Replying to Avatar f0xr

What if it's not who can vote, but the concept of voting itself that's flawed? What if there are things that aren't appropriately deciding by vote, period?

If 2 guys jump you in a dark alley and demand your wallet, are you okay with handing it over if the 3 of you vote on it?

If a group of people sat around a table, would you be okay with putting your net worth on the table and deciding how it gets used by popular vote of those sitting there? Would it matter who was at the table? Or how many people were at the table?

When you reject moral absolutes and try to base "morality" on popular vote, you end up where the West is today.

I reject the concept of any group of people voting as a legitimate way to allocate my private property or establish a moral pattern of behavior for my life.
Avatar
Samuel Adams 1y ago

Your analogies sound like the European way of voting. You are describing a democracy, a very evil form of voting.

In a limited government constitutional republic, what are United States will become again, it doesn’t matter how many people vote, you can’t take rights away.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
f0xr 1y ago

Private property rights are fundamental. I just don't see how you can simultaneously have an elected body set policies on taxes, government spending, and borrowing supported by fiat money creation (all infringement of private property rights) and maintain a limited government constitutional republic. It seems like an oxymoron. The constitution can't uphold private property rights by delegating infringement of those rights to a body "legitimized" by the fact that they were elected by a popular vote.