Why would wishing to change voting requirements be incongruous with personal liberty? I think the point being made is that if you have limited voting access to those who have property, you are less likely to have votes for the redistribution of wealth.
I think its a bit much myself -- but I would get rid of the direct election of Senators in a heartbeat.
It might not be, but only to the extent that your personal liberties would be preserved if you weren't among the group allowed to vote.
But to me, the oft-cited argument that land owners have more of a "vested inerest" in the community is, to put it generously, bullshit. If I live in a particular place, I spend as much time subject to its laws, consuming its services, and paying its taxes (all its taxes- do landlords not build property tax rates into their tenants' rent?) as the guy who owns his house next door. I fail to see how I could be considered less entitled to a vote merely because the deed to the property at my address doesn't necessarily have my name on it.
I think the point you drive home about paying taxes indirectly via rent is the most compelling argument against their position (which I do think is foolhardy). Only incredibly foolish renters want higher income taxes, thinking that they won't pay.
However, in a very twisted sense, it is an attempt to preserve personal liberty... it's just an assumed "MY personal liberty against those lazy layabouts that just want the government to tax my money and give it to them".
In a manner of speaking, it's a form of gerrymandering - affecting your opponent's voting base. Disgusting at a level that makes me question the ethics of the individual, regardless of their stance.
Now, this isn't to say I'm not in support of the idea of a separation between citizen and civilian. But based on property ownership? No way.
As the only poster who has lived among the wealthy landowners as one of them at one time (before I left that socioeconomic strata for a life of service), I understand exactly what he means.
What he refers to is the consolidation of power among the wealthy and the exclusion of the middle class (the average of whom does not own his or her own home), working class, and below. He's also referring to the exclusion of clergy (the average of whom does not own his or her own home).
We still must use reason to counter such claims, but make no mistake: this is self-serving rationalization at its most blatant.
Anyone who thinks that his point is based on philosophical issues, reasoning off first principles, or Constitutional fidelity is shamefully naive about the psychology of the upper class.
Comments 14
I think its a bit much myself -- but I would get rid of the direct election of Senators in a heartbeat.
Reply
But to me, the oft-cited argument that land owners have more of a "vested inerest" in the community is, to put it generously, bullshit. If I live in a particular place, I spend as much time subject to its laws, consuming its services, and paying its taxes (all its taxes- do landlords not build property tax rates into their tenants' rent?) as the guy who owns his house next door. I fail to see how I could be considered less entitled to a vote merely because the deed to the property at my address doesn't necessarily have my name on it.
Reply
However, in a very twisted sense, it is an attempt to preserve personal liberty... it's just an assumed "MY personal liberty against those lazy layabouts that just want the government to tax my money and give it to them".
Reply
Reply
And if you pronounce that like Elmer Fudd, you'll know what that really means.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Now, this isn't to say I'm not in support of the idea of a separation between citizen and civilian. But based on property ownership? No way.
Reply
As the only poster who has lived among the wealthy landowners as one of them at one time (before I left that socioeconomic strata for a life of service), I understand exactly what he means.
What he refers to is the consolidation of power among the wealthy and the exclusion of the middle class (the average of whom does not own his or her own home), working class, and below. He's also referring to the exclusion of clergy (the average of whom does not own his or her own home).
We still must use reason to counter such claims, but make no mistake: this is self-serving rationalization at its most blatant.
Anyone who thinks that his point is based on philosophical issues, reasoning off first principles, or Constitutional fidelity is shamefully naive about the psychology of the upper class.
Reply
Leave a comment