Should we allow/disallow voting based on sex? Or should it instead be a more action-oriented criterion, which would disqualify most women (and many others)?
For example: must own a home
We don't allow children to vote for obvious reasons, but roughly the same results would be achieved if homeownership was mandatory, while not being explicitly discriminatory based on age.
2
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
9 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Voting used to mean basically one vote per family household, not really excluding women. That has it's merits, but barring women the right to vote seems cruel. Furthermore there are plenty of stupid men.
ConfusedMan
Level 5
June 18, 2020
0
Which would mean it is decided by the male head of household. Cruel? It used to be men could beat their wives with no legal consequences. Cruel? Not cruel, it is misogynistic. You really think women are property? There are psychological differences between women and men, there are mental approach differences. But to keep humans going all you need is a relatively few captive sperm donors.
It's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.
Afterthought
Level 7
June 18, 2020
0
Abigail Adams to John Adams Braintree, Mass., March 31, 1776
"I have sometimes been ready to think that the passion for liberty cannot be equally strong in the breasts of those who have been accustomed to deprive their fellow creatures of theirs. Of this I am certain that it is not founded upon that generous and Christian principle of doing to others as we would that others should do unto us. . . . "
Voting in an organization based upon fraud is subject to whatever those in power dictate.
The first obvious fraud that documents the existence of a dictatorship is the general use of the counterfeit versions of the word democracy, which then follows with the counterfeiting of the words liberal, republic, and federation.
It is a dictatorship when democracy means dictatorship.
It is a dictatorship when republic means dictatorship
It is a dictatorship when federation means dictatorship
It is a dictatorship when liberals liberating the people from dictatorship are called criminals, and those who lie, cheat, steal, rob, rape, torture, murder, and mass murder, are called liberals.
The "votes" in a dictatorship (an organization based on fraud) are counted by the counterfeit democrats, the counterfeit republicans, at the counterfeit federation headquarters, and except for rare occasions the next dictator running the dictatorship is the one chosen by the dictators, and their investors.
Voting on a jury in a Court of Law, on the other hand, can reestablish the original meanings of democrat, liberal, republic, and federation, liberating the people from dictatorship.
So it stands to reason that those who decide who votes in a dictatorship built from lies are not going to allow those who won't vote in the next dictator: to vote. If the dictators dictated who votes, who do you really think they are going to allow the voting "privilege?"
It also stands to reason that those who decide who is allowed on a jury in a dictatorship are similarly not going to allow anyone who won't maintain the power of the dictators running the dictatorship: to sit on a jury.
That brings reasonable thinkers to the precipice of the vast store of information concerning what is done by people in places where dictatorships are outlawed. It is a vast store of information, mostly untouched.
Those who vote against dictatorship demand their places on their juries. Grass-roots, organic, adaptive, actual, democracy, actual republicans creating and maintaining republics, and actual federations of independent republics.
Those who vote against dictatorship demand their fellow liberators elected to positions of power known as county sheriff, magistrate (justice of the peace), private prosecutor, and militia officers.
When the dictators take over, as they did in 1789, they take-over the Law Power. The criminals create a club, and you aint in it.
Josf-Kelley
Level 8
June 18, 2020
0
"The first obvious fraud that documents the existence of a dictatorship is the general use of the counterfeit versions of the word democracy, which then follows with the counterfeiting of the words liberal, republic, and federation.
It is a dictatorship when democracy means dictatorship.
It is a dictatorship when republic means dictatorship
It is a dictatorship when federation means dictatorship
It is a dictatorship when liberals liberating the people from dictatorship are called criminals, and those who lie, cheat, steal, rob, rape, torture, murder, and mass murder, are called liberals"
"AMEN AMEN AMEN!
This certainly seems out of the blue and sexist. You have disabled vets that don't pay taxes, you have foreign powers and illegal immigrants that own property. I am with Deplorable on this one. "I think you must be a legal citizen of the USA to vote, who is above the age of 18. I don't care otherwise if you paint yourself polkadot and call yourself a trans-morphed orangutan, own a house, live in a RV or under a bridge."
Lexpd1145
Level 7
June 18, 2020
0
It's not about the voter when a politician can lie without consequence and the ballot box is left unprotected.
here are 2 solutions that will instantaneously solve a great number of current problems.
first, all campaign promises are legal binding contracts between the pendant and constituent. every politician can suffer legal ramifications if a. the constituent can prove the promise b. the constituent can prove the vote and c. prove failure to pursue any and all avenues to legally achieve promise.
second, all voter fraud is to be considered treason. in a country where the people are meant to govern themselves, it boggles my mind how undervalued the vote is. anyone caught tampering with votes in any way should be arrested, banished from the states or put to death.
also, just for good measure, an additional social security number should be assigned to everyone registered to vote, tied to the thumbprint with your local ID and required when voting. but this is just extra security.
solopro
Level 6
June 18, 2020
1
I think you must be a legal citizen of the USA to vote, who is above the age of 18. I don't care otherwise if you paint yourself polkadot and call yourself a trans-morphed orangutan, own a house, live in a RV or under a bridge.
DeplorableToo
Level 7
June 18, 2020
1
My apologies... but you've triggered a rant 
First: Sure... women should be able to vote, provided they qualify like anybody else.
In my opinion, only taxpayers should vote.
No Taxation without Representation, suggests a logical counterpart:
No Representation without Taxation.
The universal 'right' to vote is a misguided Collectivist notion that approximates mob-rule, and was never the intent of the Founders. It simply doesn't work... I mean... look around.
The first argument against voter eligibility criteria is always: "that's discrimination!!"
Yes. Yes it is.
Voting is presently considered a civil right; i.e., a "right" bestowed by the government... which, by it's very nature, is just another term for a privilege.
Privileges have qualifying criteria. All qualifying criteria for anything, anywhere, any time, constitute 'discrimination'... that's what they're for, to discriminate between those who qualify and those who don't.
There's nothing "bad" about discrimination in and of itself, that's just another concept hijacked by Progressives to use as a blunt object against rational thought. Discrimination is bad when bad people use erroneous criteria to impose their will on a targeted group.
That's why we recognize actual rights for everyone, guaranteed to be protected by the very same gov't we're funding with taxes; which is one of the reasons that it's very important whether it operates correctly and effectively. Erroneous criteria that targeted any group for exclusion from any privilege, would violate their right to equal treatment, and would therefore be inappropriate discrimination.
That's not an argument against criteria categorically, just one against erroneous criteria with malicious intent.
Government is a man-made system, it works however we say it works.
We have no natural rights within that system. Our natural rights transcend gov't entirely, which is the only reason that the gov't has no rights of its own to violate them.
Voting is merely one of the man-made mechanisms within the gov't. As such, how effectively the mechanism functions will ultimately impact the effectiveness of the gov't itself, and of the society for which it was established.
Voting was originally established as a privilege afforded to property owners. The presumption was that people with a stake in the community would both have, and predominately act upon, the realization that responsible stewardship of the community is in everybody's best-interest, including their own... even at the expense of any of their more superficial self-interests.
People with no skin in the game aren't affected by the costs of (ostensibly) nurturing the common good. As such, they have no direct interest in responsible stewardship. Their only operative concern is, "what's in it for me?"
They are, of course, quite capable of voting responsibly anyway... but they are not incentivized to do so. People will, by and large, follow incentive over principle, if they can be convinced to simply dismiss the principle as misguided, with the deceptive and prodding rationalizations of those who stand to benefit; in this case, collectivists.
They'll vote to consume public resources (other people's money) in whatever way they believe will benefit them the most, regardless of the cost to liberty or to wallets, because it's not their liberty or wallets that are being pillaged. This is how we end up $22+T in debt, ~70% of the budget (and growing) going to social programs, and the never-ending drumbeat demanding that it's still not enough (it never will be enough.)
I don't, however, think that property ownership is the best criteria, at least not anymore. The easiest relevant measure of participation and contribution to society that I can think of, is whether you pay taxes.
Of course someone who does not pay net taxes, may arguably contribute to society in any number of ways. But, those arguments would be subjective, and the ways intangible.
It's a common tenet of civilized society, that: If you're not chipping in for the pizza, you don't get to pick the toppings... just enjoy your free pizza.
If they've decided to contribute "in their own way" instead of pursuing the mundane path up the ladder of personal economic progress, that was their own decision. They're doing what they value, not what society values, necessarily. If they're not paying taxes, then they're still not chipping in for the pizza, no matter how you slice it. (see what I did there?)
The next argument you'll hear is that voting criteria, based on taxation as a measure of contribution to the community, effectively excludes poor people.
Yes. Yes it does.
The implication that excluding poor people is the secret reason for voting criteria in the first place, is another Progressive mantra that, again... ignores what is right and what works, in favor of what sounds nice and what they can thereby get away with in the interest of collectivism.
"Poor people" is not a static predetermined group, as it is invariably portrayed. If you are poor or rich, that isn't who you are, it merely describes the present state of your finances, which is likely to change. That's what is so fundamentally sacrosanct about equal opportunity. You don't have a right not to be among the poor, but you do have a recognized right to the same chance that anybody else has to work your way out of it.
By the time such an individual has established themselves as a contributing member of the community; they will have acquired knowledge, perspective, and experience that will help them to make voting decisions that are more likely to help other people do the same.
The related argument, that the rich will simply vote to keep the poor impoverished, is just more Progressive class-warfare propaganda that belies reason. Maximizing the number of poor people does nothing to help society or the rich individual, quite the opposite.
Like all of the Progressives' other "good ideas", universal suffrage makes them sound like they care, so they defend it fanatically in spite of the damage it does. Universal suffrage sounds nice and fair, when in fact it is neither; just another giant step toward collectivism.
Sound public policy is not based on what sounds nice anyway, it's based on what works, constrained within the context of what is right.
Universal suffrage is not sound public policy.
rway
Level 7
June 18, 2020
3
Not really a “rant” ... “Ranting” involves a bit more emotion ... I sometimes get carried away and ... “Rant”.
Otherwise, this was well written, cogent and I agree ... mostly.
I think that a household that is a “Net Taxpayer” (actually pays taxes after deductions, allowances and rebates) should get 2 votes even if the woman is a “Stay at home, Mom or Wife” even though one person doesn’t actually pay taxes directly.
I also think that someone who is legitimately retired ... on Social Security ... but was a “Net Taxpayer” their entire working life ... should retain the right to vote.
Also Honorably Served and Discharged Military Personnel ... as Heinlein put it; “Service is Citizenship
rway:
@ZapRowsdower
Just a word about home ownership as a criteria... there's no such thing any more.
Even if the bank gave you a piece of paper that says you don't owe them any more money... you're still just renting.
Don't pay your property tax a few times in a row, and you'll get to meet the true owners of your home when they bring the Sheriff to evict you.
They'll probably tell you that "you didn't build that", as they march you out of the People's House.
That's way more tragic, even, than it sounds.
Private Property was one of the pillars of America; a natural implication of Individual Sovereignty and an indispensable component of self-determination and the ability to improve your own lot in a "classless" society.
And they just took it away with the stroke of a pen... and nobody even noticed.
That's just one part of the steady "Progression" into tyranny that we've been on for a long time.
@rway
Yup. Didn’t say anything about home “ownership” ... I might’ve thought to mention “property” but ... as you so aptly pointed out ... if you don’t pay your “Property Tax” ...
But then, that makes you a “Net” Taxpayer ...
I have many NY friends and acquaintances that are still walking around stunned (and angry at Trump) by the amount of Property Tax they find themselves having to pay since Pres. Trump “capped” the deductions. As far as They are concerned, this is a Trump Tax ... and no amount of Logic is going to change their mind.
rway:
@Bay0Wulf Thanks. I can't say I've thought it all the way through, but my first inclination is: No Exceptions.
except... I do agree that old people don't count. A culture that doesn't honor and listen to its old people is a culture of fools, and to hard-code that into the mechanics of the society would be just as foolish. They've paid their dues already, and they represent whatever experience and wisdom our society has accumulated. We owe it to them (and ourselves) to solicit their input; especially at the voting booth.
Couples filing jointly are effectively both taxpayers, so they would each qualify to vote (or not), anyway.
But, I don't think anybody who draws a paycheck from public money should be paying taxes at all.
Nor should they be voting, at least not at whatever level of government they are employed.
When a Federal employee, including a Dept of Defense employee, pays national income tax... that's just moving money from one pocket to another. That money just inflates the DoD budget, and is then siphoned into other programs by laundering it through the IRS. If Uncle Sam gave me $10 and wants $1 back, then dude... just give me $9 in the first place, we'll call it even and avoid all the IRS paperwork.
And when they vote on national issues or politicians, that's an inherent conflict of interest.
The government has no authority to decide how to run itself, it operates purely by consent of the governed.
When you become, effectively, part of the government... you need to accept that.
In the military, they used to tell us (not sincerely, though):
"You signed up to defend Democracy, not to practice it."
A more obvious example might be at the local level. If you're the Dog Catcher who works for the city, you shouldn't be voting on whether the city should get rid of that position. You're pretty likely to vote No, regardless of whether it's the best answer for the city and its residents.
The people who are providing the resources should be deciding how they are put to use (pizza toppings.)
rway:
@Bay0Wulf yeah, I noticed that, my bad... I changed that reply to ZapRowsdower
That's the corrosiveness of obfuscation and political sleight-of-hand, isn't it?
Now those NY residents can no longer pawn off the costs of all those expensive social programs, onto other communities who were subsidizing their deductions... They're now finally dealing with the consequences of their own decisions in the voting booth.
And of course.... blaming it on Trump. (smh)
Hello rway, I'm wondering how the disabled fit in your "rant" (lol)?
They are disabled probably through no fault of their own. They can't contribute much to society; they are probably on the receiving end (benefits) rather than on the giving end (tax). Would you say they shouldn't be entitled to the voting right?
rway:
Hi @Naomi, good question. No exceptions. (except old people, as described above.)
I disagree that they can't contribute much, but it can surely be more difficult for them to find a productive niche sometimes.
However, insofar as they find themselves on the receiving end of other people's money, that doesn't give them any right to dictate the terms of that relief from the voting booth.
Voting is not a right. It is simply the mechanism through which the people providing public revenue ensure that it is used in accordance with their consent. If you are not one of those people, then you have no established interest in either offering or withholding your consent.
Why you're not chipping in, is not relevant to that observation.
@rway For every person added to the population of the earth the area of property available for ownership is decreased by a few square feet. We should forget about property ownership or any rights or privileges because we cannot stop the progression of leadership today. The world is becoming an oligarchy and all we can do is grab some lube, bend over and take it.
Amazing rant. I seem to have rustled some jimmies, but you're on the with the spirit of my question.
To push back, is there any basis for having 1 person (soul?) = 1 vote? If the premise is that you must be contributing to the collective fund (gov't) to have a say, then why should that say not be in proportion to the level of contribution?
rway:
@Pand0ro What I want is irrelevant.
...just trying to brush enough dirt off of what is "right" to reveal what it is.
Government is Force. That's literally all that it is.
That force is wielded by bureaucrats, at the direction of voters... ostensibly.
Any power that we abdicate to others will be abused, that's what people do... try to do, anyway.
That's why I think it's important that we give up as little as practical to bureaucrats, constrain them to its legitimate application, and hold them accountable rather than simply trusting them with it.
Our mechanism for maintaining all that, from within the system anyway, is our vote.
So indirectly, voting is power too. Your vote is the means by which you direct Force against your neighbor. That's a big deal. I think you owe your neighbor a pretty good explanation about where you got the right to do that.
i.e., If you claim a right to vote, then what is the basis of that claim?
"I'm the one paying for it" seems a reasonable claim.
But... are there other reasonable claims? What are they?
"It affects my life" is a claim that you'll hear sometimes, one that is unconvincingly vague... and not tethered to anything tangible.
If Government is affecting your life negatively, it's probably violating its limitations; or you were trying to violate yours.
And, if it's affecting your life positively... you're welcome.
I think the biggest concern is: what about when Government is abusing the rights of, primarily, non-voters who have no way to stop it?
That is the argument for limited Government that is held to account.
The power to override unjust policy with sheer numbers, is also the power to override just policy the same way.
That's not a Constitutional Republic, it's Democracy... mob rule.
rway:
@ZapRowsdower I've been long overdue for a good jimmie-rustlin'
well now... that's the next logical question isn't it?
Proportional voting certainly sounds like a reasonable extension of the idea.
You're effectively "buying" a ticket to vote... so if you pay twice as much for your ticket, why don't you get two votes?
But I think that's the wrong way to interpret it, with the obvious disastrous implications... like simplifying the process of buying elections.
Rather, your status as a "voting member" of the community is a binary attribute. It's the difference between being actively engaged/invested in the community, or not; qualitatively, not quantitatively.
Once you are incentivized to care about whether the community functions responsibly and effectively, then you've crossed that threshold.
Until then, your only practical incentive is "what's in it for me?"
The "system" itself only exists and perpetuates itself, for everybody's benefit (ideally), at the expense of the taxpayer. Arguably, that existence is facilitated in varying degrees, to the extent that each taxpayer contributes.
But, the privilege to vote is not a quantitative return on that involuntary "investment". It's merely an acknowledgment that you are one of those taxpayers, and therefore have a legitimate interest in how your investment is being utilized regardless of the magnitude of that investment.
Interestingly (to me), if you are not actively engaged in the community to the point where you are contributing taxes... the privilege to vote also serves as an incentive to get engaged.
@rway Agree, it makes sense that the degree to which you're able to participate is not arbitrarily high based on how much you contribute.
However, from a logical point of view, it doesn't seem like a clean solution - I can see loopholes wherein individuals pay the absolute minimum amount in taxes, simply for the right to vote.
What about approaching it from the other end: paying taxes becomes binary. You either pay a fixed amount (let's say 25k/yr) or you don't. No sales tax, no brackets. Then many of the "rights" that are currently universal become more like perks, based on whether or not you paid your 25k.
rway:
@ZapRowsdower I don't think I understand...
The people paying for benefits aren't the ones receiving them. 70% of our federal budget goes to programs for people who don't pay any taxes. All the taxpayer gets in return, is those same people marching down the street breaking their windows and burning down their businesses demanding more.
@rway Even if only propertied people could vote, there would be many factions fighting over just what that meant and creating acrimonious disorder. Our government, up to the 60s, seemed to work reasonably well, by no means perfectly, and the majority of people accepted the results of elections even though they might not like them, and look forward to the next election. It worked even though after every election there were a large percentage of the population that were not happy with the results. This used to be a union where we were working for a functioning country and understood that it was made up of individuals who needed to work with other individuals. Now it seems that we want the individual to be king and the government to cater to each individuals demands.
We elected those who are in power, ignored their lies and pandering and accepted what they said because it felt good rather than being what was needed to make this country stronger, better and the ideal of every other country in the world. We have become rebellious children who are used to getting their own way and making the family suffer for it. I don't know if there is time to grow up again before our union dissolves.
@rway You do have serious and valid concerns. Again, it would be very difficult to decide what tax providers actually means. What about wounded veterans. What about people unable to work because of real, not proclaimed, misfortune and that have been paying taxes up until their disability? Local Chinese restaurants workers are often illegal immigrants. I never saw one on the street, many work 18 hour days and are paying taxes and contributing to the economy.
Again I agree there is too much government waste and spending on things that don't help anyone. When I was mentioning spoiled teenagers I was referring the whole population. It might help if troubled communities were encouraged to fix themselves rather than handing out money with no requirements.
I can understand people protesting and it is their right. The people causing destruction are criminals and should be dealt with as such. The bad thing about protests is when people go home and put away their signs and think they have done something. When the signs go away it is time to get to doing the real work to fix things. Very few have the gumption to do it.
People who experienced the great depression and WWII raised their children trying to protect them from having to experience that themselves. Many, left and right, have been spoiled into thinking life should be simple and easy. Our country needs something to keep us awake and incentivized. There is such a thing as reasonable compassion and the knowledge that none of us has the right answers. We are now going through the difficulty that will wake us up, but our America will probably not survive it.
Facts are the most women could care less about voting and politics. This is a leftist Red fantasy. They helped vote in Obama the Wicked, what a disgrace.
johnlondon
Level 8
June 18, 2020
1
Every woman I know would argue about that. And they also helped vote in Trump the Sordid, what a disgrace.
Recent Visitors 58
Photos 516 More
Posted by CourseofEmpireA little weird. All of them ina nation that is overwhelmingly Eastern Orthodox? Shouldn’t there be more of them in there instead?
Posted by InspirationHow do you explain this.
Posted by CourseofEmpireIf the international banking cartel says that you aren't allowed to have a bank account, it means you are a threat.
Posted by CourseofEmpireThis should be our objective
Posted by CourseofEmpireProposed measures to reduce fertility in the US, 1967. "Too Many Americans."
Posted by CourseofEmpireA little pita bread, tsaziki, souvlaki, mmmm, quite tasty; not sure about the social media platform though. ;)
Posted by CourseofEmpireI mean, is he really wrong?
Posted by CourseofEmpireThere are reports many larger cities are starting to see an outward drift. Maybe the early stages of this? ;)
Posted by CourseofEmpireWhy can’t C-19 vaccine mandates be taken seriously?
Posted by CourseofEmpireWarren is one of the inventors of mRNA and he believes 1 to 2 billion will die from this vaxx. [twitter.com]
Posted by CourseofEmpireThe vast majority are vaxxed. This can’t be the unvaxxed who are mostly dying. Remember, they are a few months ahead of the Northern hemisphere.
Posted by CourseofEmpireAwesome 😂
Posted by CourseofEmpireWeimar (yes, THAT Weimar) will no longer report numbers of vaxxed people being hospitalized for COVID because the truth might be used for "misinformation." -Lovecraft's Cat
Posted by CourseofEmpireAny cause. This is an amazing vaccination, you are almost invincible if you get it, everyone (except a few little side effects and such)! 😂
Posted by CourseofEmpireHow long before a politician is physically attacked and even killed for mandating vaccines? [news.com.au]
Posted by CourseofEmpireNotice how much things increased with this one vaccine?