• 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.
ernst barkmann said:
do people vote for politicians, who promise them they will get the rich, make them pay their fair share.

i believe what Madison says if true, those who have no stake, will use their vote for injustice, maybe not everyone, but it is natural for man to look at another man and be envious.

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. and is not without examples in our own, particularly in the laws impairing the obligation of contracts.
Click to expand...

Some may, most people, particularly those who are of the "lower" classes don't. They care, for the most part about politicians who are going to help them take care of their families, not "make them rich" or those politicians who will keep their values, whether it is being for or against same sex marriage, and/or keeping foreigners out or helping foreigners make it into this country or something in between, and/or abortion, and/or military, and/or education, and/or the environment, and/or guns/gun control, or so many other things. Most people care about much more than just becoming rich, particularly if they are at the bottom of the totem pole. I believe those at the top are much more concerned about staying rich or getting richer than those at the bottom are about becoming rich.
 
roguenuke said:
Some may, most people, particularly those who are of the "lower" classes don't. They care, for the most part about politicians who are going to help them take care of their families, not "make them rich" or those politicians who will keep their values, whether it is being for or against same sex marriage, and/or keeping foreigners out or helping foreigners make it into this country or something in between, and/or abortion, and/or military, and/or education, and/or the environment, and/or guns/gun control, or so many other things. Most people care about much more than just becoming rich, particularly if they are at the bottom of the totem pole. I believe those at the top are much more concerned about staying rich or getting richer than those at the bottom are about becoming rich.
Click to expand...



Madison --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.


translation of Madison--Extend the vote equally to all, and those with property or on the side of law, may be overruled by the majority without property or interested in measures of ....today's word [SOCIAL JUSTICE]


i believe madison to be correct.
 
ernst barkmann said:
Madison --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.


translation of Madison--Extend the vote equally to all, and those with property or on the side of law, may be overruled by the majority without property or interested in measures of ....today's word [SOCIAL JUSTICE]


i believe madison to be correct.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean either of you are right just because you believe it.

The truth is that people are not as you believe they are. Some are, but not all or even most. Most people are content just being able to provide for their families. They don't need to be rich. The majority of people own some property. Just because they don't own land, doesn't mean they are all out to get those that do. In fact, at least some of those don't own land because it is impractical for them to do so. Some sold their land in exchange for a more free life or a different life, perhaps driving around the country or maybe to live on a houseboat, which they would have the freedom to take wherever they wish, instead of being stuck in one spot. They aren't out to get landowners, they simply do not have the same ideals of what makes life good as you do. It doesn't mean they shouldn't have a say in laws that affect them just because they think differently or have different dreams/aspirations than you.

(And the houseboat thing does come from a personal dream of my own, as the RV/driving around the country thing is from my mom, who has always said she has gypsy blood. My mother has worked since she was old enough to do so and pays taxes. She doesn't own property, but she sure as hell does a lot to serve her country, even over 30 years after getting out of the Army. She is a traveling nurse, going from state to state to work where nurses are needed. In case you aren't aware, there is a nurse shortage in this country, especially certain areas. Many traveling nurses prefer not to own land, choosing instead to be able to move wherever they are needed. And they aren't the only such travelers in this country.)
 
roguenuke said:
That doesn't mean either of you are right just because you believe it.

The truth is that people are not as you believe they are. Some are, but not all or even most. Most people are content just being able to provide for their families. They don't need to be rich. The majority of people own some property. Just because they don't own land, doesn't mean they are all out to get those that do. In fact, at least some of those don't own land because it is impractical for them to do so. Some sold their land in exchange for a more free life or a different life, perhaps driving around the country or maybe to live on a houseboat, which they would have the freedom to take wherever they wish, instead of being stuck in one spot. They aren't out to get landowners, they simply do not have the same ideals of what makes life good as you do. It doesn't mean they shouldn't have a say in laws that affect them just because they think differently or have different dreams/aspirations than you.

(And the houseboat thing does come from a personal dream of my own, as the RV/driving around the country thing is from my mom, who has always said she has gypsy blood. My mother has worked since she was old enough to do so and pays taxes. She doesn't own property, but she sure as hell does a lot to serve her country, even over 30 years after getting out of the Army. She is a traveling nurse, going from state to state to work where nurses are needed. In case you aren't aware, there is a nurse shortage in this country, especially certain areas. Many traveling nurses prefer not to own land, choosing instead to be able to move wherever they are needed. And they aren't the only such travelers in this country.)
Click to expand...

well i believe as Madison says also...that people are self serving creatures, and will always work in their own interest, ..it just human nature....so its to be expected.

but as to property, it does not always mean land , and madison states in this paper on property.....

James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68

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.


so its not the idea of land, its the idea of property, be it any sort, and some people are using their vote to obtain money from other people, via the government.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well i believe as Madison says also...that people are self serving creatures, and will always work in their own interest, ..it just human nature....so its to be expected.

but as to property, it does not always mean land , and madison states in this paper on property.....

James Madison, Property
29 Mar. 1792Papers 14:266--68

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.


so its not the idea of land, its the idea of property, be it any sort, and some people are using their vote to obtain money from other people, via the government.
Click to expand...

Many are, but many also see their moral obligations as more important than their own material desires, which would still be self-serving. Not everyone has the same personal desires or self-serving interests. And still others are much more intelligent than you give them credit for. They know that the government can't legitimately deliver any promises of becoming rich. Doesn't mean they don't still have a valid interest in this country.

Very few people in this country do not own some property, of some kind. In fact, pretty much anyone who would likely be interested in voting would own some property. It isn't logical to believe that someone wouldn't own anything at all, even if it is just clothing or some personal memento.
 
roguenuke said:
Many are, but many also see their moral obligations as more important than their own material desires, which would still be self-serving. Not everyone has the same personal desires or self-serving interests. And still others are much more intelligent than you give them credit for. They know that the government can't legitimately deliver any promises of becoming rich. Doesn't mean they don't still have a valid interest in this country.

Very few people in this country do not own some property, of some kind. In fact, pretty much anyone who would likely be interested in voting would own some property. It isn't logical to believe that someone wouldn't own anything at all, even if it is just clothing or some personal memento.
Click to expand...

but this is how i see it from Madison's view.

rich citizens with land and material goods, are they going to use their vote to redistribute property [money] in the hands of the poor.... to themselves........no.. i dont see this happening.

but will the poor use their vote , to redistribute property [money] to themselves from the rich, yes....... it is being done today, and calls for more of it.

i dont advocate people owning land to vote, however i think i very reasonable for people to pay taxes into our federal system, to vote in our federal system.
 
ernst barkmann said:
but this is how i see it from Madison's view.

rich citizens with land and material goods, are they going to use their vote to redistribute property [money] in the hands of the poor.... to themselves........no.. i dont see this happening.

but will the poor use their vote , to redistribute property [money] to themselves from the rich, yes....... it is being done today, and calls for more of it.

i dont advocate people owning land to vote, however i think i very reasonable for people to pay taxes into our federal system, to vote in our federal system.
Click to expand...

The poor are more likely to use their vote to try to balance out the money, if they can, or at least get more of it for themselves. Their actions may not always work, but it is stupid to assume that not giving them the vote to try is better. The rich, you said yourself, are more likely to vote to try to keep their money for them. There has to be voters to balance that or we become a society where their is most certainly an elite class with more rights than those who have less than they do.

Taxes are paid by everyone, whether you want to believe the hype or not. At some time in their lives, everyone pays taxes. It is wrong to punish someone by making them lose their vote simply because of rules of taxation that they in fact have very little actual say in.
 
roguenuke said:
The poor are more likely to use their vote to try to balance out the money, if they can, or at least get more of it for themselves. Their actions may not always work, but it is stupid to assume that not giving them the vote to try is better. The rich, you said yourself, are more likely to vote to try to keep their money for them. There has to be voters to balance that or we become a society where their is most certainly an elite class with more rights than those who have less than they do.

Taxes are paid by everyone, whether you want to believe the hype or not. At some time in their lives, everyone pays taxes. It is wrong to punish someone by making them lose their vote simply because of rules of taxation that they in fact have very little actual say in.
Click to expand...

sorry but you are incorrect, because you did not stay with me on taxes.........i stated income tax........not sales, or property , or any other, ......but income.

there are citizens who pay no federal income tax, but receive a tax rebate, for child earned income tax credit.

paying no income taxes, but receiving money from government via a check........and voting.

explain why a citizen, who pays no federal income tax as others do, should receive and equal in a federal election?
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry but you are incorrect, because you did not stay with me on taxes.........i stated income tax........not sales, or property , or any other, ......but income.
Click to expand...

And the inherent unfairness of that is to so limit what is being discussed as to render a discussion of taxation utterly ridiculous unless all forms are included.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry but you are incorrect, because you did not stay with me on taxes.........i stated income tax........not sales, or property , or any other, ......but income.

there are citizens who pay no federal income tax, but receive a tax rebate, for child earned income tax credit.

paying no income taxes, but receiving money from government via a check........and voting.

explain why a citizen, who pays no federal income tax as others do, should receive and equal in a federal election?
Click to expand...
It's disingenuous to include only income tax payers as proper federal taxpayers.
 
haymarket said:
And the inherent unfairness of that is to so limit what is being discussed as to render a discussion of taxation utterly ridiculous unless all forms are included.
Click to expand...


my statement was clear........not every citizen pays federal income, and i stated that clearly, ......so for someone to go outside my statement, and say people pay taxes using a general statement, to counter mine, is incorrect and ......a slight of hand act.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry but you are incorrect, because you did not stay with me on taxes.........i stated income tax........not sales, or property , or any other, ......but income.

there are citizens who pay no federal income tax, but receive a tax rebate, for child earned income tax credit.

paying no income taxes, but receiving money from government via a check........and voting.

explain why a citizen, who pays no federal income tax as others do, should receive and equal in a federal election?
Click to expand...

Even income taxes. Those who don't pay net income taxes change from year to year. Votes are only held every so many years, particularly for higher offices. It is wrong to say that people do not get their right to vote simply because during a voting year, or any one voting year, they didn't pay net income taxes. That simply isn't realistic.
 
In some elections we struggle to get as much as 20% eligible voter turnout. It appears that some would be happy if we had only 5% turnout, as long as it was the right 5%... their 5%.
 
radcen said:
In some elections we struggle to get as much as 20% eligible voter turnout. It appears that some would be happy if we had only 5% turnout, as long as it was the right 5%... their 5%.
Click to expand...

Which is basically what it comes down to. Some believe that if they remove some of those they view as the most likely to vote for the other side from being able to vote, it means they are more likely to get what they want. The problem is that they don't realize that many of those who would fit into the category they want to lose the vote would be those that would vote for their side. It isn't as simple as "those who don't pay taxes vote democrat, while those who do vote republican". In fact, it is not even close.
 
roguenuke said:
Which is basically what it comes down to. Some believe that if they remove some of those they view as the most likely to vote for the other side from being able to vote, it means they are more likely to get what they want. The problem is that they don't realize that many of those who would fit into the category they want to lose the vote would be those that would vote for their side. It isn't as simple as "those who don't pay taxes vote democrat, while those who do vote republican". In fact, it is not even close.
Click to expand...

you have went the party way, by invoking democrat /republican.

i didn't go that direction.

i took Madison's direction.
 
ernst barkmann said:
you have went the party way, by invoking democrat /republican.

i didn't go that direction.

i took Madison's direction.
Click to expand...

Would you prefer conservative/progressive? Or how about rich/poor? It comes down to the fact that the majority of those who would propose such an idea, that those who don't pay net taxes should lose their vote are almost exclusively conservative, Republicans. Or at least certain types of Republicans. Not even all Republicans (or most Republicans) would take such a stance. But those people who do are almost exclusively Republicans.
 
roguenuke said:
Would you prefer conservative/progressive? Or how about rich/poor? It comes down to the fact that the majority of those who would propose such an idea, that those who don't pay net taxes should lose their vote are almost exclusively conservative, Republicans. Or at least certain types of Republicans. Not even all Republicans (or most Republicans) would take such a stance. But those people who do are almost exclusively Republicans.
Click to expand...

i prefer libertarian/classical liberal.

a return to true republican government.

not a government of lobbyist, redistribution, and buying of votes by government politicians, using tax money.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i prefer libertarian/classical liberal.

a return to true republican government.

not a government of lobbyist, redistribution, and buying of votes by government politicians, using tax money.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm all for not having lobbyist or buying votes. Most of that is being done by those who pay net taxes though. It certainly isn't the poor people paying the lobbyists. It isn't the poor people buying votes.

Libertarian then. Still a bad idea. It still is pits one side against another and disenfranchises a group of citizens simply because you want your own way and can't get enough people to agree with you to do it.
 
roguenuke said:
Hey, I'm all for not having lobbyist or buying votes. Most of that is being done by those who pay net taxes though. It certainly isn't the poor people paying the lobbyists. It isn't the poor people buying votes.

Libertarian then. Still a bad idea. It still is pits one side against another and disenfranchises a group of citizens simply because you want your own way and can't get enough people to agree with you to do it.
Click to expand...

in the libertarian world of limited government, their are no sides, its about supreme law and what it says, and following that law................not about what people feel.
 
roguenuke said:
Which is basically what it comes down to. Some believe that if they remove some of those they view as the most likely to vote for the other side from being able to vote, it means they are more likely to get what they want. The problem is that they don't realize that many of those who would fit into the category they want to lose the vote would be those that would vote for their side. It isn't as simple as "those who don't pay taxes vote democrat, while those who do vote republican". In fact, it is not even close.
Click to expand...
The more some in this thread post, the more I come to believe that's what it really is. They don't give a hoot about intelligent people voting, they simply want people who will vote their way so they can get what they want, and all the fluff is merely a way to frame it to attempt to make it acceptable to those of us who disagree.


ernst barkmann said:
you have went the party way, by invoking democrat /republican.

i didn't go that direction.

i took Madison's direction.
Click to expand...
I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions. I've learned something from you more than once. We agree often, but not always. That being said, it seems that everything comes back to Madison and/or the Founding Fathers, and sometimes you get on a roll and I wonder...

...Is there anything that Madison said or believed that you flat-out disagree with?

Just curious.
 
I didn't vote because I don't have a problem with a service requirement (allowing ANY real service to your fellow citizens. Even part time. Maybe shorten the requirement for combat vets, etc.).

Nor a one-time basic civics test, as long as its carefully crafted to only make sure one at least understands the system they are participating in.

Basing it upon those who have chosen the path of acquisitiveness and been successful at it raises one life path to supremacy over all others.

That's bull**** AND will result in the best world for those who control it at the expense of everybody else.
 
radcen said:
The more some in this thread post, the more I come to believe that's what it really is. They don't give a hoot about intelligent people voting, they simply want people who will vote their way so they can get what they want, and all the fluff is merely a way to frame it to attempt to make it acceptable to those of us who disagree.



I have a great deal of respect for you and your opinions. I've learned something from you more than once. We agree often, but not always. That being said, it seems that everything comes back to Madison and/or the Founding Fathers, and sometimes you get on a roll and I wonder...

...Is there anything that Madison said or believed that you flat-out disagree with?

Just curious.
Click to expand...

well madison laid the foundation of our government months before the constitutional convention, he took the notes of the convention, spoke more than anyone, proposed more things to it, stay after most delegates had left and worked on committee of style, wrote the bill of rights, part of the federalist papers, wrote more about the constitution during his life.

he explains the constitution and its meaning and what our true form of government is.

madison read a lot of books before the convention, that he had asked jefferson for on government, because he wanted to know WHY , in the end, ........a government fails.

our structure of government was constructed for a reason, with many build in safeguards against the tyranny of majority rule/democracy, one was the privilege of the vote.

madison knew that if the people with no property [ land or money,] could vote they would use the power of that vote ....towards injustice against those who had property....and we are seeing this play out today.

in reading the founders, many of the things they warned us about, are coming true.

as far as Madison in his writings of government, property, powers, rights, no i have not found any disagreement...... but

i have found madison to be incorrect in his assessment in one area....he stated a bill of rights was not needed, becuase the constitution was a limiting document on the federal government, and becuase of that limit, the federal government could in no way violate the rights of the people, however he was incorrect, becuase he didn't foresee, the federal government stepping outside the constitution as the anti-federalist did, as they stated during the convention.

he did later become an anti-federalist after the alien and sedition act.
 
Last edited:
ernst barkmann said:
well madison laid the foundation of our government months before the constitutional convention, he took the notes of the convention, spoke more than anyone, proposed more things to it, stay after most delegates had left and worked on committee of style, wrote the bill of rights, part of the federalist papers, wrote more about the constitution during his life.

he explains the constitution and its meaning and what our true form of government is.

madison read a lot of books before the convention, that he had asked jefferson for on government, because he wanted to know WHY , in the end, ........a government fails.

our structure of government was constructed for a reason, with many build in safeguards against the tyranny of majority rule/democracy, one was the privilege of the vote.

madison knew that if the people with no property [ land or money,] could vote they would use the power of that vote ....towards injustice against those who had property....and we are seeing this play out today.

in reading the founders, many of the things they warned us about, are coming true.

as far as Madison in his writings of government, property, powers, rights, no i have not found any disagreement...... but

i have found madison to be incorrect in his assessment in one area....he stated a bill of rights was not needed, becuase the constitution was a limiting document on the federal government, and becuase of that limit, the federal government could in no way violate the rights of the people, however he was incorrect, becuase he didn't foresee, the federal government stepping outside the constitution as the anti-federalist did, as they stated during the convention.

he did later become an anti-federalist after the alien and sedition act.
Click to expand...
Good answer. Thank you. :)
 
ernst barkmann said:
in the libertarian world of limited government, their are no sides, its about supreme law and what it says, and following that law................not about what people feel.
Click to expand...

And it is not only an illogical form of government, but impractical. The entire point is that people cannot agree on what is best for a country, with or without government. Taking the government out would allow a select few to gain a lot of power over the people because the Constitution does not protect us from other people, only the government.

I can easily see a corporation such as the one on seaQuest, where their employees are basically owned by the corporation, given the rules and things they have to live by. Many of the things libertarians want to remove government from are the very things that help to protect us from such a thing happening. It certainly is a balancing act ensuring that the government doesn't take more power and do the same thing, but it is stupid to go back the other way and allow some other small group of people to have that power.
 
ernst barkmann said:
my statement was clear........not every citizen pays federal income, and i stated that clearly, ......so for someone to go outside my statement, and say people pay taxes using a general statement, to counter mine, is incorrect and ......a slight of hand act.
Click to expand...

What unadulterated BS. Any discussion of taxation that does not include all of taxation is inherently intellectual fraud. The radical right wing is so obsessed with one tax that it loses perspective on this issue.

Their gross intellectual dishonesty is rather pathetic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom