This topic was raised in another thread: 'Time to Disenfranchise the Old Gits'

Not entirely clear in my head yet whether the concept applies to nations without a written constitution.

Notwithstanding this, should the principle be mandatory for legitimate national government, and should there be any exceptions at all?

Well you've already heard my thin end of wedge argument. And as I said over in the Gits thread, "so many ethical matters fall back upon the dignity and worth of the individual and not the statistical aggregate of social behavior." If a national government is to so assert this worth and dignity, then must not its charter or constitution or whatever document then state that no individual can be excluded on the basis of a social classification? (I mean, sure, maybe criminals forfeit the right because they overtly attack their society - but I don't see any other exceptions which wouldn't have thin wedge problems)

For example, imagine a law based on the statistic that most murders are done by men. So every man is required to submit to thorough psychiatric evaluation before marriage, or purchasing any tools or cookware which could be used to lethal effect, or co-signing a lease or (etc). Other laws might involve forms of surveillance targeting just men. And so on. This would seem to deny a citizen liberty, not through any personal fault or transgression, but because of a social classification, in this case gender.

5 hours ago, TheVat said:

(I mean, sure, maybe criminals forfeit the right because they overtly attack their society - but I don't see any other exceptions which wouldn't have thin wedge problems)

I don't think even criminals are an exception which wouldn't have thin wedge problems. After all, what is a "criminal"? Because "criminals" are defined by the government, then disenfranchising them becomes an example of "conflict of interest" that I mentioned in the other thread. To many people, "criminals" means murderers, rapists, etc, but in many places, "criminals" can also mean political opponents.

Edited March 7Mar 7 by KJW

14 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

This topic was raised in another thread: 'Time to Disenfranchise the Old Gits'

Not entirely clear in my head yet whether the concept applies to nations without a written constitution.

Notwithstanding this, should the principle be mandatory for legitimate national government, and should there be any exceptions at all?

It depends on what level of legitimacy you're aiming for, for instance, the inalienable right to life can be canceled, if the law says it can, bc it's afraid of, for instance, a twelve year old black girl with a sassy mouth.

In a perfect, no scratch that, better world this question would be inconsequential.

I believe in an expression made famous 250 years ago in Boston.
"No Taxation without representation"

IOW, if you pay Taxes, in any form, the Government works for you, and you have a say in how they govern.
In a perfect world, this would mean everyone gets a vote. Preferably by choice, and competent electors would inform themselves of the issues before making their voting choices.
But we know the world isn't perfect, so neither us Democracy.
But it's still better than all other systems.

3 minutes ago, MigL said:

"No Taxation without representation"

Exactly!

And as I pay taxes in two countries I get to vote in both.

34 minutes ago, Genady said:

And as I pay taxes in two countries I get to vote in both.

Lucky old you! No way they'd let me vote here. They'll invite me to draught bits of energy policy, but not to vote on it. Go figure.

Right are not without limits; there are types of speech that can be constrained by the government, your right to religion does not mean you can engage in human sacrifice, the inalienable rights of life and liberty (ones specifically named, connected with the event MigL referenced) are not limitless - you can be sent to prison and even executed if certain conditions are met. Even for voting, it can be limited to citizens of a country.

To me it’s an issue of whether the right is (or should be) inherent, and not easily limited. It’s not something a government grants, it’s not merely a privilege that you have to earn or be deemed worthy of, because who gets to decide that?

12 hours ago, KJW said:

I don't think even criminals are an exception which wouldn't have thin wedge problems. After all, what is a "criminal"? Because "criminals" are defined by the government, then disenfranchising them becomes an example of "conflict of interest" that I mentioned in the other thread. To many people, "criminals" means murderers, rapists, etc, but in many places, "criminals" can also mean political opponents.

Good point. Yes, it's hard to really carve out any exception without getting into murky waters of definitions of that exception. And there are places where felons can't regain their vote after theyve discharged their debt to society. I find that problematic, too.

21 hours ago, MigL said:

I believe in an expression made famous 250 years ago in Boston.
"No Taxation without representation"

IOW, if you pay Taxes, in any form, the Government works for you, and you have a say in how they govern.
In a perfect world, this would mean everyone gets a vote. Preferably by choice, and competent electors would inform themselves of the issues before making their voting choices.
But we know the world isn't perfect, so neither us Democracy.
But it's still better than all other systems.

Is it though?

Religions worked for quite a long time.

All we can really say is, it work's ATM and it's only fair if one has the vote.

So unless democracy relentlessly strives to be better (include more voter's) then it's doomed to be a plaything for the elite.

23 hours ago, swansont said:

To me it’s an issue of whether the right is (or should be) inherent, and not easily limited. It’s not something a government grants, it’s not merely a privilege that you have to earn or be deemed worthy of, because who gets to decide that?

I see some advantage to enfranchising say, the 11 to 15 age group, albeit with possibly a fractional rather than full adult vote.

This would get them engaged in the political process early, and encourage discussion of political topics in curated environments such as the family home, classroom, church (🙊).

Maybe let them vote and be counted a few days in advance of other age groups to stress the importance of their views, and see that they are being taken on board seriously by the wider electorate.

Perhaps this staged, consultancy process could be extended to other age groups with full voting rights (16-20, 21-30, old gits). Firstly, the viewpoints of all significant demographics would be aired individually, and secondly, there would be ample advance warning of a nasty surprise (eg Brexit) catching everyone unawares.

IMO giving anyone able to understand what voting is, the ability to vote in all elections to government positions in the governments they are subject to is representative democracy. Anything else is something less. The whole discussion is really about "how many voters I disagree with can we disenfranchise?" and extends well beyond possibly taking away your right to vote at a certain age. It seems to me (in the US, anyway), the main problem is more lack of candidates with good ideas to get behind than whether they are red or blue. In 50 years of voting, I have yet to hear any candidate (Republican or Democratic, at least, the only 2 parties allowed to exist in the US) put forth a detailed plan to eliminate wars, end famines or promote social equality, among other problems that ought to be 100% solvable at this point in human history. Some problems already have widespread public agreement on what to do about them (legalizing cannabis comes to mind) but who is the candidate with a plan?

22 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

I see some advantage to enfranchising say, the 11 to 15 age group, albeit with possibly a fractional rather than full adult vote.

This would get them engaged in the political process early, and encourage discussion of political topics in curated environments such as the family home, classroom, church (🙊).

Maybe let them vote and be counted a few days in advance of other age groups to stress the importance of their views, and see that they are being taken on board seriously by the wider electorate.

Perhaps this staged, consultancy process could be extended to other age groups with full voting rights (16-20, 21-30, old gits). Firstly, the viewpoints of all significant demographics would be aired individually, and secondly, there would be ample advance warning of a nasty surprise (eg Brexit) catching everyone unawares.

You're still trying to control the narrative, what makes you fit to decide another person's level of intelligence, whatever that means, or the ability to mark a peace of paper in a meaningful way.

Do you doubt the intelligence of the hive, or the intelligence of the bee/ant/wildebeest/human???

14 hours ago, npts2020 said:

The whole discussion is really about "how many voters I disagree with can we disenfranchise?"

The complete opposite actually. It's about sharpening our arguments against those who are actively manoeuvring to put political power permanently into the hands of the few.

2 minutes ago, sethoflagos said:

The complete opposite actually. It's about sharpening our arguments against those who are actively manoeuvring to put political power permanently into the hands of the few.

Your still arguing that only you, the enlightened, has the correct opinion IOW "the few".

Just now, dimreepr said:

Your still arguing that only you, the enlightened, has the correct opinion IOW "the few".

I never said nor implied any such thing.

You intend persisting with your blatant dishonesty?

Or in star trek terms

Just now, sethoflagos said:

I never said nor implied any such thing.

You intend persisting with your blatant dishonesty?

I intend to continue to question your authority.

Honestly, make of that what you will.

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

I intend to continue to question your authority.

Ask yourself why no one else is all over me like a rash in the same way as you.

Then research the meaning of 'Playing Devil's Advocate'.

The others already understand. You clearly do not, and have allowed anger to cloud your judgment.

Now you're trolling, @dimreepr . Just admit you're having one of your verbal communication glitches and move on.

On 3/8/2026 at 8:45 AM, dimreepr said:

So unless democracy relentlessly strives to be better (include more voter's) then it's doomed to be a plaything for the elite.

I believe that's what I said.

On 3/7/2026 at 9:35 AM, MigL said:

In a perfect world, this would mean everyone gets a vote.

21 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

Ask yourself why no one else is all over me like a rash in the same way as you.

Then research the meaning of 'Playing Devil's Advocate'.

The others already understand. You clearly do not, and have allowed anger to cloud your judgment.

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

Now you're trolling, @dimreepr . Just admit you're having one of your verbal communication glitches and move on.

Verbally, ie. mano a mano and I'm sure I could explain thing's far better (but alas, my affliction) and you'd see that I'm not in the least bit emotional.

Yes I'm playing devils advocate, some one should, I'm suggesting that any attempt to steer the ship (guide our evolution) has unseen consiquence.

Your Ideas have merit, I don't deny that, but what we're seeing plaid out, here and now. is the reasonable argument being trampled on by ordinary/normal people who don't understand why they're wrong and resent the people who they perceive is sneering at them.

Instead of educating them to our level, maybe we should consider educating ourselves to theirs.

Why is sheeple a derogatory term?