'Restrict Voting to Property Owners' saysTea

[conspiracybeliever]

I hate to have to correct you: you cannot loose what you never had.

Just because you rent doesn't mean it's not your home. You're still losing your home.

[J.B.]

Just because you rent doesn't mean it's not your home. You're still losing your home.

He was referring to the TEA Party losing its mind. . .

[conspiracybeliever]

Especially single women with children. They tend to be one of the most irresponsible voting blocks around.

Seriously, this does start go become a real issue that will gain political legs as we keep shrinking the tax base. The income tax is the most egregious example: When you have half the electorate excused from the levy they impose entirely on the other half, you have a genuine problem of economic justice and political legitimacy.

The bolded is your opinion. When you have the 1% at the top who actually decide who is in office and about 75% believing they are making decisions that will protect that 75% under them that is the problem.

[Cradle of Fish]

There'd be no better way to set the USA up for a communist revolution decades in the future.

[Neognosis]

You cannot ban the vote from those on public assistance.

The right to vote is inalienable and the right of every citizen of majority age, excepting certain criminals, who give up certain rights upon conviction.

I find it interesting that you find THAT to be a conflict of interest, but nobody seems to want to ban business owners from voting, or heads of corporations from voting.

I am beside myself that anyone who grew up in the united states and claims to have a high school education does not realize how bad an idea either of these is.

On a basic level, what's to keep property owners from making laws without check or balance by non-property owners that make slaves (virtual or real) out of non-property owners?

I am literally in awe of the ignorance it requires to support such a bad idea.

[ohio traveler]

I'd love to see measures restricting anyone receiving public assistance disqualified from voting for as long as they are on the government teat.

[danielost]

here is an idea, a bad one. only property owners can vote, only non property owners can hold office. which means after the first term they wouldnt be able to run again probable.

Edited December 2, 2010 by danielost

[eqgumby]

You cannot ban the vote from those on public assistance.

The right to vote is inalienable and the right of every citizen of majority age, excepting certain criminals, who give up certain rights upon conviction.

I find it interesting that you find THAT to be a conflict of interest, but nobody seems to want to ban business owners from voting, or heads of corporations from voting.

I am beside myself that anyone who grew up in the united states and claims to have a high school education does not realize how bad an idea either of these is.

On a basic level, what's to keep property owners from making laws without check or balance by non-property owners that make slaves (virtual or real) out of non-property owners?

I am literally in awe of the ignorance it requires to support such a bad idea.

I see the point though...it's about having a "vested interest" in the community. So many people don't care, because they DON'T have a vested interest in their community, beyond "...what can my community give me?"

In a perfect world, every citizen who lived in the US would realize they have a vested interest in their community.

[sam12six]

You cannot ban the vote from those on public assistance.

The right to vote is inalienable and the right of every citizen of majority age, excepting certain criminals, who give up certain rights upon conviction.

And how different a statement would "The right to vote is inalienable and the right of every citizen of majority age, excepting certain criminals and those on public assistance, who give up certain rights upon conviction or upon enrollment in aid programs." be?

You can disagree with the justness of doing it, but it's silly to say, "We can't take away people's right to vote - except for this one group of people whose right to vote we take away with good cause. "

I find it interesting that you find THAT to be a conflict of interest, but nobody seems to want to ban business owners from voting, or heads of corporations from voting.

I find the concept of someone who would vote for candidates who they believe would encourage an environment in which they will have the opportunity to flourish a different thing from someone who would vote for candidates who they believe will just hand them money.

I am beside myself that anyone who grew up in the united states and claims to have a high school education does not realize how bad an idea either of these is.

On a basic level, what's to keep property owners from making laws without check or balance by non-property owners that make slaves (virtual or real) out of non-property owners?

I am literally in awe of the ignorance it requires to support such a bad idea.

It's great an all that you find anyone who doesn't share your opinion either uneducated or ignorant. If you just want to call people names, that's cool.

On the other hand, if you actually want to discuss things beyond the implications that voters make nonvoters slaves, I'm sure many of us would love to bask in your superior intellect.

Let me summarize (as well as my limited capacity and education will allow) what your position appears to be and you can correct me where I'm wrong:

We cannot take the right to vote from those on public assistance because it is an inalienable right.

We can take away the right to vote from certain convicts because we (as a country) have decided that conviction of certain crimes should ban a person for life from the vote.

We cannot declare (as a country) that receiving public assistance should ban a person from voting during the time they are actively receiving public funds because voting is an inalienable right.

This is where you stand, right?

[J.B.]

The only reason there should be inalienable rights to begin with is because of that slippery slope notion. Can't escape that somewhere down the line the unjust will grab power and ban the just from doing their duty. If we really are that (rightfully) insecure about life, it's definitely only a matter of time until we're destroyed by our own hand, or by something we missed in fear. Something avoidable.

[Neognosis]

I see the point though...it's about having a "vested interest" in the community. So many people don't care, because they DON'T have a vested interest in their community, beyond "...what can my community give me?"

And you think property ownership equates to a vested in the community beyond "what can the community give me?"

So people who don't own property, but instead rent in Anytown USA don't have kids who go to the schools there, don't care about having their garbage picked up, don't care about crime, public health, fire and ambulance services, public roads, food and water purity, their environmnent, etc. etc?

And owning property automatically means that you DO care about these things? NOt just keepng your OWN taxes down?

And how different a statement would "The right to vote is inalienable and the right of every citizen of majority age, excepting certain criminals and those on public assistance, who give up certain rights upon conviction or upon enrollment in aid programs." be?

It would be completely different, as you would be taking away an inalienable right from someone just for using a public assistance program.

I find the concept of someone who would vote for candidates who they believe would encourage an environment in which they will have the opportunity to flourish a different thing from someone who would vote for candidates who they believe will just hand them money.

That's a pretty big and unwarranted assumption, and it also gives an awful lot of faith that what's good for individual business owners is good for the community. The anti-environmental lobbying that large businesses do would seem to indicate the opposite, at least in some cases.

It's great an all that you find anyone who doesn't share your opinion either uneducated or ignorant. If you just want to call people names, that's cool.

I'm glad you are cool with it, because if you support the idea that people who don't own property can not vote, you are CLEARLY ignorant of past human history. Or you just don't care past your own self interest. And let's be absolutely clear, this is not about MY opinion, this is about an attack on the most fundamental of rights that make up the very core of our society.

Let me summarize (as well as my limited capacity and education will allow) what your position appears to be and you can correct me where I'm wrong:

We cannot take the right to vote from those on public assistance because it is an inalienable right.

We can take away the right to vote from certain convicts because we (as a country) have decided that conviction of certain crimes should ban a person for life from the vote.

We cannot declare (as a country) that receiving public assistance should ban a person from voting during the time they are actively receiving public funds because voting is an inalienable right.

Not only is it an inalienable right, it is fundamental to our representative republic. People should not be punished or silenced because they receive public assistance. You are messing with the MOST fundamental right we have in this country, the very core of our republic. The only times that a person of majority age gives certain rights are upon conviction of certain crimes or when they join the military. The right to vote is not purchased, it is self evident and inalienable. What you are essentially proposing is that the right to vote must be purchased.If you cannot see how this is the very antithesis of the American collective value, then yes, you are ignorant of our history. That's not meant as a personal slight, it simply is to say that you demonstrate a distinct lack of appreciation for not only our history, but the values upon which our society is founded.

Edited December 2, 2010 by Neognosis

[Harte]

Just because you rent doesn't mean it's not your home. You're still losing your home.

QM was talking about losing your mind (the Tea Partiers,) not losing your home.

Harte

[sam12six]

It would be completely different, as you would be taking away an inalienable right from someone just for using a public assistance program.

And the only difference between that and taking away an inalienable right from someone for being convicted of a crime is the fact that the latter has been voted into law and the former has not.

That's a pretty big and unwarranted assumption, and it also gives an awful lot of faith that what's good for individual business owners is good for the community. The anti-environmental lobbying that large businesses do would seem to indicate the opposite, at least in some cases.

I do not think it is an unwarranted assumption. Have there never been buses to the projects to collect voters who will support the candidate in favor of welfare?

I have no faith that what's good for individual business owners is good for the community. My post had nothing to do with that.

My post stated that I have no problem with someone voting for a candidate who will promote an environment in which he or she can flourish. This is human nature. We all have SOME degree of selfishness and tend to vote for candidates who cater to this in some way. Whether you're talking about encouraging business startups, eliminating discrimination, forcing people to buy health insurance, or whatever issue gives you an easier road, I have no problem with that.

What I do have a problem with is this: The government is taking money out of your pocket and turning around and handing that money to me. You can vote for it to stop. I can vote for it to continue. It is a wash and the process continues.

I'm glad you are cool with it, because if you support the idea that people who don't own property can not vote, you are CLEARLY ignorant of past human history. Or you just don't care past your own self interest.

Progress at least. You didn't assign my opinion to me and then call me ignorant. You actually said holding a certain opinion would require me to be ignorant. I agree.

Previously in the thread, I have pointed out that:

1)No one but the government owns property in the US so no one would get a vote.

2)The logic that is predicated on the concept that those who pay the taxes are more concerned than those who do not is flawed because renters pay the taxes (albeit indirectly).

3)That the legal issues of having foreign nationals and corporations who legally own property turns the whole concept into a cluster----

This clearly indicates that I'm against property ownership as a basis for voting. One could almost say that anyone who chose to overlook this is... nah, never mind.

Not only is it an inalienable right, it is fundamental to our representative republic. People should not be punished or silenced because they receive public assistance. You are messing with the MOST fundamental right we have in this country, the very core of our republic. The only times that a person of majority age gives certain rights are upon conviction of certain crimes or when they join the military. The right to vote is not purchased, it is self evident and inalienable. What you are essentially proposing is that the right to vote must be purchased.If you cannot see how this is the very antithesis of the American collective value, then yes, you are ignorant of our history.

If you were here saying that it is wrong for criminals to be stripped of the right to vote, I would agree with you. What you are saying though, is that it's OK to strip the inalienable right from one group and not from a different group.

This I disagree with. It is either an inalienable right that cannot be stripped government or it is not. If it is, there is no legal justification for doing so to anyone. If it is not, the justification for doing so is simply a matter of public opinion at the time.

As JB pointed out, it's a slippery slope and the only thing that protects us from those is staying off altogether.

[Harte]

if the founding fathers had wanted only property owners to vote that is the way we would have gotten it.

That is the way we got it.

When the Constitution was written, only white male property owners (about 10 to 16 percent of the nation's population) had the vote.

Read more: U.S. Voting Rights http://www.infoplease.com/timelines/voting.html#ixzz16z0KDuJU

Harte

[conspiracybeliever]

I see the point though...it's about having a "vested interest" in the community. So many people don't care, because they DON'T have a vested interest in their community, beyond "...what can my community give me?"

In a perfect world, every citizen who lived in the US would realize they have a vested interest in their community.

This is true. In a perfect world every citizen would have a vested interest in the community instead of wondering what more can the community take from me and give nothing back.

[Harte]

Half the country doesn't vote anyway.

How about we take away, or suspend, the voting rights of people that don't vote?

Harte

[conspiracybeliever]

He was referring to the TEA Party losing its mind. . .

Sorry I misunderstood the post.

[questionmark]

Half the country doesn't vote anyway.

How about we take away, or suspend, the voting rights of people that don't vote?

Harte

At least have them thrown in jail if they dare to open their mouths to b**** about politics.

[venqax]

That is the way we got it.

Harte

True. If the FFs had wanted everyone to have voting rights, they would have said so. In fact, there are no voting "rights". Voting is not a right in any way, shape, or form and is not referenced in the Const at all. Where in the BoR is the Voting Clause? Voting as a right was #34,521 on the left's List of Invented and Fantastical Rights. The D caucuses and most SC justices have copies of it on their shelves next to "Das Kapital", and "The How To Guide to 1984"

[rashore]

there's voting stuff mentioned in the Constitution..

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

I may be misunderstanding that line, but I thought the people of several states choosing a representative sort of meant voting by the people.

[eqgumby]

there's voting stuff mentioned in the Constitution..

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States

I may be misunderstanding that line, but I thought the people of several states choosing a representative sort of meant voting by the people.

But not WHAT people is the point being made. It was land owners that wanted to be the voters. It made perfect sense to them.

[conspiracybeliever]

But not WHAT people is the point being made. It was land owners that wanted to be the voters. It made perfect sense to them.

So did slavery.

[eqgumby]

So did slavery.

Exactly my point.

[questionmark]

But not WHAT people is the point being made. It was land owners that wanted to be the voters. It made perfect sense to them.

Ah, one who gets it...

Democracy in its beginnings (where we would be in ancient Greece), was not quite what we consider Democracy. In fact it was a long fight to get all rights we consider "normal" within a democracy today.

[eqgumby]

Ah, one who gets it...

Democracy in its beginnings (where we would be in ancient Greece), was not quite what we consider Democracy. In fact it was a long fight to get all rights we consider "normal" within a democracy today.

Again, exactly.

What people don't seem to get, is these "rights" are determined by humans, and often must be fought for...not just current or new rights (as new as the 60's civil rights), but really rights that these people take for granted, like the "right to vote". If you were a white 24 yr old share-cropper in Georgia that could read and write in 1790, odds are you didn't have the same rights as the 30 year old owner of the plot of land you farmed. People don't get that.