yes, only property owners should vote
no, let everyone vote
- Colonel Paul YinglingNobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.
Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.
All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
... which is what immediately happened when borrowers were given the right to vote post-Revolutionary War, inciting riots, class conflict, and even the Whiskey Rebellion.
Almost every single human being is on their own side, sympathizes with their own struggles, and anybody who gets in the way of their desires is an enemy.
If you notice something good in yourself, give credit to God, not to yourself, but be certain the evil you commit is always your own and yours to acknowledge.
• Voting is a right. Not a privilege.
• Owning property is not a valid proxy for "good citizenship."
• Owning property is certainly not an indicator of intelligence or wisdom.
• Do you intend to disenfranchise people who inherited land?
• Property owners certainly aren't going to vote your way. If they did, Obama would not be President right now.
More critically, it is not acceptable, and profoundly un-American, to say that "only people who I expect to act like X get to vote." The reality is that when citizens are free, they are going to make decisions that you personally do not agree with. That is the essence of liberty in a society -- not just "I get to do what I want," but also allowing others to make their own choices about how to be governed and how to live.
...no, we require people to obey laws for a variety of reasons, including securing the safety of citizens. States often revoke the *cough* right to vote as an additional punishment.We require people to follow laws and not be convicted felons for this very reason.
Each of those assumptions is false and thus, your argument does not stand up to scrutiny. Ultimately, everybody has "skin in the game". Indeed, I would say that many poor people who cannot afford to own property have more "skin in the game" than wealthy people because many of them depend on government resources like public education whereas their wealthy counterparts do not as they can afford to buy into things like private education. It's frankly absurd to say that those who cannot afford property should not be able to vote when they are seriously affected by the government.
Ultimately, what you are proposing is a system that would cement class, race and other types of inequality even more than they already are and that is unacceptable. If you don't like the way certain people vote, then find a way to convince them to vote your way. However, proposing a way to simply disenfranchise them is not the way to go about it.
"It ain't what they call you, it's what you answer to." - W. C. Fields