Voting age reduction is not liberation

[JGHeaven]

What if the majority vote for restrict the rights of the individual. The opposition to the Brexit vote was based on supremacist beliefs that leave voters were 'old' and 'stupid'. They were also labeled 'racist'. Everybody deserves rights regardless of age but youth rights should not be youth supremacy. We do not want a real life example of Login's Run.

No but I'm not advocating for any group to be in a privileged position, certainly not children. What I am advocating is that everyone has an equal right when it comes to voting. The question of what if everyone votes to remove someones rights is protected by the countries constitution. The idea of a constitution is to have a set of foundational rules that everything has to abide by, it's purpose is to stop this very situation. A foundational rule that everybody has the right to vote for example ensures no one can vote away anyone elses right to vote.

[DANAT4T]

What if the majority vote for restrict the rights of the individual. The opposition to the Brexit vote was based on supremacist beliefs that leave voters were 'old' and 'stupid'. They were also labeled 'racist'. Everybody deserves rights regardless of age but youth rights should not be youth supremacy. We do not want a real life example of Login's Run.

No but I'm not advocating for any group to be in a privileged position, certainly not children. What I am advocating is that everyone has an equal right when it comes to voting. The question of what if everyone votes to remove someones rights is protected by the countries constitution. The idea of a constitution is to have a set of foundational rules that everything has to abide by, it's purpose is to stop this very situation. A foundational rule that everybody has the right to vote for example ensures no one can vote away anyone elses right to vote.

Things are even worse now in the UK. New laws will declare anyone who dares to challenge the Labour Party establishment an INVASIVE SPECIES.

[Not Forever]

It might be a stupid thing, but I’m always surprised by how a “centre-left” behaves in this way. I mean, I’ve always thought that acting so intrusively was more of a right-wing stereotype.

And the silence around them is deafening, at least where I am. If it had been a right-wing party, it would probably be used as yet another demonstration that the right in government only causes trouble (perhaps even putting them on the same level as Trump, or close to it).

[DANAT4T]

It might be a stupid thing, but I’m always surprised by how a “centre-left” behaves in this way. I mean, I’ve always thought that acting so intrusively was more of a right-wing stereotype.

And the silence around them is deafening, at least where I am. If it had been a right-wing party, it would probably be used as yet another demonstration that the right in government only causes trouble (perhaps even putting them on the same level as Trump, or close to it).

I am not a fan of Donald Trump but I have to admire how he destroyed the establishment of the Republican Party in 2016. It reminds me of the moment when I absolutely humiliated the school principal in front of everyone. Who's in power, now. I got expelled but Mr. Trump became POTUS. I am not jealous of Mr. Trump. I would prefer to copy him. I end with a classic line from Trump, that he said in the 2016 primaries, that I love to masturbate to.
'Oh, you're a tough guy Jeb.'

[JGHeaven]

I find it strange how conversations today always seem to turn into political fighting.
It's the left who are the problem, it's the right who are the problem, the center left, the center right, the liberals, the conservatives......

It's like all balance has left the public mind and political discourse no longer happens. It used to be that two people with different political views could debate a subject on its merits but that's no longer the case. The issues no longer matter, all that's left is attacking the other parties. I never see rational discussion on political shows about issues any more.

I honestly think democracy has failed because democracy is about debating issues on their merits, rather than debating the people expressing opinions on issues. For any issue, whether it's Trumps opinion or Bidens or Harris or Starmer or anyone else shouldn't really matter, what matters is the issue itself.

[Not Forever]

It's like all balance has left the public mind and political discourse no longer happens. It used to be that two people with different political views could debate a subject on its merits but that's no longer the case. The issues no longer matter, all that's left is attacking the other parties. I never see rational discussion on political shows about issues any more.

For me, it’s not new; it’s always been this way.
To be clear, I mostly spent time in left-wing circles, and in those circles there was this idea of an intellectual monopoly: there was us, and all around us were only ignorant people. People who needed to be educated. People who behaved wrongly (only in hindsight do I realize how sexophobic we were too). People who, if they had studied more in school, would have voted left.

The conversation was constantly, and exclusively, about people—always and only about the immorality of political opponents.

Then the intellectuals we had all died of old age, and what we’re left with are just purely egocentric, populist “intellectual leaders”, always seeking attention, convinced they’re right despite being incapable of arguing their positions logically or rationally.

For me, there was never any balance; it was just a perception. Or at least, for me it was a perception because I found myself barricaded on the “right side of history” until I did some self-criticism and began to despise that hypocrisy a lot.

At least, that’s looking at the period I experienced—but I wouldn’t be surprised if previous eras were, in any case, a bit romanticized and sanitized to make them seem more about merit than populist reasons.

[DANAT4T]

I believe that voting, in and of itself, should be a right, and honestly I don’t like the idea of something being tied to age. I’m skeptical of the notion that we would live in a better or worse society by denying or allowing the vote to certain categories of people. I know people who want young people to vote because they think they would vote left-wing; I know people who want to prevent older people from voting because they would vote right-wing or in favor of a welfare state that would ruin the nation, and so on… but to me these are pious illusions, since the voting tendencies of such groups can change from generation to generation. First and foremost, we are individuals; our age is a secondary characteristic.

If it were up to me, voting should be linked to paying taxes. Do you pay taxes in a given country? It doesn’t matter whether you were born there, it doesn’t matter if you’re an immigrant, etc.—you pay taxes, you pay for healthcare, you pay for education, you pay for the state, so you have the right to decide what happens to your money. So for me, the right to vote should be linked to work.

And in any case, this wouldn’t change anything in society; I simply like the logical reasoning behind it. And to me, within the concept of liberation, it could make sense to start untangling things from age.

Why do you think that the state has the right to divide people into taxpayers. Are you trying to appease the collectivists. Why am I thinking of Munich?

[Not Forever]

Why do you think that the state has the right to divide people into taxpayers. Are you trying to appease the collectivists. Why am I thinking of Munich?

I am convinced that, when it comes to the State, whether one pays taxes or not is a better criterion than age. If you have more convincing alternatives, I would be happy to hear them; however, since I consider the right to work to be important, and since taxes are paid through work, I find it reasonable to use taxation as the criterion, allowing people to influence their State (regardless of whether they are citizens by descent or first-generation immigrants) at the moment they decide to enter the workforce.

[DANAT4T]

Why do you think that the state has the right to divide people into taxpayers. Are you trying to appease the collectivists. Why am I thinking of Munich?

I am convinced that, when it comes to the State, whether one pays taxes or not is a better criterion than age. If you have more convincing alternatives, I would be happy to hear them; however, since I consider the right to work to be important, and since taxes are paid through work, I find it reasonable to use taxation as the criterion, allowing people to influence their State (regardless of whether they are citizens by descent or first-generation immigrants) at the moment they decide to enter the workforce.

There is no right to work. An employer has the right to not hire or dismiss someone if they not qualified. People with severe disabilities would not be able to vote. It looks like your individualism is opportunist and up for sale.

[Not Forever]

There is no right to work. An employer has the right to not hire or dismiss someone if they not qualified. People with severe disabilities would not be able to vote. It looks like your individualism is opportunist and up for sale.

All of my positions are opportunistic, even though I try to make my opportunism driven by ideas that I attempt to keep coherent. A funny note: I wouldn’t vote under my own system, because I don’t work. But I still assign a relative weight to voting, so I don’t consider my not voting to be a major loss; convincing two people to vote the way I would vote has more value than my single vote.

But yes, it’s not a perfect system. Still, I consider it better than the one currently in force, and based on principles that I believe are shareable by, at the very least, people with a mindset close to mine. The problem of people with disabilities who can’t find a job is, in my opinion, precisely the fact that they can’t find a job. Solve that, and you automatically solve the voting issue.

Also because the problem of keeping these people from suffering hunger remains regardless, even if they had the right to vote—and by solving the first issue, you solve the second. And by tying it to taxes, it’s not even necessarily the case that they must work; it’s enough that they can access some form of assistance.