Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shub-Nullgurath]

A computer is a useful tool for communication and social mobility, and I would almost say, a nescessity in modern western society. You think you can find a job nowadays with a handwritten letter?
You cannot compare that to cosmetics. I don't wear a computer just to look pretty.

There's libraries with communal computers, there's job centres with computers loaded full of jobs. Surely you don't need a computer for yourself when you could go to one of them? Having a computer for yourself is a luxury.

were it so easy. (Yes, I would gladly take that life [hermit in woods] over this one; it is not permitted to me. The government has this thing about people doing that-- they fine the shit out of them, and make their lives miserable.)

I would too, but there's laws against living off the land in a self sustaining way. Just not possible.

A moment ago you said it was acceptable to break the law if you disagree with it. Why not break the law here to live the life you want to lead?

[martinuzz]

I don't think felons should be deprived of voting rights. Every crime has a background. Most crime stems from underlying societal problems. By depriving felons of their vote, especially if you have a significant inmate population like the US has, will distort the outcome of democratic process by underadressing those issues. I mean, felons might have committed a crime, but that does not mean they are ignorant to their social situation.

[Harry Baldman]

Why exactly is it a problem that felons vote though? Is there some kind of specific preference that is to be expected from felons that would shift government policy in an undesirable direction? Are you afraid that they want to legalize murder or heroin or something?

[martinuzz]

A moment ago you said it was acceptable to break the law if you disagree with it. Why not break the law here to live the life you want to lead?

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that it's acceptle to break a law on basis of not agreeing with it, I said it was acceptable to break a law in order to survive / sustain yourself.

Since I am not starving or homeless, I don't see why I would be entitled to break the law. Now if I were starving and or homeless, indeed, I'd say fuck 'yall, and put up a tipi somewhere in the (scarce) Dutch woods, to most likely be removed by the police within a few hours.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

I don't think felons should be deprived of voting rights. Every crime has a background. Most crime stems from underlying societal problems. By depriving felons of their vote, especially if you have a significant inmate population like the US has, will distort the outcome of democratic process by underadressing those issues. I mean, felons might have committed a crime, but that does not mean they are ignorant to their social situation.

I'm not sure it's the case that societal problems cause crime. That's a chicken and egg situation, though. Does crime moving into an area create societal problems or does the existence of societal problems create crime? And, at what point do we say people should be responsible for their own negative actions instead of blaming everything on "society"?

[martinuzz]

And, at what point do we say people should be responsible for their own negative actions instead of blaming everything on "society"?

We have the law for that, which usually suffices. Which is why they're called 'felons' in the first place, and are in prison. The fact that they made a poor choice, and are held accountable for that does not mean we should not be looking at the crime's background in society at the same time.

I'm not sure it's the case that societal problems cause crime. That's a chicken and egg situation, though. Does crime moving into an area create societal problems or does the existence of societal problems create crime?

It's not a chicken and egg situation, it's and - and. It's well accepted in sociology that poverty, poor upward mobility and many other societal factors are strong contributors to crime. Ofcourse, there's self re-inforcement. A gang of bad apples moving into your hood won't improve your hood, so to speak. But they had to come from somewhere, too.

[Shub-Nullgurath]

We have the law for that, which usually suffices. Which is why they're called 'felons' in the first place, and are in prison. The fact that they made a poor choice, and are held accountable for that does not mean we should not be looking at the crime's background in society at the same time.

It's not a chicken and egg situation, it's and - and. It's well accepted in sociology that poverty, poor upward mobility and many other societal factors are strong contributors to crime. Ofcourse, there's self re-inforcement. A gang of bad apples moving into your hood won't improve your hood, so to speak. But they had to come from somewhere, too.

Which is why they get removed from the vote.

Anyway, this thread's petered out and turned into a crime discussion. That's for a new thread altogether.

[Harry Baldman]

I'm not sure it's the case that societal problems cause crime. That's a chicken and egg situation, though. Does crime moving into an area create societal problems or does the existence of societal problems create crime? And, at what point do we say people should be responsible for their own negative actions instead of blaming everything on "society"?

That's what prison is for, taking responsibility and correcting criminal behavior. Why do you want to level another punishment on top of the legally mandated one? It appears to serve no purpose beyond driving home the point that somebody once incarcerated is effectively in a lower class of citizenship than somebody who isn't, likely permanently.

Besides, individual choice is the random element of whether somebody becomes a felon or not. Society provides the range of choices that an individual has in a given situation. Both are significant, but society we can systemically attempt to address whereas individual choice we effectively can't. So if our goal is to lower the crime rates, it would follow that the solution is to provide convenient choices for a criminal that let them live within the bounds of the law (thus minimizing the harm they cause) rather than drive them into the dust for a perceived and unprovable moral deficiency.

[wobbly]

I don't really have a problem with felons losing their vote though, though I think they should regain it after some amount of years after their sentence is up (say 2-5). That way the majority who commit one crime and then does not repeat it regains their ability, while the career criminals are kept out of the system. Stop that I think there should be an ability to keep people with links to organised crime out of the system permanently (especially in places like the US where offices like Police Chief and Judges and what not is up for vote), and that corruption sentences should have similar consequences.

Oh, and lobbying should be a felony

Plenty of places that have had ex-cons not only voting but also in major positions of power. Nelson Mandela being the most obvious example. It's pretty hard to get elected in a major role without people being aware of a history that includes gaol time. I don't see much of a compelling reason to keep felons out of the political system & it would certainly be odd to allow someone to hold a position but not to vote.

[sluissa]

While in theory I'd be in favor of some sort of pre-requisite to vote. Not so much in limitation as to who could vote, but in some sort of system where a relatively short period of time would be spent in a civil service position of some sort, working with the government, at a reasonable wage (although I think any appropriate volunteer time should count as well.) Require the government to have these positions open. Whether it be assisting the legislative process in the capital, or shoveling dirt in road projects, or helping out in a school somewhere or even military service. If you want to go through this process to be able to vote, they can find a job for you. Also provides a guaranteed alternative for anyone looking for some employment experience.

That's all in theory though. In practice such a system would be prone to failures on multiple levels and prone to corruption and cutting out any "undesirables" people feel shouldn't have a voice.

With that in mind I find it impossible to have any sort of limitation on who can vote. Age is understandable, as at least in this society we do have a clear cut legal line between child and adult. Those who are taken care of and those who can take care. I'd argue children shouldn't necessarily be denied the vote, but if we have to have ANY limitation, a minimum age is the least intrusive. I'd also argue that criminals, shouldn't be denied the right to a vote either. Any criminal. In a healthy society criminals will be such a small portion of the population, even in the US with its huge prison system, that any desire for them to push radical changes to the law to allow for harmful acts to be legal would be vastly counterbalanced by the rest of society voting against it. Any elective choice for them to be a notable swing vote is already going to have widespread acceptance among non-criminal sections as well. And finally any society where criminals make up such a staggeringly large portion of the population that they would be able to enact significant change as a voting bloc to themselves is an unhealthy society to begin with with something so common being punished so harshly that it likely needs to change anyway.

[Azzuro]

I have no idea where the whole felon thing is coming from, but I think it's safe to say that 99% of you support them being able to vote.

I don't believe suffrage should be limited, though there is an argument that imposing limited suffrage in Western democracies could be a healthy thing. As it stands, some test to ensure that citizens are capable of defining and pursuing their own self-interest before giving them the vote is called for, though I can't even begin to imagine how such a test would function objectively.

[Max™]

What martinuzz was groping at with the "unjust laws are invalid" sort of direction is the whole whacky protestant work ethic bullshit that's been latched on to eagerly by people who really liked the idea of feudalism, but wish they could have a bit better living conditions for themselves, y'know, with modern amenities and bacon on everything.

Universal basic income is seriously treated like a bad thing, an outlet for the lazy.

Limiting the right to partake in government will just keep this sort of insane ideology in place longer than it should be, and it's been here too long anyways.


Moving on...

You want a sound test to see who should be able to vote?

Can someone--in any fashion--express the desire to vote?
Ok then, arguing that these people shouldn't be able to vote lets everyone else know exactly where you stand on the rights of others.

[scriver]

As some people probably realised, my mind brainfarted together "vote" and "be eligible for office" in my above thread.

But yeah, I think it is pretty important to keep organised crime and such out of positions where they can use their authority to do harm.

[Jopax]

No, it should be a left.

(seriously people, six pages and nobody did this, I'm disgusted by this community sometimes)

[sluissa]

As some people probably realised, my mind brainfarted together "vote" and "be eligible for office" in my above thread.

But yeah, I think it is pretty important to keep organised crime and such out of positions where they can use their authority to do harm.

The danger here about making exceptions like that is that you could label ANY political opponent you don't like as a member of "<x group we don't allow to vote or in office>" and suddenly they're not a political threat anymore.