- Joined
- May 22, 2011
- Messages
- 10,821
- Reaction score
- 3,348
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
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.