Taxation without representation.....seems so.

[burgertime2010]

Lately, the idea of Americans losing their voting priveledge while in a correctional facility or on parole seems to be fair enough for little outrage to surface. Despite the consequences prescribed at trial, loss of citezinship and having no input, no place to voice his part of this, are we acting ethically? Is this taxation without representation? I am at a place with this where the amount of unfit voters is not contested by American Democracy but never does this type of silencing get brought up. When did the biggest cornerstone of this country become part of a penalty? This system exists with taxation and without representation. I don't like it.

 

[beenthere]

Lately, the idea of Americans losing their voting priveledge while in a correctional facility or on parole seems to be fair enough for little outrage to surface. Despite the consequences prescribed at trial, loss of citezinship and having no input, no place to voice his part of this, are we acting ethically? Is this taxation without representation? I am at a place with this where the amount of unfit voters is not contested by American Democracy but never does this type of silencing get brought up. When did the biggest cornerstone of this country become part of a penalty? This system exists with taxation and without representation. I don't like it.

Felons knew this before they committed a crime, they make their bed so they can sleep in it, as far as I'm concerned.

Do you think law abiding citizens that are well off financially fall into the category of taxation without representation?

 

[Rob Roy]

Of course some "felons" have never harmed anybody at all or created any real victim, instead some of them have been victimized. It is important to understand the difference between an illegal act and a real crime.

Any act can be made illegal or a statutory crime, whether it is a real crime or not, all it takes is a bunch of people that call themselves your leader to vote it so.

A true crime is when there is a demonstrable victimization of another individual(s).

 

[burgertime2010]

Felons knew this before they committed a crime, they make their bed so they can sleep in it, as far as I'm concerned.

Do you think law abiding citizens that are well off financially fall into the category of taxation without representation?

I do not. Perhaps, the felons knew it prior to whatever and I am not saying the crime shouldn't match the punishment. Jail served, and payment for actions rendered, I cannot merit this type of systematic gerrymandering. I went to a school that was "a distinguished school" because all the "trouble" was swept away and ignored. The GPA was just an excuse, these were intelligent American citezins being denied a big part of our collective values. It's about rigging a game to me.

 

[Rob Roy]

I do not. Perhaps, the felons knew it prior to whatever and I am not saying the crime shouldn't match the punishment. Jail served, and payment for actions rendered, I cannot merit this type of systematic gerrymandering. I went to a school that was "a distinguished school" because all the "trouble" was swept away and ignored. The GPA was just an excuse, these were intelligent American citezins being denied a big part of our collective values. It's about rigging a game to me.

If there were such a thing as "collective values" one would think it includes the right of every individual to live his or her life free from unwanted intervention. Agree?

 

[burgertime2010]

Of course some "felons" have never harmed anybody at all or created any real victim, instead some of them have been victimized. It is important to understand the difference between an illegal act and a real crime.

Any act can be made illegal or a statutory crime, whether it is a real crime or not, all it takes is a bunch of people that call themselves your leader to vote it so.

A true crime is when there is a demonstrable victimization of another individual(s).

There is that issue certainly....democracy may not work the way it was romanticized. I am no criminal......the right to vote is just beyond all that to me. Sort of a form of slavery that doesn't look so bad because there is no whips.

 

[Rob Roy]

There is that issue certainly....democracy may not work the way it was romanticized. I am no criminal......the right to vote is just beyond all that to me. Sort of a form of slavery that doesn't look so bad because there is no whips.

Democracy is nothing more than a diversion to make people think they control the controllers. Slavery of the mind is cheaper for the slave owners to manage their livestock.

 

[burgertime2010]

If there were such a thing as "collective values" one would think it includes the right of every individual to live his or her life free from unwanted intervention. Agree?

I agree, in the case of "inalienable rights, basic freedoms, and protection against intervention" are collective values....for lack of better phrasing. America, as polarized as it is, has a democracy and the risk to it becoming just a word, I feel is valued?

 

[Rob Roy]

I agree, in the case of "inalienable rights, basic freedoms, and protection against intervention" are collective values....for lack of better phrasing. America, as polarized as it is, has a democracy and the risk to it becoming just a word, I feel is valued?

I think a democracy can only ensure one thing, constant struggle back and forth over the legislative power to control other people. Rights are not collective, they are (or should be) universal for ALL individuals.

If rights were a sum of the whims of one group, it would be easy to commit any atrocity that you could get enough people to vote for, regardless if they violated other people or not.
Taken a step further, ridiculous things like laws that steal an individuals control over their own body would be commonplace.....I think I'll go smoke some weed now...no wait.

 

[burgertime2010]

Democracy is nothing more than a diversion to make people think they control the controllers. Slavery of the mind is cheaper for the slave owners to manage their livestock.

You are missing my point, the priveledge or the right to participate in the process....is important, not as a right, only as a priveledge. I don't usually enjoy the reality of this charade either, control is measured by whom is not controlled. "I think therefore"

 

[Rob Roy]

You are missing my point, the priveledge or the right to participate in the process....is important, not as a right, only as a priveledge. I don't usually enjoy the reality of this charade either, control is measured by whom is not controlled. "I think therefore"

What about the right "not to participate or not be swallowed up" ? If people truly had a choice and were truly free, the default would be, they can join an organization or as long as they leave others alone, they can be free not to join or be dictated to by a given organization.

Thinking that "choice" of who to vote as your "leader" represents all the possible choices is exactly what they want you to think. Free people have the ability to associate with others that welcome their association and to disassociate if they chose to. Unless that option exists, somebody else is controlling you.

 

[NoDrama]

....democracy may not work the way it was romanticized.

Let me get this straight. People think Democracy is romantic? I don't get it. Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on whats for dinner, as long as 50.0001% of the other half vote one way, what we or anyone in the 49.9999% wants, frankly, doesn't matter.

So if 50.00001% of the people vote to have the other 49.99999% shot, and their wealth divided amongst the others, well that is what will happen. No one has any rights under Democracy.(Dumbocracy)

 

[burgertime2010]

I think a democracy can only ensure one thing, constant struggle back and forth over the legislative power to control other people. Rights are not collective, they are (or should be) universal for ALL individuals.

If rights were a sum of the whims of one group, it would be easy to commit any atrocity that you could get enough people to vote for, regardless if they violated other people or not.
Taken a step further, ridiculous things like laws that steal an individuals control over their own body would be commonplace.....I think I'll go smoke some weed now...no wait.

For the record, the collective is the US and like it or not we have recognized the constitution as our "collective" rights. Laws are an easy and broad target, why? Is personal freedom safe, prudent, or beneficial? I agree ridiculous laws are all over but maybe it is just a hypocrisy and sinister plan in this case specifically. Why no votes?

 

[NoDrama]

What about the right "not to participate or not be swallowed up" ? If people truly had a choice and were truly free, the default would be, they can join an organization or as long as they leave others alone, they can be free not to join or be dictated to by a given organization.

Thinking that "choice" of who to vote as your "leader" represents all the possible choices is exactly what they want you to think. Free people have the ability to associate with others that welcome their association and to disassociate if they chose to. Unless that option exists, somebody else is controlling you.

I gotta admire you for your tenacity, but I am pretty sure that you would concede to the point that Human beings are social and because of that we need rules besides just Rights. While I abhor most taxes because the majority of it gets wasted on pork that only enriches a few at the expense of the many, I also realize that some form of taxation is needed so that we can all benefit from a pool of resources large enough to benefit the many. IMHO the Fed and the 16th amendment are what made government entirely too powerful and controlling for its own good. Hubris will be our downfall.

 

[Rob Roy]

For the record, the collective is the US and like it or not we have recognized the constitution as our "collective" rights. Laws are an easy and broad target, why? Is personal freedom safe, prudent, or beneficial? I agree ridiculous laws are all over but maybe it is just a hypocrisy and sinister plan in this case specifically. Why no votes?

Actually no. Nobody alive today consented to the constitution as a ruling device or a contract. Damn few "consented" to it hundreds of years ago as well.

Voting when all participants voluntarily join an organization has merit and can be considered binding if everybody consented to the arrangement initially. When all people are automatically encompassed in a given organization, regardless of whether they choose to be or not, how does that protect freedom? Logic dictates that in order to be free, you cannot protect freedom by pissing on it from the start.

 

[burgertime2010]

Let me get this straight. People think Democracy is romantic? I don't get it. Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on whats for dinner, as long as 50.0001% of the other half vote one way, what we or anyone in the 49.9999% wants, frankly, doesn't matter.

So if 50.00001% of the people vote to have the other 49.99999% shot, and their wealth divided amongst the others, well that is what will happen. No one has any rights under Democracy.(Dumbocracy)

I come of as an advocate or patriotic perhaps but this is not so. I am not here to get schooled on it's nature or merit.....hyperbolic scenarios aside, should prisoners become a permanent underclass? Any ideas as to why this is happening?

 

[Rob Roy]

I come of as an advocate or patriotic perhaps but this is not so. I am not here to get schooled on it's nature or merit.....hyperbolic scenarios aside, should prisoners become a permanent underclass? Any ideas as to why this is happening?

If you don't have the right to disassociate from an organization that declares itself to be the sole arbiter of its own power over you...you are a prisoner, regardless of any word manipulation to the contrary.

 

[burgertime2010]

Actually no. Nobody alive today consented to the constitution as a ruling device or a contract. Damn few "consented" to it hundreds of years ago as well.

Voting when all participants voluntarily join an organization has merit and can be considered binding if everybody consented to the arrangement initially. When all people are automatically encompassed in a given organization, regardless of whether they choose to be or not, how does that protect freedom? Logic dictates that in order to be free, you cannot protect freedom by pissing on it from the start.

We can agree on that, I never supported any ruling device as the constitution holds on. People, seem to use it when they need it....especially when it comes to the kind of rights I keep referring to. I see freedom as acheiveable when a compromise must be reached, or relatively speaking. The standard you set is unreal, you will always feel let down, the logical conclusion is that someone always will.

 

[burgertime2010]

If you don't have the right to disassociate from an organization that declares itself to be the sole arbiter of its own power over you...you are a prisoner, regardless of any word manipulation to the contrary.

Dissassociate how exactly?

 

[Rob Roy]

I gotta admire you for your tenacity, but I am pretty sure that you would concede to the point that Human beings are social and because of that we need rules besides just Rights. While I abhor most taxes because the majority of it gets wasted on pork that only enriches a few at the expense of the many, I also realize that some form of taxation is needed so that we can all benefit from a pool of resources large enough to benefit the many. IMHO the Fed and the 16th amendment are what made government entirely too powerful and controlling for its own good. Hubris will be our downfall.

First, thank you. Humans are social and anti-social.

In my "perfect world" nobody would force others to pay for that which they don't want and don't use. Reciprocably nobody would use things and expect others to pay for them or expect to not be held accountable if they failed to pay for them. The problem becomes, not that some services can't be performed by a free market. The problem is the free market is PROHIBITED from competing with the coercive governments monopolies. Shhh, it's the secret they don't want to talk about.

The first rule I think of any institution or group that purports to be about freedom ,would be to respect the individuals right to participate or not. If it fails that test, all else that proceeds is not based in freedom and becomes a rationalization for at least "a little bit of force" and often for a helluva alot of force. .

Of course, people should pay for those things which they use, that is appropriate in a peaceful society. However, taxation is a confiscation without any real option. Purchasing a given service in a free market, means you can choose, IF you want the service and from WHOM. If you choose that you do want a particular service, then it is your obligation to pay for it.

A tax, does not consider whether you use something or not, it simply says pay me or else you will be harmed. A true service provider does not hold its' customers by force, it holds them by providing excellent service. The ability of the consumer of those services to seek the same services elsewhere is the mechanism that provides feedback to the service provider to do a good job or lose their customer base....EXCEPT when the ahem "service provider" holds a gun, he can ignore all of that can't he?

The so called "services" provided by the ruling government could be provided by other entities in a free market capable of delivering them to willing and able customers. Yet, in the present scheme, those service providers are prevented from existing.

I agree that the FED is a sham, but that's just the tip of the iceberg.