Sorry, can't at all subscribe to your opinion that property owners are
the only ones that should be able to vote. Do you have any idea what
would happen to your county if you enacted that type of legislation?
You'd be in the middle of a full fledged civil war within a month.
It's absolutely ludicrous to even think about it.
On 9/24/2013 12:30 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
The fact remains that the founding fathers who set up a unique form of
self government, democratic republic that unarguably vested more rights
to more people than ever experienced before in human history, did indeed
subscribe to that "opinion".
I don't like it anymore than you do, but history will prove that the
right of "everyman" to vote without qualification was the first nail in
the coffin of that unique democratic republic.
Pretty hard to argue, in the light of Detroit and Chicago, that we
wouldn't all be better off if there was some responsibility attached to
voting other than collecting a welfare check.
Can't argue with that at all. Only problem would be the inevitable
uprising if anyone tried to retract any rights already given. Guess
it's comparable to your gun lobby screaming every time someone tries
to curtail their rights.
That's some big mess you have down there. Guess Canada's not too far
removed from something similar, just not near as bad ~ yet.
Actually with ever single new law, regardless of the country, some one or
large group of people loose a right that they previously had. The problem
with letting those with no skin in the game vote is that they most often
have every thing to gain if the government increases taxes on the property
owners and those involved in building the country. These voters typically
do not pay as big of a price for government benefits as do the property
Obviously, those that have nothing to loose would stir the pot it this was
reinstated. Yes, it was this way at one time.
The whole idea is not to prevent people from voting so much as prevent
those with no assets/permanent ties to loose from making decisions about
those that do have investments/commitments that cannot be taken with them
should they decide to leave the country.
Perhaps better yet, set up the voting so that you only vote on issues that
affect the population segment you fall into and how you would be willing to
pay for those changes. Obviously issues that affect every one would be
open for vote by every one. Sorta of like city and state elections, you
can't vote in cities and states that you have no affiliation with.
If your only skin in the game is the vote, you can be divided and
pandered to, as we can clearly see.
One of the reasons the vote was originally setup as property owners only.
As they say, a democracy (which we're not) is two wolves and a lamb
voting over what's for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting
"It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...."
"You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?"
"No," said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and
coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down
him, "nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On
its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people
hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people."
"Odd," said Arthur, "I thought you said it was a democracy."
"I did," said Ford. "It is."
"So," said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, "why
don't the people get rid of the lizards?"
"It honestly doesn't occur to them," said Ford. "They've all got the
vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they've voted
in more or less approximates to the government they want."
"You mean they actually vote for the lizards?"
"Oh yes," said Ford with a shrug, "of course."
"But," said Arthur, going for the big one again, "why?"
"Because if they didn't vote for a lizard," said Ford, "the wrong lizard
might get in."
Douglas Adams, in So Long, And Thanks For All The Fish (1984) Ch. 36.
Ownership of stock is way too easy to get out of. Stock prices are
obviously not dictated by the condition our society is on. I would prefer
that the Mexican and Chinese citizens not be involved in our elections..
The 113th Congress has 94 new members, the average net worth of the
incoming lawmakers $1,066,515.
The wealthiest member of congress is Representative Michael McCaul,
Texas's 10th district, estimated net worth $500.1 mil.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.