[scotty79]

What about modern non-wealthy? They neither get a fair stake in society nor even a voice that matters. Voting pretty much doesn't work. How much the issue is supported by non-wealthy voters has no bearing on the laws that are going to be written that affect it.

And by non-wealthy I pretty much mean anyone that has to work to live, regardless of whether they can find the job or not.

[jzemeocala]

After having spent 20+ years growing up in rural FL, I've been telling people for years now that: "poor people are the new negro".

If you are poor, than you look poor usually. And people ABSOLUTELY treat you differently from the government to the local store.

I lived in one really messed up part of FL called interlachen that really opened my eyes to that fact.

[Planktonne]

Voting not being effective is quite a long way from voting not being allowed at all.

However, if we get to the point when control over their own lives is denied to people, it won't be unreasonable for them to resist. We've had slave revolutions before, and they weren't morally wrong.

[bluefirebrand]

> Voting not being effective is quite a long way from voting not being allowed at all

I disagree pretty strongly.

If the system is rigged in such a way that you mostly get the same outcomes no matter how people vote, that is only a razor thin line away from not being allowed to vote at all

[Planktonne]

I think it's an easy edge to tip over, but I'd stress that there is a difference between 'voting but having an unpopular stance' and 'denied basic rights'. There isn't a major political party that represents my views currently, for example, but it would be premature for me to start shooting because this is not (yet and hopefully ever) the same as my voice being explicitly ignored.

[bluefirebrand]

> voting but having an unpopular stance

This is not what I imagine when I see someone saying "voting is not effective"

Unpopular stances losing in votes is voting working as intended

Unpopular stances winning is when voting is very broken

[scotty79]

> Voting not being effective is quite a long way from voting not being allowed at all.

How so exactly? Do you think that the fact that people in russia, for example, can vote is far from them not being allowed to vote?

[Planktonne]

I wouldn't have a moral problem with people in Russia engaging in violent resistance.

[scotty79]

How about US? It's just one step removed. Or maybe half a step?

[Planktonne]

1. It feels like you're trying to walk me into some imagined rhetorical trap; if that's the case, feel free to speed up.

2. It's completely possible that justified violence could happen in the US; it would, as anywhere, depend on what violence by who for what reason, but there's nothing that makes the US special in this regard. In the past, on multiple occasions (resistance to slavery, for example), political violence in the cause of freedom has occurred, and I don't think that was immoral.

[scotty79]

Sorry. I was just curious about your response. Thanks.