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.
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?