Current Events > "Voting is not a human right."

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://i.imgur.com/xdwP7fK.jpg

---

Lolbertarians at it again.
---

the tweet is dumb but the topic title is valid

imo
---

This is an ancap rando, and no politician would say this stuff publicly, but it is the unspoken logic of a great deal of GOP efforts.
---

Of course it's not a human right. It's a right reserved for citizens of the nation the election is in. Democrats want to expand voting rights to non citizens, and Republicans think that representatives should represent the citizens of our own country, not citizens of another country.
---

Well it's not a human right

All adults should have it though
---

Meanwhile, we have an AnCap on 261 that believes private property rights are a Law of Physics.
---

Property violates the Non-Aggression Principle.
---

Nice way to make more people vote democrat. Why would they want to vote for the side that wants to take their vote away?

---

Fuparulez posted...

Of course it's not a human right. It's a right reserved for citizens of the nation the election is in. Democrats want to expand voting rights to non citizens, and Republicans think that representatives should represent the citizens of our own country, not citizens of another country.

No democrats don't want to do that. Democrats have no problem winning without them. Republicans on the other hand need to keep citizens from. Voting or making so their votes don't matter to win.

---

Sure, voting isn't a human right. Neither is there a right to amass extravagantly massive sums of money.

---

gunplagirl posted...

Sure, voting isn't a human right. Neither is there a right to amass extravagantly massive sums of money.

Lets just take both away and you can have your communist paradise.
---

creativerealms posted...

Fuparulez posted...

Of course it's not a human right. It's a right reserved for citizens of the nation the election is in. Democrats want to expand voting rights to non citizens, and Republicans think that representatives should represent the citizens of our own country, not citizens of another country.

No democrats don't want to do that. Democrats have no problem winning without them. Republicans on the other hand need to keep citizens from. Voting or making so their votes don't matter to win.

You say Democrats don't want to do that... despite many Democrats saying they want to do that.
You say Democrats don't need to do that... despite the fact that Donald Trump won handily and swing voters are leaving the Democrats.
You say Republicans want to keep citizens from voting... who, exactly? Republicans want to keep deceased, non existent and illegal aliens from voting, that's it.
---

CloneTheHero posted...

CrimsonRage posted...

voting is not a human right
food/water/shelter is not a human right
owning a gun is a human right

#justmuricanthings

voting is the right of every LEGAL citizen.

and i dont understand how food water shelter isn't a human right yet guns are? you kinda got it backwards there pal.

Guns are not a human right. Nobody is obligated to provide you with a gun, just like nobody is obligated to provide you with food water and shelter.

Something cannot be your "right" if somebody else has to pay for it. You don't have a right to other people's money. You have the right to self defense, so you're allowed to buy a gun, not make somebody else buy one for you. You have the right to free speech, so you can buy air time at the local radio station, you don't get to force somebody else to buy it for you. Get it?
---

There is no such thing as rights

Its just a label for things we believe should exist, but were still just shitty apes on a rock in space

---

if you need it to continue existing it's a human right, simple as that.


---

Paper_Okami posted...

simple as that.

Peak soy, is signing off with this like a requirement?

---

GoodOlJr posted...

Paper_Okami posted...

simple as that.

Peak soy, is signing off with this like a requirement?

Take your meds
---

GoodOlJr posted...

Peak soy, is signing off with this like a requirement?

"peak soy"
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/782/566/5b9.png
this is you

---

ASithLord7 posted...

Take your meds

fuck off with this shit

---

ASithLord7 posted...

Take your meds

Take a mental note, start tracking people who say simple as that, you'll see a trend


---

Paper_Okami posted...

"peak soy"
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/782/566/5b9.png
this is you

Yeah everyone on the other side of you is a virgin, are you running down the checklist of memes?

---

imagine unironically using soy as an insult

it's a fucking bean, that's it


---

CrimsonRage posted...

owning a gun is a human right

not necessarily. that right can easily be revoked through certain actions even unrelated to using a fire arm irresponsibly

Crono99 posted...

Rights are whatever you fought for and defend.

Big titty Japanese girls

---

Paper_Okami posted...

imagine unironically using soy as an insult

it's a fucking bean, that's it

I actually ate a bunch of edamame yesterday, but you know what I meant


---

Musourenka posted...

Property violates the Non-Aggression Principle.

property as theft is the fundamental axiom of economic leftist schools of thought; property rights are the fundamental axiom of economic rightist schools of thought

failure to respect person and property constitute an act of aggression in rightist thought, while failure to respect person while claiming property constitutes an act of aggression in leftist thought, though some schools of leftism also consider speech an act of aggression

at a glance, the leftist emphasis on consent and the rightist emphasis on self-ownership are virtually synonymous; how they diverge on the question of property is a bit perplexing

in rightist economic theory, property is anything in nature untouched by humans which humans then modify beyond a natural state, or transfer ownership rights to

leftist theory, conversely, makes a distinction between private and personal property, the former deemed exploitative and theft, but where the line is drawn is not so clear, nor is why precisely it's considered inherent theft or exploitation beyond the scope of a coercive system of governance

what perhaps sheds light with respect to this question is the leftist concept of structural violence, which transcends mere acts of coercion or violence to also include any complicity in exposure of other parties to entropy, including so little as being in a position to help those in need but refusing to

from a moral standpoint, it makes sense to help those in need, but from an economic standpoint sharing with others must be balanced with one's capacity to effectively manage what are ultimately scarce resources

with respect to this question, leftism tends to be predicated on the observation that there is now sufficient productive capacity where this conflict of interest is moot, while rightism is predicated on the observation that while there is now sufficient productive capacity to reconcile this conflict of interest in the short term, a sufficiently high degree of redistribution poses a threat to long-term sustainability by upsetting the equilibrium between those inclined to production and those inclined to consumption

authoritarian strains of leftism address this issue by purging those whose inclination to consumption well exceeds their capacity to produce, or drifting to the right; libertarian strains of leftism tend to do some combination of collapsing, imploding, or drifting towards authoritarianism or to the right, though some traditional collectivist societies have through trial and error found ways of maintaining small-scale stability, whether through optimal cultural management of the commons found through multigenerational trial-and-error, or by having a looser definition of what constitutes permissible private property relative to more purist schools of thought

rightism, conversely, tends to leverage taxes and/or value individual or institutional philanthropy but also stresses a culture of restraint to maintain equilibrium within the constraints of productive capacity; it's when the culture of restraint and/or the equilibrium breaks down for some reason or another that such societies tend to collapse internally, usually succumbing thereafter to more populist currents
---

In Ancient Greece the act of voting was considered a hallmark of an oligarchy.

---