Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

380

Honestly, I haven't done a ton of research on the topic, but I'm always wary of the government demanding to collect data on it's citizenry.

On the other hand, it's a good idea in that it would reduce illegal voting. Or at least, that's what they tell you.

Maybe I have a borked perspective, but I see certain MSM outlets like Fox pushing for VoterID super duper hard. But, why? What's the motication? Don't pretend to tell me it's because they care, because they don't. Fox is just as bad as CNN. Suck off Tucker all you want, he's still pushing an agenda for foreign billionaires.

So, what are your thoughts? Is VoterID a good idea? Is it just another agenda being pushed for a covertly nefarious purpose?

Honestly, I haven't done a ton of research on the topic, but I'm always wary of the government demanding to collect data on it's citizenry. On the other hand, it's a good idea in that it would reduce illegal voting. Or at least, that's what they tell you. Maybe I have a borked perspective, but I see certain MSM outlets like Fox pushing for VoterID super duper hard. But, why? What's the motication? Don't pretend to tell me it's because they care, because they don't. Fox is just as bad as CNN. Suck off Tucker all you want, he's still pushing an agenda for foreign billionaires. So, what are your thoughts? Is VoterID a good idea? Is it just another agenda being pushed for a covertly nefarious purpose?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (31).
[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I was under the impression we were discussing US politics.

The government exists because of the actions of the masses. The government can't exist with the people propping it up.

So, yes, they are a legitimate authority because the govt has the ability to force it's will on it's citizenry because said citizenry gave them the power to do so.

Is the government good? Are those in positions of government doing what's right? Hell no. But, to say they're not a legitimate authority is removing the responsibility from the people who voted them in.

[–] • 1 pt

Agreeable to say they have authority over the people who voted them in (without getting into the issue of informed consent), but what about the people who voted against them? Or the people who did not vote at all? If you don't vote, you don't consent. So they have no authority over anyone who did not vote for them.

Ability to force != authority.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

You make a good point.

Wouldn't ability to force == authority, though? Since they're able to force and other's aren't able to stop them. While their authority isn't consentual, they still retain it.

Those in power are not a just authority, but they are in control. It's essentially dictatorship (or totalitarianism?), with a heavy dose of disception thrown in so people don't realize it.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

You're using a different definition of 'authority'.

I'm going with the basic etymology of it. It comes from 'author'. The author of a written work is the authority on that work - he has authority to edit/revise it, and to provide the correct intended meaning of it. It's his creation. Likewise you are the author of what you make of yourself and everything you create with your labour, so you are the supreme authority over yourself and your property. It's about right, not might.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/author?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_18965

Edit: If you look up just the dictionary definition of 'authority', it's generally closer to your usage. I think this was done on purpose. It's been increasingly apparent to me that understanding the basic meanings and etymology of words is critically important the understanding of law, and thus the health of a society. Words are used to control.