Do you agree with this or not?

  • FelixCress@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 hours ago

    You know what? I can’t be arsed to reply to you, so just a few points as you clearly have no idea what you are talking about which firmly places you in one of the groups I mentioned.

    Public lies - . There is already number of offences where intent must be proven and it is up to the court to decide.

    Banning racist parties - again, this is up to the court to decide where legitimate criticism ends and blatant racism starts.

    Referendums - there is no link between paying taxes and right to vote. People on benefits have right to vote and taxes paying migrants do not so again you clearly have no clue what you are talking about. There is absolutely no reason for the ignorants to be able to decide, starting with you.

    • mannycalavera@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 hours ago

      it is up to the court to decide.

      This isn’t a simple thing as you are implying though. That’s the point I’m making. Your “solutions” are more like wishes in an ideal world. They aren’t workable and would add massively to the overstretched resources.

      there is no link between paying taxes and right to vote. People on benefits have right to vote and taxes paying migrants do not

      These are the exceptions. What do you think I mean when I say the social contract? Why would you live and pay into a society… and by pay that could be taxes if you can afford them or in other ways if not… if you get nothing out of it? The government is just seizing your money for what? And you suggest to just band or ostracise people at a whim? Again, unworkable.

      Imagine being told that you’re not allowed to vote because you don’t think the same way as someone else. Madness. Absolute madness.