T Nation

Only Land Owners Can Vote


#1

What do you think? is it time to take this country out of the hands of those that are just here for a free ride? how do you do that you say? make is so only people who own land can vote (a mortage would count) but renting an apartment or what not would not...

Thoughts?


#2

I wouldn’t go that far, but I would be ok with voting rights only for those not on welfare.


#3

[quote]Ratchet wrote:
What do you think? is it time to take this country out of the hands of those that are just here for a free ride? how do you do that you say? make is so only people who own land can vote (a mortage would count) but renting an apartment or what not would not…

Thoughts?[/quote]

Why not take the vote away so long as someone gets money from the state?

And I mean everyone.

Military, police, politicians, civil servants, anyone receiving any kind of welfare or owns a company that does.


#4

No. I don’t believe only land owners should be allowed to vote. I do however believe that those who are drawing a sustaining level of public assistance should NOT be allowed to vote until such time as they are no longer doing so. Exceptions would be various scenarios involving military personnel and seniors who have spent their lives paying into them.

This is a vast oversimplification and definitely not my ideal, but would be a giant step better than what were doing right now. This country will continue to drown until dead in debt produced by the self destructive subsidization of non productivity as long as idle people are allowed to vote contributing people’s money into their own pocket.


#5

How about only those who pay taxes? Not only that but only those who have been paying for the last 10 years straight. The balance of power would be taken from the tax-feeders to the tax-payers. Also, no one who receives his income from taxes can vote – government employees, many professors, and larger charitable institutions.

I know many that work very hard and do not own property and get ripped off due to unfair tax laws because they are trying to be responsible by not owning stuff they cannot afford to maintain.

If only land owners were voters non-landowners would become their slaves as the balance of power is shifted to only landowners.


But still, even in this fantasy land voting would not help anything because there would still be special interests who have the power.  Voting by its very nature creates special interests that will try to control those moral individuals who would never attempt to gain such an advantage.

#6

It’s not a bad idea.
However, you’d have to divide a large portion of the land among citizens. This was actually even commended by Friedman, I think.
In Germany, for instance the largest landowner is a bizarre sect of child-rapers who worship a tortured corpse of a vengeful spirit that haunts and impregnats young, married virgins.
Should they have a vote equal to one federal state?
What about Wal-mart or McDonalds?

@Orion, the middle class rising to power? Now that be something to behold…


#7

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
How about only those who pay taxes? Not only that but only those who have been paying for the last 10 years straight. The balance of power would be taken from the tax-feeders to the tax-payers. Also, no one who receives his income from taxes can vote – government employees, many professors, and larger charitable institutions.

I know many that work very hard and do not own property and get ripped off due to unfair tax laws because they are trying to be responsible by not owning stuff they cannot afford to maintain.

If only land owners were voters non-landowners would become their slaves as the balance of power is shifted to only landowners.


But still, even in this fantasy land voting would not help anything because there would still be special interests who have the power.  Voting by its very nature creates special interests that will try to control those moral individuals who would never attempt to gain such an advantage.[/quote]

Maybe, but if they voted themselves "largesse from the public coffers" they would immediately lose their votes.

So, instead of engshrining government pork for eternity, it would become more and more difficult to get the voters for more pork.


#8

Term limits. Our founding fathers set up our political system as a service to the nation, like serving in the military. Being a politician was not supposed to be a career.


#9

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
It’s not a bad idea.
However, you’d have to divide a large portion of the land among citizens. This was actually even commended by Friedman, I think.
In Germany, for instance the largest landowner is a bizarre sect of child-rapers who worship a tortured corpse of a vengeful spirit that haunts and impregnats young, married virgins.
Should they have a vote equal to one federal state?
What about Wal-mart or McDonalds?

@Orion, the middle class rising to power? Now that be something to behold…[/quote]

Actually, the producers rising to power.

That excludes a larger part of the German and Austrian middle class.


#10

Originally, individual states had the right to establish who and who could not vote. Ownership of land was, in fact, a common criterion for voter qualification as it was an accepted norm at the time. I don’t know the case law that prohibits that now.


#11

[quote]Doug Adams wrote:
I wouldn’t go that far, but I would be ok with voting rights only for those not on welfare. [/quote]

Pure WIN.


#12

Not even a remote possibility of any of this happening.


#13

How about only white men with more than a certain amount of money in their bank account?


#14

What the fuck is wrong with renting. I used to own a house but got divorced and lost it, so now I can’t vote. Fucking douchebag.


#15

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
How about only white men with more than a certain amount of money in their bank account?[/quote]

Not only white men own land you racist.


#16

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
Originally, individual states had the right to establish who and who could not vote. Ownership of land was, in fact, a common criterion for voter qualification as it was an accepted norm at the time. I don’t know the case law that prohibits that now.[/quote]

I’m pretty sure it stems from the 24th ammendment.


The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

A better idea would be to just end welfare, but a pure democracy is not going to allow for that.


#17

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
How about only white men with more than a certain amount of money in their bank account?[/quote]

Do you doubt that this would lead to a better system than the one today?

Dont know why you would exclude people p´ff color, but why should people who cannot even hold on to a little bit of their own money for bad times vote on other peoples money?


#18

Sounds a lot like an aristocracy… perhaps 16th century France would be more to your liking?


#19

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
How about only white men with more than a certain amount of money in their bank account?[/quote]

Sarcasm, I presume.


#20

Making it so only land owners could cote wouldn’t solve anything, but I don’t see why people should get to play ball if they have no skin in the game.