The Willing will always do better than the Forced

     This Is my response to my class mate Peyton Kettering's blog called Compulsory Voting.

http://peyton-americangov.blogspot.com/2017/11/compulsory-voting.html

     While mandatory voting may seem like a good thing, there are plenty of holes in your reasoning. The idea definitely comes from a good place, and more people would definitely be unfairly forced to show up, but mandatory voting would only harm our country on multiple fronts. First though, punishments to force people to vote? This would really go against the foundations of our rights. Everyone already has the option to vote how they want and for whom, and there are people who definitely do not want to vote, are uninterested, or simply do not like any candidate and don’t want to take part in such things, what would be the punishment here? If their right to vote, or if they were subjected to fines of jail time it would be unjust!

     There is also the fact that the majority of citizens do not know the facts behind whatever they have chosen to support, and there are already people with little knowledge on the subjects of economy, health care, diplomacy, and politics voting, mandatory voting would only drive the least informed to vote randomly on whoever they think “sounds” better, without knowing who or what these candidates stand for.

     The idea that the less extreme people we see all the time around us, instead of extremists online and in the news, are simply less interested may be a valid point to look into. But forcing people to vote against their will, and then issuing punishments as you wish, is simply wrong. Instead it would be better to push for a way to better teach and show people what they are voting for, and attempt to spark an interest in the nonvoters and better educate them in government, and help them gain a drive to actually learn about the country they live in.  Non-willing voters will not get the country anywhere, and would only hurt our freedoms, instead I think you should push for a way to better educate people who are and will vote, and get people interested.

The Danger to our most valuable right and where it comes from: Is the danger ourselves, or others?

Over the past few months I have been online reading articles, and even interacting with new people, in the hopes of understanding politics, government, and online culture in those areas in general. Over time I’ve learned new terms and ideas involving many things, not all of which I have the concept fully grasped. It seems to me that many people online and in correlation many people in essence do not understand the reasoning, meaning, and workings behind the criminal justice system, rights, and anything our country and people hold dear. And not dear at all according to plenty of people, some people don’t even care about the first, or second amendment, especially the first. Recently I learned a new word or term, one that people do; it’s called “no-platforming” which is a silly idea of using social and actual media, as well as boycotts to silence another person or group. Whether an idea is hateful and wrong, or not, the very idea of using systematic techniques to bully silence into another is wrong in essence, and is a large danger to our first and most important amendment, the freedom of speech. If one group of many individuals, and any individual can initiate a system of silencing and bullying against another, then if the tables were turned it could happen to those silencers, and either of those options are horrible. If you believed an idea to be fundamentally wrong in a speech given by an individual, then I believe the best course of action would be to simply listen to that persons, and tell them in actual conversation or discourse why they were wrong. Sitting through a speech in a small room just to hold up pieces of paper and scream obscenities makes one seem like a infantile minded nine year old, and the speaker like a grounded and civil adult, not the image anyone wants to portray themselves, or anyone wants to portray the person you disagree with.

            Many people seem to have forgotten the actual meaning of the most common terms they use to label another in a negative light, and use these terms far to commonly against many people who these terms just don’t fit. If you only use ad hominems such as random pulling from nowhere insults to enforce your “argument” then you really don’t have an argument. Too many are individuals and groups are calling for universities, and even the government to shut down the platforms of to many people.

I believe this mindset that many people seem to have is dangerous to our rights, and safety, and to our nation. If people in general, let alone those in power could “no platform” anyone they disagreed with, then we would not have our America.

            “I support freedom of speech, but this person or that person is horrible and they’re a ******** etc.” Is not supporting free speech, “If you’re supporting this person’s right to free speech, you’re THIS” More often than not, my response to that would be “I don’t know or care who this person is, if they want to talk, so what” as long as some adult isn’t randomly screaming obscenities at a child, and even not a child, they have the right to speech. Now none of us have to agree with whoever is talking, but I prefer the option of respecting the rights of others, because that is what I expect of myself. If anyone’s first response is either of those first two quotations, then they do not really support free speech. And the lack of free speech, can be dangerous.

            There are actually people I’ve taken a liking to reading who definitely support free speech, and they are not on the same “political spectrum” and whatnot. Personally I would recommend Christina Hoff Sommers www.aei.org/author/christina-hoff-sommers/ as well as less well known writers and youtubers Hannah Wallen http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/ and Giovanna Liviana https://medium.com/the-progressive-flame .All three of these people are interesting with interesting knowledge and pieces of writing, and yet I’ve often seen in some video or on twitter (yes twitter, it was research) people trying to use adhominems or false statements to distract from their argument, and ignoring what any of these people have to say.

            If things were to continue in our country the way it seems to be, we may very well lose our greatest and most valuable right, that of speech and expression, and instead have a world where every individual must think as a group, and not a single piece with their own ideas. Without a diverse set of ideas and beliefs, our nation will just become old and stale, completely absent of open and free discourse.