T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Stupid and infantile humor doesn't belong in General Politics forum.
Sure it does, particularly with today's politics as the standard...
Stupid and infantile humor doesn't belong in General Politics forum.
A study done by the Koch owned Cato Institute and you are surprised by the findings? Anyone could have predict those
Let’s put it another way, if you regulated guns, you are low on the Cato’s “freedom” scale and thusly a dictatorship. If you make it easier for citizens to vote you are a dictatorship. If you don’t enforce others’ religious beliefs you are a dictatorship. If you do your best to prevent the spread of a dangerous virus, you are a dictatorship. Etc., etc., etc
And every time I see it I have to say, it is always comical the way those on the right throw around abstract concepts as “freedom” and “liberty” as if they were bumper sticker cliches
Sure it does, particularly with today's politics as the standard...
You are making a combination of Definist fallacy and Begging the question. That is, you assume an outcome based on a narrowly picked example. Just because voting is not allowed doesn't necessarily result in a dictatorship. Certainly, putting some restrictions on voting is reasonable and that doesn't result in a dictatorship either.
It is also possible that a dictatorship allows wide voting but remains a dictatorship. An example of this might be N. Korea. They allow and have "democratic" voting elections. However, your voting choice is the party or gulag. Other places have mandatory voting to include potential fines and even jail for not voting. Take Australia for instance. Compulsory voting is the law there require every citizen 18 and over to register to vote and show up and vote in each election--or else. You can be fined and even jailed for failing to vote. That is every bit as much a dictatorship as very restrictive voting laws are.
So, claiming that putting some restrictions on voting ends in a dictatorship is a non-starter and logical fallacy.