qualified to vote?

[reb]

proposition: only those who own property should be allowed to vote (in fact, i would constrain this to mean 'those who have property owned free and clear, not 'bank owned', and i'm talking of real property, not cars...those with bank owned property would vote for the fannie mae/freddie mac bailout, which is obviously a sham....and for the 'bailout' of subprime loan holders, another witless exercise in laissez faire economics-the 'leaders' prop up the house of cards they have built so as to retain power)

what got me to thinking of this was an email i got-it put forth the proposition that republics/democracies, within about 200 years, have the 'socially franchised' (read=people getting things for nothing from the government) all voting for the person who promises the most. this, finally, bankrupts the society, and causes social collapse.

some years ago, i recall the poll tax being struck down, as it caused the 'poor' to not vote in large enough numbers that the politicians could buy votes with social programs...now, they can buy votes with the tax money of those paying taxes...i have read that something like 50% of u.s.s. of a. citizens do NOT pay any taxes..int that cute?

think on this before you knee jerk....someday, you may be a 'person of property'.

infps, this is for discussion amongst yourselves, so that you all may agree this proposition is sooooo totally wrong. those poor hungry people....lol!
reb

[Tocsin]

R.I.P. Democracy - Viva Plutocracy! :laugh:

Care to explain how property owners voting to protect their own interests would result in a better form of government than the entire populace voting to protect their own interests?

[ScurvyRose]

Anyone familiar with American History?

Here is a quick link...

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Silence]

...and what about those property owners that are not citizens? how much US property is owned by China, for instance?

[stasis]

The thread title makes mention of being "qualified" to vote, but the OP seems to be talking about entitlement and not qualification. There's a significant distinction between the two.

[Neuro]

....someday, you may be a 'person of property'.

*starry eyed* Oh that would be like a dream come true! Finally I'd be one of the enlightened citizens who were able to prove their worth as human beings by acquiring material possessions :D

[Avid]

While I somewhat understand your line of reasoning it just isn't going to work that way. The problem is this...once someone is being taken care of there isn't much incentive to get off it. There is no real reward for actually being a productive member of society. I knew a very hard working woman who ended up with her husband leaving her and him not helping her pay for her child. She had one job and it didn't cover all the expenses. She found another job that would pay better but the only way she was staying afloat was with the programs that helped. There needs to be a program that rewards the working to some extent until they get a firm footing.

Your issue is really figuring out a way to help people get weaned off the social programs they either depend on for survival or abuse because they can and don't care about moving up. They should be able to vote as they are people like us but they need to be taught to progress in life and not remain government babies.

[Tocsin]

Thomas Paine, Dissertation on the First Principles of Government

The true and only true basis of representative government is equality of rights. Every man has a right to one vote, and no more in the choice of representatives. The rich have no more right to exclude the poor from the right of voting, or of electing and being elected, than the poor have to exclude the rich; and wherever it is attempted, or proposed, on either side, it is a question of force and not of right. Who is he that would exclude another? That other has a right to exclude him.

That which is now called aristocracy implies an inequality of rights; but who are the persons that have a right to establish this inequality? Will the rich exclude themselves? No. Will the poor exclude themselves? No. By what right then can any be excluded? It would be a question, if any man or class of men have a right to exclude themselves; but, be this as it may, they cannot have the right to exclude another. The poor will not delegate such a right to the rich, nor the rich to the poor, and to assume it is not only to assume arbitrary power, but to assume a right to commit robbery.

Personal rights, of which the right of voting for representatives is one, are a species of property of the most sacred kind: and he that would employ his pecuniary property, or presume upon the influence it gives him, to dispossess or rob another of his property or rights, uses that pecuniary property as he would use fire-arms, and merits to have it taken from him.

Inequality of rights is created by a combination in one part of the community to exclude another part from its rights. Whenever it be made an article of a constitution, or a law, that the right of voting, or of electing and being elected, shall appertain exclusively to persons possessing a certain quantity of property, be it little or much, it is a combination of the persons possessing that quantity to exclude those who do not possess the same quantity. It is investing themselves with powers as a self-created part of society, to the exclusion of the rest.

It is always to be taken for granted, that those who oppose an equality of rights never mean the exclusion should take place on themselves; and in this view of the case, pardoning the vanity of the thing, aristocracy is a subject of laughter. This self-soothing vanity is encouraged by another idea not less selfish, which is that the opposers conceive they are playing a safe game, in which there is a chance to gain and none to lose; that at any rate the doctrine of equality includes them, and that if they cannot get more rights than those whom they oppose and would exclude they shall not have less.

This opinion has already been fatal to thousands, who, not contented with equal rights, have sought more till they lost all, and experienced in themselves the degrading inequality they endeavored to fix upon others.

In any view of the case it is dangerous and impolitic, sometimes ridiculous, and always unjust to make property the criterion of the right of voting. If the sum or value of the property upon which the right is to take place be considerable it will exclude a majority of the people and unite them in a common interest against the government and against those who support it; and as the power is always with the majority, they can overturn such a government and its supporters whenever they please.

If, in order to avoid this danger, a small quantity of property be fixed, as the criterion of the right, it exhibits liberty in disgrace, by putting it in competition with accident and insignificance. When a broodmare shall fortunately produce a foal or a mule that, by being worth the sum in question, shall convey to its owner the right of voting, or by its death take it from him, in whom does the origin of such a right exist? Is it in the man, or in the mule? When we consider how many ways property may be acquired without merit, and lost without crime, we ought to spurn the idea of making it a criterion of rights.

But the offensive part of the case is that this exclusion from the right of voting implies a stigma on the moral character of the persons excluded; and this is what no part of the community has a right to pronounce upon another part. No external circumstance can justify it: wealth is no proof of moral character; nor poverty of the want of it.

On the contrary, wealth is often the presumptive evidence of dishonesty; and poverty the negative evidence of innocence. If therefore property, whether little or much, be made a criterion, the means by which that property has been acquired ought to be made a criterion also.

The only ground upon which exclusion from the right of voting is consistent with justice would be to inflict it as a punishment for a certain time upon those who should propose to take away that right from others. The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights are protected.

To take away this right is to reduce a man to slavery, for slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he that has not a vote in the election of representatives is in this case. The proposal therefore to disfranchise any class of men is as criminal as the proposal to take away property.

When we speak of right we ought always to unite with it the idea of duties; rights become duties by reciprocity. The right which I enjoy becomes my duty to guarantee it to another, and he to me; and those who violate the duty justly incur a forfeiture of the right.

In a political view of the case, the strength and permanent security of government is in proportion to the number of people interested in supporting it. The true policy therefore is to interest the whole by an equality of rights, for the danger arises from exclusions. It is possible to exclude men from the right of voting, but it is impossible to exclude them from the right of rebelling against that exclusion; and when all other rights are taken away the right of rebellion is made perfect.

Representation: Thomas Paine, Dissertation on the First Principles of Government (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

It is a pity that with all the information that the internet puts at our disposal, we do not spend more time gaining from the information that it provides, rather than adding to its bulk of uninformed opinion.

[Darkmist]

proposition: only those who own property should be allowed to vote (in fact, i would constrain this to mean 'those who have property owned free and clear, not 'bank owned', and i'm talking of real property, not cars...those with bank owned property would vote for the fannie mae/freddie mac bailout, which is obviously a sham....and for the 'bailout' of subprime loan holders, another witless exercise in laissez faire economics-the 'leaders' prop up the house of cards they have built so as to retain power)

I have owned property along with my husband, for 25 years. Each property has been either a fixer upper or a complete build, where we do all the planning, building and paying off. We've never had a bankruptcy or even minor problem. What part of that makes us not qualified to vote?





Darkmist added to this post, 5 minutes and 18 seconds later...

To qualify, we have a mortgage. Why is that to be disciminated against instead of rampant stupidity in the country. (and no, neither of us are for Fannie May buy out crap) Just saying . . . we are all individuals, not a mass market lump.

I vote because I care about my future and I research that vote because I care. Intelligence in voting has nothing to do with financial means. If it did Paris Hilton would be president.

Of course, she and the shrub are alike . . .

[Dave C C]

Only the people who own property should be allowed to vote on property tax issues, non property owners should not have the right to bankrupt property owners.

[Tocsin]

Only women should be allowed to vote on abortions rights issues, people who can't bear children (men) should not have the right to decide what those who can bear children (women) choose to do about their own bodies.

What's sauce for the goose...

[rocksteady]

I believe our schools should do a better job of informing our children of the importance of our political system as it was written (not what current politicians are espousing), then maybe we wouldn't have so many uninformed voters at the polls. Raise awareness, fight the apathy..that is the path of least resistance...

[void]

I believe our schools should do a better job of informing our children of the importance of our political system as it was written (not what current politicians are espousing), then maybe we wouldn't have so many uninformed voters at the polls. Raise awareness, fight the apathy..that is the path of least resistance...

I think they are doing a splendid job as it is. Everybody knows that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and the Founding Fathers intended the country to be a pseudo-democratic theocracy. The Constitution is little more than a piece of paper and the guaranteed freedoms must be restricted to protect us from terrorists. After all, they hate us for our freedom, so they would not hate us anymore (ergo would not attack us) if we got rid of freedom entirely. The president must be given King-like powers, for he is The Decider and he decides what's best for the country. The solution to any problem is more legislation, more money and less liberals.

If you disagree with any of this, you're a treasonous commie who hates the USA.

[GuerrillaVoyage]

I personally am a fan of this idea because if it's implemented we'll have a revolution within 50 years and we'll be able to adjust the system to the modern world. Also another positive is that a good deal of the wealthy and upper-class will probably be offed in the process.

[rocksteady]

I think they are doing a splendid job as it is. Everybody knows that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles and the Founding Fathers intended the country to be a pseudo-democratic theocracy. The Constitution is little more than a piece of paper and the guaranteed freedoms must be restricted to protect us from terrorists. After all, they hate us for our freedom, so they would not hate us anymore (ergo would not attack us) if we got rid of freedom entirely. The president must be given King-like powers, for he is The Decider and he decides what's best for the country. The solution to any problem is more legislation, more money and less liberals.

If you disagree with any of this, you're a treasonous commie who hates the USA.

Wow, my Internet sarcasm detector is blinking, this is the first time it's ever worked!

[SShack]

Wow, my Internet sarcasm detector is blinking, this is the first time it's ever worked!

And even so, there are any number of folks who who would agree with the statement.

[reb]

lol! the only 'issue' i have is illegal 'border crossers' voting, people who are drawing all their income from 'government programs' voting for 'more income from government programs', which all of us who pay taxes support, and foreign aid, which all of us who pay taxes support, and gets us more 'enemies'. i threw this out for debate, and the points are all over the place....is there logic among us, anyone? the united socialist states of america has become a place where many who live well are living 'on cash'...i know of quite a few who frequent the 'charity stores', but have a nice cash income...but the irs knows nothing of it.

now, it appears that some have 'issues', and elsewise, the premise flushed out a lot of socialists...a socialist is good for drug experimentation, and not much else...

oh, how funny...Paine obviously feels that, if you have any money or property, you have come by it dishonestly...an early 'hater of wealth'...his dna must've been passed along to many in the two parties...in some sense, Paine was correct....the dishonesty has gone underground into the cash economy. many of the wealthy are simply 'lucky'. witness bill gates...right place, right time, stole windows from jobs, who stole it from hewlett packard...

again, what makes it logically correct that those who own no property get to vote for national or state level office, which decides how those of us who pay property tax have our money spent? i'm not interested in socialist theory...it's been repeatedly discredited worldwide...i'm interested in hard logic...if i vote my personal interest, and i'm getting most of my money from 'government programs', how does that affect those who are working for al iving, paying for their food and housing, as well as mine?

harsh..harsh...you people are so harsh....a laissez faire libertarian asks a question, and out comes the sarcasm....lol! it's like seeing a flasher on the street 'eek! such a small thing! put it back before i laugh myself to death!'
reb





reb added to this post, 262 minutes and 21 seconds later...

on mulling this further, note:

1. none of us(unless someone is high in gummint) can positively PROVE that any election since this nation became 'fairly large' has been a valid election, anyway...so the whole point may be moot.

2. for those who are not materialistic enough to care, give away thine computer, give away thine money, if thy neighbor has no cloak, and thee have one, give it him. and start walking south until it's warm enough..if you're really, really non-materialist, give away your shoes, and we'll see how far you make it going south before winter sets in...the keys are not bad in january, i hear. certainly, give away thine computer, and thou wilst not further mistake a political question for one of morality, religion or economics...

3. many of those who began our journey away from king george had much to lose; many of those who fought against britain's tyranny did so for the promise of land. books i have found most edifying recently are those by Shaara on the revolution (any book by either Shaara is relatively painless history-the father wrote the basis for the screenplay of 'Gettysburg'), and 'the Sons of Providence' by an author who i forget...read some. interesting...

Darkmist, i tossed that in because of the Fannie/Freddy bailouts...perhaps you are not part of the estimated 20% of subprime mortgage holders. the whole thing is baffling, if one does not see the bailout as being a shoring up of the economic house of cards. frankly, i doubt even the subprime mortgage holders who are going bankrupt/in default have asked anyone to vote for the bill. the bill is a necessity for the power structure based on 'green pieces of paper', so perhaps that sidenote was not necessary to get this ball rolling well. frankly, i find flippers to be admirable...they are a perfect example of ingenuity, hard work and risk taking. until they over extend and call their congressperson...sounds like you are being careful.

Paine was, in fact, correct. there is a proven stigma on the moral character of some persons voting. not to even bring up 'dogs and granite gardens in chicago', but this 'bussing people to vote'..what's that like? grab a busload of what i'm going to presume to be politically uneducated voters, feed 'em, then take 'em to the polls...huh? that's more direct buying of votes than passing another welfare bill....

personally, i favor shutting off the campaign contributions to all elected officials as a partial solution. give them 100k from the general fund, and that's all they get. the 'parties' we just had (conventions)? you and i paid for them, i fy ou pay any taxes...and i'm sure you pay sales tax. figure out the accounting for that, or for the lottery tickets, and see if you can 'follow the money'...lol!

anyway, done for the night. as alfred hitchcock used to say 'goot eeeevening...'
reb

[Tazriel]

I personally am a fan of this idea because if it's implemented we'll have a revolution within 50 years and we'll be able to adjust the system to the modern world. Also another positive is that a good deal of the wealthy and upper-class will probably be offed in the process.

And we're saying that indiscriminate killing of an entire class is a good thing... why? It would be a terrible shame for you to get cancer after aiding in the "offing" of "a good deal" of the nation's oncologists (who are pretty much uniformly upper-class).

As for the original post: no. We already tried that, and it didn't work. Something about everyone being created equal. Besides, voting is largely irrelevant, because most policy-making is done on behalf of special interest groups.

[reb]

Tazriel,

you said 'We already tried that, and it didn't work. Something about everyone being created equal.'

i disagree; there is no proof i have seen that 'it didn't work.' if i were to research the 'real reasons, i bet 'it dint work' would not be among them. i do not agree that the restriction should be placed on race/sex/creed, but on the economic level of involvement of the party/parties specifically. those with no economic involvement except 'handouts' are killing us....there is a thread on the fannie/freddie bailout-hven't read it yet. (ill-eyes not working properly).

the phrase 'created equal' is all well and good, and i believe it to be true. shortly after the creation, however, the equality begins to drop away...there is level of incentive, perception, intelligence, drive, persistence.... a host of things that make all of us very unequal. to say that people after they reach a certain age 'remain equal' after they were 'created equal', does not compute. lacks inventiveness, judgment, ability to see reality to take that position.

i agree that voting seems irrelevant...we are given two choices from among about 400 million people. if these two choices are reflective of our ability as a nation, may whatever god you believe in help us....

reading in forbes (feb, 2007, i think) on how many people are dodging taxes by taking cash and not reporting it, it would appear that only about 20% of the citizenry are paying any taxes...the figure has been tossed around that less than 50% pay any taxes to start with-don't make enough, or have lots of deductions....if the forbes article is correct, there's a host of them making plenty in cash, and not reporting it. including illegal immigrants the irs issues 'special numbers' to, so they can file a tax return, they take their money in cash, and split using a new alias the next time around. but no one can keep up with the fed's ability to spend $ in great globbing wads, for projects that have no redeeming purpose...no one...not the population of china if they all unionized and had great jobs....gotta downsize washington, or we're sinking like new orleans (another money hole). what if no one voted at all, and we all kept in touch on the net to show we dint vote...and then the feds made up a number? we'd know they were lying if all 300 some odd million said 'nah, we dint vote'....would that flush the lie to the surface??? just an odd thought...

anyway, there you have it...my comment for the day. perhaps things will straighten out, and i can make another comment to morrow...doubtful, but possible...

here's a good question for 'crystal balls'...whose bailout will be required next to prop up the house of cards?

reb