They Don’t Pay Their Fair Share

[hog88]

Why? You said that if the sentences were not severe enough then they should be made harsher. So you are saying that it would be OK if he couldn't vote in prison for the rest of his life but not OK if his freedom came at the cost of some extended punishment. That doesn't sound consistent on your part.

Not at all. You are saying that either a criminal must be in jail or other punishments cannot apply.

I think that takes the conversation off course but I believe those cases should be handled under different labels and standards than someone who violently forces sex on someone.

Just from that brief description it sounds like your friend was hosed. But someone with a legitimate DUI conviction will definitely face obstacles. Insurance will be on big one... backed by legal regulations.

We aren't talking about the innocent. We are talking about those proven guilty. I didn't say nor imply that "logical" conclusion. And we DO punish people "forever" in some cases. We lock them up until they die or we execute them. I don't see a 15 year sentence for rape followed by the extended punishment of not being able to vote as equivalent to life in prison. Do you? Or maybe a 5 year sentence for robbery followed by a 10 year suspension of voting contingent on not committing more crime?

Do what? Reward itself for having people in prison? So what would you propose as an alternative for rape, theft, battery, manslaughter, murder, embezzlement, etc?

I could buy that with legislating sentencing guidance.


I think we have testimony from the founders in the way they handled criminals. They punished them severely. Whipping for theft was permitted. Their standard for "cruel and unusual" was significantly different from that of the ACLU over the last 100 years.

Honest question. Do you know when permanent denial of voting rights for past felons began?

1860s through 1870s is when states started denying felons the right to vote.

Do you know why?

 

[sjt18]

The fact that we continually go through the same cycle was established at the beginning of this debate.
The point is that with each iteration of the cycle, societal evolution brings us closer to where we ultimately wish to be.

Depends on "where you wish to be" I suppose? The same kinds of moral decay that we currently see have been harbingers of past collapses... and most if not all saw themselves as "advanced" toward the "ideal".

We live in a world where the largest nation in the world is effectively a slave state. About 1 billion Muslims including about 100 million radicalized ones would take us into a repressive world government like none ever known to man. Crime in our country is on the rise and personal responsibility has long been in decline.

What specific, broad evidence do you see that western nations and culture aren't on the down side and potentially the last stages of Tytler's model?

 

[sjt18]

1860s through 1870s is when states started denying felons the right to vote.

Do you know why?

No. I didn't know when it started so I wouldn't know why. I suspect it would have something to do with former slaves, former rebels, or both.

 

[luthervol]

Depends on "where you wish to be" I suppose? The same kinds of moral decay that we currently see have been harbingers of past collapses... and most if not all saw themselves as "advanced" toward the "ideal".

We live in a world where the largest nation in the world is effectively a slave state. About 1 billion Muslims including about 100 million radicalized ones would take us into a repressive world government like none ever known to man. Crime in our country is on the rise and personal responsibility has long been in decline.

What specific, broad evidence do you see that western nations and culture aren't on the down side and potentially the last stages of Tytler's model?

Human rights

 

[hog88]

No. I didn't know when it started so I wouldn't know why. I suspect it would have something to do with former slaves, former rebels, or both.

Yep, attempting to suppress the black vote. KY was the first state back in the late 1700s and several states passed criminal disenfranchisement laws prior to the civil war but the majority of states passed them after the war.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Driver's licenses are privileges.

In a small bit of irony, I needed a driver's license to apply for a CCW permit.

 

[sjt18]

Really good questions, imo. Voting is a privilege established by the government. After all, the government established restrictions and criteria for voting. As a privilege granted by the government, it can (and should) be discretionary.
The principle of no taxation without representation exists, at least to me, on a higher plane. It is an ideal which we should strive to preserve. The principle is stronger and more important than the vote. Our tool which allows us to be represented is the privilege of voting.

I don't have time to articulate it more fully right now.

Similarly, Justice is an ideal. A principle. The way the government administrates justice is via our court system. Justice is more important than a court.

I hope I can come back to this later.

I've thought about this a little more. Rightly or wrongly, the founders do not appear to have thought about that the way you do. They as a population were not represented. It does not seem to have been an expectation for any particular individual to be represented. For instance, women could not vote for over 100 years after our first democratic elections. A different view of women was definitely involved but the law made a vote a family vote through the male head of household. The representative... still represented the women in the district according to this design.

And remember the original design for Senate elections (vastly superior to the current one) was not by popular vote. State legislatures chose them. That does not seem to align with the idea that you must personally be able to vote for someone for them to be a legitimate representative.

 

[sjt18]

Yep, attempting to suppress the black vote. KY was the first state back in the late 1700s and several states passed criminal disenfranchisement laws prior to the civil war but the majority of states passed them after the war.

IIRC, many former Confederates were denied voting rights after the war. For instance, Lee's application to have his rights restored was not approved until 1975.

 

[sjt18]

Human rights

Specifically what rights and what groups?

 

[LouderVol]

Why? You said that if the sentences were not severe enough then they should be made harsher. So you are saying that it would be OK if he couldn't vote in prison for the rest of his life but not OK if his freedom came at the cost of some extended punishment. That doesn't sound consistent on your part.

Not at all. You are saying that either a criminal must be in jail or other punishments cannot apply.

I think that takes the conversation off course but I believe those cases should be handled under different labels and standards than someone who violently forces sex on someone.

Just from that brief description it sounds like your friend was hosed. But someone with a legitimate DUI conviction will definitely face obstacles. Insurance will be on big one... backed by legal regulations.

We aren't talking about the innocent. We are talking about those proven guilty. I didn't say nor imply that "logical" conclusion. And we DO punish people "forever" in some cases. We lock them up until they die or we execute them. I don't see a 15 year sentence for rape followed by the extended punishment of not being able to vote as equivalent to life in prison. Do you? Or maybe a 5 year sentence for robbery followed by a 10 year suspension of voting contingent on not committing more crime?

Do what? Reward itself for having people in prison? So what would you propose as an alternative for rape, theft, battery, manslaughter, murder, embezzlement, etc?

I could buy that with legislating sentencing guidance.


I think we have testimony from the founders in the way they handled criminals. They punished them severely. Whipping for theft was permitted. Their standard for "cruel and unusual" was significantly different from that of the ACLU over the last 100 years.

Honest question. Do you know when permanent denial of voting rights for past felons began?

Do your last question. No I dont. For me it only makes sense to take away a right if it was involved in the crime.

People who commit voting fraud shouldnt be able to vote ever again. People who commit violent crimes with guns shouldnt be able to own a gun again. Rape=castration. But what I want isnt what our criminal justice system is based on.

It's based on a belief that you are innocent until proven guilty, you are given a fair trial, provided a lawyer, fairly sentenced, no cruel or unusual punishments.

So what happens is they get their trial, get sentenced where judge reads out their punishment. They then serve their punishment. And then they find out, oh yeah here is a list of rights you dont get to have....because some law somewhere says something vague. That seems like unusual punishment to me if it's not spelled out at the original sentencing.

I dont believe in second class citizens. So yes in my books you are either in jail/prison/parole/probation or your are 100% free.

Person 1 sentenced to prison for 15, then probation for 15 with no voting. I dont take a problem with that.

Person 2 sentenced to prison. Gets out and then is denied voting, possibly for the rest of their lives. I take a problem with that.

The sentence is the sentence. Anything else isnt justice. It's more akin to what our FF fought against with a slanted "criminal justice system".

 

[Vol8188]

Yep, attempting to suppress the black vote. KY was the first state back in the late 1700s and several states passed criminal disenfranchisement laws prior to the civil war but the majority of states passed them after the war.

I would happily support an act that reversed horrific/racist laws within our country:

1. Reinstate voting rights for felons who’ve served their sentence

2. Eliminate the minimum wage

3. Repeal marijuana laws

4. Repeal gun laws

 

[luthervol]

Specifically what rights and what groups?

In the last 150 years we have given women the vote, ended slavery, ended child labor, ended segregation, recognized gay rights, women's right to choose, etc...

 

[McDad]

I've thought about this a little more. Rightly or wrongly, the founders do not appear to have thought about that the way you do. They as a population were not represented. It does not seem to have been an expectation for any particular individual to be represented. For instance, women could not vote for over 100 years after our first democratic elections. A different view of women was definitely involved but the law made a vote a family vote through the male head of household. The representative... still represented the women in the district according to this design.

And remember the original design for Senate elections (vastly superior to the current one) was not by popular vote. State legislatures chose them. That does not seem to align with the idea that you must personally be able to vote for someone for them to be a legitimate representative.

Agreed. The concept of who is worthy of representation has changed. The requirements for representation have changed as well. The principle of representation has not (for me).

The senate is an interesting reminder to me. States are to be represented in our government. In fact, our government should be in a 3 way dance between the country, the states, and the individual. Since a singular state as a stand alone entity cannot vote but is in the dance, their representation was appointed (or was intended to be). Now that senators are voted on by the members of their state, the individual is somewhat over represented and the state is under represented.

The idea that a state is represented fits nicely with Hog's idea of each state levies the own taxes and pays to the federal what is due.

 

[VOLS INC.]

In the last 150 years we have given women the vote, ended slavery, ended child labor, ended segregation, recognized gay rights, women's right to choose, etc...

True

But in that same time period, the fatherless home rate has skyrocketed, many now believe gender is fluid, obesity rates leading to heart disease is now an epidemic (better than starving for sure, but not by much given the suffering that accompanies obesity), and personally I would not call the practice of ending a babies life for mere convenience “progress” (At the risk of starting an abortion debate)

I do not disagree with your overall point. However, we have made progress in some areas, and went backwards in others.

As far as “human rights” being the smoking gun. Yeah, maybe in America and some other countries. However, I don’t believe the gay people still getting thrown off rooftops in the Middle East, or the Muslim slaves in China would strongly agree with you.

Add. We are also now choosing segregation. See “cultural centers” or “safe spaces” on many college campuses.

 

[AshG]

Add. We are also now choosing segregation. See “cultural centers” or “safe spaces” on many college campuses.

I would argue, from practice and experience, that churches are "cultural centers" or "safe spaces," yet we don't make the fuss about that. Once or twice a week, a large number of Americans segregate themselves into physical gatherings that have different and deep rooted traditions and beliefs. These physical gatherings are also among the most racially divided times of the week in the country. And we celebrate it.

Why do we not offer the same leeway to those who want to have the same opportunity, just not based on religion?

 

[VOLS INC.]

I would argue, from practice and experience, that churches are "cultural centers" or "safe spaces," yet we don't make the fuss about that. Once or twice a week, a large number of Americans segregate themselves into physical gatherings that have different and deep rooted traditions and beliefs. These physical gatherings are also among the most racially divided times of the week in the country. And we celebrate it.

Why do we not offer the same leeway to those who want to have the same opportunity, just not based on religion?

The primary purpose of a Church is to worship God. The primary purpose of a safe space on a college campus is to get away from white people. Don’t believe me? Find me one “cultural center” or “safe space” on a college campus that is designated for white people.
You won’t. Because that would be racist.

I don’t celebrate racism.

 

[AshG]

The primary purpose of a Church is to worship God. The primary purpose of a safe space on a college campus is to get away from white people. Don’t believe me? Find me one “cultural center” or “safe space” on a college campus that is designated for who’re people.
You won’t. Because that would be racist.

I don’t celebrate racism.

Do you find it troublesome that Sunday mornings are the most racially segregated time of the week, especially in Christendom?

 

[VOLS INC.]

Do you find it troublesome that Sunday mornings are the most racially segregated time of the week, especially in Christendom?

I’m certainly not fond of it but again the goal of a Church is to worship God.
And “Especially in Christendom”?
Do you believe that Mosque and Synagogues are more racially diverse than Churches?

What do you mean especially??

 

[hndog609]

I would argue, from practice and experience, that churches are "cultural centers" or "safe spaces," yet we don't make the fuss about that. Once or twice a week, a large number of Americans segregate themselves into physical gatherings that have different and deep rooted traditions and beliefs. These physical gatherings are also among the most racially divided times of the week in the country. And we celebrate it.

Why do we not offer the same leeway to those who want to have the same opportunity, just not based on religion?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but is it really common for churches to specifically exclude certain races? I don't mean that's where certain races group up for services (which in large part could be just a matter of proximity) but actually having worship attendance unambiguously determined by race? I ask because that's, to my understanding anyway, how most (all?) of these "safe space" type areas work.

 

[AshG]

I’m certainly not fond of it but again the goal of a Church is to worship God.
And “Especially in Christendom”?
Do you believe that Mosque and Synagogues are more racially diverse than Churches?

What do you mean especially??

I hear echos of the Westminster Catechism in your reply. A beautiful summation of faith!

No, I do not believe that any religion actively claims as much diversity of membership as the large umbrella of Christianity.

But even (especially?) in the US, we have more flavors of Christianity than Baskin Robbins has of ice cream. And often the divisions are over interpretations of a small handful of verses. Or, in at least one case, Deacons bickering over the color of the new carpet. And we're all so sure we're right that we tend to gather those who agree with our minutia and push away those who don't.

 

[sjt18]

In the last 150 years we have given women the vote, ended slavery, ended child labor, ended segregation, recognized gay rights, women's right to choose, etc...

And the rights of women the world round have declined. Women in China are forced to have abortions. More women are subjected to no rights under Islamic law.

Slavery is still alive and well to include China's 1.5 billion. "White" slavery is still a reality across Africa and some Islamic nations.

Ended segregation only for the "left" to demand it be reimplemented except discriminatory to white people.

Gay rights? What specifically are you talking about and at what cost to the rights of conscience and association? You cannot claim progress on "rights" when "new rights" are created at the expense of the inalienable rights of others.

Women's right to choose to kill an innocent human being because they're the inconvenient consequence of a freely exercised choice? That and the 70 million lives lost in the US alone are MAJOR regression in human rights.

But I'm glad you mentioned "choice"... since those supporting abortion as a "choice" pretty much oppose choice on almost every other issue... Out of one side of their mouth they declare that a woman has a "right" to kill an unborn child then out of the other declare that a business cannot have a health insurance that does not include payment for that killing.

At least two of the things you mentioned aren't advancements. In fact, they are historical markers of societies that have reached the end. At the end of the Roman Empire, sexual depravity was celebrated. Drugs to cause abortion were used and live babies were thrown into trash heaps so mothers could go back to their "lifestyle".

Sexual decadence and a disregard for the value of innocent life... is a harbinger of DECLINE... not progress.

 

[AshG]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but is it really common for churches to specifically exclude certain races? I don't mean that's where certain races group up for services (which in large part could be just a matter of proximity) but actually having worship attendance unambiguously determined by race? I ask because that's, to my understanding anyway, how most (all?) of these "safe space" type areas work.

Churches aren't supposed to segregate, but so many have appropriated the majority attendee cultural influence into their makeups that outliers don't fit in and generally aren't made to feel welcome.

 

[sjt18]

The primary purpose of a Church is to worship God. The primary purpose of a safe space on a college campus is to get away from white people. Don’t believe me? Find me one “cultural center” or “safe space” on a college campus that is designated for white people.
You won’t. Because that would be racist.

I don’t celebrate racism.

Sometimes white women are permitted and particularly if they're lesbian or have some other claim to "oppression".

 

[Vol8188]

Agreed. The concept of who is worthy of representation has changed. The requirements for representation have changed as well. The principle of representation has not (for me).

The senate is an interesting reminder to me. States are to be represented in our government. In fact, our government should be in a 3 way dance between the country, the states, and the individual. Since a singular state as a stand alone entity cannot vote but is in the dance, their representation was appointed (or was intended to be). Now that senators are voted on by the members of their state, the individual is somewhat over represented and the state is under represented.

The idea that a state is represented fits nicely with Hog's idea of each state levies the own taxes and pays to the federal what is due.

While the left continually looks to Europe for ideas as to how to improve our democracy, they seem to ignore the failure of the EU which I would argue was due to a lack of state representation. Forcing smaller states to either give in and accept outside rule or to leave.

 

[85SugarVol]

The fact that we continually go through the same cycle was established at the beginning of this debate.
The point is that with each iteration of the cycle, societal evolution brings us closer to where we ultimately wish to be.

You made this point yesterday in relation to wealth. Can we re-visit?

I was interested in what you were saying. As I understood it - that we, as a society, have re-set wealth in a cycle, with multiple iterations?