• 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.
Well if that's what you're using, then be prepared to strip the right to vote away from half the citizens in the United States. The economy sucks and people need help. I certainly don't see that as any kind of a reason to strip a right from a legitimate citizen, regardless of whether they are receiving help from taxpayer money.

I've explained it over and over. The reason to discount the weight of the vote (notice: not advocating "stripping" the right entirely) is as a basic protection against the majority voting themselves money from the treasury. This type of abuse is the archetypal weakness of democracy and this policy would be a rational protective measure against it.

I would MUCH rather my taxpayer dollars pay for a poor American family than go to Pakistan or Afghanistan or whatever stan.

You won't see me defend our non-defensive military interventions in oil rich middle eastern nations. But that doesn't mean we should be throwing public money at anyone who demonstrates neediness necessarily either. But if we do throw money at people, absolving them of their financial responsibilities, it should come with some degree of sacrifice of some of the other rights and responsibilities that fully independent adults have. Rights and responsibilities need to be a package deal. If we're going to let people ditch half their adult responsibilities to provide for themselves and their families, well okay, but then there is no rational reason they should still retain all of their voting power, as that is a very clear conflict of interest.
 
actuality the founders did not want people who had no stake in america to vote, becuase they knew that those with no interest, would use the power of the vote, to take from those that had an interest [property], using injustice to do it.


James madison--This term in its particular application means "that dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of every other individual."

In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces every thing to which a man may attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to every one else the like advantage.

In the former sense, a man's land, or merchandize, or money is called his property.



James Madison --The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property, and the rights of persons may be oppressed. The feudal polity alone sufficiently proves it. Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property or the claims of justice may be overruled by a majority without property, or interested in measures of injustice. Of this abundant proof is afforded by other popular Govts.[democracy] and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.



Property: James Madison, Property

Property: James Madison, Note to His Speech on the Right of Suffrage

The only thing you need to fear as far as getting your property taken away from you is the government when you start allowing them to take away rights from citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic status in society.

I have to keep specifying "socioeconomic" status or else people will jump on me about prisoners and children. :lol:
 
Yes, he proposed much larger subsidies for those who qualified for his Negative Income Tax proposal. Congress cut back a little on his proposed subsidies, and added the requirement that anyone who qualifies for the EITC must be employed. (The EITC vs. the NIT | National Review Online)

All true and like I said he made it clear he was unhappy about the changes.

I'm afraid your recollection is incorrect. He was on the President's Economic Policy Advisory Board for the entirety of Reagan's term.

Ok, so I remembered incorrectly then. In any event, he was from the Chicago school and while it's true he softened some of it's underlining principles he was still a leftist that favored egalitarianism and Keynesian economics. Not that he would admit it outright. It was always some sort of "this is a compromise" bull**** going on with him that I have no reason to believe. The whole last chapter of Capitalism and Freedom proves my point well enough.
 
Most people who "think" they are property owners, are not.
If they stopped making payments for just a few months, they'd be on the street.

At the current rate of the wealthy owning more and more of the pie and the poor owning less and less, we are headed to a point in time where a small few own everything and everyone else owns nothing.
Under this ideology, Republicans could finally have their way and a few corporations would elect our Politicians.
 
I've explained it over and over. The reason to discount the weight of the vote (notice: not advocating "stripping" the right entirely) is as a basic protection against the majority voting themselves money from the treasury. This type of abuse is the archetypal weakness of democracy and this policy would be a rational protective measure against it.

Look, call it whatever you want, it's wrong and it's an infringement on our fellow citizens. It's horrible idea.

You won't see me defend our non-defensive military interventions in oil rich middle eastern nations. But that doesn't mean we should be throwing public money at anyone who demonstrates neediness necessarily either. But if we do throw money at people, absolving them of their financial responsibilities, it should come with some degree of sacrifice of some of the other rights and responsibilities that fully independent adults have. Rights and responsibilities need to be a package deal. If we're going to let people ditch half their responsibilities, there is no rational reason they should retain all of their voting power, as that is a very clear conflict of interest.

Well, I disagree. For one thing, your time on welfare is limited. You cannot collect indefinitely. It is meant as a helping hand. What should happen is to reduce fraud and waste and to target those who are collecting it that don't really need it. 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. I don't think that being poor is always a person's fault but of circumstances sometimes. And an important thing to remember is that there just aren't enough jobs to go around, especially GOOD jobs.
 
The only thing you need to fear as far as getting your property taken away from you is the government when you start allowing them to take away rights from citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic status in society.

I have to keep specifying "socioeconomic" status or else people will jump on me about prisoners and children. :lol:

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.
 
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. It is meant as a helping hand. What should happen is to reduce fraud and waste and to target those who are collecting it that don't really need it. 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. I don't think that being poor is always a person's fault but of circumstances sometimes. And an important thing to remember is that there just aren't enough jobs to go around, especially GOOD jobs.

If their situation is temporary, why would you have a problem with a temporary suspension of their voting privilege?
 
Most people who "think" they are property owners, are not.
If they stopped making payments for just a few months, they'd be on the street.

At the current rate of the wealthy owning more and more of the pie and the poor owning less and less, we are headed to a point in time where a small few own everything and everyone else owns nothing.
Under this ideology, Republicans could finally have their way and a few corporations would elect our Politicians.

And not wanting to lose your property entices you to vote for people and policy that makes the economy stronger and your property more secure.
 
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.

We need to start educating kids in school when they're young on how to budget their money, credit, the stock market, etc. I think that schools spend a minimal amount of time on these important life skills. This would be a much more useful skill to many more people than say algebra.

Point is though, no matter what we do, there will always be poor people, and they are entitled to their opinions and votes as citizens whether or not you agree with them.
 
If their situation is temporary, why would you have a problem with a temporary suspension of their voting privilege?

Because it's a right not a privilege.
 
We need to start educating kids in school when they're young on how to budget their money, credit, the stock market, etc. I think that schools spend a minimal amount of time on these important life skills. This would be a much more useful skill to many more people than say algebra.

Point is though, no matter what we do, there will always be poor people, and they are entitled to their opinions and votes as citizens whether or not you agree with them.

No one is entitled to any action that has an effect on another individual to provide for their personal support...
 
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. It is meant as a helping hand. What should happen is to reduce fraud and waste and to target those who are collecting it that don't really need it. 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. I don't think that being poor is always a person's fault but of circumstances sometimes. And an important thing to remember is that there just aren't enough jobs to go around, especially GOOD jobs.

The huge loophole here is that more and more losers are switching from welfare to disability. It is easier to qualify for every day and disability claims are through the roof.
 
Because it's a right not a privilege.

It is not a right regardless of what is included in the Constitutional wording of amendments relating to those who may not be disenfranchised...
 
Most people who "think" they are property owners, are not.
If they stopped making payments for just a few months, they'd be on the street.

Agreed. The fact that the government forces you to pay them on a continual basis to live on the land you bought and when you fail to pay them the government seizes the property shows very clearly they never transfered ownership on the sale of the land. Property taxes are at the most fundamental level a violation of property rights.
 
Last edited:
You are getting stuck on stupid. There is no right to vote in the bill of rights.

It is accepted as a right, and you know it is. It is called the right to vote.

This is your goal right?

When the polls open on Election Day, every citizen over the age of 18 will be able to cast a vote. It is a right we take for granted, one that defines our nation as a democracy. But universal suffrage — letting everyone vote — did not appear overnight with the ratification of our Constitution. Two hundred years ago, you had to be white, male, and wealthy in order to vote. The three people profiled below dedicated their lives to changing that fact. Without them, suffrage might still be the privilege of a chosen few.

Disgusting.
 
It is accepted as a right, and you know it is. It is called the right to vote.

This is your goal right?



Disgusting.

When a drum beats long enough, you forget where the sound originates...
 
We need to start educating kids in school when they're young on how to budget their money, credit, the stock market, etc. I think that schools spend a minimal amount of time on these important life skills. This would be a much more useful skill to many more people than say algebra.

Point is though, no matter what we do, there will always be poor people, and they are entitled to their opinions and votes as citizens whether or not you agree with them.

i agree, when i went to school we were taught how to budget money, balance a check book.

yes there will always be poor people, even Jesus say that"the poor will always be with you, ...becuase when people have liberty to choose their own path, you will have winners and losers, ..the losers have to keep trying.

i agree people should be able to vote, however i favor repealing the 17th amendment and retuning to true...republican government........returning a state voice in the federal government, to keep the collectivist nature of the people in check.
 
It is accepted as a right, and you know it is. It is called the right to vote.

It doesn't exist, Chris. The Constitution never explicitly grants the people the right to vote. The Constitution only references ways that it cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. Besides those prohibited forms of discrimination the states may deny people the right to vote for any reason they desire. Legally speaking at least it's not accepted as a right.
 
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?

These same people are the reason we have the current President that is destroying thousands of lives with his ACA legislation. My company announced some changes today due to the provisions in that legislation. Now after 30 years of having great insurance I am going to have sucky insurance, that is a nice reward so those people can **** up my world.
 
So anyone who doesn't have a net income tax burden is a "kid that mooches off his parents and the government until he/she is 30"?

Oh god now you are claiming illiteracy
 
It doesn't exist, Chris. The Constitution never explicitly grants the people the right to vote. The Constitution only references ways that it cannot be denied or abridged based solely on the aforementioned qualifications. Besides those prohibited forms of discrimination the states may deny people the right to vote for any reason they desire. Legally speaking at least it's not accepted as a right.

Seems to be pretty much the equivalent of a right to me.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1973–1973aa-6)[2] is a landmark piece of national legislation in the United States that prohibits discrimination in voting.[3] Echoing the language of the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Act prohibits states and local governments from imposing any "voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure ... to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color."[4] It was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, who had earlier signed the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law.[3][5]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom