My problem with the "natural rights" take in regards to voting that you pursue, is the land-mine that is the matter that I don't think voting actually is a "natural right."
This should probably get an augmentation: Whether or not it actually can "rightfully" be considered a "natural right" it is a good way to measure the nature of the society in question when it comes to who has a say in the selection of the government. Generally speaking, the ones that and are able to allow the populace in general to participate,
and remain viable,
should have a reasonably advanced social structure.
My problem with the "natural rights" take in regards to voting that you pursue, is the land-mine that is the matter that I don't think voting actually is a "natural right." The closest thing that exists in nature is freedom of association, and that often means your "vote" as it were, may be that you need to leave. Just don't also expect you have a "natural right" to be accepted wherever you travel to.
Sure, you could take the tack that voting is not a natural right, and so your position would presumably be that democracy is not a naturally correct system (to put it one way) but just some way of doing things that may work ok but isn't based in anything fundamental. We give people a vote because it works good, but not because they have a fundamental right to have a say. That's a coherent position, but my initial point above was that it is not in any way obvious that this position is factually demonstrable. And if this position happened to be factually in error (a possibility, to be sure) then one certainly cannot make the positive assertion that Bernie's argument *is definitely wrong*. I am showing that in order to call his position wrong you actually have to address and define some very specific details about morality and nature. You essentially do have to claim that either voting is not a right, *or* that it is one but that allowing it for felons violates someone else's rights. Both of these are non-trivial assertions, and so ridiculing his position seems to me out of order.
Going back to the people who drafted the Declaration of Independence, as well as the Constitution of the United States. I'm inclined to think their views on Democracy were both varied and
highly nuanced, as many of them considered Democracy to be a dirty word, and little better than rule by an unruly mob.
But as it was expressed in the 20th Century, by Winston Churchill:
https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/democracy-least-bad-form-government"No-one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise," Winston Churchill observed in 1947. "Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
What a difference 60+ years makes. "No one pretends democracy is perfect or all wise" oh my, Churchill would be having a field day with the anti-Trump response to the 2016 Presidential Race. Where the argument was all about how Democracy IS superior simply by virtue of it being Democratic, because Democracy is great Mmmkay? So get rid of that nasty piece of work that is the Electoral College. (And the Senate while we're at it. It's "undemocratic" that Wyoming has two Senators exactly like California does, even though there are cities in California more populous than the entire state of Wyoming)
And you'd also be correct that Democracy itself is not "a natural system" in any meaningful way.
Nature is quite the tyrant, and without mercy. So obviously there are points where "Natural Law" can get a bit weird if taken to the logical extreme.
The sheer fact that Democracy is very much the exception, rather than the rule, and that they tend to be comparatively short lived also tends to bear evidence to these things. Democracy "isn't natural" so yeah, that's an awkward point to proceed from.
But going back to the opening of this post about the whole thing of voting not being a natural right, but that by seeing who has the voting franchise itself you can tell a lot about the society as a whole. In particular, it clearly demonstrates
what the society in question values.
Which can take us back to the question about what does society have to gain from allowing the Timothy McVeighs, Charles Mansons, and Jeffery Dahmers of the world to continue to vote after they've demonstrated their horrible people? Do we, as a society, value their input on how our society should conduct itself? Because allowing them the right to vote says we do.
Also remember, I've already said that I do think there a lot of people who are felons out there that likely shouldn't even have that moniker tied to them.
Likewise, there probably are people who do deserve that association, but didn't do anything bad enough to justify being cut out of being able to provide their input on things through the mechanism of voting. So sure, many Felons should likely be allowed to vote. I'm going to stop short of saying
all Felons should be allowed to vote. Because I don't value anything a serial killer might contribute to a political process.
Now the felon who spent time for the armed robbery of 5 convenience stores? It's possible that guy might be able to provide some genuine insight into things that need to be addressed. Or he might still be "just a thug" but that's going to be a very subjective thing. In any case, whether they can vote or not? They still have their right to free speech, they have their freedom to associate(at least, once out of prison), so they have a chance to educate other voters on the issues that are relevant, so even if they cannot vote directly, they're at least able to legally influence things by other means.
