Trump takes the fight to ISIS

[SuburbanFarmer]

That's where anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism always fall flat.

WTF are you talking about? What is the "that's where?"

Disabled people, autists, mental cases, developmental disorders. The philosophy always revolves around the 'able-bodied' and 'normal' - there's no provision for those that can't work or support themselves.

[Speaker to Animals]

Basic principles:

(1) If you vote in your county and municipal elections, then you should own property and pay property taxes because you are essentially voting for a person who has a platform that affects property taxes for some political aim.

(2) If you vote in your state elections, then you should be a net tax payer in that state, since you vote for legislators and governors who plan to levy taxes for some political aim.

(3) If you vote in your federal election, then you should be willing to fight the wars the politicians you install start.

The question here is whether that should be accomplished through a draft for all or just limiting enfranchisement to people who were willing to serve without even being drafted. I could settle for the former, but I'd prefer the latter. I have no illusions that the latter is even possible without a major collapse and a new government emerging amidst the chaos, and I certainly don't want that chaos just to see it happen. So I'd be perfectly happy to see the draft return but for everybody and it gets triggered in every military action to call up some fraction of the electorate at random. I could see allowing people to opt out of the system by not registering for the draft. In this case, registering for the draft is the same as registering for enfranchisement. Give people a window from 18 to 24 to figure out if they want to be voters. After that, they are out.

Because the federal government is a huge monolithic beast that tries to do everything now, I can see trying to limit it to net tax payers as well. So be willing to get drafted and be a positive net tax payer into the federal system to be eligible to vote. That wouldn't be a bad idea either. One could argue the reason the government is bloated is that people who are *not* net tax payers get a vote.

[nmoore63]

- I am amendable to arguments about different voters franchises.

- I disagree that women signing up for the Selective Service would have any impact at all on their voting.

- I have argued with you for far too many years to believe you concerning women. Your issues run far deeper than women being drafted.

[Fife]

That's where anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism always fall flat.

WTF are you talking about? What is the "that's where?"

Disabled people, autists, mental cases, developmental disorders. The philosophy always revolves around the 'able-bodied' and 'normal' - there's no provision for those that can't work or support themselves.

Hogwash

[Speaker to Animals]

- I am amendable to arguments about different voters franchises.

- I disagree that women signing up for the Selective Service would have any impact at all on their voting.

- I have argued with you for far too many years to believe you concerning women. Your issues run far deeper than women being drafted.

You are just so cucked you equate my wanting to treat them as our equals with "misogyny".

Women are perfectly capable of signing up for the draft and you better believe it will change their voting habits if there is a good chance they will get drafted.

If you want to treat your wife like an adult child and create a huge self-entitled monster, then I will respect that, but have the common decency to keep her away from the polls.

[nmoore63]

- I am amendable to arguments about different voters franchises.

- I disagree that women signing up for the Selective Service would have any impact at all on their voting.

- I have argued with you for far too many years to believe you concerning women. Your issues run far deeper than women being drafted.

You are just so cucked you equate my wanting to treat them as our equals with "misogyny".

Women are perfectly capable of signing up for the draft and you better believe it will change their voting habits if there is a good chance they will get drafted.

If you want to treat your wife like an adult child and create a huge self-entitled monster, then I will respect that, but have the common decency to keep her away from the polls.

[SuburbanFarmer]

WTF are you talking about? What is the "that's where?"

Disabled people, autists, mental cases, developmental disorders. The philosophy always revolves around the 'able-bodied' and 'normal' - there's no provision for those that can't work or support themselves.

Hogwash

Enlighten me.

[Speaker to Animals]

How can women have an equal vote with men when so many men like you are hell-bent on treating them as unequals? If women can't be held to the same standards as men, or take any of the risks that men have to take as a consequence of political decisions, then why on Earth should their vote be considered equivalent to those of men?

It makes no sense, Nick. If you want to go back to before women's suffrage, then you can have that pedestal. What is NOT working out is the idea that women ought to be treated like a privileged class who can never risk their lives or livelihoods but they should be treated as if they do take those risks.

Nobody should be able to order others to go fight and die in a war who themselves are exempt and unwilling to fight and die in wars. You know you cannot argue against this point. It's a self-evident truth.

One or the other. Either we have gender equality or we go back to before suffrage. Because this is getting insane. 20+ years of constant war while most people are required to pay no real costs therein is not acceptable, Nick.

[nmoore63]

How can women have an equal vote with men when so many men like you are hell-bent on treating them as unequals? If women can't be held to the same standards as men, or take any of the risks that men have to take as a consequence of political decisions, then why on Earth should their vote be considered equivalent to those of men?

It makes no sense, Nick. If you want to go back to before women's suffrage, then you can have that pedestal. What is NOT working out is the idea that women ought to be treated like a privileged class who can never risk their lives or livelihoods but they should be treated as if they do take those risks.

Nobody should be able to order others to go fight and die in a war who themselves are exempt and unwilling to fight and die in wars. You know you cannot argue against this point. It's a self-evident truth.

One or the other. Either we have gender equality or we go back to before suffrage. Because this is getting insane. 20+ years of constant war while most people are required to pay no real costs therein is not acceptable, Nick.

I don't think women and men are the same. Never will. Doesn't mean I think one is more valuable than the other.

Not able to vote is being on a pedestal?

The idea that this endless war on terror is some how uniquely women's fault would be laughable, if only you didn't actually believe that.

[Fife]

Disabled people, autists, mental cases, developmental disorders. The philosophy always revolves around the 'able-bodied' and 'normal' - there's no provision for those that can't work or support themselves.

Hogwash

Enlighten me.

Your state is the enemy of the disabled, not freedom.


Just one obvious and quick example, if you'll take a moment: https://mises.org/library/doomed-special-rights