that you consider rights, like freedom of speech, without the right to vote? Example - your group of college-educated rich people passes an Amendment that overturns the 1st Amendment, and they write a new one which only gives college-educated homeowners the right to free speech.

You've just given an example of people voting away other people's liberties. You have proven my point, not yours.

And what "group" are you referring to? I have by no means endorsed a system wherein only "college-educated rich people" can vote.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Do the poor and uneducated not have a right to free speech? And if they do, how do they preserve it?

The Constitution guarantees it to them. That simple.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Encyclopedia Brittanica: Poll Tax Yeah that Encyclopedia Britannica, what do they know?

"impoverished blacks (and often poor whites) were effectively denied the vote."

The article states that everyone who was poor could not vote. This does not support your claim that all blacks could not vote.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Denying certain groups the right to vote is mob rule - the mob is the people who can vote.

Uhh... no. The mob is the mass of humanity. Hence, democracy is mob rule.

Quote by: tivodan1116 Giving everyone exactly one vote is the antithesis of mob rule, because everyone has equal say.

This statement is incoherent. Equal say or not, "mob rule" means everyone has a say.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: RickSp Morgan, why not do some reading before posting this nonsense? You demand evidence that the poll tax and literacy tests were used to disenfranchise minorities. Then you claim that the 15th Amendement has nothing to do with the Voting Rights Act. Give me a break. This stuff is basic civics. Voting Rights Act of 1965

AN ACT To enforce the Fifteenth Amendment to the of the United States, and for other purposes. This act was signed into law 95 years after the amendment was ratified. In those years, African Americans in the South faced tremendous obstacles to voting, including poll taxes, literacy tests, and other bureaucratic restrictions to deny them the right to vote. They also risked harassment, intimidation, economic reprisals, and physical violence when they tried to register or vote. As a result, very few African Americans were registered voters, and they had very little, if any, political power, either locally or nationally.

This is basic STATIST civics, of the kind taught in public schools. If literacy tests were an "obstacle" to voting, the obvious solution is to become literate!!

Anyway, your post seems to confirm my argument. It says "very few African Americans were registered voters". Very few, not all. Your statement that "blacks could not vote as a result of these policies" is false.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: Fonceai Literacy in 1979 was estimated at 97%. 20 years later, it was down to 74%. The truth about those numbers is that they don't specify English literacy. A perfectly literate and articulate Spanish speaking immigrant (legal or otherwise) who is not a citizen might fail an English literacy test.

Well since fluency in English is a requirement for becoming a citizen, this should not be an issue.

Quote by: Fonceai As of 2005, approximately 5% of America is unemployed. As of 2003, approximately 12.5% of America was at poverty level or lower.

You really think these people would not be able to vote just because they didn't have the money themselves? Foundations would be set up left and right to pay these people to vote (probably for lefty candidates).

Quote by: Fonceai You would be fueling the fires of revolution of those who suddenly have lost a right guaranteed to them by the Constitution.

A "right" that wasn't even added until the USA was already 100 years old. I think you exaggerate the importance of this "right".

[underbear1]

Voting should be simple, any adult citizen without felony charges can vote, and even more radical, we'll honestly count ballots with verifiable paper trail.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: underbear1 Poll taxes are garbage and could be a slippery slope, who's to regulate how high someone might raise this tax?

$100 per person per year should be plenty to run the federal government.

Who's to regulate how high our taxes in general go? Your concern is hardly limited to this one particular tax.

[Morgan_Freeman]

Quote by: underbear1 Voting should be simple, any adult citizen without felony charges can vote, and even more radical, we'll honestly count ballots with verifiable paper trail.

Why only citizens? And why only adults? Don't you think its a "fundamental right"?

[zynner]

Here's an idea:

If I take money out of your pocket, and then give some back to you but keep the rest, have I really stolen from you? I think so.

If a government employee eats from the public trough and then gives a little back (especially if their income and benefits are inflated above the private sector in the first place), does that giving back really mean they paid taxes? I think not. Aren't they a net taker? I think so.

Maybe we need a constitutional amendment prohibiting anyone who is a net taker from voting in elections.

Would that include lawyers? LOL.

~ zynner

[zynner]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Why only citizens? And why only adults? Don't you think its a "fundamental right"?

LOL. I'm waiting to see how she wiggles out of that one.

Notice, it's also felony "charges" -- nothing about convictions. LOL.

Good topic, Morgan.

~ zynner

[underbear1]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman Quote by: underbear1 Voting should be simple, any adult citizen without felony charges can vote, and even more radical, we'll honestly count ballots with verifiable paper trail. Why only citizens? And why only adults? Don't you think its a "fundamental right"?

Cuz it's the law????
Yes it's a fundamental right, for adult citizens without felonies.

[zynner]

Quote by: underbear1 Cuz it's the law???? Yes it's a fundamental right, for adult citizens without felonies.

What is your definition of "fundamental right?"

~ zynner

[Fonceai]

@Morgan

Hard to read your posts when you are breaking down others posts point-by-point.

Because of the way you post, I'm not clear on whether you think there is anything as a "right".

The only difference between rights and privileges is merit.

A driver's license is a privilege. If you violate the merit given you, you lose your license. But you need a reason, a lack of merit, to take it away.

Living and breathing is a right. Someone can take that away from you even without loss of merit.

Fluency in English... is not required to become a citizen. If it were, English would be the National Language. The U.S. does not have an official language. English is the de facto language of this country.

While this ( http://immigration-law.freeadvice.co...quirements.htm ) says "the ability to read, write and speak ordinary English" it does not specify fluency. This is important. There are ways to just learn word recognition. For example, seeing "Columbus" and selecting the answer that says "1492".

Also, don't forget that American English is a mutt of other languages, and it is very possible for someone fluent in a Romantic language (French, Spanish, Latin, Portugese, etc.) to pass the citizenship tests. They don't have to ace them, they just have to pass.

As far as poverty goes, if there were foundations to help out the poor so they could vote, who would give money to the foundations? I'm very curious as to your answer to that question.

Finally...

Quote by: MF A "right" that wasn't even added until the USA was already 100 years old. I think you exaggerate the importance of this "right".

And yet thousands of illegal immigrants marched in the streets of the U.S. a few months ago because they didn't have that "right".

As I said, that right can be granted or taken away for no merit-based reason.

[RickSp]

Quote by: Morgan_Freeman This is basic STATIST civics, of the kind taught in public schools. If literacy tests were an "obstacle" to voting, the obvious solution is to become literate!! Anyway, your post seems to confirm my argument. It says "very few African Americans were registered voters". Very few, not all. Your statement that "blacks could not vote as a result of these policies" is false.

This is just tedious Morgan. Now you are just playing stupid word games. Why waste our time? Of course, you are misquoting me, but why am I not surprised at that either?

Of course, once again you are demonstrating that you know nothing of what you speak. No surprise again. In the segregated south any redneck who could make a mark on a piece of paper was considered literate, but even educated blacks rarely, if ever, were judged to be literate by local white officials.

It is oddly amusing that you consider a knowledge of the the amendments to the Constituion to be "STATIST civics." An odd excuse for ignorance.

Will you at least acknowledge that, contrary to your absurd assertion, the Voting Rights Act has everyting to do with the 15th Amendment? No, probably not. Might require too much intellectual honesty.

[CliveStaples]

A right is something that all humans have, no matter what the circumstances

So free speech isn't a right, eh? No right to keep and bear arms exists either, I guess. T_T


And btw, literacy is a stupid requirement that only the super-rich and well-off think could think is ubiquitous. Illiterate people still pay taxes, still go to school, still go to work, still contribute to society, and still have rights. Heck, they can even be fluent in a language without being able to write or read it. Illiteracy should in no wise be dispositive of a "right", "privilege", "Super-Special Cool Thingy", to vote.

[underbear1]

There are dyslexic people and others with impaired vision, and still others with no vision who can't read, or can't read printed words. I'd have no problem with the candidate's picture on the ballot, which would make speaking the english language less necessary.Having ballots in braile is a reasonable concession for one different ability, why not an image for others?

[Fonceai]

@underbear1

According to immigration law, they make allowances for those with a physical disabilities that prevent being able to read English visually (blind), speak English (mute), or hear English (deaf).

[underbear1]

A right is what citizens of a Nation decide is a right. What they decide isn't binding or true for people outside that Nation.Rights can evolve over time, women's sufferage is a good example. Women were present in this Nation all along, but until sufferage passed, they didn't have the RIGHT to vote.