.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (56)
sorted by:
.
Our Founding Fathers were political geniuses
This is why only landowners were given the vote: Because you have to have your shit mostly together to be a land owner. You need to be able to afford land or be credit worthy enough for a mortgage. You need to maintain it. And you need to pay your taxes to keep it. Most of the degenerates in America can not do this.
If you want to be a transient or whatever, you're free to do so, just don't mess up the communities the landowners have established.
I am a landowner. I just don’t think that should be a prerequisite for voting.
There's no such thing as individual landownership as long as property taxes exist. Try not paying the property tax or even paying a portion of the property tax and see who really is the landowner.
Property tax has existed since the founding. The Founders saw it as a necessary evil to fund their local government.
What's changed is a bunch of renters and other transients were given the vote, and kept voting for bigger government necessitating larger tax bills. Once the rent gets too high, they move somewhere else and stick the landowners with the bill.
If it was only landowners voting, the taxes and the size of government would be much smaller.
It's not that simple.
In 1796 seven of the 15 states levied uniform capitation taxes. 12 taxed some or all livestock. Land was taxed in a variety of ways, but only 4 states taxed the mass of property by valuation. No state constitution required that taxation be by value or required that rates on all kinds of property be uniform.
In 1818, Illinois adopted the first uniformity clause. Missouri followed in 1820, and in 1834 Tennessee replaced a provision requiring that land be taxed at a uniform amount per acre with a provision that land be taxed according to its value (ad valorem). By the end of the century thirty-three states had included uniformity clauses in new constitutions or had amended old ones to include the requirement that all property be taxed equally by value.
You've completely missed the boat on this one. This is a symptom of yet another problem. However, it is not the cause of the cancer. If you are Dr. John Lott, then you should be familiar with John Lott and Lawrence Kenny in - "Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?", who reveal that the size and scope of government dramatically increased immediately after women got the right to vote. If you look at the graph, the size of government looks like a piper airplane taking off. It is still climbing every year to the present and will continue to do so.
It's not so much "renters and transients" as you say. The welfare State is directly attributed to women having the power to vote. Woe to me for saying that. It is the taboo subject of today. However, females follow different behavioral characteristics than males do for survival. One the surface, it sounds all too obvious, but it is the "why" that is always left unanswered. (1) Survival strategy for females are different than in males. Heuristically, they do not unleash the "fight or flight" instinct as do males. Rather, studies show the female survival strategy is quite different and they follow a-- "tend and befriend" (Myer-Levy) behavioral construct. This explains female inclination to the welfare state.
It also explains, the age-old harem and gynaeceum and its success even to this day. People may scoff at this, but no-fault divorce and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), and the nationwide government funding of Battered Women Shelters has made the legal status of women to be that of children under the doctrine of Parens Patriae. As a note, no-fault divorce started in the former Soviet Union.
Parens Patriae in Black's Law Dictionary means literally, “parent of the country.” And there is a long history to this.
In Blair Adams' "Preface" he writes:
Parens Patriae refers traditionally to the role of STATE as sovereign and guardian of persons under legal disability. This essentially is the definition of a "Ward of the State." Under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), women have been placed under this legal doctrine that the courts follow to the letter. In placing women under this title, they have motioned the court to dissolve their marriage license (government permission), thus trading her husband's protection for that of the government's protection. This is a form of gynaecuem or harem, in which the king or sultan provides protection and a safe haven. History tells us women show the same behavioral trait even after their country is over-run and conquered by a foreign enemy. Under stress, women will prefer the survival strategy of "tend-and-befriend" instead of "fight-or-flight".
We really do live in matrix and the evil controlling it is far more than most people can comprehend.
I stand corrected.
This is true, and you're right that it is taboo. There should only be one vote per household.
Respectfully, most people can’t even afford to buy houses anymore because our government, the globohomos, and the deep state, have destroyed our economy so badly - that people who work hard every day, have jobs and families, can’t afford to purchase homes.
Also Bill Gates… How much land does he own? How many votes does he get? A vote for each property that he owns? This doesn’t pan out in the end.
Right now the elite already purchased everything with their money. Black rock in vanguard are buying up homes left and right.
So all the elite and rich have to do is buy up all the homes and properties, and then they would be the only ones that have votes. That’s called communism! The government in charge of everything.
One vote per natural person, and in the location of their primary residence.
So what happens if the elites buy up all the property, and nobody can buy a house, and you can only rent. Then what how did those people vote? You do see where this is going don’t you. Blackrock and Vanguard are already buying up properties all over the nation, so people cannot purchase them, and afford them. They would be forced to rent. Hard-working, Americans! But muh… You have to be a homeowner to vote. This is not for your support in anyway shape or form.
I mean even BLM is homeowners. They could register homes to different people, and then have a vote for a home that they own. Just because you’re a homeowner doesn’t mean that you’re a good person, or is that you’re a person who wants the best for this Country.
There are many people who are caught up in politics, LGBT, BLM, and all the other rhetoric that are homeowners.
Why did the founders set up the electoral system for landowners only? Besides the reasons I mentioned, it's because that's an efficient way to do it in the 18th century. Each property is registered with the locality as to who owns it and pays the taxes. There's all kinds of other people in society that have no papers and no one can verify where they've come from. We have similar issues today.
This is nonsense. Blackrock 's assets under management is $10T and Vanguard's is $7T. As of several years ago, the total land value in the USA was estimated to be $23T. If these companies were to only buy land, they'd be $6T short, and again, that's the land valuation as of 2015; it's increased since then. The US Stock Market is worth $53T and all Treasury bonds combined are worth $24T. So since Blackrock and Vanguard are the registered owners of a large portion of the US Stock market AND US Bonds, they can't possibly also be buying all of the land. (Granted they do own some real estate companies which buy land.)
Yes, real estate is increasing rapidly in dollar-denominated value right now, but that's not because of Blackrock and Vanguard. That's because of the government and the federal reserve. We've had over a decade of interest rates at zero, followed by the government handing out money left and right due to covid reasons. When dollars get injected into the economy there's a short-term economic boost and a buying frenzy on everything. And everyone races to convert those dollars into real assets before the other guy realizes that the dollars are shrinking in real value. And the dollar is shrinking. Inflation reached the 40-year high and has been getting worse. There were more I-Bonds (a way to escape inflation) sold in the single month of December than the entire year of 2018 which was the previous record year. The crash will come; everyone sees the writing on the wall. Wells Fargo laid off something like 500 mortgage officers this month.
Lastly, renters overwhelming vote liberal. And that's because most of them don't have their shit together, so they want the government to take care of them from cradle to grave. This article offers some good evidence https://www.apartmentlist.com/research/renter-voting-preferences The median net worth of a renter is $5200. That shows me they have a hard time planning for the future. If they can't plan for what could happen a few weeks from now, how can we trust them to vote for candidates whose policies will affect America for generations to come? This article also laments that if renter tournout had just matched landowner turnout, Clinton would have won all of the swing states.
There are certainly some good people who rent. And there are some shitty people who are landowners. But landowners have consistently voted for candidates that would increase the prosperity and standard of living for ALL Americans whereas renters have consistently voted for socialism which will destroy America if left unchecked.
Nope all youhave to do is buy into a corrupt system hole heartedly. Ill wait for the snarky reply.
No snarky reply needed. Land ownership is not a reason for someone to vote. Because somebody like Bill Gates can buy up all the land, and then he gets the vote. Then we’re all screwed. How much farmland has Bill Gates purchased. Let’s say he gets X amount of votes for each piece of property he owns. Yeah you see the problem now.