The right to vote is inalienable

First he has some basic assumptions,

1. There exists a "Social Contract" between persons.
2. These persons need to agree (metaphorically, not in real life) to the contract.
3. In order for this agreement to be just, there must be UNANIMOUS consent.
4. No rational human being would consent to something that does not benefit them or further their own ends.
5. This unanimous consent can only be had, if people don't know the specific facts about themselves (in the original position)

So now that we are sure that everyone, who knows no specifics about themselves, must agree to whatever we put forth as justice, what to we put forth?

Answer: 2 principles

Principle 1: "Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive total system of equal basic liberties compatible with a similar system of liberty for all"

Principle 2: Inequalities need to be arranged so that they benefit the least advantaged, and attached to positions open to all


For your question about the inalienability of voting, look at the first principle. Which comes before the second (as in principle 1 must happen first, in order for there to be justice)

the key phrase that affects the inalienability of voting is "most extensive total system of equal basic liberties" (as in "the most rights we could possibly give to everyone equally" or in other words "all the rights that everyone can do without infringing on the rights of others")


why can't we take the right to vote away?

Answer: 2 reasons

1. We can't take it away, because any process by which we would take it away is either by the second principle (violating the priority of the first, making such action unjust), or by way of a different principle (making the action unjust).

2. If we propose such a system where there is not a guarantee "most extensive system of equal basic liberties", not everyone in the original position would agree, making it an unjust system.