MAP Forum

Not Forever wrote: Wed Feb 04, 2026 4:13 pm

DANAT4T wrote: Wed Feb 04, 2026 3:31 pmThere 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.

Right, I would strongly suggest that you do not receive state benefits that come from tax. I mean you seem like a consistent person.

DANAT4T wrote: Wed Feb 04, 2026 4:32 pmRight, I would strongly suggest that you do not receive state benefits that come from tax. I mean you seem like a consistent person.

I don’t receive any, but I don’t see the inconsistency. I’ve never said I’m against benefits.

Not Forever wrote: Wed Feb 04, 2026 5:00 pm

DANAT4T wrote: Wed Feb 04, 2026 4:32 pmRight, I would strongly suggest that you do not receive state benefits that come from tax. I mean you seem like a consistent person.

I don’t receive any, but I don’t see the inconsistency. I’ve never said I’m against benefits.

Good point but why do you think that people that you regard as unfit to vote, receive state benefits.

DANAT4T wrote: Wed Feb 04, 2026 5:49 pmGood point but why do you think that people that you regard as unfit to vote, receive state benefits.

Maybe there’s a misunderstanding here.
I don’t assign value to a person based on whether they can or cannot vote. From this point of view, there’s no reason why someone who cannot vote should not receive benefits. What I mean is that the issue of benefits should be separate from voting, and it should be society that decides on what grounds a person should receive benefits. Difficulty or inability to work? Or the inability to meet certain standards? Basically… from there you can decide whether to include certain categories of people with disabilities, diagnoses of mental illnesses, or conditions such as pregnancy, and so on.

It’s not that I’m anti-socialist.

My point is how to justify access to voting in a specific nation. How do you justify voting in one state and not in another? For me, it’s based on where you pay taxes (or, at that point, where you receive subsidies). Not on where you were born, not on where you reside, and so on. In this way, the restrictions related to age and similar criteria are also removed. And honestly, it seems like a good answer when someone asks an immigrant why they’re allowed to vote: “I pay taxes just like you do, so I vote.”

Not Forever wrote: Wed Feb 04, 2026 7:18 pm

DANAT4T wrote: Wed Feb 04, 2026 5:49 pmGood point but why do you think that people that you regard as unfit to vote, receive state benefits.

Maybe there’s a misunderstanding here.
I don’t assign value to a person based on whether they can or cannot vote. From this point of view, there’s no reason why someone who cannot vote should not receive benefits. What I mean is that the issue of benefits should be separate from voting, and it should be society that decides on what grounds a person should receive benefits. Difficulty or inability to work? Or the inability to meet certain standards? Basically… from there you can decide whether to include certain categories of people with disabilities, diagnoses of mental illnesses, or conditions such as pregnancy, and so on.

It’s not that I’m anti-socialist.

My point is how to justify access to voting in a specific nation. How do you justify voting in one state and not in another? For me, it’s based on where you pay taxes (or, at that point, where you receive subsidies). Not on where you were born, not on where you reside, and so on. In this way, the restrictions related to age and similar criteria are also removed. And honestly, it seems like a good answer when someone asks an immigrant why they’re allowed to vote: “I pay taxes just like you do, so I vote.”

Should voting be based on completion of military service?

DANAT4T wrote: Fri Feb 06, 2026 1:39 pmShould voting be based on completion of military service?

This is also an idea I would find reasonable, even though it introduces barriers and time limits that I personally don’t like, as well as a public expense for each voter. Not to mention potential issues concerning those who want to, but cannot, perform military service.

That said, in principle I would agree with something like this or, at the very least, consider it a system more in line with my way of thinking.

DANAT4T wrote: Wed Dec 31, 2025 11:33 pm I have no idea how reducing the voting age to 16 will lead to liberation. Society will not be better off just because 16 is seen as the right age anymore than those who said that 18 is correct. What about people younger than the 'appropriate' age. Political scientists have said that a younger age would not have changed the Brexit result. There has also been an outrage about 'young' men supposedly voting for Trump.
I hope more people will join me it calling out this particular 'liberation' scam.
Thank you

The difference as i see it has to do not with age per se, but more about a more controlled group being "easily" manipulated to Serve meta-interests. 16 yr olds, while often thought to be more anarchic (due to their so-called "adolescent" need to point out the hypocrisy they experience amongst groanups), are also MORE CONTROLLED due to their "Frames of References" so often being kept at a minimum. That is, the old idea that they Should 'Go With' only what has been predetermined to Be so-called "Realistic" (and Pragmatic).

A similar phenomenon might be: What Trump calls the interests of the Left to Flood the votership with illegal foreigners (those that have most often witnessed US foreign policy first hand and aren't so easily Fooled, unlike most N.Americans). But, as we may recognize, a TYPICAL pattern of "The Pot Calling the Kettle Black". That is, to Attack one group while pushing THE SAME game for his "own interests" (albeit severely alienated).

Were we living in a more liberated society, 16 yr olds would be categorically freer to learn and explore ideas and ideologies beyond these limited "Frames" that we are all surrounded by, and Take For Granted as Worth Our Attention. But we are sadly living in a Thought Control-oriented War/Empire CULTure. Where all manner of ideologue will MAKE SURE to manipulate young people to remain in 'Conservative' or 'Liberal' (or even anarchist only?) confines, no matter what!

So, bottom line, if such youths are ALLOWED to explore beyond the ideological corrals of their adults, then it MAKES COMPLETE SENSE to LET THEM be involved in their democracy. ANY age of young people should be allowed to vote, in this context (age being a manipulative reduction!). ANY young person capable of articulating themselves in a basic way OUGHT to be allowed to participate meaningfully (including life BEYOND simple voting!)!

On the other hand, "voting" in N.American CULTure is a bullshit game (unless local?). For instance, as one finds that they are having to choose ONLY between "The Lesser of Two Evils"!! And that life beyond that continual pattern is PROHIBITED from even budding, nowadays.

No wonder so many groanups want to keep their kids "safely" Restricted in "The Prison Garden of Childhood", given this context!! This context where the political police and their hired thugs MAKE SURE to BLOCK as much of ANY challenge as they possibly can!! (Recalling the film, starring Jimmy Stewart, entitled "Mister Smith Goes To Washington")

Not Forever wrote: Thu Jan 01, 2026 3:51 am 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.

Work and tax. Honey, you were so exciting when you were younger. Look how boring you are now.

Like most things,
I think our society needs to stop putting an age to limit someone.

It should be a case by case bases.
Rather for vote, working, travel, medical, legal, intimacy, living alone, driving a car, gambling, or whatever else our society claims a person should wait for.

I have known kids who could vote and know more about politics then I do, and most people.
I know adults who could not tell you why the name Washington is important.

All I know is that voting should not only be mandatory for everyone (over 18, allowed for anyone of any age), but made easy.

Where do all of you stand on tests to prove kids a capable?

TMKnight wrote: Sun Feb 22, 2026 3:05 am Like most things,
I think our society needs to stop putting an age to limit someone.

It should be a case by case bases.
Rather for vote, working, travel, medical, legal, intimacy, living alone, driving a car, gambling, or whatever else our society claims a person should wait for.

I have known kids who could vote and know more about politics then I do, and most people.
I know adults who could not tell you why the name Washington is important.

All I know is that voting should not only be mandatory for everyone (over 18, allowed for anyone of any age), but made easy.

Where do all of you stand on tests to prove kids a capable?

If you believe that voting should be mandatory, then shouldn't that be the case for everyone?