Politics_Observer wrote:@Juin
Political_Observer << Individual rights are just one aspect to life as a human being. There are also rights for the society to live in safety, security,the rule of law and freedom. The rule of law is part of freedom. Society exists. NOT just ONLY individual rights. We have a society too that we have to take into account and not just ONLY individual rights. Individual rights have to be balanced against the needs of society to best ensure a free society. Compulsory voting helps to serve that purpose and serves it quite well in Australia. They don't have problems with politicians like Trump trying to establish a dictatorship like we do here in the U.S. They actually a free society over there and don't have to worry about people like Trump trying to destroy their government and become a dictator. Not saying life is perfect over there, but at least they are not the verge of becoming a right wing racist fascist dictatorship.<<My dear Politics_Observer,
I am very disturbed when anyone- especially when they purpote to be advocates for democracy- do not hold as sacrosanct, or take lightly the Proposition that certain individual rights are natural and unalienable. These rights are not a gift from the State to man. The State derives its legitimacy and powers from the individual, not vice versa. The founders of the American Republic already deliberated on that. I am not sure what I am to make of you- in the 21st Century- attempting to turn things upside down by making individual fundamental rights a gift of the State. This is the United States of America, not the United Soviet Socialist States of America. Only a Bolshevik can so elevate the State over the individual.
Your statement "the Rule of Law is part of freedom freedom" is at the very least logically problematic; that is if not Logically False. There is really no direct correlation between the two. Communist China, Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, etc all had rule of law; but freedom was absent. Maybe you wanted to say for freedom to be fully enjoyed some rule of law is necessary.
I find it hilarious that you are for compulsory voting but against voter ID requirements. The contradiction eludes you? It is clearly obvious that compelling an individual- I imagine on pain of fines or incarceration- to visit a polling station, even if he clearly does not want to, a more egregious intrusion by the state on an individual than requiring an ID. Or at least I think so. At the very least what we have here is you picking and chosing what tyrannies you want.
And Australia itself does not appear to be immune to the Voter ID requirement debats. Our forum Australian may enlighten us. But a quick google indicated to me that as of 2016 Queensland, Australia has voter id requirements. Only for Queensland, not at the Federal level.
And our forum Australian did clarify compulsory voting. In the strict sense of the word, Australia does not compel voting, it only compels the long suffering Aussie to present himself at the boothe. The long suffering Aussie, once inside the boothe, can dump the damn Federal ballot in the garbage bin. That being the case, and the reality, I am forced to find the compulsion excessive and unnecessary, and an infringement on individual rights.
I will round up by again repeating my consternation at the discovery that you do not hold certain rights as natural and unalienable, a gift from God or nature, and definitely NOT a gift from State to man.