If there were a proper government then government officials would not be a problem. Since they are, and because both that and the statist role of government are accepted, stopping them from voting is futile: It would not solve the problem if it could be implemented and it would not be allowed to be implemented because the statist role of government is accepted.

What country is that again, US?

What are the agencies you know of that do it? Is it enforced?

At least some states already state that citizenship is a requirement. They don't confirm it.

They do not, however, ask if you are dead. They don't confirm that either.

I didn't know that. Thanks jdg.

For what it's worth, at least some US federal agencies do ban their employees from donating to poltical campaigns or making public statements about campaigns. They make you sign a pledge, and the penalty for breaking it is you get fired.

The form asks whether or not you are a citizen. I don't know what steps are taken to check up on you.

Huh. Didn't know that. Thanks for the idea.

Who knows - it might even cut down on some of the dead people voting Democrat. ;)

Do their forms also specify whether one is a citizen or alien? One of the huge problems facing this nation is of illegal voting by immigrants and other non-citizens...

I agree that government as a voting bloc is a symptom of the greater problem, but at issue is how to effectively move the government back towards a limited government of enumerated powers in the face of the public sector voters who vote their own interests in many cases in collusion with government interests in expansion. There is also the secondary question of how does one structure a future version of the Constitution to act as a guard against this happening down the road - assuming we can restore the original Constitution of course.

Canada uses its income tax forms as its main method of voter registration. I see no reason we couldn't do the same, as long as it's not the only method.

Most of the discussion is here is floating abstractions cut loose from meaning in reality. A lot of functions in government are useful but should not be run by the government; doing so forces people's jobs to be dependent on it. Others, like the military, are necessarily proper functions of government.

Proposing 'fixing' any of the problems with government by denying the right to vote is screwy; what the proposal means in reality is largely ignored both in its impact and its futility as a method. Not only does it harm innocent people, it ignores that reform requires first fundamentally changing the premises accepted for what government is and why. If government can't be reformed directly in this intellectual climate, how could anyone expect to achieve it through a screwy plan to deny voting rights?

Ayn Rand opposed both Social Security and Medicare. She was fighting against the passage of Medicare in the 1960s.

But it is not good to punish people for getting back as much of the taxes they were forced to pay as they can. Unjust punishment is not "incentive". As long as the programs continue, people have a right to recover what they can. Punishing people that way while continuing to sanction and run the programs is obscene.

That is one of the questions being asked. For my two cents, I hold military as one of the necessary functions of government so I'm not so keen on the idea of restricting military voters. (Aside from the fact that Obama already tried that with absentee ballots in the last election because most service personnel don't vote Democrat.) The bureaucracy is another story entirely...

So you're saying that Congress could pass the measure but then it would have to be submitted by referendum to the voting public? It might work, but now you're placing a huge data gathering onus onto the public in general to determine who can vote on the referendum, leading us back to square one.

Military personnel should not be allowed to vote?

I see this as a problem easily solved, at least if constitutional change is easy.

What you do is still let everyone vote -- but any measure that would increase taxation or spending would require both a majority of all voters and a majority of net tax payers. (Which would require the voting rolls to show who is one.)

Have to read the first 11 books before I get to that gem. I look forward to it. ;^)

Another one you may enjoy which specifically references Creature from Jekyll Island is Hidden Order. There was some really interesting history buried in that plot.

Reading Lions of Lucerne now. Good and pretty realistic. Thanks again.

"So at least 35 months of slave labor is required"
Unless the slaves are untaxed for current federal and state and local government costs, expected to starve, freeze, or die of exposure, the time enslaved will be much longer... more like a life sentence for multiple generations continuing to support the foreign junkets, yachts, protection details, private planes, golf vacations, champagne and caviar appetites of looters and banksters.

I appreciate a lot of your comments that provide a counter-balance, blarmen. Keep 'em coming.

Yes, all recipients are compromised by personal interests in continuing looting for their personal gain and they should know when they take the job that they are agreeing to lose their voting rights until they are no longer compromised. State employees should still be able to vote for federal elective positions, but not state elective positions, unless they are actually providing federal support functions.

Ah...the "focus" of the original discussion has been lost, which was about "restricting a government individual from voting" because there is an inherent bias to vote for more government as a product of self-interest. However; concerning your statement on unions I totally agree that an individual should not be forced to participate. But again, that will also get back to the "herd" syndrome. That is, if the union exists it will apply pressure for the individual to join to be part of the "herd" or be ostracized as a "non-herd" member. BUT, do not penalize every member of a "union" by removing their ability to vote just because the union officials donate to one party more than another. Equate union members to the population of any State; equate union officials to that State's elected Congressperson or Senator, then I think it becomes apparent the issue is not with the member, the issue is with the union official and the union itself.
So, as you stated, and I agree: "public sector unions should be outlawed."

Do they pay taxes? Do their kids go off to war?

Here in California our governor just signed a law allowing incarcerated felons to vote. Haha!

With around half the people in this country on the teet, I think we have bigger fish to fry...

The government's bought. It's too late, folks...

While technically you are correct, who presents the budget? It isn't the House, but the President. Who is the President in charge of? All the bureaucrats because they are part of the Executive Branch. And have you seen the last few budgets put forth by this President? He was asking for huge raises for most most public sector unions and they in turn were going to raise their dues which go back to primarily the DNC for election purposes. So I would argue that there is a lot more influence in that process than one may care to admit.

Regarding the teachers, no, they are not technically "part of the government", but because they are almost all forced to participate in the teachers' unions (it varies from state to state) they become a part of the apparatus because of their dues. That was one of the reasons that court case about teachers' union dues was so important, because it was the case of a teacher arguing that she should be able to divest herself of the union because she differed politically and they represented things she disagreed with. (I'm not sure I heard the outcome). So regardless of how the teacher as an individual votes, their money is being used for a distinctly political purpose. The same thing applies to fire fighters and the police. That's why I think public sector unions should be outlawed - they are a conflict of interest. Look at any mayor's run. Why is there such a big deal to get the police union, the firefighters union and the teachers union to endorse you (along with the local paper)? Because those endorsements come with political clout and money.

Should more people stand up for themselves? Sure. But when you've got a family to feed and a mortgage to pay, losing your job because of a political stand isn't really in the cards for most people.

https://fee.org/articles/unintended-c...
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/78...

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/66...
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/soc...
The author discusses the book:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu_Vq...