Better to Rent or Vote?

[don]

Tea Party Leader: Restricting Voting to Property Owners 'Makes a Lot of Sense'



Judson Phillips, president of prominent Tea Party group Tea Party Nation, has a terrific idea: "The Founding Fathers... put certain restrictions on... the right to vote... you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense."

"The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn't you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you're a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you're not a property owner, you know, I'm sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners."

That whole property owners-only deal worked out pretty well back in the nineteenth century, didn't it? I mean, if you were a property owner! If you weren't (or if you were female, or black) well, no, it probably did not make so much sense, to you. But who cares what you think! How on earth could you have a vested interest in your community if you are renting?

http://gawker.com/5702830/tea-party-...a-lot-of-sense

[flintlock]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

I like the "must pay taxes to vote" idea better. But both are an attempt to end the "vote yourself welfare" state.

[BK]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

How are does he define Owner- limiting voting to People who own their Property free and clear (Not renting from the Bank) would make elections very inexpensive to administer.
My guess is his definition includes people that are Renting from the Bank.

[Ghent12]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

I am a fan of implementing a system where only those with "skin in the game" have a say in the affairs of state, however previous versions of this have been used as tools of keeping castes alive, especially with regards to former slaves.

[don]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

I am a fan of implementing a system where only those with "skin in the game" have a say in the affairs of state, however previous versions of this have been used as tools of keeping castes alive, especially with regards to former slaves.

I'm not sure of your definition of "skin in the game". Would those who toiled in factories, fields and offices and did not own property be disenfranchised?

[Serge_Tomiko]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

I am a fan of implementing a system where only those with "skin in the game" have a say in the affairs of state, however previous versions of this have been used as tools of keeping castes alive, especially with regards to former slaves.

You do realize of course, said descendants of slaves would be almost completely disenfranchised if any kind of "skin in the game" qualifiers was used. Further, if anything, civil rights era legislation has largely turned the descendants of slaves into a de facto caste where certain people buy the votes of this caste via public handouts. A substantial portion of non-compliant descendants of slaves end up in prison, and are thus disenfranchised this way.

[Ghent12]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

I'm not sure of your definition of "skin in the game". Would those who toiled in factories, fields and offices and did not own property be disenfranchised?

Almost everyone has to work for a living. That doesn't mean you have "skin in the game" from a national or big-picture perspective. Toiling in any given occupation means you have a stake in that occupation--that's the realm of the market economy and industry, and not the realm of the government and legislation. In order for a government to not run a country into the ground you need people who have big investments and large stakes in the future of that country. Legislation that benefits labor can kill an entire industry (and hence their labor); see the minimum wage laws that make working illegal. Many purely democratic (small d) laws and callings are incredibly short-sighted.

The Founders knew that democracy was awful--it was little more than mob rule. That is why the US Constitution is so anti-democratic and uses representation whenever possible for the larger, bigger-picture matters (especially at the national level) and literally leaves everything else in the hands of the people and the state governments that they create via the 10th Amendment (and an implicit assumption before the Bill of Rights was enacted).

EDIT --
As an example of short-sighted democratic legislation, I present to you Oklahoma State Question 755, which passed in the last election. It is a democratic amendment to the state constitution that makes it so that state courts cannot utilize International law and Sharia law. Given that this is Oklahoma, a lot of "tea-party" types voted in favor of this because they saw Islamic law on the ballot and wanted to vote against it. However, this amendment has the potential to severely interfere with interactions among and between the Native American tribes here. We are the 4th ranked state by Native population and the idiot mob-rule here decided to vote down a non-existent threat, the introduction of Sharia law, and in so doing potentially harmed a great deal of our residents here.

Last I heard this measure was blocked by court order, which is very ironic.

You do realize of course, said descendants of slaves would be almost completely disenfranchised if any kind of "skin in the game" qualifiers was used. Further, if anything, civil rights era legislation has largely turned the descendants of slaves into a de facto caste where certain people buy the votes of this caste via public handouts. A substantial portion of non-compliant descendants of slaves end up in prison, and are thus disenfranchised this way.

Well you are bringing up two separate issues. Yes, I am fully aware that such laws were used to keep down former slaves and their descendants. That's why I'm suspect of such "skin in the game laws," even though I support them conceptually. Yes, you are right about the net effect of the Civil Rights era, and that is why anti-democratic mechanisms are needed.

[blazespinnaker]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

I think anyone who votes should have to fulfill a basic test of math and reading skills.

This will probably disenfranchise the uneducated / ignorant .. oh well.

[Ghent12]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

I think anyone who votes should have to fulfill a basic test of math and reading skills.

This will probably disenfranchise the uneducated / ignorant .. oh well.

They already did that to keep the descendants of slaves from their voting rights. Not math, but literacy.

[jpatter666]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Absolutely no friggin' way.

Start walking down that road and you'll quickly go down a very slippery slope. Could end up with something like Starship Troopers (the book, not the wretched movie) by Robert Heinlein where only those with military service qualified to vote (btw: the book itself makes for some fascinating reading)

On the surface it *sounds* reasonable. All those suggestions have some form of logic behind them -- but if you think about it, they can easily be twisted in some very nasty ways. Most people suggesting these forms of voting would belong to the "voter" class. I can not think of an instance I've personally heard where the suggester would not have belonged.

[flintlock]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Throw in an IQ test as well. Even more disenfranchised.

Seriously, it is a slippery slope. But so is mob rule "democracy". Surely we could come up with some minimum standard. Things are a bit out of hand. How about, Property ownership OR pay income taxes OR Military Service OR 120+ IQ?

[jpatter666]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Throw in an IQ test as well. Even more disenfranchised.

Seriously, it is a slippery slope. But so is mob rule "democracy". Surely we could come up with some minimum standard. Things are a bit out of hand. How about, Property ownership OR pay income taxes OR Military Service OR 120+ IQ?

Benevolent dictatorship is the optimal form of government (or so they say). The high point of the Roman empire was from Trajan to Aurelius.

Democracy works until the mob figures out it can vote itself indefinite bread and circuses -- and then the downfall is assured. We have reached such a point.

Plato's view of government calls for the next stage to be dictatorship. Indeed, that was the stage Rome descended too. Makes one wonder about all those comparisons of the US to the Roman Empire. I do wonder if under time of stress if the US took that path and went from undeclared empire (be honest, that is *exactly* what it is) to a declared (and overt) one.

[flintlock]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Benevolent dictatorship is the optimal form of government (or so they say). The high point of the Roman empire was from Trajan to Aurelius.

Democracy works until the mob figures out it can vote itself indefinite bread and circuses -- and then the downfall is assured. We have reached such a point.

Plato's view of government calls for the next stage to be dictatorship. Indeed, that was the stage Rome descended too. Makes one wonder about all those comparisons of the US to the Roman Empire. I do wonder if under time of stress if the US took that path and went from undeclared empire (be honest, that is *exactly* what it is) to a declared (and overt) one.

As a student of history, I'd say you are spot on. It's uncanny some of the parallels to Roman history.

[KGW]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Is Goldman Sachs, et al, the mob?

Democracy works until the mob figures out it can vote itself indefinite bread and circuses -- and then the downfall is assured. We have reached such a point.

.

[flintlock]

Re: Better to Rent or Vote?

Is Goldman Sachs, et al, the mob?

Apples and Oranges. Corporations shouldn't be allowed to "vote" either. But they do, with their money. Fixing that still wouldn't fix the "Bread and Circuses" mentality we have today. Any reason we can't fix both?