Well yes, but there was more substance to my answer than just that statement. :-?

But then where do you draw the line?

If someone who can't stay away from the crack pipe can't vote, why can't we ban someone who can't stay away from, say, a religion? Or any religion? Opiate of the people, after all! (and no, I'm not targeting anyone - just playing devil's advocate)
Or why can't we ban someone who drinks alcohol? It is known to cause more social ills and poor judgments, let alone kills more people.
Or someone who can't stay away from a political association? I mean, socialism is bad for america! Let's ban socialists from voting!

That would set a pretty dangerous precedent. I think research shows that, in any case, the drug regulation is pretty arbitrary. Fascinating history behind it, too. It could just as easily happen to alcohol, socialism or religion. And then what?

Good points, George. On the other hand we could go with Robert A. Heinlein's idea - the main prerequisite for voting is prior military service. You didn't join, you can't help govern.

Except that the financial crisis and resulting recession began under GWB's watch. And to ask businesses to not contribute anything to any sort of recovery out of pure political spite is indeed playing politics at its most base and despicable level.

Business has contributed to the recovery - and every time they have tried - government has stuck them with more and more unreasonable and unworkable regulations and demands. For the few who didn't get "stuck" - like GE, GM, etc, they instead were the recipients of massive corporate bailouts (which the American people did not want), government guaranteed loans, or simply "waivers" that other corporations don't get.

Of course - there is always "it's Bush's fault". Ok, the recesson started on his watch. Obama has had 3 years now and he has done nothing but make it worse. Bush drove us into a ditch according to Obama. Now Obama is doing his best to drive us over a cliff..

Really want to compare the two?

Pointing at the mud on someone else's fins isn't going to make your fish swim any better......

I wasn't saying there are lots of businesses out there that can hire all willy nilly, but mookie pretty much summed it up on the point that I was trying to make: the blog, pledge, thingy...is asking companies not to hire under any circumstances, no matter if they are doing well nor not. I understand that companies do have to shed positions in times of hardship...didn't think I had to explicitly say that.


I don't think it's a matter of them contributing anything, A company hires first and foremost for their own profit. When times are good they hire to fill demand, when bad they lay off and don't hire. The economy benefits from this as a side effect. The memo or whatever it is, asks for companies to NOT hire as implies this should be done even if they would like to, and are financially ready to do so. So really, this is asking companies more than anything to contribute; contribute to a pledge to spite Obama.

It took a day for the stock market to crash in 1929...took 12 years for the economy to recover. I see many opponents angry that Obama hasn't waved a magic wand and fixed everything; using that as an excuse to say he's such a bad president etc...but I remember that it always is faster to destory than to build.

If you are a student of economic history, you will know that recoveries after credit crises are long and drawn out. But I guess scholarly studies don't make for good sloganeering.

If you care to educate yourself: http://www.economics.harvard.edu/fil..._Aftermath.pdf

Yeah the idea being you don't have a right to govern your country unless you have served your country. That Heinlein was a smart cookie.

Well yeah but the rest of it it didn't really address my question did it?

It's an interesting possibility, yeah. Although it does create a couple of caveats, e.g. disabled persons (who may not be physically able to serve) or conscienscious objectors (again, they're not all just lazy hippies). It also risks creating a very jingoist kind of state and society by favouring military thinking.

However if you expand it to civil service - not just military, but helping serve your country by building, saving lives, and doing tough jobs that others don't want to - then I'd say we have a deal. Virtually anyone can serve their country in some way, and IMO it would set a good precedent - might teach people a few things about the value of their vote, too. That's partially why I have somewhat conservative views on immigration myself - I really think it's unfair and stupid to give citizenship (and rights that come with it) to people who've done nothing to so much as prove their worth to the country they want to live in. So I'm all in favour of checks and balances for civic duty - and military duty along with it. I think the former's even more important as far as vote requirements go.

And in that, by the way, there's no need to exclude drug addicts. While drugs certainly cause problems, there are also many instances where drug addicts are perfectly capable of performing good civic or military duty; and other instances where people who've really done more than their share for the society who've fallen into addiction and deserve help, not removal of rights. I can bet your right now that the rates of substance abuse are far, far higher among Iraq or Afghan vets than among the general population - it's not just street trash that does it. You wanna tell them the country doesn't owe them anything?

On the other hand I didn't say I agreed with it.

You don't?

It's an interesting idea, but I'm not sure whether I like it or not. If they'd had it at the beginning it would have excluded some of my favorite founders, Jefferson, Madison and Franklin among them. Well, Franklin helped organize the very first Colonial Militia, so he may qualify, but still...

It would also keep out anyone who doesn't qualify for the military, though public service may be an alternative. Basically I just don't like the idea of voting requirements in general.

That is what Heinlein was getting at in Starship Troopers. The majority of "Citizens" in the Federation were civil service and not military. :yep:

It's been decades since I read any of his stuff but I thought it was any type of public service like CCIP says.

I do however support at least some voting requirements. All voters should be verified citizens.