• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Only property owners should vote

Should owning property be a requirement to vote

  • yes, only property owners should vote

    Votes: 6 7.3%

  • no, let everyone vote

    Votes: 76 92.7%
  • Total voters
    82
Status
Not open for further replies.

I've explained it over and over. The reason to discount the weight of the vote (notice: not advocating "stripping" the right entirely) is as a basic protection against the majority voting themselves money from the treasury. This type of abuse is the archetypal weakness of democracy and this policy would be a rational protective measure against it.

I would MUCH rather my taxpayer dollars pay for a poor American family than go to Pakistan or Afghanistan or whatever stan.
Click to expand...

You won't see me defend our non-defensive military interventions in oil rich middle eastern nations. But that doesn't mean we should be throwing public money at anyone who demonstrates neediness necessarily either. But if we do throw money at people, absolving them of their financial responsibilities, it should come with some degree of sacrifice of some of the other rights and responsibilities that fully independent adults have. Rights and responsibilities need to be a package deal. If we're going to let people ditch half their adult responsibilities to provide for themselves and their families, well okay, but then there is no rational reason they should still retain all of their voting power, as that is a very clear conflict of interest.
 

The only thing you need to fear as far as getting your property taken away from you is the government when you start allowing them to take away rights from citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic status in society.

I have to keep specifying "socioeconomic" status or else people will jump on me about prisoners and children. :lol:
 

All true and like I said he made it clear he was unhappy about the changes.

I'm afraid your recollection is incorrect. He was on the President's Economic Policy Advisory Board for the entirety of Reagan's term.
Click to expand...

Ok, so I remembered incorrectly then. In any event, he was from the Chicago school and while it's true he softened some of it's underlining principles he was still a leftist that favored egalitarianism and Keynesian economics. Not that he would admit it outright. It was always some sort of "this is a compromise" bull**** going on with him that I have no reason to believe. The whole last chapter of Capitalism and Freedom proves my point well enough.
 
Most people who "think" they are property owners, are not.
If they stopped making payments for just a few months, they'd be on the street.

At the current rate of the wealthy owning more and more of the pie and the poor owning less and less, we are headed to a point in time where a small few own everything and everyone else owns nothing.
Under this ideology, Republicans could finally have their way and a few corporations would elect our Politicians.
 

Look, call it whatever you want, it's wrong and it's an infringement on our fellow citizens. It's horrible idea.


Well, I disagree. For one thing, your time on welfare is limited. You cannot collect indefinitely. It is meant as a helping hand. What should happen is to reduce fraud and waste and to target those who are collecting it that don't really need it. I'm FAR from rich, and I have no problem with helping my fellow Americans with my taxpayer monies temporarily until they can get a job and make a living wage. I don't think that being poor is always a person's fault but of circumstances sometimes. And an important thing to remember is that there just aren't enough jobs to go around, especially GOOD jobs.
 

well remember property...can be land or money, anything that value is attached to it.

if a person has no stake in our nation, meaning paying no income taxes,...do they care if they are raised?.....no.

people use their vote all the time, to vote for people to promise to take from one and give to the other, using government power.


tax the rich, ...the rich are evil and greedy, they need to pay their fair share..........use by politicians and people all the time, to drum up votes.....for getting even.
 

If their situation is temporary, why would you have a problem with a temporary suspension of their voting privilege?
 

And not wanting to lose your property entices you to vote for people and policy that makes the economy stronger and your property more secure.
 

We need to start educating kids in school when they're young on how to budget their money, credit, the stock market, etc. I think that schools spend a minimal amount of time on these important life skills. This would be a much more useful skill to many more people than say algebra.

Point is though, no matter what we do, there will always be poor people, and they are entitled to their opinions and votes as citizens whether or not you agree with them.
 
AlabamaPaul said:
If their situation is temporary, why would you have a problem with a temporary suspension of their voting privilege?
Click to expand...

Because it's a right not a privilege.
 

No one is entitled to any action that has an effect on another individual to provide for their personal support...
 

The huge loophole here is that more and more losers are switching from welfare to disability. It is easier to qualify for every day and disability claims are through the roof.
 
ChrisL said:
Because it's a right not a privilege.
Click to expand...

It is not a right regardless of what is included in the Constitutional wording of amendments relating to those who may not be disenfranchised...
 
Painter said:
Most people who "think" they are property owners, are not.
If they stopped making payments for just a few months, they'd be on the street.
Click to expand...

Agreed. The fact that the government forces you to pay them on a continual basis to live on the land you bought and when you fail to pay them the government seizes the property shows very clearly they never transfered ownership on the sale of the land. Property taxes are at the most fundamental level a violation of property rights.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
You are getting stuck on stupid. There is no right to vote in the bill of rights.
Click to expand...

It is accepted as a right, and you know it is. It is called the right to vote.

This is your goal right?


Disgusting.
 
ChrisL said:
It is accepted as a right, and you know it is. It is called the right to vote.

This is your goal right?



Disgusting.
Click to expand...

When a drum beats long enough, you forget where the sound originates...
 

i agree, when i went to school we were taught how to budget money, balance a check book.

yes there will always be poor people, even Jesus say that"the poor will always be with you, ...becuase when people have liberty to choose their own path, you will have winners and losers, ..the losers have to keep trying.

i agree people should be able to vote, however i favor repealing the 17th amendment and retuning to true...republican government........returning a state voice in the federal government, to keep the collectivist nature of the people in check.
 
ChrisL said:
It is accepted as a right, and you know it is. It is called the right to vote.
Click to expand...

It doesn't exist, Chris. The Constitution never explicitly grants the people the right to vote. The Constitution only references ways that it cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. Besides those prohibited forms of discrimination the states may deny people the right to vote for any reason they desire. Legally speaking at least it's not accepted as a right.
 

These same people are the reason we have the current President that is destroying thousands of lives with his ACA legislation. My company announced some changes today due to the provisions in that legislation. Now after 30 years of having great insurance I am going to have sucky insurance, that is a nice reward so those people can **** up my world.
 
Kobie said:
So anyone who doesn't have a net income tax burden is a "kid that mooches off his parents and the government until he/she is 30"?
Click to expand...

Oh god now you are claiming illiteracy
 

Seems to be pretty much the equivalent of a right to me.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…