As long as Joe is a white land owner and tax payer he should vote. Amirite?

Universal access. Limited suffrage.

Just because you own an iPhone doesn't mean you vote in their shareholders meetings.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Oh, where is seamaster when you need him?

---

With the Supreme Court taking up the transgendered bathroom case, it's only a matter of days...

---

I'm confident this issue will be discussed with respect and compassion, right?

RetiredAg said:

---

I'm confident this issue will be discussed with respect and compassion, right?

---

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.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Universal access. Limited suffrage.

Just because you own an iPhone doesn't mean you vote in their shareholders meetings.

---

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?

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.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

Universal access. Limited suffrage.

Just because you own an iPhone doesn't mean you vote in their shareholders meetings.

---

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?

---

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).

There are infinite answers to your questions. These questions were originally answered in the constitution as the shareholders are states, not people. And most state offices (governors, electors for president) were not directly elected, but elected by the legislatures of those states.

And who determined citizenship? The states. But the citizen of any state had reciprocal privileges in any other state (Art IV sec 2). It was a nice balance. It began to die almost immediately, was pretty much dead with the passing of the 14th amendment, and was well and truly dead with the passage of the 17th.

Red herring. Voting rights / right of participation in governance is not related to the particulars of being governed, from a philosophical perspective.

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.

---

I would expand that to anyone who is subject to the laws passed should have a say in who is passing them.

*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.

Congrats, you are thoroughly a product of the Enlightenment.

The shareholders were the people, as set forth in the preamble. Note that it did not say, "we the people of the states," or "we the states." Yes, the role of establishing who could and could not vote was left up to the states, but the basic unit of the republic was established as the people from the beginning.

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.

---

There is no reason to assume virtue in voting by your position on the tax ledger. Your personal fears of poor people's voting patterns does not justify leaving them out of the democratic process.

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.

You clearly missed my first post on page 1.

There was a lot of tension between the ideal scenario of universal self-governance as prescribed by the philosophy of the enlightenment and people actually agreeing and implementing a government on those lines.

There are clearly three tiers here: people, citizens, states. At the time of the penning of the constitution, those three things were different inside the US, and each had different political power.

Forget what the preamble says, the preamble is just that - it is no more binding than the declaration of independence. If you read the particulars with an unbiased eye, it is immediately clear that the actors who participated in the federal government were the states and their representatives.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Congrats, you are thoroughly a product of the Enlightenment.

---

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.

Actually, the preamble does have important explanatory power and establishes the nature and concerns of the Constitution. It is not a mere position paper like the Declaration.

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.

---

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.

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.

---

In continuing the shareholder analogy, the more shares or stock you own, the bigger your vote is. Should someone with a lot of money and property get a larger vote than someone from the middle class?

Given the current wealth gap, would there be incentive to decrease the base of low income citizens that pay some amount of income tax in order to limit who can vote. In other words, if poor people don't vote for party 'x', party 'x' may want to exempt enough people from taxation so that they can remain in power. Just thinking out loud - maybe this is the paranoia talking.

That's ok, though, because more wealth correlates to better decisions and more intelligence. So we should determine power purely by wealth. Bill Gates should rule us as a god.

Solo 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.

---

FIFY

GoHomeLeg said:

---

Solo 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.

---

FIFY

---

Does white collar welfare count as govt' assistance?

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?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

GoHomeLeg said:

---

Solo 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.

---

FIFY

---

Does white collar welfare count as govt' assistance?

---

Not if it's mine.

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.

---

Do you understand that human beings have agency? That people can effect their circumstances and the direction of their lives? I'm not a fatalist. Life is what you make of it. I've seen far too many crawl and pull themselves out of poverty to make something of themselves.


My in-laws are one such example of it. My Mother in Law comes from true Tennessee Hill-Billy Stock. Think of every mountain people stereotype - her family matches them all. I've met them. She dropped out of high school at 16. My Father In Law comes from white trash - drugs, trailers, etc. He graduated from high school, but dropped out of a Junior College after half a semester to do drugs.

Some years after they met they took stock of their lives. They got off welfare. She worked on and received her GED, he sobered up and started working hard. They will never be rich, but they are comfortable. More importantly, their children all have their lives together. My wife feels like the black sheep of the family because she only has a Bachelors degree.

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Ok, all of this is belief. Not reflected or grounded in the research and facts we have. Even from a pure logical perspective, we live in a capitalist system where there is always an underclass and will always be an underclass, no matter how hard some people work. Myths are not a good way to develop policy.

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.

---

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?"

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?

---

Cool, so all we have to do is get everyone to agree on what constitutes 'best governance'. Simple enough. EDIT: in light of your last post, it seems I may have misunderstood the post I replied to above. . . in which case, ignore me.

Funny how the atheist is the fatalist, right?

It is not a matter of simply working hard. You also have to work smart, too. For example: I work in online marketing. My specialty are the Ads you see throughout the web - Search. Display. Stalker Ads (No popups though - I have ethics). Every month new tools come out that make my job easier, streamline processes and also allow me to have creepy levels of insight into your online habits. However, those same tools will eventually completely automate my current job at the level I'm at in 5-10 years. I'm looking ahead and I'm already planning my shift into a new field that is more human focused. If I can get high enough in a food chain were I can supervise and monitor, great. Otherwise, I'll have another skill set that can serve me well, either in a new field or in my current field.