hrubin@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Herman Rubin) wrote:
>>>Not really. They still have representation. They can still call
>>>their congressman and ask for help.
>
>>He wouldn't be THEIR Congressman. With no vote, he is not answerable
>>to them and hence has no obligation to represent them.
>
>Then those who vote against their current Congressman have no
>representation.
That does not follow.
They did have the right to vote. They may have lost, but they had the
chance to exercise their right. And they have the chance to vote
against the turkey at reelection time, if he does not represent him
acceptably.
Likewise those who had the right to vote but who chose not to, are
represented, because they also can vote the guy out next time.
>>>Actually, perhaps you do have a good idea. Of course, if they aren't
>>>going to pay taxes, then they will have to forgo all the rights they
claim
>>>to have..... such as police protection, right to a lawyer, right to
free speech,
>>>etc. etc!
>
>>People have rights because they are people. They get to have a say in
>>government because they are adult citizens. Non-citizens have all
>>those rights, but they don't get to vote. (They may however pay
>>taxes, of course).
>
>Should T.C. MITS have the right to decide that a new company
>making widgets should not open? It seems you favor totalitarianism,
>where the elected official can decide to do anything.
Subject to some constitutional limits, they can. The constitutional
limits prevent totalitarianism (which is not what you define the word
to mean).
lojbab
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
lojbab@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Lojban language www.lojban.org
|
