Philosophy Now Forum

Democracy under a constitution of human rights is the only proper defense against an oppressive government, and everbody, without exception, should be allowed to vote, including criminals, psychotics, children and the unborn.

well bobevenson, john was right in a way, things get 'too complex' for the 'base' population. i read somewhere recently, i can't remember where, but it was something like 'the ignorant will never be free'. interesting.

'if a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.' (Thomas Jefferson)

bobevenson wrote:... everbody, without exception, should be allowed to vote, including ... the unborn.

I'd be bleed'n' impressed if they managed this!

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:... everbody, without exception, should be allowed to vote, including ... the unborn.

I'd be bleed'n' impressed if they managed this!

In a proper democracy, the parents of young children or the unborn would cast votes on their behalf. Every person subject to the law should be entitled to a vote. This is just another facet of Evensonomics.

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:... everbody, without exception, should be allowed to vote, including ... the unborn.

I'd be bleed'n' impressed if they managed this!

In a proper democracy, the parents of young children or the unborn would cast votes on their behalf. Every person subject to the law should be entitled to a vote. This is just another facet of Evensonomics.

What about unborn embryos? Should they also be entitled to a vote? I could have been harvesting and accumulating extra votes all this time! "Come one come all! Bring your petri dish to the voting booth!" Glory be to the fertile! Wait...would have to give half of my votes to the sperm donor? I guess I would have had to find an anonymous donor...

bobevenson wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

bobevenson wrote:... everbody, without exception, should be allowed to vote, including ... the unborn.

I'd be bleed'n' impressed if they managed this!

In a proper democracy, the parents of young children or the unborn would cast votes on their behalf. Every person subject to the law should be entitled to a vote. This is just another facet of Evensonomics.

What about the fertilised or do you need to actually be pregnant at the time? Who casts the vote, the mother or the father? Half a vote each? I assume illegal immigrant would also get a vote under you're system as well. What about people who want to vacation in your country do they also get a vote? What about animals as they're also subject to the law?

Evensonomics is amusing, I'll give it that.

But this all been said before. Just don't vote. Have you not seen the 'Don't Vote' t-shirts I've printed, this could be as big as the 'Choose Life' t-shirt, early 80s.

Pluto wrote:But this all been said before. Just don't vote. Have you not seen the 'Don't Vote' t-shirts I've printed, this could be as big as the 'Choose Life' t-shirt, early 80s.

Feel free not to vote. It just means the votes of the rest of us carry more weight.

John wrote:

Pluto wrote:But this all been said before. Just don't vote. Have you not seen the 'Don't Vote' t-shirts I've printed, this could be as big as the 'Choose Life' t-shirt, early 80s.

Feel free not to vote. It just means the votes of the rest of us carry more weight.

When I see the governments of the world I don't understand why an enlightened individual would sanction by voting.

John wrote:What about the fertilised or do you need to actually be pregnant at the time? Who casts the vote, the mother or the father? Half a vote each? I assume illegal immigrant would also get a vote under you're system as well. What about people who want to vacation in your country do they also get a vote? What about animals as they're also subject to the law? Evensonomics is amusing, I'll give it that.

Every embryo gets a vote through the mother or the father, it really doesn't make any difference which one. Only human beings get to vote. Illegal immigrants and prisoners get to vote. The insane get to vote. Only residents get to vote, not visitors. Does that answer your questions? Evensonomics isn't amusing, it's simply the proper way that political economics should be conducted.

bobevenson wrote:

John wrote:What about the fertilised or do you need to actually be pregnant at the time? Who casts the vote, the mother or the father? Half a vote each? I assume illegal immigrant would also get a vote under you're system as well. What about people who want to vacation in your country do they also get a vote? What about animals as they're also subject to the law? Evensonomics is amusing, I'll give it that.

Every embryo gets a vote through the mother or the father, it really doesn't make any difference which one. Only human beings get to vote. Illegal immigrants and prisoners get to vote. The insane get to vote. Only residents get to vote, not visitors. Does that answer your questions? Evensonomics isn't amusing, it's simply the proper way that political economics should be conducted.

Mad as a brush.

John, other than the fact that you have no understanding of Evensonomics, you can't even articulate a proper response.

And yet you offer no response to the questions that have been raised? Who decides which parent gets the vote for the unborn?

Why not just admit that the idea of the unborn having a vote is a nonsense and you made a mistake.

bobevenson wrote:John, other than the fact that you have no understanding of Evensonomics, you can't even articulate a proper response.

I'm waiting for you to explain it in a coherent manner because all you ever do here is tell us Evensonomics is the answer whilst rarely bothering to provide any detail and when you do provide detail it rarely has any explanation or justification attached to it beyond the "because I say so" sort.

Why don't you try justifying some of the things you write now and again? I assumed your "votes for the unborn" wasn't meant to be taken seriously (like most of the content you post here) and I'm still going on that assumption unless you actually want to try and justify your position and also explain, and justify, who does actually get the vote.

The idea that the interests of future generations should be taken into account in the political process is hardly the most controversial idea out there but if you really do think the unborn should get to vote, albeit by proxy, but are unable to offer any justification for that position and explain how it would be put into practice then maybe you are as a mad as a brush.

Is that enough of a "proper response" for you?