I'd like to go back to the requirement that only property owners can vote.
If one has no stake in the future and no care for that future or one's posterity (because one had no children, or abandoned them), one should not be allowed to vote. I would be fine having that applied to all of us, including me of course. Because the net gain would be massive.
It's either that or the voting system of Starship Troopers: only retired military can vote. Because they learned discipline, hardship, and the cost. The cost of what we have. Implicit in this idea is that we get rid of the troons and psychos in the military.
Amen and 100% agree!!!
If you don't have skin in the game, you don't get a vote on my wallet.
We could certainly look at SOME exceptions for MIL, LEO, First Responders, etc., but overall & in general; not a citizen, not a property owner; no vote.
Laws/Government Rules are always and everywhere imprecise tools.
"Property Owner" was used historically as a proxy for "responsible citizen who cares about the future of this society". I think it is still a decent proxy for that. If one can come up with a better way to approximate that needed criteria, I would support that as an alternative.
Someone who is not a responsible person with a duty to the society, or, worse, is a net drain on our society, should not be allowed to vote, as they will vote for more free shit for themselves.
Following that logic, then the people with the most property would be deemed those who are most responsible and care the most for the future of society.
So should those with more property get more votes?
If the size of the property doesn't matter, then what would stop people from buying a single square foot of property in order to be allowed to vote?
Following what youre saying,
well, that's a good way for the Bill Gateses and Clintons of the country to really take over.
I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the economy hasn't been doing too great lately. And only a couple of years ago many of the people on this forum were getting laid off from their jobs for refusing to get the clot shot.
And on the other side, government officials and pharmaceutical companies were earning money hand over fist.
Just because someone has the money to buy some land doesn't automatically make them a responsible, functioning member of society.
Why do you think only property owners care about the future?
It's not about that; it's about having real skin in the game. How TF do you think these thermo-nuclear expansions of the welfare state got approved, and the politicians didn't get lynched for doing it?
By pandering to certain classes of people with "gimmedats"
They're literally buying votes with our tax dollars.
I'd like to go back to the requirement that only property owners can vote.
If one has no stake in the future and no care for that future or one's posterity (because one had no children, or abandoned them), one should not be allowed to vote. I would be fine having that applied to all of us, including me of course. Because the net gain would be massive.
It's either that or the voting system of Starship Troopers: only retired military can vote. Because they learned discipline, hardship, and the cost. The cost of what we have. Implicit in this idea is that we get rid of the troons and psychos in the military.
Amen and 100% agree!!! If you don't have skin in the game, you don't get a vote on my wallet.
We could certainly look at SOME exceptions for MIL, LEO, First Responders, etc., but overall & in general; not a citizen, not a property owner; no vote.
Sorry Charlie.
Take your "democracy" to north korea.
Why do you think only property owners care about the future?
And are you saying that only people with children should be allowed to vote as well?
Laws/Government Rules are always and everywhere imprecise tools.
"Property Owner" was used historically as a proxy for "responsible citizen who cares about the future of this society". I think it is still a decent proxy for that. If one can come up with a better way to approximate that needed criteria, I would support that as an alternative.
Someone who is not a responsible person with a duty to the society, or, worse, is a net drain on our society, should not be allowed to vote, as they will vote for more free shit for themselves.
Ants vs. Grasshoppers.
Following that logic, then the people with the most property would be deemed those who are most responsible and care the most for the future of society.
So should those with more property get more votes?
If the size of the property doesn't matter, then what would stop people from buying a single square foot of property in order to be allowed to vote?
Following what youre saying, well, that's a good way for the Bill Gateses and Clintons of the country to really take over.
I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the economy hasn't been doing too great lately. And only a couple of years ago many of the people on this forum were getting laid off from their jobs for refusing to get the clot shot.
And on the other side, government officials and pharmaceutical companies were earning money hand over fist.
Just because someone has the money to buy some land doesn't automatically make them a responsible, functioning member of society.
Eh, IDK if you can really argue that a childless renter is NECESSARILY a "net drain" on society......
But no; maybe they shouldn't be allowed to vote either.
Anyone know what is the percentage of parents vs. childless men & women who support abortion, for example?
Actually that's not a damn great idea.....!!! I think I'll add it to my list of "if I became president..."
It's not about that; it's about having real skin in the game. How TF do you think these thermo-nuclear expansions of the welfare state got approved, and the politicians didn't get lynched for doing it?
By pandering to certain classes of people with "gimmedats"
They're literally buying votes with our tax dollars.
Do you think the more land a person owns, the more votes they should get? After all, the more land they own, the more skin they have in the game.