Voting rights for prisoners

[KeepTalking]

Also, or in any case , why is 'they can't be trusted' not a good reason?

I can think of at least threer easons. First, what can't they be trusted to do? Second, what does "trust" have to do with voting? Third, if "trustability" is an important attribute for voting, why shouldn't everyone's voting eligibility be evaluated on that principle?

Fourth, who gets to decide what passes as "trustworthy"?

Nixon apparently, and now Trump. You know, the most trustworthy people you can think of...

 

[ruby sparks]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with "trustworthiness".

So, in actuality, you think depriving people of their right to vote is a punitive measure, rather than anything to do with their trustworthiness.

I did not say or mean that. It may be partly a punitive measure, yes. It could also act as a prior deterrent. In any case, it is not detached from the issue of trustworthiness anyway. It's related to it.

So again - your preference to be punitive, not any lack of "trustworthiness" on their part.

It may be at least partly punitive, but that does not mean it is not about them being trustworthy (or responsible). It's not separate either or's. The two are linked. The punishment is because of the breach of responsibility ('social untrustworthiness'). You get to play with the 'civilised democracy' toys that everybody shares, but if you do a bad thing, you can't play with some of the communal toys for a while.

 

[PyramidHead]

When it lives long enough it stops being unworkable.

You're trying to support idealism using more idealism.

That's because you're attacking it solely on the grounds that it's idealism. You haven't shown why idealism is unworkable per se, and I doubt you can point to a single area where significant progress in society has been made without it.

 

[ruby sparks]

That's because you're attacking it solely on the grounds that it's idealism.

In a way, yes, I am.

You haven't shown why idealism is unworkable per se, and I doubt you can point to a single area where significant progress in society has been made without it.

That's a sort of 'aim for the stars and you may reach the moon' argument, I think. Which is fine, and I take the point, but how much of the successful moon landing is down to the idealism and how much of it is down to the realist, pragmatic compromise? Which gets the more credit? In short, I could claim that not much progress has been made without realism. Compromised idealism is not really idealism in the end. I'm not anti-idealist, I just think it's, well, unworkable, in the end. That isn't to say it doesn't have its merits.

 

[RavenSky]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with "trustworthiness".

So, in actuality, you think depriving people of their right to vote is a punitive measure, rather than anything to do with their trustworthiness.

I did not say or mean that.

You didn't say it, but you certainly implied it, so if you didn't mean it perhaps you need to re-examine your argument.

It may be partly a punitive measure, yes.

So, you acknowledge that it is but you didn't say it or mean it. So what exactly ARE you trying to say and mean?

It could also act as a prior deterrent.

Because prison itself works so well as a deterrent

In any case, it is not detached from the issue of trustworthiness anyway. It's related to it.

You assert but you do not support.

Therefore, I assert that you are wrong.

 

[ruby sparks]

It may be partly a punitive measure, yes.

So, you acknowledge that it is but you didn't say it or mean it. So what exactly ARE you trying to say and mean?

What I didn't say or mean was all of what you said (in other words what I quoted you as saying): "you think depriving people of their right to vote is a punitive measure, rather than anything to do with their trustworthiness". Since, as I have explained, I didn't say or mean 'rather than anything to do with their trustworthiness", but both punitive and to do with their trustworthiness, you have misunderstood my response, just as you did when you you thought I said allowing prisoners to vote was unworkable, when I wasn't referring to that.

I have no problem at all if you disagree with me on anything, but I don't feel I can have a reasonable or productive conversation with someone who is repeatedly mistaken about what I've actually said or meant, so I don't think I'll respond any further to your points, for that reason. It would imo likely just lead to crossed wires.

 

[RavenSky]

It may be partly a punitive measure, yes.

So, you acknowledge that it is but you didn't say it or mean it. So what exactly ARE you trying to say and mean?

What I didn't say or mean was what you said: "you think depriving people of their right to vote is a punitive measure, rather than anything to do with their trustworthiness". Since, as I have explained, I didn't say or mean 'rather than anything to do with their trustworthiness", you misunderstood, just as you did when you you thought I said allowing prisoners to vote was unworkable, when I wasn't referring to that.

I can't possibly have a reasonable conversation with someone who is repeatedly wrong about what I've actually said, so I don't think I'll respond any further to you.

In other words, I have been 100% accurate in what your words in fact convey and you are frustrated by your own lack of ability to present a coherent argument.

OK. Don't respond. I will still be pointing our your inconsistencies and unintended implications

 

[PyramidHead]

That's because you're attacking it solely on the grounds that it's idealism.

In a way, yes, I am.

You haven't shown why idealism is unworkable per se, and I doubt you can point to a single area where significant progress in society has been made without it.

That's a sort of 'aim for the stars and you may reach the moon' argument, I think. Which is fine, and I take the point, but how much of the successful moon landing is down to the idealism and

All of it, period, next question

 

[ruby sparks]

In a way, yes, I am.



That's a sort of 'aim for the stars and you may reach the moon' argument, I think. Which is fine, and I take the point, but how much of the successful moon landing is down to the idealism and

All of it, period, next question

Yeah right.

 

[laughing dog]

It may be at least partly punitive, but that does not mean it is not about them being trustworthy (or responsible). It's not separate either or's. The two are linked. The punishment is because of the breach of responsibility ('social untrustworthiness'). You get to play with the 'civilised democracy' toys that everybody shares, but if you do a bad thing, you can't play with some of the communal toys for a while.

Sorry, but appears to be totally punitive not responsibility. At least that is a consistent position. But claiming it has something to do with some notion of "the breach of responsibility" is bosh. People make mistakes that are breaches of responsibility who still get to vote. Even serious breaches of responsibility - drunk drivers who injure or kill people and who get no prison time are an example - and they get to vote.

FFS, Nazis get to vote in the US if they are not in prison.

 

[fast]

US citizens have a right to vote?

As I understand it, a right is a creature of law; hence, laws are granted by a governing body. In a lawless society, there are no rights, and I’m speaking (obviously) about legal rights, not to be confused with some other notion of the term.

I presume we’re discussing whether a prisoner should have the legal right to vote. Long before even considering to address that, i’d like to know why there seems to be this reoccurring notion floating about that US non-prisoners have a right to vote. We may have the legal option of driving a motorized vehicle, but an ability to do what is not specifically and explicitly forbade does not make it a right.

We have the legal option to vote, an option not available to prisoners, and whether they should have that option would make for an interesting discussion, but at no time should a prohibition from prisoners casting a ballot be held to the same standard as would an actual genuine bonifed right; in other words, casting the refusal to allow them to vote should not be twisted into the same sense that might be characterized as denying anyone their basic rights. Hell, we law abiding citizens don’t even have an actual right to vote, or drive, or order a hamburger from your local burger joint.

We might sometimes talk as if we do, but if it’s just that (talk), then arguing that not allowing them to vote is violation of their rights too is just that (talk).

I say most of this with my very own caution flag: just testing the waters; moreover, don’t hold me to the fire.

 

[laughing dog]

US citizens have a right to vote?

As I understand it, a right is a creature of law; hence, laws are granted by a governing body. In a lawless society, there are no rights, and I’m speaking (obviously) about legal rights, not to be confused with some other notion of the term.

I presume we’re discussing whether a prisoner should have the legal right to vote. Long before even considering to address that, i’d like to know why there seems to be this reoccurring notion floating about that US non-prisoners have a right to vote. We may have the legal option of driving a motorized vehicle, but an ability to do what is not specifically and explicitly forbade does not make it a right.

We have the legal option to vote, an option not available to prisoners, and whether they should have that option would make for an interesting discussion, but at no time should a prohibition from prisoners casting a ballot be held to the same standard as would an actual genuine bonifed right; in other words, casting the refusal to allow them to vote should not be twisted into the same sense that might be characterized as denying anyone their basic rights. Hell, we law abiding citizens don’t even have an actual right to vote, or drive, or order a hamburger from your local burger joint.

We might sometimes talk as if we do, but if it’s just that (talk), then arguing that not allowing them to vote is violation of their rights too is just that (talk).

I say most of this with my very own caution flag: just testing the waters; moreover, don’t hold me to the fire.

Lawabiding citizens of legal age do have the legal right to vote.

 

[Elixir]

US citizens have a right to vote?

As I understand it, a right is a creature of law; hence, laws are granted by a governing body. In a lawless society, there are no rights, and I’m speaking (obviously) about legal rights, not to be confused with some other notion of the term.

I presume we’re discussing whether a prisoner should have the legal right to vote. Long before even considering to address that, i’d like to know why there seems to be this reoccurring notion floating about that US non-prisoners have a right to vote. We may have the legal option of driving a motorized vehicle, but an ability to do what is not specifically and explicitly forbade does not make it a right.

We have the legal option to vote, an option not available to prisoners, and whether they should have that option would make for an interesting discussion, but at no time should a prohibition from prisoners casting a ballot be held to the same standard as would an actual genuine bonifed right; in other words, casting the refusal to allow them to vote should not be twisted into the same sense that might be characterized as denying anyone their basic rights. Hell, we law abiding citizens don’t even have an actual right to vote, or drive, or order a hamburger from your local burger joint.

We might sometimes talk as if we do, but if it’s just that (talk), then arguing that not allowing them to vote is violation of their rights too is just that (talk).

I say most of this with my very own caution flag: just testing the waters; moreover, don’t hold me to the fire.

Lawabiding citizens of legal age do have the legal right to vote.

Still, in consideration of Fast's point, I favor making voting mandatory (for eligible persons) under penalty of fine and imprisonment.
If people are in prison for not voting, at least the issue will already be moot.

 

[fast]

Lawabiding citizens of legal age do have the legal right to vote.

It’s legal, but being legally permissible isn’t necessarily a right. We have the right to free speech, so not only is free speech permissible, it’s a right we have. Rights are granted. The right (the legally granted right) to free speech has similarities and differences to voting. Both are permissible. Both are legal. Both aren’t rights because both weren’t granted. Rights are granted. Voting was not.

 

[laughing dog]

Lawabiding citizens of legal age do have the legal right to vote.

It’s legal, but being legally permissible isn’t necessarily a right.

In your initial post you wrote "I’m speaking (obviously) about legal rights," and then went on to ignore that in the rest of your post.

[
We have the right to free speech, so not only is free speech permissible, it’s a right we have. Rights are granted.

No, rights are recognized. That is an important distinction.

So, the question is whether the "we" (nation or state) recognize the most important basis for a democratic republic - selecting representatives - to be a right or not.

 

[fast]

You appear to be using language surrounding natural rights.

If people purport the already prelaw existence of a natural right, a governing body may signify they have recognized it (be it actually exist or not), but it’s only until it’s in fact legally granted that it becomes an actual legal right.

 

[PyramidHead]

 

[fast]

I clearly needed to do more homework. I retract...

 

[KeepTalking]

US citizens have a right to vote?

As I understand it, a right is a creature of law; hence, laws are granted by a governing body. In a lawless society, there are no rights, and I’m speaking (obviously) about legal rights, not to be confused with some other notion of the term.

I presume we’re discussing whether a prisoner should have the legal right to vote. Long before even considering to address that, i’d like to know why there seems to be this reoccurring notion floating about that US non-prisoners have a right to vote. We may have the legal option of driving a motorized vehicle, but an ability to do what is not specifically and explicitly forbade does not make it a right.

We have the legal option to vote, an option not available to prisoners, and whether they should have that option would make for an interesting discussion, but at no time should a prohibition from prisoners casting a ballot be held to the same standard as would an actual genuine bonifed right; in other words, casting the refusal to allow them to vote should not be twisted into the same sense that might be characterized as denying anyone their basic rights. Hell, we law abiding citizens don’t even have an actual right to vote, or drive, or order a hamburger from your local burger joint.

We might sometimes talk as if we do, but if it’s just that (talk), then arguing that not allowing them to vote is violation of their rights too is just that (talk).

I say most of this with my very own caution flag: just testing the waters; moreover, don’t hold me to the fire.

The right to vote has been enshrined in the US Constitution since 1870 (15th amendment).

- - - Updated - - -

I clearly needed to do more homework. I retract...

You did not actually specify what it is that you are retracting. I am assuming that you now realize that voting is, in fact, a Constitutional right in the USA.

 

[fast]

US citizens have a right to vote?

As I understand it, a right is a creature of law; hence, laws are granted by a governing body. In a lawless society, there are no rights, and I’m speaking (obviously) about legal rights, not to be confused with some other notion of the term.

I presume we’re discussing whether a prisoner should have the legal right to vote. Long before even considering to address that, i’d like to know why there seems to be this reoccurring notion floating about that US non-prisoners have a right to vote. We may have the legal option of driving a motorized vehicle, but an ability to do what is not specifically and explicitly forbade does not make it a right.

We have the legal option to vote, an option not available to prisoners, and whether they should have that option would make for an interesting discussion, but at no time should a prohibition from prisoners casting a ballot be held to the same standard as would an actual genuine bonifed right; in other words, casting the refusal to allow them to vote should not be twisted into the same sense that might be characterized as denying anyone their basic rights. Hell, we law abiding citizens don’t even have an actual right to vote, or drive, or order a hamburger from your local burger joint.

We might sometimes talk as if we do, but if it’s just that (talk), then arguing that not allowing them to vote is violation of their rights too is just that (talk).

I say most of this with my very own caution flag: just testing the waters; moreover, don’t hold me to the fire.

The right to vote has been enshrined in the US Constitution since 1870 (15th amendment).

- - - Updated - - -

I clearly needed to do more homework. I retract...

You did not actually specify what it is that you are retracting. I am assuming that you now realize that voting is, in fact, a Constitutional right in the USA.

15th amendment? If that was the basis and if I didn’t do my homework, your citation along with my logic would render blacks (but not whites) as having a right to vote. What I retract is the notion people don’t have a right to vote.