• 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.
It's stupid to give the entity who would LOVE the opportunity to strip us of our rights, ESPECIALLY the poor people, the power to do it. What's wrong with you people? Only 4.1% of the population are collecting welfare. That voting block does NOT carry a lot of power obviously.

Welfare Statistics | Statistic Brain
 
Fair questions.

1. As we saw prior to--I think it must have been the last mid-term elections--there was some debate about extending unemployment benefits out to 99 weeks. It became a point of debate in the last elections. Benefits did get extended to the 99 weeks and people were able to obtain far more than what they contributed. A better way would be to reduce taxes so people could put away money to support themselves in case they find themselves unemployed.

2. More people are on food-stamps than ever before and stories of it's abuse are plentiful. As such, if you're on food-stamps you don't get to vote.
1. That was more a political decision that shouldn't affect the individual (regarding this issue). The individual is more of a pawn in stuff like that. The concept remains.

Then you have people like myself. I worked for the same employer for 21 years when the economy caught up with me and I got laid off. (I wasn't the only one) The last recession hit the construction industry hard in California and that was me. I collected unemployment for awhile. I think I paid my share over 21 years.

2. Again, this was a political decision, IMO. The great expansion of benefits has concerned me greatly, and I do believe we have gone beyond what is truly needed, and I would prefer that it be scaled back. But again at the same time I don't like the idea of penalizing people who are nothing but pawns in a bigger political game.
 
Lol, Okay if you say so. I've been called worse.

If the government cannot suspend or terminate any of our rights for any reason, then there is no government. Government can suspend or terminate virtually any right via due process. Liberty is suspended via incarceration and regulations. Property is suspended by legal penalties and judicial processes. Life is terminated via the death penalty.

Discounting the weight of a person's vote based on the extent to which they independently manage their own adult affairs is not arbitrary at all. It is much less arbitrary than having zero voting power at age 17 to suddenly having 100% of one vote at age 18.
 
If the government cannot suspend or terminate any of our rights, then there is no government. Government can suspend or terminate virtually any right via due process. Liberty is suspended via incarceration and regulations. Property is suspended by legal penalties and judicial processes. Life is terminated via the death penalty.

Discounting the weight of a person's vote based on the extent to which they independently manage their affairs is not arbitrary. In fact it is even less arbitrary than having zero voting power at age 17 to suddenly having 100% of one vote at age 18.

No, I disagree. You want to strip people's rights who are of age and have not committed any crimes.
 
Well there are entire states where there is no state income tax. Should those people have their rights stripped from them too?

you mean they pay no federal either?;)
 
No, I disagree. You want to strip people's rights who are of age and have not committed any crimes.

This mischaracterization flies in the face of the thorough rationales I have provided for my opinion. It does not strip them of any right, it simply aligns voting power with the extent to which a person is an independent adult, which is measured by the degree of dependence on the collective for their basic daily needs that they CHOOSE to accept. It is no more unjust than disallowing minors to vote, because they too are considered dependents (not capable of or acknowledged as having financial and legal autonomy).

Fully financially independent emancipated minors should even have a full vote. Whereas adults whose primary needs are met 100% by government assistance programs should have zero vote.

Most people, even those on public assistance of various kinds, would still at least have partial votes, under my plan.
 
Nope, I don't want the government to have the power to strip any of us of any of our rights.

Obama just stripped millions of choosing what doctors and treatments they get, are you ok with that?
 
you mean they pay no federal either?;)

No, but they pay less taxes than others, so perhaps we should strip them of their right to vote too. Oh, let's just take ALL of their rights.

You know, I know some poor people that have MUCH more character, personality and morals and values than any wealthy person. I guess people like Paris Hilton, Miley Cyrus etc. get a pass. What makes people think that because a person is having a hard time in life means they somehow deserve to lose any of their rights is beyond my understanding.

There is nothing wrong with using the services that WE provide to help the poor not starve. As a matter of fact, it would selfish not to if you have kids. Have your kids go hungry because of pride?
 
This mischaracterization flies in the face of the thorough rationales I have provided for my opinion. It does not strip them of any right, it simply aligns voting power with the extent to which a person is an independent adult, which is measured by the degree of dependence on the collective for their basic daily needs that they CHOOSE to accept. It is no more unjust than disallowing minors to vote, because they too are considered dependents (not capable of or acknowledged as having financial and legal autonomy).

Fully financially independent emancipated minors should even have a full vote. Whereas adults whose primary needs are met 100% by government assistance programs should have zero vote.

Most people, even those on public assistance of various kinds, would still at least have partial votes, under my plan.

It's NOT a choice for a lot of people. Your plan is stupid, naive and ignorant.
 
Obama just stripped millions of choosing what doctors and treatments they get, are you ok with that?

No I never supported Obamacare. I've been posting about it actually, since we've had this plan in Massachusetts for quite a few years now.
 
No kidding, what you're missing is that voting IS a right, not to be removed by government force due to arbitrary reasons.

Sorry, but nothing in the Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to vote.
 
You know what makes this whole property thing even funnier: I would take all my acres, divide them up into tiny chunks, and sell that off as 'Voting Plots' - I could even erect a plaque. "This voting plot is in honor of ___" It would be like a cemetery for our rightfully granted rights.

It would become a tourist attraction.

. . . And I'd donate the money to charity and write it off on my taxes . . . and further a cause to overthrow such a ridiculous law.
 
No, but they pay less taxes than others, so perhaps we should strip them of their right to vote too. Oh, let's just take ALL of their rights.

You know, I know some poor people that have MUCH more character, personality and morals and values than any wealthy person. I guess people like Paris Hilton, Miley Cyrus etc. get a pass. What makes people think that because a person is having a hard time in life means they somehow deserve to lose any of their rights is beyond my understanding.

I sincerely doubt that. It is very easy to understand and you do not strike me as a dimwit by any means.

There are boat rescue operations that are available to save people's boats (and livelihoods and even their lives) but before they will help, they need captains to fully (temporarily) relinquish all control and authority over their vessels. It's a hard thing for captains to do, but sometimes they end up in situations where they must admit "I can't do this on my own, I'm going down, someone help me." And the rescue operators know their ****, and experience has shown them that they save many more boats without captains in their way than they do when they allow the captains to be there through it all meddling in the rescue decisions. Of course, these captains have the full right to refuse help and try to save the ship on their own, or they can relinquish their control and rights over their ships for the purpose of external help swooping in to save the day.

It is a very rational and humane way to operate. It's not ideal, but neither is drowning or losing your ship and your livelihood.

Your protests toward these ideas reveal that some people want to protect our current system that lets the dependent have their cake and eat it too.
 
I can't answer this because I don't agree with either.

There is something wrong with this system and I can't quite put my finger on it.

I don't want to see voting rights stripped away from people but I see us heading down a wrong path.
It seems silly that people who don't pay taxes (or have a negative tax) get to keep voting to raise the taxes on the people that do.

It seems utterly irresponsible that we can accumulate more debt than we could pay off during our lifetimes, and dump that off on our descendants.
 
This idea would disenfranchise the vast majority of our military. They absolutely do not own their own land for a reason. They can get shipped overseas or to another state within a couple of years and generally every 4-5 years, depending on their branch of service.

This is a horrid idea. And it absolutely fails on a lot of assumptions it makes.

Property owners are not more responsible than non-property owners (which really should say "land-owners" since most people own some property, which is anything). Many people inherit at least some of their land. And renting can show a lot of responsibility to not do something they cannot afford, such as purchasing a home prior to being in a position to actually be able to afford it. You would disenfranchise many young people, particularly in their 20s (which I would bet is one of the goals of such a ridiculous suggestion).

If anything should be a requirement for voting or full citizenship it should be a certain amount of time of civil service/duty, such as teaching, military service, federal service, police work, being a firefighter, or some other public good job.
 
I can't answer this because I don't agree with either.

There is something wrong with this system and I can't quite put my finger on it.

I don't want to see voting rights stripped away from people but I see us heading down a wrong path.
It seems silly that people who don't pay taxes (or have a negative tax) get to keep voting to raise the taxes on the people that do.

It seems utterly irresponsible that we can accumulate more debt than we could pay off during our lifetimes, and dump that off on our descendants.

I've suggested that schools start teaching classes about finances, saving and budgeting. People jumped all over me to say that's the responsibility of the parents. Well, apparently parents aren't doing a good job of that or they were never taught themselves. Nobody wants to give anyone a break, but they want to punish them at the same time.
 
I feel that the lower end of humanity does hamper our ability as a whole but I cannot see any just way to deal with this problem at this time. I personally would be a supporter of a voluntary global eugenics program and I am surprised the world hasn't put one into motion. Perhaps because it is such a long term en devour with out an immediate benefit to humanity?
 
I've suggested that schools start teaching classes about finances, saving and budgeting. People jumped all over me to say that's the responsibility of the parents. Well, apparently parents aren't doing a good job of that or they were never taught themselves. Nobody wants to give anyone a break, but they want to punish them at the same time.

That was what I was thanking, fyi :)
 
I feel that the lower end of humanity does hamper our ability as a whole but I cannot see any just way to deal with this problem at this time.

There's nothing unjust about assistance for otherwise autonomous adults coming to an end. And I don't think of people who are dependent on social programs as "the lower end of humanity." It's just that the existence of these programs elicits parasitic behavior from people who are simply choosing the paths of least resistance and acting in what they feel is in their own best interests.

I personally would be a supporter of a voluntary global eugenics program and I am surprised the world hasn't put one into motion. Perhaps because it is such a long term en devour with out an immediate benefit to humanity?

I think eugenics is intended to breed arbitrarily desired characteristics in humans they way we do with domestic pets, plants, etc. It's pretty much a failed idea. But if you mean a voluntary depopulation strategy, there are political and Keynesian economic reasons not to do this. In other words, the world's leaders have embraced methods they think will enable indefinite growth and prosperity and do not acknowledge any need for or benefit to conservatism, prudence, conservation, or sustainability.
 
If the government cannot suspend or terminate any of our rights for any reason, then there is no government. Government can suspend or terminate virtually any right via due process. Liberty is suspended via incarceration and regulations. Property is suspended by legal penalties and judicial processes. Life is terminated via the death penalty.

Discounting the weight of a person's vote based on the extent to which they independently manage their own adult affairs is not arbitrary at all. It is much less arbitrary than having zero voting power at age 17 to suddenly having 100% of one vote at age 18.

Actually it is because it is impossible to truly measure how responsible a person is truly being. Responsibility is a concept, not a measurable thing. And everyone is irresponsible at one time or another within their adult life. And what is responsible or not is in fact arbitrary. Some would say that earning money is responsible, while others would say that being a good citizen and helping others is being responsible. Irresponsibility is easier to determine than responsibility, but even irresponsibility is not able to be truly measured. Is someone being irresponsible because they hit a lot of bad luck that they did everything within their power to try to predict but still came up short?
 
There's nothing unjust about assistance for otherwise autonomous adults coming to an end. And I don't think of people who are dependent on social programs as "the lower end of humanity." It's just that the existence of these programs elicits parasitic behavior from people who are simply choosing the paths of least resistance and acting in what they feel is in their own best interests.



I think eugenics is intended to breed arbitrarily desired characteristics in humans they way we do with domestic pets, plants, etc. It's pretty much a failed idea. But if you mean a voluntary depopulation strategy, there are political and Keynesian economic reasons not to do this. In other words, the world's leaders have embraced methods they think will enable indefinite growth and prosperity and do not acknowledge any need for or benefit to conservatism, prudence, conservation, or sustainability.

Most people aren't choosing to live on welfare. There are ALWAYS going to be poor people. There always have been and always will be. It is wrong to punish people for being poor. After my examples of some really idiotic super rich people, you should see the error of your assumptions.
 
There's nothing unjust about assistance for otherwise autonomous adults coming to an end. And I don't think of people who are dependent on social programs as "the lower end of humanity." It's just that the existence of these programs elicits parasitic behavior from people who are simply choosing the paths of least resistance and acting in what they feel is in their own best interests.



I think eugenics is intended to breed arbitrarily desired characteristics in humans they way we do with domestic pets, plants, etc. It's pretty much a failed idea. But if you mean a voluntary depopulation strategy, there are political and Keynesian economic reasons not to do this. In other words, the world's leaders have embraced methods they think will enable indefinite growth and prosperity and do not acknowledge any need for or benefit to conservatism, prudence, conservation, or sustainability.

I admit I am very ignorant about human eugenic efforts. However the only real eugenic programs that I am aware of were small short term programs that I personally would only consider token efforts. I would appreciate any further information that would support your statement.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom