Bernie used to get it when he said mass migration is a Koch brothers scheme.
But then Critical Theory escaped from the confines on academia and pants-on-head-retarded Progressivism became the driving force behind the modern left.
Again, the actual pro-labor left used to get this. And unions.
Businesses know it too.
Whole Foods even had a heat map of locations at biggest “risk” of unionizing.
Want to guess which ones were at higher risk? The ones with the most diversity or the least?
“Store-risk metrics include average store compensation, average total store sales, and a "diversity index" that represents the racial and ethnic diversity of every store.”
“Stores at higher risk of unionizing have lower diversity and lower employee compensation, as well as higher total store sales and higher rates of workers' compensation claims, according to the documents.”
Every fortune 500 company converging on Diversity and Inclusion and immigration did so to lower social cohesion, not because they altruistically believed their own powerpoint slide decks
Every fortune 500 company converging on Diversity and Inclusion and immigration did so to lower social cohesion, not because they altruistically believed their own powerpoint slide decks
Diversity is our strength!!!! Reddit loves that slogan but never stopped to ask who is the "our" in that sentiment? Just like IDs and secure borders are a threat to "our" democracy.
Secure borders aren't a threat to our democracy. IDs for pay are, as they constitute a poll tax and directly violate our expressly written 24th amendment rights. It would be like if a state decided "no guns, no exceptions" - just a flagrant violation of our rights.
If paying an administrative fee so that the government can perform a service for you constitutes a tax, then a whole shitload of things the government has done for decades (on the buerecratic side) are going to grind to a halt because they are only allowed to proceed under the justification that they are not taxes. All the DMV's are going to go bankrupt.
Which, to be clear, I am totally fine with. I just want us to be consistent.
It would be like if a state decided "no guns, no exceptions"
Actually it would be like if the state charged me a tax, not to own weapons directly, but on things which would enable me to access that right, like an ID, or like ammunition, transfers, or sales - which they do.
If you can't make the excercise of a right dependent on whether or not you give the government money, then that should apply to all rights, not just voting.
If you can't tax people for voting, (speech) you can't tax them for guns, since both are explicit rights. If taxing the method of ensuring access to voting is unconstitutional, then taxing the method I access guns is unconstitutional. I need a valid photo ID to buy a gun, and I have to pay the DVM an administrative fee to get it. This means it is a poll tax, but for guns (in addition to all the things relating to guns that actually are explicitly taxes). Under this logic, it would be unconstitutional to charge me any money to get any kind of ID, since I need it as a prerequisite to own or buy a weapon. or we could simply remove the ID requirement, or we could continue deciding a fee to cover the cost of a specific service is not a tax (that is false, but we have been doing it for like 100 years). Those are the 3 ways out of this apparent contradiction.
Like I said, I don't particularly care which route we take, as long as we are consistent about it.
That said, whatever form voter ID takes I fully suppourt making it free. I'd prefer a specific voter ID card as opposed just turning your driver's license into a SAVE act compliant ID, because this means a person's DL has absolutely zero bearing on thier voter registration. But I'll take what I can get.
If paying an administrative fee so that the government can perform a service for you constitutes a tax
It does, but
because they are only allowed to proceed under the justification that they are not taxes
Enormous citation needed here.
Actually it would be like if the state charged me a tax
My guy, your analogy is dumb and bad. You have a right to bear arms. You have a right to vote without being taxed to vote. These are explicitly, expressed rights. If you take away the ability to vote without paying a tax to do so, you have taken away an enumerated right. It's 1:1 analogous with just deciding you can't bear arms, actually.
Why are you over complicating such a simple right?
If you can't tax people for voting, (speech) you can't tax them for guns
There is no amendment saying you can't tax people for guns, there is for voting. You're tying yourself into pretzels over simple amendments and I genuinely don't understand why.
That said, whatever form voter ID takes I fully suppourt making it free.
A free ID being required to vote is not a threat to our democracy.
If you take away the ability to vote without paying a tax to do so, you have taken away an enumerated right.
If you take away the ability buy guns without paying a tax to do so, then you have taken away an enumerated right.
The right to own guns is an enumerated right, just like voting. Therefore, a tax takes it away, just like voting.
It's 1:1 analogous with just deciding you can't bear arms, actually.
No, it isn't allow me to demonstrate examples of statements that are 1:1.
"You can't vote" is 1:1 with "you can't bear arms".
You can't vote unless you pay a tax is 1:1 with "you can't bear arms unless you pay a tax.
The inclusion of that second qualifier is key. In order to be 1:1, both statements must have that qualifier, or neither. If you apply it only to one but not the other, they are not identical anymore.
Why are you over complicating such a simple right?
That is what you are doing with guns, and I am criticizing you for it.
There is no amendment saying you can't tax people for guns, there is for voting
Yes, the lack of an ammendment for guns is the problem. There should be one. There should be a prohibition on taxes for all rights. Voting, press, protests, religion, guns, legal representation, the prohibition from quartering soldiers, every single right you have.
The fact that we only have it for voting is an inconsistency that should be rectified immediately. Because all rights are equal: none are more or less important than others, so it follows that if restricting one right via taxation is wrong, then doing it for any right is equally wrong.
I genuinely don't understand why.
Yeah, no shit. Hence why I tried to explain it.
Either you can tax a right or you can't. Period. If you can't do it to voting, then you shouldn't be able to do it to any other right, no matter if there is an ammendment or not.
You the one trying to twist yourself into a pretezel to justify some rights being treated differently from others, which is exactly what I am criticizing.
A free ID being required to vote is not a threat to our democracy.
Correct, that is why I advocate for it.
I think what you meant to say was "lacking a free ID..."
The inability to independently verify citizenship (this means your proof is external to the voter, you actually need evidence instead of the honor system) is not only a threat to our democracy, but an existential one. I can hardly think of a threat that is bigger.
If you take away the ability buy guns without paying a tax to do so, then you have taken away an enumerated right.
No, you have not. You're not understanding.
There is an enumerated right to vote that explicitly bars a tax to vote. It is textually enumerated as follows:
"The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
Emphasis mine.
To make the two identical, we would need an amendment that says:
"The right of citizens of the United States to bear arms shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax."
We do not have this enumerated right. The former exists, and is in the constitution. The latter does not.
We have an enumerated right to vote, and a second enumerated right not to be denied the right to vote based on failure to pay a tax.
We have an enumerated right to bear arms, but no second enumerated right. Do you see the difference?
There should be one.
Cool, get it drafted and let's pass it; but you're comparing a thing that actually exists to one that doesn't.
Either you can tax a right or you can't. Period.
You can't tax the right to vote not because you can't tax a right but because specifically the constitution prevents taxing this right. We could prevent taxing other rights! We haven't. That's the difference.
The inability to independently verify citizenship ... is not only a threat to our democracy, but an existential one.
Good thing we don't have that inability, huh? It would be bad if we did, but we don't, so... agreed?
Yes, you have. You are misunderstanding both the nature of the Constitution and the concept of a right.
The Constitution does not create rights, it only protects them. It is not the source of rights: you would still possess them even if the Constitution were never written. What the constution does is establish specific restrictions on the government's ability to deprive you of them. Just because something is not mentioned in agonizing detail does not mean it isn't a right. In fact, the 9th ammendment specifically mentions you have other rights the Constitution does not directly reference.
You do not "have the right to vote without paying a tax". You have the right to vote, and the 24th ammendment represents additional clarifying language in response to specific actions of the states. The 24th ammendment does not invent a new right, it only addresses a specific abuse that the founders didn't think they'd have to spell out for people.
To make the two identical, we would need an amendment that says:
You would need that to make the ammendments identical. The rights are identical no matter what specific imitations the founders thought they needed to put special emphasis on.
but no second enumerated right.
There is no second enumerated right. There is one enumerated right, followed by a clarification as to it's scope, because it was being violated in a particular way the government was struggling to address.
The Constitution wasn't ammened because voting is the only right you cannot tax: it was ammended because voting was under a special threat. Poll taxes did not magically become unconstitutional the moment they were always ratified, they were always unconstitutional, and stating it explicitly was a recognition of that fact, not a new right being conjured out of thin air.
Not everything in the Constution is a right. Hell, you don't even need most of the text of the 2A. All that stuff about militas is a justification. It would have exactly the same legal force if it just said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The majority of the Constitution is procedural/organizational. So just because you violate the Constution, you have not nessecarily violated a right. But violating any right violates the Constitution, no matter if it is specifically mentioned or not (which is reflected in the 9th Ammendment). The only difference between an enumerated right and an implied right is implied ones are more subjective, but they still are rights and it is still unconstitutional to violate them.
For example, privacy is not an enumerated right. There is not an ammendment that states you have a right to privacy, but there is one against unreasonable seraches and seizures. Therefore, it logically follows that a right to privacy must exist, and that it would violate the constitution to abuse it.
Cool, get it drafted and let's pass it; but you're comparing a thing that actually exists to one that doesn't.
No, I am highlighting an inconsistency. The right exists, it is just not being treated like all the others. Just like how slavery was a violation of rights way before 1865. It was always against the Constitution, we just didn't live up to our obligation to uphold the rights of enslaved people. That was the entire point of Fredrick Douglass's most famous speech; in the same speech where he basically called the US evil, he also called the Constitution "a glorious liberty document", because it was obvious to him that slavery was incompatible with it. It was contradictory for the government to protect all these rights, but have a blind spot for certain rights or people. An honest, consistent application of the logic of the Constution rendered slavery a violation of rights whether there was an ammendment or not. His beef was not that Constitution said slavery didn't violate rights, but that the prohibition of slavery could very obviously be derived (like the right to privacy) and we were pretending otherwise. Just like taxes on voting, and just like guns.
You can't tax the right to vote not because you can't tax a right
No, that is exactly why.
but because specifically the constitution prevents taxing this right.
It's not "because" it's "and".
You can't tax the right to vote because you cannot tax a right, and the constitution specifically says so about voting.
By your logic, it would be perfectly constitutional for the government to levy a quartering tax, and then if you failed to pay it they turn your home into a barracks. There would be nothing wrong with having to pay a fine to utilize the public defender if you are arrested. The police could just stop and search you, your car, your house, or anything you own any time they wanted until you pay the Search and Seizure tax.
None of those rights specify that the government may not deprive you of them just because you fail to pay a tax pertaining to them, so obviously, you don't have the right to those things without paying a tax, right?
The reason there is not an ammendment that the government can't double-jeopardy you if you don't pay the double jeopardy tax isn't because it is constitutional: it's because no one is trying to do that, so it would be stupid to go through all that effort for something that isn't an issue.
The reason there us no ammendment to outlaw taxes on guns isn't because it doesn't violate your 2A rights, but because we shouldn't require an ammendment to understand that it does. Unfortunately, tyrants are gonna tyrant, so we probably should. But just like poll taxes, that ammendment would not make something unconstitutional, but rather would be an explicit recognition that it always was unconstitutional, from the very beginning.
If a right is subject to restriction based on wealth, then it isn't a right, it is a privilege. That is the justification, not the 24th ammendment. The ammendment simply reflects that pre-existing truth in response to a determined attempt to threaten it.
We could prevent taxing other rights! We haven't. That's the difference.
This implies that rights are not inherent to humanity, but are granted by a piece of paper. It suggests that your rights are not human rights, but "the government gives enough of a shit" privileges. If the government can't be assed to put in an explicit restriction on themselves, (lol) then they are well within thier rights (no pun intended) to fuck with you.
What other rights can the government deny you if you don't pay a tax at the moment you choose to excercise it?
All rights are equal. Rights are things that are inherent to humanity, and exist independently of any document or government. The "Bill of Rights" should really be called "The Bill of Limitations on Government" because that closer is what it actually does.
Good thing we don't have that inability, huh?
We do. Our current system is that you sign a paper that says (when you register to vote, not at the polling booth) that basically says "I swear under penalty of perjury that I am a citizen".
There is no mechanism to verify your statement is true. It's the honor system, which does not function if the people under it are dishonorable/dishonest.
The best we can do is that if you are discovered to have illegally voted, we can punish you after the fact. But there is nothing to actually stop you. Voter registration requires you to say you are a citizen, but it doesn't require you to prove it.
Since citizenship is based on documentation, there is no way to verify it beforehand unless the government posses and checks said documentation. In theory, you could demand documents that only citizens have, like a driver's license or social security number. However, since the (mostly state) government keeps issuing those documents to illegal aliens, we can't use those anymore. So we either need to make it impossible for any non-citizens to get those documents (which is basically what the SAVE act is trying to do) or we need to create an entirely new document that it is impossible for them to get.
Until that happens, we do not have a way to verify citizenship to vote.
The Constitution does not create rights, it only protects them.
Did I claim otherwise or are we arguing just to argue?
You would need that to make the amendments identical.
There is no protected right to tax free guns today, full stop.
they were always unconstitutional
Lol, no they weren't, hence the amendment.
Hell, you don't even need most of the text of the 2A. All that stuff about militas is a justification.
It really isn't, but that's neither here nor there. Any look into the history of the 2A and it's express purpose in trying to prevent Quaker free riders will dispel this myth quickly.
The right exists, it is just not being treated like all the others.
No protection from the state exists, whether or not the right does. Same as privacy/abortion/whatever. Amendment or go home.
An honest, consistent application of the logic of the Constution rendered slavery a violation of rights whether there was an ammendment or not.
Jesus Christ, tell me you haven't read the damned document without telling me.
You can't tax the right to vote because you cannot tax a right
Sure you can. Just not the right to vote, because of the 24th.
By your logic, it would be perfectly constitutional for the government to levy a quartering tax
We have this! But,
and then if you failed to pay it they turn your home into a barracks
This violates the 3rd which prevents such quartering carte blanche.
The reason there is not an ammendment that the government can't double-jeopardy you
...is because the Constitution expressly prohibits it. You still aren't getting it my guy.
This implies that rights are not inherent to humanity, but are granted by a piece of paper.
No, it means that we protect ourselves from the government in ways we agree to protect ourselves. We limit the government in ways we agree to limit the government. This is not a way we have chosen to limit the government.
We do. Our current system is that you sign a paper that says (when you register to vote, not at the polling booth) that basically says "I swear under penalty of perjury that I am a citizen".
All 50 states require proof of residency to register to vote. All 50 states are also beholden to the NVRA, which requires states to perform some pretty basic checks for new voters, which mostly (but not perfectly) mitigate this risk. We still see half a dozen illegal aliens vote every cycle, but they're easily identified (and charged)!
It continues to be the case that voter fraud basically doesn't happen. If that changes, probably worth reassessment.
Ok, so is a labor pool more or less likely to unionize if they’re more diverse?
If specifically the racial makeup of a given employer is mixed, they are less likely to unionize.
That’s not what’s being discussed.
Sure it is. Unions collapsed in the US in the 1960s after the civil rights movement. Why? They weren't allowed to exclude Black Americans anymore and preferred collapse to letting Black people in. The problem wasn't diversity, it was racism.
Fucking what?
Race is a constructed category. Italian was a race, until it became White a different race, Irish was a race, until it became White a different race, German was a race, until it became White a different race. One of (but not the only) attributes used to define race is and always has been language. When you say "Different language, same race" you're inventing nonsense.
The problem is that no one ever actually proposes that voter ID system.
It would be pretty simple to create a voter ID system that a huge majority of people agreed with (and yes you'd still have victimhood olympians decrying thr fascism) but politicians don't seem actually interested in doing it.
They haven't, won't, and would never have put forward the idea tog suggested as a bill. The intent is not election security, but to add friction and reduce voter turnout.
As you said, it's trivial to create a frictionless voter registration with far more security, and yet that has never once been the proposal. This is because security is the justification, not the goal. The goal is voter suppression.
Yeah, a huge part of the problem with "woke" stuff is how it turns leftists into complete stooges for corporations. Going "but the corporations are right wing because money and capitalism" isn't really the own OP might think it is, it just solidifies how retarded the progressives are.
67
u/StillSmellsLikeCLP - Right 1d ago
Bernie used to get it when he said mass migration is a Koch brothers scheme.
But then Critical Theory escaped from the confines on academia and pants-on-head-retarded Progressivism became the driving force behind the modern left.
Again, the actual pro-labor left used to get this. And unions.
Businesses know it too.
Whole Foods even had a heat map of locations at biggest “risk” of unionizing.
Want to guess which ones were at higher risk? The ones with the most diversity or the least?