OK, so I've unmuted krellin for this thread.

So, what you're saying is that we don't have a right to bear arms in America, nor do we have the right to free expression of religion, free assembly or speech. Mmmkay. I think you've just defined away the concept of rights.

Krellin, legalistic constructivist that he is, does not appear to understand the moral conception of a right, and only understand the legal sense of a right. In America felons do not have a legal right to vote.

They do have a basic human right to suffrage, on which grounds I oppose their disenfranchisement. Krellin either does not care about this right or does not recognize it.

There's nothing else to see in that discussion. Move along.

Thucy - you can talk about "moral conception" of rights all you want. Free SPEECH is a right -- it comes from within me, and unles they sew my lips shut or chop off my fingers, I will be able to speak. RELIGION is something they cannot remove from me because it is within my being to worship a God of my choice.

I'm not certain how walking in to a booth and pulling a lever is a right that comes from within you. It is a legally defined process put forth by the government. Hell, voting isn't even the same from state to state, for that matter.

so, despite your fondest wishes, voting is not a right. It is a privilege granted to you by your society, and one that they can take away. It isn't in the bill of rights, is it?

Now, fortunately, voting is a privilege that we attempt to extend to every citizen -- a recent change in our country from a historical perspective. But simply because we try to allow everyone to vote does not mean it is a right.

The overwhelming majoirty of people DRIVE, too, but that does not mean driving a car is a right. It is a priveledge that can be taken away.

You Libtards really need to get a grip. I get it...emotionally it traumatizes you to think that something as important as voting can be taken away....that's why it is a good thing to follow the laws and participate in society. But, fortunately, our society is not built upon following every whim of the White Guy Thucy...because if the rules and laws of society where built upon feelings and whims then this would be a hellish place indeed.

Get a grip, Mr Philosopher. We are not debating whether not everyone should vote. We are talking about the **actual** practice per the legal system of the US, by which voting is a PRIVELEDGE.

To BOB - yes, under the current conditions of our government, bearing arms is a priveledge, not a right. THAT is why there is a such a fight about it...because if it WERE a right, then nobody would be interfering with anyone's ability to own a gun.

And so....back to Thucy....nice tie-in Bob....since you think all Felons should be allowed to vote....because it's a RIGHT....well, there is also a Right to Bear Arms (IN the Bill of Rights...unlike Voting, by the way...) so I assume, in order for you to be logically consistent, that you, Thucy, believe that convicted Felons ought to be able to own firearms, right?

Voting is a right, by committing a felony, you give up certain rights, including voting. Voting is not a privilege and to say so shows you have no idea how this country works.

A right is essentially an ability or condition that we want every person to have, without exception. It is a concrete enumerated list of universal application of the Golden Rule or categorical imperative. It represents moral consensus.

Everyone should be able to vote for their leaders. Everyone should be allowed to speak their mind. No one should go to bed hungry. No one should be homeless.

These are obvious from a moral point of view. That's what makes them rights.

These rights are then, with varying degrees of success, implemented by enlightened governments, or not. When not, rights are being violated. When you hold the government accountable for its violation, you bring them to legal recourse if it is available. If it is not, you question their legitimacy given their violation of basic rights.

So basically, this is going to remain essentially unchanged whether the Bill of Rights exists in present form until 3000 AD or whether its ripped to shreds next year. Either way, we have our rights in the sense that we are entitled to them.

This does not stop evil people from denying them in one or another. Shooting me in the head because I'm an opposition activist, kidnapping my family to get me to retract an article, driving me off my farmland and forcing me to go hungry as a refugee, telling me I have no right to vote for my governor.

The fact that these are realities does not mean that they are acceptable. Naturalistic fallacy AGAIN.

As I said, you've defined away the concept of rights. krellin. Felons don't have the right of free assembly; a standard condition of probation in every jurisdiction I've practiced is that the probationer may not associate with other individuals on probation. Additionally, as demonstrated in Employment Division v. Smith, Congress may sure as shit make laws abridging the free expression of religion.

God damn, what is wrong with you people, it is completely possible to strip someone of their rights. In the conception of the social contract you give up some rights to achieve order. Committing a felony and therefore breaking the laws of society forfeits other laws as well.

The state even has the ability to take away your life. Does that mean your life is a privilege the government grants you. Some on the board may say that's what this country has come to, but I don't think so.

*forfeits other rights

It takes a special kind of stupid…

In addition the US Supreme Court recognises numerous constraints on the right to free speech, which is the one that Krellin keeps using as his example:

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

"A right is essentially an ability or condition that we want every person to have, without exception"

Well...except for those under a certain age, or who have commited crimes.

It isn't a right.

Just because you mroons fail at basic definitions doesn't mean youcan change what words mean.

Jamie, the only constraints to free speech are when the use of said freedom inhibits upon the freedoms of another.

You are so stupid krellin

Once more into the breach...

So, krellin, what is an example of a "right" then. Any right whatsoever.

@Santa - fundamentally I agree with you about states can remove your "rights".

That doesn't change the fact that voting is a priveledge, not a right.

Rights come from within, they are granted by God, so the the old documents say (or sprung into being when the universe exploded in to existence).....anyway, they are within the man, not granted by government.

With or without government, I can speak, I can worship God, I can pick up a stick and defend myself, or a gun.

But voting is a particular action tied to a specific human construct - a government. It can't be a right because it can not exist in and of itself within a man.

Libtard philosophers have so perverted what a "right" is it isn't even funny...they think "health care" is a right....but it's funny, because to recuieve health care, you have to impose upon someone else to provide it.....and we have already established via free speech that you can not limit someone else's freedoms in the excercise of your own freedom...thus health care can NOT be a right....but the earth will explode in fire before a Libtard ever comprehends the illogic and inconsistency of their arguments....as in, what logic they apply to ONE thing, they fail to apply across the board.

Sad.

Yes please, name one right

Santa - I may be stupid, but since I'm smarter than you I shudder to think what you are...

You are do fucking stupid

Natural right does not equal civic rights

You are most definitely not.

krellin. You're wrong.

If I were president we wouldn't have these issues

PE - if you were President, who would be brewing you tax-free hooch? Might you have a spot at the table for me??? :D

Hey, Krellin, had better things to do for a little while. Let's come back to our argument.
You still fail to understand the very basis of my opposition to voter ID. It disenfranchises people. That is it. The argument you are refuting is that Black people are disenfranchised. Therefore, all of our discussion about that was a complete and utter waste of time. I do not agree with the Democrat position entirely. I agree with them more than with you, since I actually agree with them on the solution to the issue, and I agree with you on nothing.
Fivethirtyeight is a respected part of the NYTimes political commentary. I bet you read at least one "blog". Anyway, the article linked gives you plenty of links, so I think you are actively avoiding looking at those. On the other hand, thanks for your link to the study, very informative.
Later, during your raving against Bengal, you mention interesting things. You like open, free political discourse. Great. Then you say something about moronic democrats. That I will accept, as I myself often find myself annoyed at republicans. Then, you make an insulting entirely unfounded assumption that she will claim voter fraud is perpetrated only by Republicans. You also accuse her of being a liar, for which the justification is insanely flimsy, along the lines of, almost entirely Democrats cheat, therefore it is beneficial to help them, therefore Bengal will lie. This is almost exactly the argument which you denied as delusional. Funny, isn't it?
By the way, voting is a basic right, one which should be afforded to all adults. Felons deserve the right to vote, certainly once they've left prison. It is a right because that is the basis of democracy, it is a right because the people have a right to chose their own government. The Bill of Rights is not a perfect document, neither is the constitution, any religious codex of law I know of.

I'd fire the vegetable gardeners and hire you to brew krellin

Just promise me you won't get sequestered, aight?

Trolls like PE can't hire or fire anyone.

Still waiting for krellin to name one right that exists under his definition. I suspect I'll be waiting a while.

How does asking *everyone* to *equally* have the same ID disenfranchise *anyone*? Hint: The answer is "It doesn't unless you don't believe in equal rights but think certain classes need our help and special rights."