Response to Lupusolus @120: Perhaps you are not familiar with the basic definition of “mandatory.” It means “required or obligatory.” Therefore, it is right to say that under your proposed system it is mandatory [required or obligatory] that one serve the state in order to enjoy the full rights of citizenship, i.e. the right to vote.
How long would it be before this group of voters began to pass legislation to exploit the non-voters? How long until they pass a consitutional amendment making the Bill of Rights not apply to the non-voters?
Our Founding Fathers fought a revolution of the right of representation. They believed that to not be able to vote but to still be taxed was a form of slavery. You would implement a system similar to the one they revolted against.
The analogy you give by Williams and the evidence you provide that drug use only hurts the drug user is rather lame. As a former police officer, you have probably run across meth heads or paint huffers. Are these people productive members of society or are they a drain on the system? The substances they use eat their brains and leaves them violent, agressive, and not too bright. Eventually they cannot hold down a job and they turn to theft and petty crime to support their addiction. How does that not impact their community? How does that fit in with your junior high analogy by Williams?
Your comparison of social conservatives to the Taliban is absurd, shameful and offensive. It would appear that you are out of answers and simply trying to end debate by being offensive. If your moral decision cannot stand up to scrutiny then you need to reconsider those morals. By the way, you took the quote you used to lead into the Taliban comment out of context. I said that in reference to fiscal conservatives not social conservatives.
