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

Discussion in 'Education' started by Dante, May 23, 2010.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    The manifoil libertarian principle challenge: Is Voting a Civil Right, and by extension; is manifoil truly an old school traditionalist and literalist[sic]? :eusa_shhh:

    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...
    ---


     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  2. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    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?

    ---


     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  3. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Okay class. Last time we went over the basics of the manifoil principle.
    ==========================

    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?)
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2010
  4. Kevin_Kennedy
    Offline

    Kevin_Kennedy Defend Liberty

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2008
    Messages:
    17,592
    Thanks Received:
    1,582
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +2,028
    Is manifold a libertarian?
     
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    I'm not entirely sure and neither I think is mani.

    go figure

    :cool:
     
  6. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    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.
     
  7. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    :lol:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221

    Voting is not a civil right, it is a Constitutional right.
     
  9. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    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.
     
  10. Quantum Windbag
    Offline

    Quantum Windbag Gold Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    58,308
    Thanks Received:
    5,014
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +5,221
    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.
     

Share This Page