JakeStarkey
Diamond Member
- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,520
- 2,165
- Banned
- #121
Rab, the idea of limiting suffrage in America is loonyville, period, to the right, the center, and the left.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What makes anyone think that owning a piece of land is going to prevent people from voting to bust the budget?
Rab, the idea of limiting suffrage in America is loonyville, period, to the right, the center, and the left.
Rab, you are talking to three folks in a phone booth out at the dump. No one else is paying attention to you. That is how loony you are.
What makes anyone think that owning a piece of land is going to prevent people from voting to bust the budget?
Because if you have something you are now "rich" in the government's eyes. And they always want to tax the rich.
Didn't the landowners themselves eventually GIVE the vote to the rest of the people? I mean, if they originally held the power, then they must have been the ones who made the decision to expand voting rights.
This is meant in response to those claiming some sort of original intent, or whatever...
Didn't the landowners themselves eventually GIVE the vote to the rest of the people? I mean, if they originally held the power, then they must have been the ones who made the decision to expand voting rights.
This is meant in response to those claiming some sort of original intent, or whatever...
They were nagged by their wives.
THere is also the influence of millions of potential voters which would naturally appeal to politicians.
I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea? When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine. It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.
Didn't the landowners themselves eventually GIVE the vote to the rest of the people? I mean, if they originally held the power, then they must have been the ones who made the decision to expand voting rights.
This is meant in response to those claiming some sort of original intent, or whatever...
They were nagged by their wives.
THere is also the influence of millions of potential voters which would naturally appeal to politicians.
American home ownership has been over 60% since the 1960's. What's the problem again? Exactly? That property owners don't have totalitarian authority in the US?
Well, the left now believes a citizen to be someone who lives on the backs of others... all the while complaining about where the money's coming from.
I know the left may not understand this but Locke believed that a citizen was someone who owned property because government was formed to protect the property of each individual within the community therefore the only people who needed government were those that owned property therefore were citizens of that government.
I know it seems barbaric to say that only property owners are citizens but is it really that far fetched of an idea? When I have a dispute with another citizen over something I own I use my government to protect what I think is rightfully mine. It would not seem very plausible to go into a Canadian court and ask them to settle the dispute.
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.