• 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.
AlabamaPaul said:
It is not a right regardless of what is included in the Constitutional wording of amendments relating to those who may not be disenfranchised...
Click to expand...
1) 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I.e. the Bill of Rights was never intended to be an exhaustive or complete list of rights. In fact, treating it that way was Hamilton's fear.


2) As already noted, the Constitution explicitly refers to a right to vote.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
You are reacting emotionally instead of intellectually. If you think something is crap, explain why.
Click to expand...

No, she's spot on. You're elitist view would eventually lead to the kind of civil wars we see in other countries now.
 
ChrisL said:
Seems to be pretty much the equivalent of a right to me.
Click to expand...

Yes, that unconstitutional garbage. There is no such thing as an equivalent of a right. It either is a right or it's not. As it stands even with that law the states are only barred from certain practices while others are perfectly legal. Of course, the federal government has no authority to be involved in the matter at all.
 
Visbek said:
1) 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I.e. the Bill of Rights was never intended to be an exhaustive or complete list of rights. In fact, treating it that way was Hamilton's fear.


2) As already noted, the Constitution explicitly refers to a right to vote.
Click to expand...

Sigh. Voting is a legal matter, not a natural right. The ninth amendment has no bearing on the case.
 
ChrisL said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's fine. Diminished voting power should be restored as people's reliance on welfare reverses.

What should happen is to reduce fraud and waste and to target those who are collecting it that don't really need it.
Click to expand...

For one thing, they already do this, but it is difficult to do. "Targeting those who are collecting it that don't really need it" requires gathering data/evidence of fraud, and prying into people's lives to pin down this verifiable facts is difficult and can be time consuming and thus expensive enough that it might outweigh the money saved by rooting out the fraud. Private charitable givers can stop giving on a mere intuition or hunch. Government cannot. It is not possible to efficiently identify and cut off insincere people from welfare and related social assistance programs.

But anyway, tying voting power to reliance on welfare would not be some underhanded scheme to reduce fraud. That would not be the point. It would simply be promoting consistency with regard to legal and financial dependence vs. independence.

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.
Click to expand...

Many people feel this way, but there is considerable waste and (in my opinion) societal decay when we institute them permanently and statutorily in that, over time, it trains actors (malingerers) about the system and how to work it to their advantage. You were right when you said that there will always be poor people, and poor people learn and employ creative ways to get their needs met (benefit-seeking is in their rational best interests). They learn to work the system well enough that it would probably be more expensive to officially catch them faking it and administratively kick them off the rolls than it would to just keep sending them the damn benefits.

I don't think that being poor is always a person's fault but of circumstances sometimes.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much always partly their fault and partly not their fault. If you assess only their decision making since turning 18, it will look like it's largely their fault, often times. If you ask them about their parents and the household in which they grew up, it will seem like they have been quite a victim of ****ty circumstances most of their lives. Who cares whose fault it is? Whoever's "fault" it is that a given person is struggling in life is a very subjective thing to toss around. This stuff is not about blaming anyone.
 
Last edited:
sawyerloggingon said:
How responsible is a convicted felon? We don't let them vote. How responsible is a crack whore with a bunch of illegitimate kids? Should we let her vote? REALLY???
Click to expand...

Well according to you - if they own property - they should vote!

Gee how that just doesn't work.
 
Neomalthusian said:
That's fine. Diminished voting power should be restored as people's reliance on welfare reverses.



For one thing, they already do this, but it is difficult to do. "Targeting those who are collecting it that don't really need it" requires gathering data/evidence of fraud, and prying into people's lives to pin down this verifiable facts is difficult and can be time consuming and thus expensive enough that it might outweigh the money saved by rooting out the fraud. Private charitable givers can stop giving on a mere intuition or hunch. Government cannot. It is not possible to efficiently identify and cut off insincere people from welfare and related social assistance programs.
Click to expand...

That's bull, I read an article recently where the state was sending hundreds of "dead" people welfare checks. It's because people don't do their jobs, seems to be especially prevalent with government workers.

But anyway, tying voting power to reliance on welfare would not be some underhanded scheme to reduce fraud. That would not be the point. It would simply be promoting consistency with regard to legal and financial dependence vs. independence.
Click to expand...

Well I disagree, and I think it's wrong. If the economy was better, there would be less people collecting services.


Many people feel this way, but there is considerable waste and (in my opinion) societal decay when we institute them permanently and statutorily in that, over time, it trains actors and malingerers about the system and how to work it to their advantage. You were right when you said that there will always be poor people, and poor people learn and employ creative ways to get their needs met (benefit-seeking is in their rational best interests). They learn to work the system well enough that it would probably be more expensive to officially catch them faking it and administratively kick them off the rolls than it would to just keep sending them the damn benefits.
Click to expand...

I agree that something needs to be done, but denying people the right to vote is not going to fix the problem anyway. It's just people being angry and wanting the poor to "pay" somehow. Not all people are playing the system. Some people really do need help. I also don't think it would be as complicated as you make it sound to do something to cut down on the fraud and waste. Like taking away the freebies that are not really necessities in regards to waste.


It's pretty much always partly their fault and partly not their fault. If you assess only their decision making since turning 18, it will look like it's largely their fault, often times. If you ask them about their parents and the household in which they grew up, it will seem like they have been quite a victim of ****ty circumstances most of their lives. Who cares whose fault it is? This stuff is not about blaming anyone.
Click to expand...

It is if you want them to be accountable for being poor in some way.
 
Henrin said:
Sigh. Voting is a legal matter, not a natural right.
Click to expand...
What is a "natural right?" Who decides what is or is not a "natural right?" You?

The police cannot enter your home without a warrant, issued by a judge. What is "natural" about that? Are warrants "natural?" How about judges?

Much in the same way that warrants are a "legal matter" associated with the right to be secure in one's home, voting is a "legal matter" associated with the right of an individual to influence how they are governed.

Or are you seriously going to argue that the Bill of Rights should be treated as an exhaustive list of rights? That the only people who can decide what is a "natural right" are a bunch of late 18th century politicians, who accepted legalized slavery, and whipping as a valid punishment?

Or, to put it another way: Disenfranchisement is a form of tyranny. The individual loses the power to hold elected officials accountable; the elected officials have no incentive to protect a disenfranchised voter, including the loss of other rights.

This is one of many reasons why blacks in the South were so badly abused and discriminated against, and were unable to use the political or legal systems to fight against segregation. They were prevented from voting, which in turn resulted in the loss of so many other rights. I'm slightly stunned that this history of abuse has been so quickly forgotten.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
How responsible is a convicted felon? We don't let them vote. How responsible is a crack whore with a bunch of illegitimate kids? Should we let her vote? REALLY???
Click to expand...

As I've said, the restriction I would make would be only on doing so much time of civil service. But I would also keep our current restrictions as well.

I don't think "felons" nor "crackwhores" are likely to be a significant vote anyway, nor do I feel it is right for you or anyone else to determine who is truly a "crackwhore" to begin with. (Felons already lose their right to vote in many situations and I agree with giving those who prove themselves to be more responsible to be able to get that right back.) But yes, we should let either of them vote if they meet the criteria because it isn't for you to judge how irresponsible they are compared to others who would get the right to vote just because they meet your definition of responsibility despite proving constantly how irresponsible they can be, including many celebrities and "successful" individuals who ruin people's lives because of their own greed.
 
Oh, almost forgot: 19th Amendment. "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

Sure sounds like someone views voting as a right.
 
ernst barkmann said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes. They do. My husband and I haven't paid income taxes a good portion of our marriage just due to our relative military service during that time and us having children during every taxable year we have been married. But we still care about what is done. We simply do not lie on our income taxes when we fill them out to pay more than we owe. We care about the real world despite not paying net taxes. It isn't that hard to understand.

Heck the vast majority of those who don't pay "net income taxes" really don't even realize that they don't because they simply don't look at the difference between what they paid in and what they got back, positive or negative. They don't think to themselves, "I don't pay taxes so why should I care". It is absolutely stupid and/or ignorant to believe they do.
 
ChrisL said:
That's bull, I read an article recently where the state was sending hundreds of "dead" people welfare checks. It's because people don't do their jobs, seems to be especially prevalent with government workers.
Click to expand...

So you employ more government workers to review what other government workers are supposed to be doing. Like I said, inefficiency is inevitable with this stuff. Either you're inefficiently blowing welfare money or your blowing it at more employees to try to root out inefficiencies.

I agree that something needs to be done, but denying people the right to vote is not going to fix the problem anyway.
Click to expand...

Bringing voting power into alignment with financial/legal independence is not intended to address welfare fraud.

It's just people being angry and wanting the poor to "pay" somehow.

It is if you want them to be accountable for being poor in some way.
Click to expand...

It's not just about the poor. Like the not-so-poor, they are humans and are typically are savvy and no they will not "just starve." The poor are self-interested people like anyone else. What my position here is about... is bad policy.

Not all people are playing the system. Some people really do need help.
Click to expand...

I know that.

I also don't think it would be as complicated as you make it sound to do something to cut down on the fraud and waste. Like taking away the freebies that are not really necessities in regards to waste.
Click to expand...

You should look into it, even as a possible career. State divisions of health, social services, public assistance, and social security need thinking people who will come up with more efficient and accurate procedures for reviewing benefit eligibility.
 
Visbek said:
What is a "natural right?" Who decides what is or is not a "natural right?" You?
Click to expand...

As I have said before..

No, it's actually pretty easy to determine what is a natural right. The origin of all rights come from body sovereignty over one's own body and extend to everything in which that body acts upon. As long as you are not coercing or otherwise impeding on the agency of others you have the right to do the action.
Click to expand...

You could of course do your own research before posting..

The police cannot enter your home without a warrant, issued by a judge. What is "natural" about that? Are warrants "natural?" How about judges?
Click to expand...

Nothing. That deals with restrictions on government.

Much in the same way that warrants are a "legal matter" associated with the right to be secure in one's home, voting is a "legal matter" associated with the right of an individual to influence how they are governed.
Click to expand...

Indeed.

Or are you seriously going to argue that the Bill of Rights should be treated as an exhaustive list of rights? That the only people who can decide what is a "natural right" are a bunch of late 18th century politicians, who accepted legalized slavery, and whipping as a valid punishment?
Click to expand...

Natural rights is a 17th century concept, not an 18th century concept. The ninth amendment wasn't intended to imply any unwritten legal rights.
 
Neomalthusian said:
So you employ more government workers to review what other government workers are supposed to be doing. Like I said, inefficiency is inevitable with this stuff. Either you're inefficiently blowing welfare money or your blowing it at more employees to try to root out inefficiencies.
Click to expand...

And so YOUR solution is to limit recipients' voting rights?



Bringing voting power into alignment with financial/legal independence is not intended to address welfare fraud.
Click to expand...

So what is it for? To prevent more people from voting for the "other" guy? What does this prevent and what is your purpose of wanting to limit their voting rights?


It's not just about the poor. Like the not-so-poor, they are humans and are typically are savvy and no they will not "just starve." The poor are self-interested people like anyone else. What my position here is about... is bad policy.



I know that.
Click to expand...

That is not true. There have been plenty of instances throughout history where people have starved.



You should look into it, even as a possible career. State divisions of health, social services, public assistance, and social security need thinking people who will come up with more efficient and accurate procedures for reviewing benefit eligibility.
Click to expand...

I'll assume you're being facetious here.
 
Henrin said:
The origin of all rights come from body sovereignty over one's own body and extend to everything in which that body acts upon.
Click to expand...
I guess the ratifiers of the 19th Amendment either missed that bit, or didn't care.

Or, that "life, liberty and the pursuit of property / happiness" doesn't rely in any way upon political representation.

Yes, we should definitely buy our right to vote with tax dollars.


Natural rights is a 17th century concept, not an 18th century concept.
Click to expand...
I was referring to the framers of the Constitution.
 
Visbek said:
I guess the ratifiers of the 19th Amendment either missed that bit, or didn't care.
Click to expand...

The 19th amendment doesn't establish a right to vote.

Or, that "life, liberty and the pursuit of property / happiness" doesn't rely in any way upon political representation.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between something being a good idea to ensure and something being a human right.

Yes, we should definitely buy our right to vote with tax dollars.
Click to expand...

You don't buy your rights.

I was referring to the framers of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I'm aware.
 
TurtleDude said:
just because drawing the line is difficult does not prove that there is no difference
Click to expand...

So define and quantify it then with a formula that is applicable to all Americans. you have not been able to do this for years and you still cannot do it today. This whole Net taxpayer scam is smellier than fifty pounds of wet manure left out for a week in 90 degree heat. But prove me wrong by posting the applicable formula. I welcome it.
 
haymarket said:
So define and quantify it then with a formula that is applicable to all Americans. you have not been able to do this for years and you still cannot do it today. This whole Net taxpayer scam is smellier than fifty pounds of wet manure left out for a week in 90 degree heat. But prove me wrong by posting the applicable formula. I welcome it.
Click to expand...


denial is not a sound argument. its easy, divide the number of tax payers by the total federal income tax paid. If you are paying 5X or more than that amount you are clearly a net tax payer (I pay around 400K in FIT-I am a net tax payer)

if you are one of those in the 47% who pay no FIT you are a net tax consumer. Its people paying about the average amount who are tough to pick
 
haymarket said:
yup... income taxes are taxes. So are many other taxes also that people pay every day.
Click to expand...

Income taxes are the ones that are most relative for buying votes and being important in an election

you don't hear much about excise taxes on alcohol or ammo
 
TurtleDude said:
denial is not a sound argument. its easy, divide the number of tax payers by the total federal income tax paid. If you are paying 5X or more than that amount you are clearly a net tax payer (I pay around 400K in FIT-I am a net tax payer)

if you are one of those in the 47% who pay no FIT you are a net tax consumer. Its people paying about the average amount who are tough to pick
Click to expand...

That makes no sense at all. It is absurd in the extreme and has no practical foundation which you can cite or point to. You just pulled that nonsense out of thin air or someplace even worse. Why five times? Why not three times? Why not four times? Why not four point five times? You just made it up and there is no foundation for it.

There are people who pay more than five times the amount of average tax paid but still use more services. That destroys your point. The amount of tax paid is only one side of the equation. One must then calculate the amount of services consumed and compare the two figures.

How would you do that?
 
haymarket said:
that makes no sense at all. There are people who pay more than five times the amount of average tax paid but still use more services. That destroys your point. The amount of tax paid is only one side of the equation. One must then calculate the amount of services consumed and compare the two figures.

How would you do that?
Click to expand...

how do they use five times the service? leftwing parasite advocates claim that the rich have more to lose so they should pay more-that's bogus. They say the rich use the infrastructure more-that's bogus

actually the poor and middle class use far more services.

you want to pretend that no one is a net tax payer or consumer because we cannot pinpoint each case

that's bogus. most people in the USA pay less than their share of government expenditures. That is easy to prove. and the top 4 or 5% pay far far more
 
TurtleDude said:
Income taxes are the ones that are most relative for buying votes and being important in an election

you don't hear much about excise taxes on alcohol or ammo
Click to expand...

let me finish that for you....

you don't hear much about other taxes from fringe extremists identifying themselves as right libertarians who are obsessed with disenfranchising the poor since they do not share their faux ideological mental illness.

There. Now it makes sense.
 
TurtleDude said:
how do they use five times the service? leftwing parasite advocates claim that the rich have more to lose so they should pay more-that's bogus. They say the rich use the infrastructure more-that's bogus

actually the poor and middle class use far more services.

you want to pretend that no one is a net tax payer or consumer because we cannot pinpoint each case

that's bogus. most people in the USA pay less than their share of government expenditures. That is easy to prove. and the top 4 or 5% pay far far more
Click to expand...

I knew you would be impotent to answer my questions about how you arrived at your magical FIVE TIMES number. thank you for confirming it.

You have no idea what you are talking about or how you arrived at that number and are powerless to explain it. Your obsession with this entire NET TAXPAYER nonsense is just elitism espoused by fringe right libertarians to subvert American representative democracy through the institution of repression of rights.

If it is so easy to prove.... THEN DO IT. DO IT NOW. DO IT CLEARLY. DO IT WITH VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE.

DO IT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom