pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 6 replies \ @Solomonsatoshi 17 Feb \ parent \ on: Should convicted felons be allowed to vote after serving their time in prison? AskSN
Fair point but in saying that how is someone who has served time supposed to leave the 'organisation' that withholds their voting rights if that 'organisation' is the government?
Do you mean people who have served prison time should have to move to another country if they want to vote?
Again, we are framing it as a right. It is not. Political "rights" are hard won and not given freely or easily. If you live in a polity where people vote on the rules or how it's run, those people decide things like that. So, if those people think you should vote, they'll vote for that.
I'd like to live in a world where there are no victimless crimes and where association with a state is voluntary to a large degree, that way, if you wrong someone somewhere and are punished, it's nor because you're involuntarily subject to rules of the state, but because you wronged members of that state. We aren't there yet. But the same rules on voting apply either way.
reply
If the majority do withhold the right to vote from anyone they are restricting their level of democracy and excluding people who have already served their time.
Of course they can do this and a majority commenting here today seem to think they should- but this only demonstrates how far we are from a level of enlightenment where individuals are ready and capable of achieving any significant level of self sovereignty...they still lack the empathy for others that is required for true self sovereignty.
reply
Attempting to achieve self sovereignty by getting permission from others is a fools errand.
I do not equate democracy with enlightenment.
I'm curious, why is empathy required for self sovereignty? How does that work? And bear in mind, empathy and sympathy aren't the same thing, empathy is understanding why people feel the way they feel even if you don't agree with it, sympathy is agreeing with it.
reply
Self sovereignty can only function where the individuals concerned recognise the interdependence of all members of a community.
It may sound like a paradox, because it is.
Humans are weak and vulnerable as individuals and only achieve the level of security and wealth that we have via the collective organisation and distribution of skills, services and productivity.
Organisation/government can be more voluntary or more coercive...depending on the level of understanding of its members.
This is why governments are such crucial factors in the wealth of nations.
This is why individuals with a lack of respect for others right to participate in collective decision making are not capable of the level of consciousness required to be sovereign individuals.
reply
Damn good explanation man.
Forming an organization like this though relies as much on exclusion as it does inclusion. There are people that must be excluded, not just from voting, but in my view, from an organization entirely. That is, of course, up to the organization. Some government might be nationalist for example, or another might execute serial murderers. The only thing I dislike is that people can't really voluntarily pick the one that most aligns with their values, and who has a place for them.
If an organization excludes some people, and another includes those same types of people, then one will outcompete the other, an "evolution of collective organisms" if you will. Success is achieved the closer your mental model approximates reality. So if you're right, states that do what you'd like will perform better than states that dont, all other things being equal.
reply
You make a good point but we cannot decide all matters of government and law based upon the competitive nature of societies alone.
But if we do ask the question - Does excluding ex-cons from voting strengthen or weaken a society overall?
It is arguable of course but I would argue it doesn't- the benefit of including all citizens in the vote rather than excluding some of its most disadvantaged and alienated, would surely be greater than the cost.
The weighting of ex-cons in the vote result is unlikely to be significant whereas the cost of continuing to disadvantage and ostracise them is probably going to be greater.
Slightly obtuse but 'SAS Rogue Heroes' might be a relevant reference...at least decent entertainment.