Who should be denied choice?

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Who should be denied choice?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:13 pm

Some common examples are minors, the mentally deficient, prisoners, even the direct vote for US President is denied. It can change with the times, e.g. women at one time were denied the right to vote. Can this ever be settled?

PhilX

bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by bobevenson » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:22 pm

The title of this thread is not clear at all. If it is about being able to cast a vote in political elections, everybody should be able to vote or have a vote cast for them in their own best interests. This includes the criminally insane, prisoners and babies in utero.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:33 pm

bobevenson wrote:The title of this thread is not clear at all. If it is about being able to cast a vote in political elections, everybody should be able to vote or have a vote cast for them in their own best interests. This includes the criminally insane, prisoners and babies in utero.
Do you count, e.g., the criminally insane as belonging to general society? And babies in utero is ridiculous as they haven't been born yet. And who decides what's in the others best interest?

PhilX

bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by bobevenson » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:49 pm

Everybody under the political control of a government has an inalienable right to vote. This includes everybody, regardless of physical or mental ability. If unable to vote, a surrogate should be appointed, for instance, the parent of a baby in utero.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by Lacewing » Mon Oct 12, 2015 9:59 pm

bobevenson wrote:Everybody under the political control of a government has an inalienable right to vote. This includes everybody, regardless of physical or mental ability. If unable to vote, a surrogate should be appointed, for instance, the parent of a baby in utero.
So a woman carrying triplets gets to cast her vote plus 3 votes for her babies?

What about dogs and cats? Shouldn't they get a vote about issues that affect them?

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:01 pm

bobevenson wrote:Everybody under the political control of a government has an inalienable right to vote. This includes everybody, regardless of physical or mental ability. If unable to vote, a surrogate should be appointed, for instance, the parent of a baby in utero.
What if the baby were triplets? Are you saying the triplets would all vote the same way? And by letting the parent vote on behalf of the baby is taking away the child's right to vote and giving it to the parents. Then are you saying that both the mother and the father have the right to vote on behalf of the child? And how old does the child have to be in order to vote? And since we're on the subject of voting, why are US citizens denied the direct vote for US President? Does your AEP have answers?

PhilX

bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by bobevenson » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:13 pm

Of course triplets would each have a vote, and it would be cast by one of their parents. As they are growing up, the parents would remain their surrogate until the parents decide they can vote on their own. This is how things would be properly handled under the AEP.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:19 pm

bobevenson wrote:Of course triplets would each have a vote, and it would be cast by one of their parents. As they are growing up, the parents would remain their surrogate until the parents decide they can vote on their own. This is how things would be properly handled under the AEP.
Suppose the parents decided they won't relinquish their proxy power. That would make it like how the Communists ran their countries. Plus which parent gets to vote on behalf of the children?

PhilX

wtf
Posts: 833
Joined: Tue Sep 08, 2015 11:36 pm

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by wtf » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:34 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote: Do you count, e.g., the criminally insane as belonging to general society?
PhilX
Why not, many of them are our elected leaders.

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:36 pm

wtf wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote: Do you count, e.g., the criminally insane as belonging to general society?
PhilX
Why not, many of them are our elected leaders.
I think corrupt would be a better description for some of them.

PhilX

Dalek Prime
Posts: 4922
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2015 4:48 am
Location: Living in a tree with Polly.

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by Dalek Prime » Mon Oct 12, 2015 10:53 pm

bobevenson wrote:Everybody under the political control of a government has an inalienable right to vote. This includes everybody, regardless of physical or mental ability. If unable to vote, a surrogate should be appointed, for instance, the parent of a baby in utero.
Fuck you. A parent gets more than one vote, twat?

bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by bobevenson » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:05 pm

Philosophy Explorer wrote:
bobevenson wrote:Of course triplets would each have a vote, and it would be cast by one of their parents. As they are growing up, the parents would remain their surrogate until the parents decide they can vote on their own. This is how things would be properly handled under the AEP.
Suppose the parents decided they won't relinquish their proxy power. That would make it like how the Communists ran their countries. Plus which parent gets to vote on behalf of the children?

PhilX
I guess as long as the parents are paying for everything and providing food and shelter, they can make that decision for their children. On the other hand, the children can just run away from home, OK?

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3308
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by Lacewing » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:16 pm

bobevenson wrote:Of course triplets would each have a vote, and it would be cast by one of their parents. As they are growing up, the parents would remain their surrogate until the parents decide they can vote on their own. This is how things would be properly handled under the AEP.
Are you assuming that the mother and father stay married and/or agree on everything? What planet is that? What if the mother and father belong to differing parties -- then who decides which way the triplet babies vote? What if the babies would prefer to exercise their right NOT to vote... and then they grow up being pissed off that they were used as a pawn by their deluded parent for political purposes that the baby would have opposed?

Would orphanages get to vote for all the orphans in their care?

Philosophy Explorer
Posts: 5621
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2014 7:39 am

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by Philosophy Explorer » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:17 pm

bobevenson wrote:
Philosophy Explorer wrote:
bobevenson wrote:Of course triplets would each have a vote, and it would be cast by one of their parents. As they are growing up, the parents would remain their surrogate until the parents decide they can vote on their own. This is how things would be properly handled under the AEP.
Suppose the parents decided they won't relinquish their proxy power. That would make it like how the Communists ran their countries. Plus which parent gets to vote on behalf of the children?

PhilX
I guess as long as the parents are paying for everything and providing food and shelter, they can make that decision for their children. On the other hand, the children can just run away from home, OK?
Sounds like vote buying. Your proposed system has a number of defects and you haven't addressed the issues I brought up.

PhilX

bobevenson
Posts: 7349
Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Who should be denied choice?

Post by bobevenson » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:17 pm

Dalek Prime wrote:
bobevenson wrote:Everybody under the political control of a government has an inalienable right to vote. This includes everybody, regardless of physical or mental ability. If unable to vote, a surrogate should be appointed, for instance, the parent of a baby in utero.
Fuck you. A parent gets more than one vote, twat?
Unfortunately, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. What do you even mean, a parent gets more than one vote. The second, third, fourth or whatever the number of children he has, are being represented by those votes, as goddamn well they should, you fucking Socialist!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests