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.”