As long as Joe is a white land owner and tax payer he should vote. Amirite?
With the Supreme Court taking up the transgendered bathroom case, it's only a matter of days...Quote:
Oh, where is seamaster when you need him?
I'm confident this issue will be discussed with respect and compassion, right?diehard03 said:With the Supreme Court taking up the transgendered bathroom case, it's only a matter of days...Quote:
Oh, where is seamaster when you need him?
I rarely venture into the LGBTQWERTY threads, so I can only assume that you all keep things as classy and civilized as the rest of the R&P discussion topics.RetiredAg said:
I'm confident this issue will be discussed with respect and compassion, right?
It seems reasonable to me to think of citizens as shareholders in their country. If they aren't, how does one become a shareholder in the USA? Who determines the criteria for becoming a shareholder and for being permitted to vote?k2aggie07 said:
Universal access. Limited suffrage.
Just because you own an iPhone doesn't mean you vote in their shareholders meetings.
Solo Tetherball Champ said:
Personally, I believe that you should be a tax payer in order to qualify to vote. Someone who doesn't have any skin in the game should not have the right to make decisions on how my taxes are allocated.
Perhaps, but it is seems unreasonable that everyone has the same share value in their country based on nothing but location of birth (to me).kurt vonnegut said:It seems reasonable to me to think of citizens as shareholders in their country. If they aren't, how does one become a shareholder in the USA? Who determines the criteria for becoming a shareholder and for being permitted to vote?k2aggie07 said:
Universal access. Limited suffrage.
Just because you own an iPhone doesn't mean you vote in their shareholders meetings.
I would expand that to anyone who is subject to the laws passed should have a say in who is passing them.Solo Tetherball Champ said:
Personally, I believe that you should be a tax payer in order to qualify to vote. Someone who doesn't have any skin in the game should not have the right to make decisions on how my taxes are allocated.
Solo Tetherball Champ said:
*eyeroll*
When there is a tax on nearly everything under the sun, yes, we are all tax payers.
I knew I should have inserted the word "net" before tax payer in my post. I had assumed that you guys understood where I was going. By this I mean if you pay more in taxes than you directly receive from a the government, you should vote.
Otherwise you fall into the trap of voting for tax benefits for yourself.
Don't get me wrong. I am a non-voter and am opposed to any coercive state. I just believe that if one is being coerced by the state, then they should have some say in who is doing the coercing if they so choose.k2aggie07 said:
Congrats, you are thoroughly a product of the Enlightenment.
Solo Tetherball Champ said:
Why should someone who doesn't directly pay taxes get to have a say in how those resources are allocated? Ultimately, that is what elections are about.
I cannot trust someone who does not have the wisdom and foresight to provide for himself to determine the future of this country.
There needs to be some sort of barrier to entry for voting. Simply giving the same privilege to all is a recipe for disaster.
Solo Tetherball Champ said:
Personally, I believe that you should be a tax payer in order to qualify to vote. Someone who doesn't have any skin in the game should not have the right to make decisions on how my taxes are allocated.
FIFYSolo Tetherball Champ said:
Personally, I believe that anyone on government assistance shouldn't be allowed to vote. Someone who doesn't have any skin in the game should not have the right to make decisions on how my taxes are allocated.
GoHomeLeg said:FIFYSolo Tetherball Champ said:
Personally, I believe that anyone on government assistance shouldn't be allowed to vote. Someone who doesn't have any skin in the game should not have the right to make decisions on how my taxes are allocated.
Not if it's mine.kurt vonnegut said:GoHomeLeg said:FIFYSolo Tetherball Champ said:
Personally, I believe that anyone on government assistance shouldn't be allowed to vote. Someone who doesn't have any skin in the game should not have the right to make decisions on how my taxes are allocated.
Does white collar welfare count as govt' assistance?
Quote:
Do you understand that we don't leave in a true meritocracy? That accidents of birth and life can determine a person's position in society? It's not enough to justify silencing a person's voice in our political system because of their level of income. That's not a valid determination of an individual's worth to society. You're advocating for a true underclass in our nation, the kind we supposedly got rid of.
k2aggie07 said:
Y'all got sucked down the red herring even after I called it out as such.
C'mon. Stay on target.
Its nearly a tautology that the best governance will be done best by the best people. The question is what quality defines best? And how do we identify this quality? And empower these people?
People can recover from anything. Most of the time people choose not to. You may not get back to the same level of living that you were used to, but the fact that your business failed does not mean you're destined for poverty.Quote:
Human beings are not omnipotent. Agency exists but is contingent on external factors. It's great that your in-laws were successful. There are thousands of people who also worked hard and ran into a bad stretch that they could never recover from. It doesn't make them bad people who are unworthy of participating in our democracy.
Solo Tetherball Champ said:People can recover from anything. Most of the time people choose not to. You may not get back to the same level of living that you were used to, but the fact that your business failed does not mean you're destined for poverty.Quote:
Human beings are not omnipotent. Agency exists but is contingent on external factors. It's great that your in-laws were successful. There are thousands of people who also worked hard and ran into a bad stretch that they could never recover from. It doesn't make them bad people who are unworthy of participating in our democracy.
Yes, I agree. That's why it's a red herring. It's not my position. That's why I'm trying to steer the discussion away from "people with money are better voters than poor people" and towards "what makes someone a good voter?"Dr. Watson said:k2aggie07 said:
Y'all got sucked down the red herring even after I called it out as such.
C'mon. Stay on target.
Its nearly a tautology that the best governance will be done best by the best people. The question is what quality defines best? And how do we identify this quality? And empower these people?
Nothing has been established for the argument that those who are net tax payers are the "best people." And so far that's been the sole criteria offered. If this were a true, equal meritocracy where every person was born in the exact same circumstances with the exact same opportunities, your position might have some merit. As it stands, it excludes a lot of people based on nothing more than economic vagaries. A person takes a chance to open their own business, the country goes into recession and they lose the business. Whoops. Can't vote anymore. Hope you turn it around.
k2aggie07 said:
Its nearly a tautology that the best governance will be done best by the best people. The question is what quality defines best? And how do we identify this quality? And empower these people?