Locke believed citizens were people who owned property

Again, the land ownership requirement was for federal elections. The states were free to make their own election laws. Also, virtually anyone could serve on a jury.

That's the idea behind dual sovereignty, devolvement and separation of gubmint powers....Everybody has a say, just not all in the same place and all at once.
 
So the guy out there paying 2000 a month rent is not a citizen, and I am, because I own land I bought and paid off 30 years ago?

That was the idea. You have a problem with it?

I do. I have a major problem with it. Why is it that certain groups of people among us are always trying to leaverage others out of thier rights? It is always the same mealy mouth pieces of shit that are constantly attempting to steal ...trick ... make deals that intentionally are aimed at hoarding power and displacing those who just want to be good citizens and get along? You know who I'm taliking about don't you Rabbi?

You have to keep in mind how rightwingers think, or least how vast majority of them who frequent venues like this think. They are always looking for rationales, in the form of changing the rules of the 'game', as Dude in his inimitable manner of erudition labeled it,

so that the rules advance the rightwing agenda.
 
It's idiocy.

As opposed to what we have now?

Believing that a landowner should be a citizen and a renter a non-citizen is idiocy compared to almost anything.

No one is saying renters should be non-citizens. That is idiocy. Whether people without a stake in the country's well being, either by land ownership or "freehold" should be entitled to vote is the issue. I think not, as people can simply vote themselves bigger and bigger entitlements until the state goes bankrupt. About what we have now.
 
As opposed to what we have now?

Believing that a landowner should be a citizen and a renter a non-citizen is idiocy compared to almost anything.

No one is saying renters should be non-citizens. That is idiocy. Whether people without a stake in the country's well being, either by land ownership or "freehold" should be entitled to vote is the issue. I think not, as people can simply vote themselves bigger and bigger entitlements until the state goes bankrupt. About what we have now.

The majority of people recieving "entitlements" who vote, are over the age of 65. ;)
And just because you are renter, does not mean you don't have a stake in the country's well being. And to suggest they don't, is just being a partisan idiot.
 
Believing that a landowner should be a citizen and a renter a non-citizen is idiocy compared to almost anything.

No one is saying renters should be non-citizens. That is idiocy. Whether people without a stake in the country's well being, either by land ownership or "freehold" should be entitled to vote is the issue. I think not, as people can simply vote themselves bigger and bigger entitlements until the state goes bankrupt. About what we have now.

The majority of people recieving "entitlements" who vote, are over the age of 65. ;)
And just because you are renter, does not mean you don't have a stake in the country's well being. And to suggest they don't, is just being a partisan idiot.

Anyone who believes in restricting voting status to only those who own property is nefarious in design and unAmerican in spirit.
 
Not even.

Are we fascists because eight year olds can't vote?

We do not allow eight year olds to vote because we recognize that they do not have full rights under the law because they do not have the mental capacity to make all decisions in their best interests.

The idea that people don't have a stake in the system if they don't own property is absolutely ridiculous. Though laws to protect private property are important, it is not physical property that is the primary driver of wealth creation in this country. It is human capital. It is what is peoples' mind. The idea that a Silicon Valley entrepreneur who rents somehow has less invested in the system than some dumbass grade-eight educated hillbilly is bizarre. The richest people in America today are not people who derived their wealth from land like they were 200 years ago. They are people who have created new products.

What about felons? Illegal immigrants? Non-residents? There are countless classes of people not entitled to vote in this country. Yours is a non-argument.
As for your assertion that rch people do not get that way from property, I'd suggest a look at the Forbes 400 and see how many of them made money from property. Also check how many of them do not own property.
But the solution to that concern is what VA had: either a landowner or having a "freehold" (net worth) over a stated amount.

I think because it's called "universal suffrage" it means that it's assumed that everyone of the majority age is entitled to vote. Some may forfeit that right, temporarily, but that doesn't invalidate Toro's argument.
 
Not elitism at all.

Every person has their interface and say-so in how the system operates, just not all at once and in the same venue.

As far flung form the idea of who is or isn't a "citizen" per se, that's how the diffused republic was set up to work.
 
Not elitism at all.

Every person has their interface and say-so in how the system operates, just not all at once and in the same venue.

As far flung form the idea of who is or isn't a "citizen" per se, that's how the diffused republic was set up to work.

We agree on the concept on Government's role in serving Justice rather than Injustice. I just don't see deciding whom get's to vote based on what property they own, how rich they are, or who they know serves that. One legal aged citizen, in good legal standing, one vote. It takes 75% agreement to fuel Constitutional Amendment. Here is where Government Usurp's authority. I suggest new constructions not be automatic, but follow the amendment process. Remember too that Nationalism is not Federalism.
 
Not elitism at all.

Every person has their interface and say-so in how the system operates, just not all at once and in the same venue.

As far flung form the idea of who is or isn't a "citizen" per se, that's how the diffused republic was set up to work.

I think that would be a return to the sort of society that most people who went to the American colonies wanted to avoid. I do believe that that would simply reinforce privilege and the privileged classes would see to it that the ho polloi were kept in their place. If I can cite an example from my own state/country.

My state (in common with my country) has a bi-cameral parliament. The lower house (in the state) is elected on universal suffrage in a preferential voting system. Until 1965 or thereabouts, the upper house was elected on a proportional system but only people who owned land were permitted to vote for it. The upper house could effectively veto legislation from the lower house so what was happening was political rule by a small elite.

I think you are not arguing for that though, from the little I know about historical politics in the US at least, so I'm not trying to put words on your keyboard.
 
Believing that a landowner should be a citizen and a renter a non-citizen is idiocy compared to almost anything.

No one is saying renters should be non-citizens. That is idiocy. Whether people without a stake in the country's well being, either by land ownership or "freehold" should be entitled to vote is the issue. I think not, as people can simply vote themselves bigger and bigger entitlements until the state goes bankrupt. About what we have now.

The majority of people recieving "entitlements" who vote, are over the age of 65. ;)
And just because you are renter, does not mean you don't have a stake in the country's well being. And to suggest they don't, is just being a partisan idiot.

Thank you for that irrelevant comment.
 
Not elitism at all.

Every person has their interface and say-so in how the system operates, just not all at once and in the same venue.

As far flung form the idea of who is or isn't a "citizen" per se, that's how the diffused republic was set up to work.

I think that would be a return to the sort of society that most people who went to the American colonies wanted to avoid. I do believe that that would simply reinforce privilege and the privileged classes would see to it that the ho polloi were kept in their place. If I can cite an example from my own state/country.

Did I call this one or what?
The Left is so far away from understanding this basic point that I predict Leftwingsewerworker and his ilk will be along in a minute comparing this to slavery
 
Not elitism at all.

Every person has their interface and say-so in how the system operates, just not all at once and in the same venue.

As far flung form the idea of who is or isn't a "citizen" per se, that's how the diffused republic was set up to work.

I think that would be a return to the sort of society that most people who went to the American colonies wanted to avoid. I do believe that that would simply reinforce privilege and the privileged classes would see to it that the ho polloi were kept in their place. If I can cite an example from my own state/country.

Did I call this one or what?
The Left is so far away from understanding this basic point that I predict Leftwingsewerworker and his ilk will be along in a minute comparing this to slavery

Yes you were truly prescient :lol:

Okay, you have to give me a chance at least, seeing as I was responding to other points. What is your basic point?
 
I think that would be a return to the sort of society that most people who went to the American colonies wanted to avoid. I do believe that that would simply reinforce privilege and the privileged classes would see to it that the ho polloi were kept in their place. If I can cite an example from my own state/country.

Did I call this one or what?
The Left is so far away from understanding this basic point that I predict Leftwingsewerworker and his ilk will be along in a minute comparing this to slavery

Yes you were truly prescient :lol:

Okay, you have to give me a chance at least, seeing as I was responding to other points. What is your basic point?

In that post my point is that the idea of limiting suffrage to people with a stake in the system is so alien to the Left (and not just the Left) that they will confuse it will slavery.

My point in the discussion is that such a move will improve gov't tremendously by removing incentives to politicians to bribe citizens.
 
As opposed to what we have now?

Believing that a landowner should be a citizen and a renter a non-citizen is idiocy compared to almost anything.

No one is saying renters should be non-citizens. That is idiocy. Whether people without a stake in the country's well being, either by land ownership or "freehold" should be entitled to vote is the issue. I think not, as people can simply vote themselves bigger and bigger entitlements until the state goes bankrupt. About what we have now.

Who gets to vote on deciding who does or doesn't have sufficient 'stake in the country's well-being'?
 
Believing that a landowner should be a citizen and a renter a non-citizen is idiocy compared to almost anything.

No one is saying renters should be non-citizens. That is idiocy. Whether people without a stake in the country's well being, either by land ownership or "freehold" should be entitled to vote is the issue. I think not, as people can simply vote themselves bigger and bigger entitlements until the state goes bankrupt. About what we have now.

Who gets to vote on deciding who does or doesn't have sufficient 'stake in the country's well-being'?

Good question. Given that the prospects for amending the constitution to do this are slim and none I'd call it an academic question at best.
But land ownership or something like assets worth $10,000 would be a decent enough measure.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top