Mandatory voting

[Cato]

So you support a society where a fellow citizen or the state can arbitrarily and without reasonable cause or justification deprive you of your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness?

- Why are those truths sacred and undeniable? And why are they even truths? Who appointed it?
- No one is created equal - We are all different and with different privileges. It's a terrible myth to say all men are created equal
- Your rights are not inalienable and inherent, that's another myth - Your rights only exist when the state allows you to exercise them, and even if you think that in liberal countries it's not like that there's a handful of States where society might disagree with you
- Life? The US has the death penalty. Tell me about it.
- Liberty? You only have it when it's convenient. Apparently since members are saying voting is so useless you don't have that much liberty
- Pursuit of happiness is a goal and prerogative, but not a right, you don't have a right to be happy and the main reason is that happiness means different things for everyone.

And no, I don't support such society, I'm just saying it's the quote is inaccurate and unrealistic. You may fancy about the classic liberalism principles that all men have liberty and are created equal but in practice it's not how it happens - Not to mention that America has lived according to liberalism it's whole lifespan and has never known another system so it's not reliable to ask America what freedom means.

I have always had two arms. Am I not a reliable source for determining what it is like to have two arms? Your last sentence seems to imply this and comes off as nonsensical.

I may not get to each point you raised, but have a couple of observations.

1. You misrepresent the meaning of some of the principles you challenge, such as 'all are created equal'. This means that people should be equal before the law and are entitled to the same rights as other individuals. This was never intended to be an egalitarian dream that all individuals were to be born into equal circumstances or that there wouldn't be natural differences in physical and cognitive abilities. What you propose is a myth, but not what is being suggested.

2. You seem to lose sight of the fact that the principles are ideals to be aspired to. Pointing out instances where the ideal isn't fully realized does not invalidate the ideal, it only highlights where improvements need to be made. The death penalty is heinous and should be discontinued where practiced; however, you pointing to the death penalty in an attempt to invalidate the right to life is amateurish. The death penalty is only applied to a very specific crime; aggravated murder. You try to make it sound like its application is capricious and arbitrary. Those that commit aggravated murder lose their right to life because of their demonstrated threat to the lives of others. I would prefer permanent incarceration, but none of this invalidates the principle of the right to life.

The pursuit of happiness is not a right to be happy as you claim. Again, you are confused about the meaning.

Claiming that we only have the rights that the state allows us is part and parcel to my objection of mandatory voting laws and why even the smallest erosion of liberty and departure from the ideal strikes a nerve with me. I don't accept the ideal that I am beholden to the whims of the state.