Our rights as individuals to be represented by government is not dependent on risking one's life.

He didn't say what his job is. Someone earning his pay in a legitimate job run by government, whether or not it should be, is paying taxes.

You have to be careful of how they define "dependent". Someone being paid for a government job may or may not be acting legitimately, and he may or may not be in a field that has been improperly taken over by government. A person with a legitimate government job or an otherwise legitimate job that happens to be run by government is earning his salary. And someone getting his own money back from Social Security has been forced to be "dependent" on getting his own money back. But the total number of people being paid for some reason by government is a relevant indicator of the collectivization.

In the military he had to obey the commander in his performance of his job, but he package deals that with don't have an opinion on the competence and goals of the president. Military operations are not subject to vote and not "political" in that sense, but it doesn't mean the commander in chief can tell anyone not to vote for his opponent in an election or those in the military have to be "apolitical" and not vote, and it doesn't mean the Trump can't fire his own political appointees.

He also said "no usable moral compass", possibly leaving it open as to what selfishness is supposed to mean, but we suspect that it was a package deal.

But they would design the test and you wouldn't be able to vote.

Politically demanding that is senseless in a system based on welfare statism for the same reason that we have welfare statism at all. If that isn't changed in the popular beliefs then indignantly demanding some changes around that edges that are contrary to widely accepted altruist premises is irrelevant.

There is no reason why you should not have exercised your right to vote. Being for the President while in the military means for the country in contrast to enemies you may be fighting, not that you can't take part in choosing who the president is.

Representative government does not morally require "sacrifice" and "duty" as payment for a right to vote. You chose to stay in the Air Force for 20 years just as others choose their own careers. The military has no monopoly on value to the citizenry, nor is collectivist service the basis of the concept of representative government at all in an individualist, free society based on the rights of every individual..

It is not a "conflict of interest" to collectivists. You are a conflict of their interest. If the ideas on which popular votes are based are not changed it makes to sense whatsoever to complain that the other side should not be able to vote. They are not going to do that.

None of that will happen as long the predominant ideas accepted by the public are welfare-statist. That is why they vote the way they do.

You are not personally outvoted anymore than anyone else. The election system is based on the total of those who vote and everyone knows it. It makes no sense to complain that your one vote is meaningless and doesn't count for more than it does. Elections cannot be held in which every one person demands that his vote determine the outcome. If you want a different outcome then spread the proper philosophical ideas that cause the majority of votes to be what they are. That includes the interpretation of the Constitution required to limit government. It is ignored because the people voting don't want that and the politicians they elect know it.

Yes, but, again, those in the government - including the military - would not be able to vote while they are serving. Heinlein's theory is that you earn the right to vote. Until you complete your term of service, you have not earned that right.

But, again, Heinlein's theory is that you can vote after you have served not while serving. And that, too, is the course adopted by the generals I cited. They did not vote while serving.

You disagree because of your personal point of view, but you are not being objective. Government employees are not taxpayers, certainly not to the government that employs them. Federal employees do pay local taxes and vice versa. So, we might say that you should not vote in elections for the government you serve in, though you might be allowed to vote in other elections. But overall, you are just saying that you should vote even though you are a government employee because you promise to vote for candidates you think we might approve of.

Prohibiting Christians from voting would be against the Constitution ("no religious test" clause). However, that was never the problem. Rather, for about 200 years atheists were prohibited from voting, serving on juries, being witnesses in court, or running for public office. About a dozen states had such laws until about 1991.

The discssion here is theoretical, based on objective considerations, not the actual Constitution. By Heinlein's Theory, you get to vote after you serve your term in the military, not while.

Other founders were against that. Property owners were farmers. Many founders were merchants. Merchants typically hold very little property of any kind and seldom any "real" property (land). They tend to rent their homes in the city.

What do you mean "no loyality except to self"? Are you opposed to selfishess? Do you think that they are being truly selfish?

Easy answer: those that I cited are going into 'harms way' dealing with criminals, fires, diseases, and things that are 'out of the ordinary' and not in controlled situations (similar to a war). 'Driving a truck' (in my opinion) does not rate the same consideration and going into a burning building, or dealing with the deranged (although I just saw where the accident rates are up 6%+ in the states with legalized marijuana).

I believe some of the founding fathers argued that only property owners should be allowed to vote. Just sayin'. I don't mean nuthin by it.

Your examples of those who put their lives on line are not even in the top 10 of dangerous jobs where one puts his life on line daily. So why not add non-government workers to those who put their lives on line locally?

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-m...

I, heartily, disagree. Government employees, like myself, are taxpayers and many are landowners. Therefore, we should have a voice in how our taxes are squand...spent. Many of us are conservatives and vote, constitutionally, as well. If government employees are taken out of the equation, who's next? Christians who might vote for Mike Pence for President?

I've been operating a one man letter writing campaign to get our agency to relax their firearms policy, for years. I've also been a strong advocate against unions collecting dues from unwilling participants. Finally, I spent some years in this nation's military and unquestionably, earned my right to vote.

I would support 'DrZarkov99' with the comment from Robert Heinlein... only those who put their lives on the line would be allowed to vote, or seek elected office. Not just the military, but those who also put their lives on the line locally (Police, Fire, etc.). BHO spoke of having 'skin in the game - these are the people who really did put their 'skin in the game'. In my adult life I have missed two elections. While in service, I voted for the people who had the power to send me in harms way, and did not doubt that my voice mattered. Most of those up-chain election-wise did not have the experience of putting their life on the line (many avoided it) so my experiences countered their ignorance.

With respect, DrZ, I recognize your point of view and Heinlein's, but I can't agree that military service is enough on its own to earn the right to vote on policy that includes funding the military. Some members of the military have an inherent conflict of interest toward a larger military that should be taken into account in determining who in the military should be able to vote. The military fights at the order of politicians, not the people. Current military and veterans should also be subject to the same knowledge tests as civilians - testing that doesn't yet exist but is sorely needed.
Just my opinion.

It seems I part company here with most in the Gulch. I spent 20 years in the Air Force, and I maintain that anyone who is willing to risk his or her life (military, first responders) for the sake of others should have the right to exercise those freedoms (including the right to vote) we fought for. I avoided political discussions when on duty, and did not engage in political promotion, but felt a personal concern when I saw government officials making bad decisions. In fact, I share the principle expressed by Robert Heinlein in "Starship Troopers," where the right to vote had to be earned through service in the military or other duties requiring some degree of personal sacrifice.

I think that you will find a strong concurrent position in the postings of Concord Green on LinkedIn.

Me dino worked for the Alabama Department of Corrections for 21 years.
Most of my coworkers were libs.
So my being denied the vote along with the rest of my prisoin officer peers during that time woulda been me dino coming out on top.
Tee-hee!