Good luck with that conversation.

Any form of "removing idiots" from the voting pool will give comparisons to the Literacy Test, and you will be literally compared to a slave-driver. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test

False dichotomies are the bread and butter of politics. Perhaps if you knew the history of this country, you'd know that you aren't gonna get very far on this subject.

I welcome you to try, but from a political / historical point of view, there is too much bad blood in this discussion for people to discuss it sanely.

You're talking to someone whose political ideals already get me called "racist" and "slave driver". Oddly enough, I do not support racism nor slavery (quite the opposite). And I know the history — why do you think I brought the point up? (Come on, now.)

But the point we're trying to make here is philosophical, not practical: If people are too uneducated to participate in a free market economy, why do we allow them to vote?

Because the opposite is worse.

An organization who controls who and what votes is far scarier than letting idiots vote. We in America have destroyed any organization (government led, or whatever) that attempts to limit the number of voters.

Mind you, who should decide who can and can't vote? The free market? The Government?

The answer is no one. The right to vote is considered sacred and that is a good thing. No one can or should deny others the ability to vote.

EDIT: I'm surprised that I have to lecture you on this. I thought you were a libertarian? Aren't you all for personal rights and liberty? The freedom to vote is absolutely essential, and a holy right regardless of your political background.

But it is THAT much more important if you're a self-proclaimed libertarian. Personal freedom is the king of the Libertarian philosophy.

"The freedom to vote."

That isn't a natural right. That is born out of the system of governance that we've decided is best. There is no natural right to vote — not in the same way we have a natural right to speech or defense or anything else of that manner.

Democracy is dangerous. Our founding fathers despised true democracies, which is why they founded this country as a Constitutional Republic, and notably one that not everyone could vote. Many call them racist and sexist, and no doubt that was part of it, but they also understood that having a bunch of uneducated people voting could be disastrous. NO ONE should be allowed to vote your natural rights away, yet you see this in democracies all the time. You're right, though, the trick is figuring out an acceptable way to proof voting privileges.

Even the word "democracy" didn't come into popular use until the progressive era.

So yes, when we follow true Constitutionalism, voting is important because we should be selecting our leaders to uphold that limited government. But in our current system, we've given government so much power that we allow people to elect leaders that are going to give them the most, all whilst selling off the power they have taken from us to companies that want to protect their business model.

And once again, you really need to stop doing the whole, "I'm surprised you aren't smarter" bit.

YOU are the one who believes "Eventually the actors in the economy figure out how to route around the damage being done." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7219852

Your own argument against voting defeats your own statement. You don't even trust your fellow citizen the right to vote, and yet you believe that citizens are smart enough to "route around damages" being done to the economy.

Listen here. I'm the one bringing up anti-market and pro-communist points against you. The fact that YOU are the one who wishes to limit voting is deeply ironic.

My quote was within the context of a free market.

Democracies are anathema to anarcho-capitalist societies, because NO ONE should be able to vote to force you to do something you choose not to. Again, this is the pure governance/political theory I'm using to explain why I'm not being ironic in my thinking.

I never said I had thought of a good way to test voting. I only said that I thought it strange that we were attacked for suggesting that we even think about it — particularly when this "right" to vote is actually only a privilege granted by our various constitutions, and not a true, natural right.

You keep saying "we"; I don't think you've really thought it through. The idiots are part of we; and they're allowed to vote because they'd never vote away their own right to vote. To imply anyone allows them to vote is to imply someone has the authority to stop it.

Because they are affected by the decisions that politicians make.

Nope. But I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian. Preventing people from voting is authoritarian.

Would you consider the US at any time in its history to be authoritarian?

That's not an answer to my question or a good faith reply. I asked for a third option, you implied you had one, either you do or you don't. This isn't a school lesson, I'm not your pupil, do not Socratic method me. If you have something to say, say it.

If you're afraid of where the question goes, don't answer.

If you're afraid to offer a third option, then don't answer.

I'll just make a statement that if "Preventing people from voting is authoritarian." then the US system of government at various points would have to be considered authoritarian.

Not the least bit relevant to the conversation, so I'll say it one more time: I'm happy to hear of any third option that isn't authoritarian.

Either you have an answer or you don't. The history of the U.S. is completely irrelevant to this question. I don't live in time when blacks couldn't vote or women couldn't vote, it's irrelevant to the conversation what the U.S. used to be or used to do.

Perhaps your panties are in a bunch because you think I think you're advocating a return to monarchy; I don't think that, so let it go. I think you're advocating for a return to the 1800's view of the constitution because you think it was a golden age of freedom before the federal government got so powerful. This is a typical anarcho-capitalist view and one I also disagree with.

However, trying to prevent people from voting is authoritarian whether it's from a king or from a congress and I won't support it under any circumstance. The people would certainly never vote to remove their right to vote.

I'm just challenging your absolutist statement. I don't have to come up with a third solution. That was never my objective. My point is that it's not wrong to think about it, and the act of going down that theoretical path doesn't automatically make it authoritarian.

We claim that removing the rights of others is authoritarian, and that the right to vote is a natural right.

FYI, you're making a logical fallacy, an Argument from Ignorance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

How could the right to vote possibly be a natural right?

Ignoring your second part. (But I'm guessing you'll focus on this rather than my first sentence.)

"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

-- Declaration of Independence 1776

The words "Natural Law" and "Natural Rights" only makes sense in the philosophies of John Lock, which inspired the Declaration of Independence.

The ability to alter and change governments has been declared as a Natural Right in the declaration of independence.

Aside from that, "Natural Rights" don't exist. They are a concept created by our founding fathers to attempt to unite the nation. If you disagree with the founding father's definition of "Natural Rights", then the concept is dead and there is no point continuing to talk about the matter.

After all, like everything else that has been created by humans, these concepts are all imagination and fiction. Natural Rights do not exist in the real world, they are merely a concept created by people hundreds of years ago to attempt to unify this country.

Basically, a "Natural Right" is simply the rights that the United States of America were founded upon, the foundation of our Constitution, the foundation of our Revolution, and the foundation of the philosophies that created this country.

These rights are not shared with other countries, these concepts do not exist in other hypothetical governments. "Natural Rights" are simply the rights our founding fathers believed in. Nothing more, nothing less.

You're giving me a history lesson, again. You really should stop playing teacher. It sort of makes you come across as an ass. But I really want to believe that's not what you're going for, so I'll try my best to just remind you. ________

You're leaving out entire swaths of the DoI that explain where natural rights come from. But I find it interesting you pick part of the document to argue for what you want, and then try to lecture me about your own philosophy of where the rights come from.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

-- Declaration of Independence 1776

I do believe that the Declaration of Independence ALSO leaves its explanation out. It declares the truths to be self-evident, and fails to elaborate upon those facts.

The term 'natural right' is nothing more than a glorified circular argument, embodied within the founding papers of our Government.

So you can either hold those truths to be self-evident and agree upon our founding fathers, or you can disagree. If you disagree, we will be unable to proceed with this debate however...

At this point I'm almost forced to call you intellectually dishonest!

Just finish off that tid-bit of quote you pulled, and you'll find they specify exactly where they come from — a Creator. Whether or not you believe in a Creator might determine whether you reject natural rights, but for those of us that aren't so quick to reject God, then there's a sound basis for believing in them.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

So you basically have no actual point to make, no solution to propose; good, we're done, you're boring me.

YOU'RE the one challenging what I'm saying. Leave whenever you want.