Fribur wrote:
But if it's a priviledge, then it can be taken away.
It already does, in some states felons lose the right to vote, even after they've served their time. Now, you may disagree with that, but that's the way it is currently. Under the 'Heinlein' system of earning that right, it wouldn't be taken away except under circumstances by which the person has withdrawn from that society. What circumstances would that be? Where people choose to renounce membership and go elsewhere, or when people take actions which endanger that society such that the society must withdraw itself from them (so we're talking traitors and people who commit criminal acts who refuse to reform, and then there's a whole other area of what is criminal...which under Heinlein's proposed utopia...it's pretty much only that which harms someone else. Otherwise, go to it. But for the sake of ease here just imagine the only way it's taken away under what we're talking about is if the person voluntarily renounces it or commits such atrocities that society withdraws from them (life imprisonment, traitors, etc.)
Sarrisa says:
Quote:
A more apt question would be what if some people are unable to access the means to earn their vote. If a person, for instance, had to assume responsibility for their family at a young age they may not have opportunity to earn a vote until much later in life.
Really good point. In Heinlein's scenario I believe there would be two answers. First, if the person assumes responsibility for siblings they could then become 'franchised' later. There's no age limit on when one can do this. However if someone signs up and quits...they can never do it again they're done. There's reasonable exceptions made, in the event that one's siblings became orphans, yadda yadda, leave would be granted until they were of term. If one instead got someone pregnant at a young age, and instead of doing it immediately following high school, instead had to go to work...then that would be their choice. They're not prohibited from doing it at any other time. Just as if someone got a scholarship they might choose that instead, and then oops they got a wonderful job offer. Those are choices people make. Look at how many people vote now. I suspect we'd have more voting if something like this were implemented. But I may be overly optimistic.
Bzalthek sez:
Quote:
Ok, first I am with you on the working teen taxation/voting thing. I think if a person is mature enough to hold a job that the government will tax their earnings, they are also mature enough to vote.
I wasn't very mature at 13. I thought I was. Perhaps (and I'm biased, I may be wrong) I was more mature in some ways than my cohorts...maaaybe. But did I really understand enough to know what the fuck I'd be voting on? No. Honestly I wouldn't have, especially with propositions and measures...I have to research NOW to have an understanding of them before I vote on them...I wouldn't have done so at 13. Assuming I would, I still don't know how much of the issues I could have grasped, through sheer lack of life experience if nothing else. Still...I was taxed without representation. What about child actors? My cousin's son was in a movie as an infant. As an infant (and I mean like...6 mos old, maybe younger) he earned money. Now I don't know all the nitty gritty like what he made or anything, but the law requires a portion of it to be placed in trust for him (parents as agents/managers only can take so much, so much can be used for his care/schooling whatever. I'm sure it wasn't THAT much money). But my point is...he made money. He filed taxes (well his parents did he couldn't even sign his name). I'm sure you wouldn't advocate a baby voting.
Assuming they even could lol. Now that's an ...uncommon exception, because acting isn't like most other labor jobs, but still. It's a poor measuring stick for many reasons. Age is too, but nothing is perfect.
Quote:
As for your mother in law, is there some reason she didn't become naturalized? A legal alien resident is not allowed to vote, but after a certain amount of time (5 years, 3 if married to a citizen IIRC) she should have been able to become a naturalized citizen and thus able to vote.
Yes, she had reasons. But the point is that she isn't automatically granted citizenship despite blah blah blah blah all the shit I said before. And I'm not sure what the laws were back when she first came here, but yeah I'm sure it was something similar to what you're saying. She was eligible to *apply*. My point being that it's granted with no merit to anyone who can manage to be born here, and people who have merit aren't extended it gratis.
<More later as there were a couple of other things I wanted to hit, but I have to run hehe. Good discussion tho!
I was just giving you a light nudge, chief. 100% in good fun =P
