The Founders and the property requirement for voting

[Perd Hapley]

I can understand it at that time in history because you either owned land or you were an indentured servant or a vagabond who hadn't settled down. I don't believe you had people back then who had entire generations who rented or lived in subsidized dwellings.

Property ownership was much more widespread in the U.S. than in Europe, but I think there were still a great many tenant farmers. Then tradesman that may have lived in rental properties. Probably a whole other class of people we're forgetting about.

[taurusowner]

Personal attack removed.

[MicroBalrog]

FTFY

And the problem is?

[RaspberrySurprise]

FTFY

Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence.

Accepting welfare/unemployment does not mean that one wishes to vote more of other peoples money into their pockets. A good number of times it means they want their children to not starve, not everyone has friends or family that can take care of them in hard times or the ability to save ahead for them. Some times you have to suck up your pride and take a handout to keep your kids and yourself fed.

[MicroBalrog]

I can understand it at that time in history because you either owned land or you were an indentured servant or a vagabond who hadn't settled down. I don't believe you had people back then who had entire generations who rented or lived in subsidized dwellings.

And yet property requirements were not needed or used in several states.

[Seenterman]

.

[taurusowner]

Objection! Assuming facts not in evidence.

Accepting welfare/unemployment does not mean that one wishes to vote more of other peoples money into their pockets. A good number of times it means they want their children to not starve, not everyone has friends or family that can take care of them in hard times or the ability to save ahead for them. Some times you have to suck up your pride and take a handout to keep your kids and yourself fed.

A handout is something given voluntarily.  Unemployment and welfare are theft by conversion.  If it was up to me, none of my money would go towards either of those programs.  But it does through taxes, and not by my choice.

*The sympathy card isn't going to work on me.  I was laid off a few years ago from a fairly high paying nuclear security job.  I had the option of going on unemployment.  I deliberately declined and took a job at a gas station, and delivering pizzas to get by instead.  You can tell me "well not everyone can do that" and I'll call BS.  There are ways to get by on your own if you really buckle down and don't tell yourself anything is below you.  Where there's a will there's a way.  I'll make it on my own.  I expect you to keep your hand out of my wallet and do the same.

[MicroBalrog]

So, will you homeschool all your children and refuse to accept any kind of school vouchers?

[BridgeRunner]

So, will you homeschool all your children and refuse to accept any kind of school vouchers?

This really oughtn't to be about one guy's sense of personal invincibility--which clearly would not survive any serious scrutiny.  To pretend so is merely buying into his faulty premise.

The issue began as whether people ought to have some particular type of demonstrable stake in a polity to participate in the voting process.  The proposal has been put forth that instead of a positive requirement to own land, there be a negative requirement that anyone who uses certain government benefits will vote for the expansion of those benefits and therefore should be be disqualified from voting as insufficiently objective.

This is patently ludicrous.  Suffrage is not about objectivity.  Suffrage is about each voter doing his part to advance those positions which are important to him.  The statement that X, Y, or Z ought not to be able to vote because he will vote in a way contrary to MY wishes leans pretty far towards the totalitarian ends of the political spectrum. 

No, John Adams didn't see it that way.  John Adams was wrong.  John Adams, like the poster here, cherished the belief that because of various accidents of his birth and circumstances, he was more deserving of human rights than other people--no, not even people, but entities like women and non-land-owning rabble like RevDisk and Vaskidmark.

The poster here--who has now personally attacked me twice in as many weeks, to the point of being asked to edit or to having his posts edited by a mod--believes not only in a particular political system that does not exist and that has never existed and that will never exist because it flat-out denies some basic facts of human existence.  He further believes not in integrating those beliefs into a political or personal philosophy in any kind of rational way, but instead of personally insulting as insufficiently human anyone who does not share his particular beliefs.

He considers his own personal beliefs--which apparently include a bizarre combination of Calvinism and Objectivism--to be so flawless that he can merely dismiss as irrelevant to truth aka his worldview any factor in any problem he chooses not to recognize, with no regard for the social contract supporting those factors, the economic structure underlying them, or the morality informing them.  He really does believe that anyone who really, really wants to can and will and ought to be just like him--single, childless, and a member of the military.  Oh, and to be properly human, must really, really want to be just like him.  And if one cannot attain being sufficiently in the image of his god, one is "basically worthless."

So fine, there is clearly a lack of imagination going on here.  I recall a family member recounting her experience with a Secular Humanist Jewish congregation, and how odd it seemed to her that they prominently displayed images and words in iconic forms indicating a worship of humanity.  It seems that some people have distilled that down further to the worship of self. 

The problem is, HE'S STILL WRONG.  And it doesn't matter how many times he attacks me as a member of an underclass and a worthless human being.  He'll still be wrong.  It's all based on twisted syllogisms based on incorrect premises that don't stand up to logical scrutiny, or any scrutiny outside of the Objectivist philosophy.  And a philosophy that works only so long as it remains completely internal and is not subject to outside forces is so inherently flawed as to have little or so philosophical value.

But, that's not what this is about.

What this is really about is that I made a snap judgment a while ago about the poster in question and reacted in accord with that judgement when conversing with him.  I later regretted have acted with so little thought and sent a private message apologizing for having made such a judgment and for having behaved in accordance with it.  I have noticed that since that time, subtle and overt attacks from this poster have become pretty consistent, which I consider sad but not really unexpected. 

Nonetheless, I am me and not he and have no plans to change that, not because of his repeated attacks but because I have philosophical, logical, cultural, and moral objections to the beliefs he insists are essential to humanity. 

[stevelyn]

 

I really think just not taking welfare or unemployment would be just as good these days.

I could live with that as I really don't want to see Rev denied his chance to vote since he seems like a productive member of society. 

However, I think unemployment should not be included as it is really an insurance program that employees pay premiums into. That'd be like wrecking your car and becoming ineligible to vote because you filed an insurance claim.

[roo_ster]

So, will you homeschool all your children and refuse to accept any kind of school vouchers?

How about just send them to private school?  Vouchers may as well be non-existent given how few exist.  I have paid property taxes for years and have arranged my family's living and consumption habits so as to be able to afford private schooling for my kiddos. 

But, what about the property owner who has paid property taxes for years and then has kiddos?  If they send their kids to gov't schools is that case closer to "unemployment insurance" or rank theft by conversion as described above?

[MicroBalrog]

Don't be looking at me.

I'm not the one advocating denying people the vote.

[De Selby]

It's a silly idea - if you can be arrested in your own home and deprived of all your rights by a state, you should have a voice in its operation.  The fact that your liberty is on the line is more of a stake than a house payment.

Every class has proven capable of voting itself other people's money.  It is simply preposterous to argue that you get more freedom by only allowing people with a certain level of wealth or tax status to vote.

[BridgeRunner]

Incidentally, I am aware of the existence of a number of people who consider military pay and benefits too generous:

Clearly, the military is a problem.  Talk about the fall of the Republic!  Military having the power to give themselves money or other benefits which they and they alone have the power to enforce has brought down civilizations before!  No one in the military should be permitted to vote, since they have too much of an incentive to vote excessive benefits far beyond compensation for hours worked.  Soldiers have historically been a social underclass anyway; in the US we've merely allowed them to vote themselves excessive benefits that give them a veneer of civilization.

Personally, I don't think my tax dollars should pay for VHA services or military disability benefits.  Freaking theft by conversion!

/ludicrosity

[RevDisk]

It's a silly idea - if you can be arrested in your own home and deprived of all your rights by a state, you should have a voice in its operation.  The fact that your liberty is on the line is more of a stake than a house payment.

Every class has proven capable of voting itself other people's money.  It is simply preposterous to argue that you get more freedom by only allowing people with a certain level of wealth or tax status to vote.

This is the most coherent, polite, correct and libertarian post in this entire thread.

[mtnbkr]

It's a silly idea - if you can be arrested in your own home and deprived of all your rights by a state, you should have a voice in its operation.  The fact that your liberty is on the line is more of a stake than a house payment.

Every class has proven capable of voting itself other people's money.  It is simply preposterous to argue that you get more freedom by only allowing people with a certain level of wealth or tax status to vote.

+1.

De Selby wins the thread.

Chris

[lupinus]

It's a silly idea - if you can be arrested in your own home and deprived of all your rights by a state, you should have a voice in its operation.  The fact that your liberty is on the line is more of a stake than a house payment.

Every class has proven capable of voting itself other people's money.  It is simply preposterous to argue that you get more freedom by only allowing people with a certain level of wealth or tax status to vote.

This is the most coherent, polite, correct and libertarian post in this entire thread.

I disagree. As written it would suggest everyone occupying the US should have a vote. Non-citizens, illegals, children, etc. Now add the requirement to meet citizenship and age and such and it's more understandable.

There are already standards for who can and can't vote. Age, citizenship (even if this one is being progressively weakened), felon status, etc. I am in favor of expanding this a bit.

The age, IMO, should be higher than 18. Someone still living in mommy and daddy's house, depending on birth date and locality perhaps even still in high school, IMO isn't mature enough to be deciding who runs our country. Perhaps a good measure would be to raise it to 21 so people can get some taste of the real world? Perhaps requiring a voter to meet the age of candidacy requirements (or be within a certain number of years of it..say five for the sake of example) for the office they are voting for?

As to the welfare recipients, I am torn on that one. I will say, without a doubt, I'd sooner see no restrictions based on welfare implemented than deny legitimate recipients their vote. I do agree with the base of the thinking though, the growing welfare class in America will only keep growing as long as politicians can buy their vote by promising and pushing through yet more benefits or making those benefits easier to obtain. Tackling this is a complex issue with the web of social programs that we have and who receives them. First of course, the root of the problem is that we have a welfare class in the first place. Steps need to be taken to boot everyone off who is getting a free ride and playing the system so that only the relatively small number of legitimately disabled people continue to receive it. I'd much prefer privatized unemployment and retirement but those that paid for the service in the event they need it should be able to use it without impact.

So I think that those receiving SS and unemployment, should not be excluded from the vote. To receive these they had to pay in, so there is no reason to have them impact a persons ability to vote. For other forms of welfare I think a good measure would be number of years worked and paying taxes before going on welfare. Worked the required years before going on disability, continue to vote. Never worked a day in your life? No vote.

[mtnbkr]

The age, IMO, should be higher than 18. Someone still living in mommy and daddy's house, depending on birth date and locality perhaps even still in high school, IMO isn't mature enough to be deciding who runs our country. Perhaps a good measure would be to raise it to 21 so people can get some taste of the real world? Perhaps requiring a voter to meet the age of candidacy requirements (or be within a certain number of years of it..say five for the sake of example) for the office they are voting for?

Only if they raise the age for military service to go with it.  We don't have a draft today, but it was within my lifetime that we did and we still require all young men to register for that non-existant draft.  I would not support an 18 or 19yo being sent off to war when he had no voice in the matter at all.

Chris

[lupinus]

Only if they raise the age for military service to go with it.  We don't have a draft today, but it was within my lifetime that we did and we still require all young men to register for that non-existant draft.  I would not support an 18 or 19yo being sent off to war when he had no voice in the matter at all.

Chris

Perhaps add that those who serve get to vote early?

[Hugh Damright]

Is it assumed that universal suffrage results in the best representatives and best promotes the general welfare of a state, or is the idea that universal suffrage is the important thing regardless of what's best for a state?

[Perd Hapley]

Is it assumed that universal suffrage results in the best representatives and best promotes the general welfare of a state, or is the idea that universal suffrage is the important thing regardless of what's best for a state?

It is assumed that the opinions (votes) of all adult citizens (minus felons, etc.) must be consulted, in order to determine what is best for the state. And by "state," I assume you mean the people thereof, not the government. And because a government must, as a primary duty, protect the rights of the people, all of the citizens must be consulted about which rights are to be recognized and how.

Does that answer your question?

[BridgeRunner]

Only if they raise the age for military service to go with it.  We don't have a draft today, but it was within my lifetime that we did and we still require all young men to register for that non-existant draft.  I would not support an 18 or 19yo being sent off to war when he had no voice in the matter at all.

Chris

That could be as simple as "18 or a member of the military."

I'd add Americorps as well.  Not a popular program with folks of a libertarian bent, perhaps, but a viable option for national service for people who don't qualify for the military.  I'd see a viable constitutional challenge from all the eighteenyear olds prohibited from voting because of a knee destroyed in high school football or similar.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's a silly idea - if you can be arrested in your own home and deprived of all your rights by a state, you should have a voice in its operation.  The fact that your liberty is on the line is more of a stake than a house payment.

Every class has proven capable of voting itself other people's money.  It is simply preposterous to argue that you get more freedom by only allowing people with a certain level of wealth or tax status to vote.

This one fails the smell test. 

Children, felons, non-citizens can be arrested out of their home, and yet nobody really considers them worthy of franchise.  And rightfully so.  Should we have given Nazi Germans the right to vote in our elections back in the 1940's?  We were certainly willing to subject them to the power of our state. 

Nope, being subject to arrest or other action by the state is not a sufficient criteria for deciding who can and can't vote.

The ultimate purpose of voting is to keep government's power in check and to keep the government's actions accountable to the will of the people.  When the majority of the population is dependent on government for their daily survival, then the roles of government and the people are reversed.  The people become accountable to the will of the government and not the government accountable to the will of the people.  Liberty will not survive long in those circumstances.

If nothing else, I'd hope we can all agree that the purpose of elective government is NOT to give everyone warm fuzzies about how much they get to participate in society.  Some people might feel bad if they don't have a say in government, especially those who've allowed themselves to fall into dependence on government.  So what?  I fail to see why their self-esteem issues should be a consideration.

[Hugh Damright]

It is assumed that the opinions (votes) of all adult citizens (minus felons, etc.) must be consulted, in order to determine what is best for the state.
Does that answer your question?

But couldn't it be that what is best for a state is some type of limited suffrage? I remember reading in the congressional record the complaint that we were suffering from democratic excesses, and that was back when suffrage was mostly limited to white men with I don't know what kind of property requirements, educational requirements, and so on. Maybe universal suffrage is a radical democratic excess that is not best for a state at all. At any rate, I don't see that the Founders thought that universal suffrage was best, and if they thought that limited suffrage was best, I think no less of them.

It seems to me that every time we have extended suffrage (15th/19th/23rd/24th/26th amendments) it has been to the benefit of the northern party. Maybe universal suffrage is agenda driven?

I'm not necessarily opposed to universal suffrage, but I question the assumption that it is the best way to determine what is best for a state ... I don't think we can just assume that universal suffrage is the bomb and go on to assume that the founders must have been all for it.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

But couldn't it be that what is best for a state is some type of limited suffrage? I remember reading in the congressional record the complaint that we were suffering from democratic excesses, and that was back when suffrage was mostly limited to white men with I don't know what kind of property requirements, educational requirements, and so on. Maybe universal suffrage is a radical democratic excess that is not best for a state at all. At any rate, I don't see that the Founders thought that universal suffrage was best, and if they thought that limited suffrage was best, I think no less of them.

It seems to me that every time we have extended suffrage (15th/19th/23rd/24th/26th amendments) it has been to the benefit of the northern party. Maybe universal suffrage is agenda driven?

I'm not necessarily opposed to universal suffrage, but I question the assumption that it is the best way to determine what is best for a state ... I don't think we can just assume that universal suffrage is the bomb and go on to assume that the founders must have been all for it.

I'm sure that if the Founders had thought universal democracy was a worthy goal, they would have supported it and incorporated it into our form of government right from the beginning.  It's interesting that they didn't.