The manifoil libertarian principle challenge: Is Voting a Civil Right?

[Procrustes Stretched]

The manifoil libertarian principle challenge: Is Voting a Civil Right, and by extension; is manifoil truly an old school traditionalist and literalist[sic]?

manifoil's libertarian principle: "If the government is imposing anything, including the particulars of the Civil Rights Act, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection."

Is voting a civil right?​

If voting is a civil right, one would think one would have to have issues with the founding fathers and the original imposition(s) of who could vote and who could not vote in each of their respective states, in order to hold true to the manifoil libertarian principle.

If voting is not a civil right ("a civil right is a protection"), then...
---

Perhaps I'm an old school traditionalist and literalist, but to me a civil right is a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do. Such as imprisoning political dissenters, denying due process, unreasonable search and seizure, etc. It is NOT a government imposed, arbitrary determination of fairness. In fact, I submit that if the government is imposing anything, including the particulars of the Civil Rights Act, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection.

What does civil rights mean to you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The amendment process to the US Constitution was the only tool left to future generations of Americans, to be used to correct perceived flaws in the US Constitution and by extension, i the state constitutions. Were the flaws in the US Constitution purposefully left there by the founders? We can safely assume what can be called flaws in teh state constitutions were there on purpose.

Assuming the manifoil libertarian principle supports using the amendment process to correct flaws or unprincipled, government impositions, written into the US Constitution by the founders, where does applying the manifoil principle leave us standing on the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

---

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

The Fifteenth Amendment is one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Okay class. Last time we went over the basics of the manifoil principle.

The manifoil libertarian principle challenge: Is Voting a Civil Right, and by extension; is manifoil truly an old school traditionalist and literalist[sic]?

manifoil's libertarian principle: "If the government is imposing anything, including the particulars of the Civil Rights Act, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection."

Is voting a civil right?​

If voting is a civil right, one would think one would have to have issues with the founding fathers and the original imposition(s) of who could vote and who could not vote in each of their respective states, in order to hold true to the manifoil libertarian principle.

If voting is not a civil right ("a civil right is a protection"), then...
---

The amendment process to the US Constitution was the only tool left to future generations of Americans, to be used to correct perceived flaws in the US Constitution and by extension, i the state constitutions. Were the flaws in the US Constitution purposefully left there by the founders? We can safely assume what can be called flaws in teh state constitutions were there on purpose.

Assuming the manifoil libertarian principle supports using the amendment process to correct flaws or unprincipled, government impositions, written into the US Constitution by the founders, where does applying the manifoil principle leave us standing on the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

---

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

The Fifteenth Amendment is one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

==========================

This time we'll dig into the flawed reasoning and fractured premises contained in the principle. We will also touch upon the issues raised by accepting the logical conclusions of the principle.

3 major manifoil principle premises:

1) a civil right is a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do

2)the government cannot arbitrarily impose a determination of fairness when protecting a civil right for an individual, because civil rights are only a protection for the individual against what the government is allowed to do. the government does not determine what is a civil right

3) if the government is imposing anything, it is by definition an infringement on civil rights rather than an expansion or protection

---

We will be dealing with necessity and the blind eye of libertarian principles phenomena, where principles go into hiding in order to defend what the manifoil principle originally states is indefensible:

Eliminating bad policies of government was (and is always) necessary.

Telling a person they have no right to decide whom they'll do business with was NEVER necessary, yet a point taken into consideration is necessity.

If people get sick, they may die because of bad business practices whether or not they are constitutional, and because times are different, the manifoil principle dictates that if an act is unconstitutional yet necessary (for example, some think the following are unconstitutional: Louisiana Purchase, the ICC Act, Civil Rights Acts, etc)., we simply pretend they are constitutional if they are necessary.

The manifoil principle allows going deaf, dumb and blind, to principle, because for better or worse, doing the right thing overrides a civil right, and justifies the government arbitrarily imposing a determination of fairness in enforcing a civil right, that is not a civil right.

note: any errors of content may be corrected as this is a rough outline of course material (pun?)

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Is manifold a libertarian?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Is manifold a libertarian?

I'm not entirely sure and neither I think is mani.

go figure

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Basically, the manifoil principle is horse shit. And if manifold ever answers the question Is voting a civil right? he may be in need of a fast horse to ride out of town on, before he is thrown out on his sorry arse.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The amendment process to the US Constitution was the only tool left to future generations of Americans, to be used to correct perceived flaws in the US Constitution and by extension, i the state constitutions. Were the flaws in the US Constitution purposefully left there by the founders? We can safely assume what can be called flaws in teh state constitutions were there on purpose.

Assuming the manifoil libertarian principle supports using the amendment process to correct flaws or unprincipled, government impositions, written into the US Constitution by the founders, where does applying the manifoil principle leave us standing on the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

---

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

The Fifteenth Amendment is one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Voting is not a civil right, it is a Constitutional right.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The amendment process to the US Constitution was the only tool left to future generations of Americans, to be used to correct perceived flaws in the US Constitution and by extension, i the state constitutions. Were the flaws in the US Constitution purposefully left there by the founders? We can safely assume what can be called flaws in teh state constitutions were there on purpose.

Assuming the manifoil libertarian principle supports using the amendment process to correct flaws or unprincipled, government impositions, written into the US Constitution by the founders, where does applying the manifoil principle leave us standing on the Fifteenth Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

---

The Fifteenth Amendment (Amendment XV) to the United States Constitution prohibits each government in the United States from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude" (i.e., slavery). It was ratified on February 3, 1870.

The Fifteenth Amendment is one of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Voting is not a civil right, it is a Constitutional right.

There is a phenomena on the web that is disturbing and your post is an example of it that highlights it well. You have made a distinction between civil and political rights where people are talking about civil rights, and you imagine you are right where others are wrong. You confuse definitions out of context with perceived factual misrepresentations. The context is always left out in these examples or the context is lost on people like you. Either way, it is disturbing.

The Civil Rights Movement in America fought for The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act and more. When people argue or debate these issues it is always in the context of civil rights.

Now, you went and mentioned Constitutional rights, when you meant political rights. Otherwise you are really missing the point, since all rights in the Constitution, civil and political, are Constitutional rights.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a phenomena on the web that is disturbing and your post is an example of it that highlights it well. You have made a distinction between civil and political rights where people are talking about civil rights, and you imagine you are right where others are wrong. You confuse definitions out of context with perceived factual misrepresentations. The context is always left out in these examples or the context is lost on people like you. Either way, it is disturbing.

The Civil Rights Movement in America fought for The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act and more. When people argue or debate these issues it is always in the context of civil rights.

Now, you went and mentioned Constitutional rights, when you meant political rights. Otherwise you are really missing the point, since all rights in the Constitution, civil and political, are Constitutional rights.

You made some valid points, but you also assumed you know my intents from an eleven word joke. People have redefined civil and political rights in ways I am not entirely comfortable with, and some are even trying to redefine human rights to include things that are in no way rights.

If I accept your terminology of political and civil rights I would have to say that voting is a political right because it allows me to participate in the political process, and that the right to remain silent is a civil right because it protects me from the government forcing me to incriminate myself. You want to make a distinction between rights that belong equally to citizens and non citizens, and those that belong exclusively to citizens by calling the first civil rights, and the other political rights. I reject that stance.

Then you claim that I routinely misuse the terms because I do not truly understand them. Since I have never used the term political rights outside this post I am positive you will find it impossible to prove that assertion.

All constitutional rights are civil rights because the constitution protects us from the government infringing on our rights. The UN makes a distinction because not all countries are structured the way the US is, but I do not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There is a phenomena on the web that is disturbing and your post is an example of it that highlights it well. You have made a distinction between civil and political rights where people are talking about civil rights, and you imagine you are right where others are wrong. You confuse definitions out of context with perceived factual misrepresentations. The context is always left out in these examples or the context is lost on people like you. Either way, it is disturbing.

The Civil Rights Movement in America fought for The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act and more. When people argue or debate these issues it is always in the context of civil rights.

Now, you went and mentioned Constitutional rights, when you meant political rights. Otherwise you are really missing the point, since all rights in the Constitution, civil and political, are Constitutional rights.

You made some valid points, but you also assumed you know my intents from an eleven word joke. People have redefined civil and political rights in ways I am not entirely comfortable with, and some are even trying to redefine human rights to include things that are in no way rights.

If I accept your terminology of political and civil rights I would have to say that voting is a political right because it allows me to participate in the political process, and that the right to remain silent is a civil right because it protects me from the government forcing me to incriminate myself. You want to make a distinction between rights that belong equally to citizens and non citizens, and those that belong exclusively to citizens by calling the first civil rights, and the other political rights. I reject that stance.

Then you claim that I routinely misuse the terms because I do not truly understand them. Since I have never used the term political rights outside this post I am positive you will find it impossible to prove that assertion.

All constitutional rights are civil rights because the constitution protects us from the government infringing on our rights. The UN makes a distinction because not all countries are structured the way the US is, but I do not.

I do not assume I know your "intents from an eleven word joke."

The context of the thread is 'civil rights' and you introduced the term 'political rights' into the thread as a way of making a distinction between, civil rights and political rights.

The other part of the disturbing trend on the web is the notion that arguing over semantics is equal to debating an issue.

I did not introduce a 'terminology' of civil and political rights. The two terms have generally accepted meanings especially in the context we were using them in.

And WTF is up with the non citizens vs citizens, and the UN rant?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a phenomena on the web that is disturbing and your post is an example of it that highlights it well. You have made a distinction between civil and political rights where people are talking about civil rights, and you imagine you are right where others are wrong. You confuse definitions out of context with perceived factual misrepresentations. The context is always left out in these examples or the context is lost on people like you. Either way, it is disturbing.

The Civil Rights Movement in America fought for The Civil Rights Act, The Voting Rights Act and more. When people argue or debate these issues it is always in the context of civil rights.

Now, you went and mentioned Constitutional rights, when you meant political rights. Otherwise you are really missing the point, since all rights in the Constitution, civil and political, are Constitutional rights.

You made some valid points, but you also assumed you know my intents from an eleven word joke. People have redefined civil and political rights in ways I am not entirely comfortable with, and some are even trying to redefine human rights to include things that are in no way rights.

If I accept your terminology of political and civil rights I would have to say that voting is a political right because it allows me to participate in the political process, and that the right to remain silent is a civil right because it protects me from the government forcing me to incriminate myself. You want to make a distinction between rights that belong equally to citizens and non citizens, and those that belong exclusively to citizens by calling the first civil rights, and the other political rights. I reject that stance.

Then you claim that I routinely misuse the terms because I do not truly understand them. Since I have never used the term political rights outside this post I am positive you will find it impossible to prove that assertion.

All constitutional rights are civil rights because the constitution protects us from the government infringing on our rights. The UN makes a distinction because not all countries are structured the way the US is, but I do not.

I do not assume I know your "intents from an eleven word joke."

The context of the thread is 'civil rights' and you introduced the term 'political rights' into the thread as a way of making a distinction between, civil rights and political rights.

The other part of the disturbing trend on the web is the notion that arguing over semantics is equal to debating an issue.

I did not introduce a 'terminology' of civil and political rights. The two terms have generally accepted meanings especially in the context we were using them in.

And WTF is up with the non citizens vs citizens, and the UN rant?

Sorry, but you introduced the term political rights, I responded to it, and rejected it. The fact that you cannot even keep track of the fact that you mentioned something beofre I did shows the lack of consistency in your argument.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

You made some valid points, but you also assumed you know my intents from an eleven word joke. People have redefined civil and political rights in ways I am not entirely comfortable with, and some are even trying to redefine human rights to include things that are in no way rights.

If I accept your terminology of political and civil rights I would have to say that voting is a political right because it allows me to participate in the political process, and that the right to remain silent is a civil right because it protects me from the government forcing me to incriminate myself. You want to make a distinction between rights that belong equally to citizens and non citizens, and those that belong exclusively to citizens by calling the first civil rights, and the other political rights. I reject that stance.

Then you claim that I routinely misuse the terms because I do not truly understand them. Since I have never used the term political rights outside this post I am positive you will find it impossible to prove that assertion.

All constitutional rights are civil rights because the constitution protects us from the government infringing on our rights. The UN makes a distinction because not all countries are structured the way the US is, but I do not.

I do not assume I know your "intents from an eleven word joke."

The context of the thread is 'civil rights' and you introduced the term 'political rights' into the thread as a way of making a distinction between, civil rights and political rights.

The other part of the disturbing trend on the web is the notion that arguing over semantics is equal to debating an issue.

I did not introduce a 'terminology' of civil and political rights. The two terms have generally accepted meanings especially in the context we were using them in.

And WTF is up with the non citizens vs citizens, and the UN rant?

Sorry, but you introduced the term political rights, I responded to it, and rejected it. The fact that you cannot even keep track of the fact that you mentioned something beofre I did shows the lack of consistency in your argument.

Consistency?

I wrote in 'political' where I obviously meant to write in 'Constitutional' and if you did not understand that you are either being disingenuous or a fool. I made an editing error and you are either a disingenuous tool or a fool lacking comprehension and deductive skills.

another web phenomena that is sad is the notion that petty gotcha cheap points are a substitute for debate or argument.


stick to the topic and issues and you are bankrupt. play this silly game and you are a loser. I can play your petty game better than you can all while in my sleep if I cared to. I don't.

---

The context of the thread is 'civil rights' and you introduced the term 'Constitutional rights' into the thread, making a distinction between, civil rights and political rights...and maybe were clueless that using the term Constitutional rights showed a poor grasp of what was being discussed

The other part of the disturbing trend on the web is the notion that arguing over semantics is equal to debating an issue.

I did not introduce a 'terminology' of civil and political rights and Constitutional rights. The terms have generally accepted meanings especially in the context we were using them in.

And WTF is up with the non citizens vs citizens, and the UN rant?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I do not assume I know your "intents from an eleven word joke."

The context of the thread is 'civil rights' and you introduced the term 'political rights' into the thread as a way of making a distinction between, civil rights and political rights.

The other part of the disturbing trend on the web is the notion that arguing over semantics is equal to debating an issue.

I did not introduce a 'terminology' of civil and political rights. The two terms have generally accepted meanings especially in the context we were using them in.

And WTF is up with the non citizens vs citizens, and the UN rant?

Sorry, but you introduced the term political rights, I responded to it, and rejected it. The fact that you cannot even keep track of the fact that you mentioned something beofre I did shows the lack of consistency in your argument.

Consistency?

I wrote in 'political' where I obviously meant to write in 'Constitutional' and if you did not understand that you are either being disingenuous or a fool. I made an editing error and you are either a disingenuous tool or a fool lacking comprehension and deductive skills.

another web phenomena that is sad is the notion that petty gotcha cheap points are a substitute for debate or argument.


stick to the topic and issues and you are bankrupt. play this silly game and you are a loser. I can play your petty game better than you can all while in my sleep if I cared to. I don't.

---

The context of the thread is 'civil rights' and you introduced the term 'Constitutional rights' into the thread, making a distinction between, civil rights and political rights...and maybe were clueless that using the term Constitutional rights showed a poor grasp of what was being discussed

The other part of the disturbing trend on the web is the notion that arguing over semantics is equal to debating an issue.

I did not introduce a 'terminology' of civil and political rights and Constitutional rights. The terms have generally accepted meanings especially in the context we were using them in.

And WTF is up with the non citizens vs citizens, and the UN rant?

Not quite sure how one can mistype constitutional and get political. I would also point out I am not the one ranting.

In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.

Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by law, freedom to contract, trial by jury, and the like. These rights are capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action in a court.

Political rights entail the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.

Forgive me for assuming you knew what you were talking about when you typed something that meant something to me, and to other informed persons who talk about the Constitution. I will endeavor not to make that mistake again.

The difference between a citizen and a non citizen should be pretty obvious. Political rights belong to citizens, but civil rights are belong to everyone, even terrorists. Since terrorists cannot vote, I am pretty sure I can state that voting is not a civil right.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not quite sure how one can mistype constitutional and get political. I would also point out I am not the one ranting.

Easy. I actually pull out what others write (if it at first seems worthy of a reasonable response) and I paste it and reply to it. You invoked Constitutional rights when civil rights were being discussed. You made a distinction that would be better described as civil rights vs political rights, which are both Constitutional rights. now enough of this game. you are polluting a very good thread with this shit. It's boring. You had no idea what you were talking about. Then you avoid answering all issues and hang on an editing error. We can continue, if you want to discuss the substance, but I feel you are incapable. It is your move.

and you were ranting...about the UN and non citizens.

In Constitutional Law, rights are classified as natural, civil, and political. Natural rights are those that are believed to grow out of the nature of the individual human being and depend on her personality, such as the rights to life, liberty, privacy, and the pursuit of happiness.

Civil Rights are those that belong to every citizen of the state, and are not connected with the organization or administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by law, freedom to contract, trial by jury, and the like. These rights are capable of being enforced or redressed in a civil action in a court.

Political rights entail the power to participate directly or indirectly in the establishment or administration of government, such as the right of citizenship, the right to vote, and the right to hold public office.

Forgive me for assuming you knew what you were talking about when you typed something that meant something to me, and to other informed persons who talk about the Constitution. I will endeavor not to make that mistake again.

The difference between a citizen and a non citizen should be pretty obvious. Political rights belong to citizens, but civil rights are belong to everyone, even terrorists. Since terrorists cannot vote, I am pretty sure I can state that voting is not a civil right.

Please do not bore me with a pedantic recitation of rights. there are far better pedants with credentials here, than you. stay on topic. Stay within your own league.

The right of Americans to vote (which is what was being discussed) is often debated within the context of political or civil rights. Those rights fall within a broader dialogue of Constitutional rights.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I apologize for taking the troll Windbag, seriously.