When you say they “contribute”, I’d say no they don’t - because what we’re talking about here is TAXES, and they don’t contribute anything to the public purse. Of course this is in my ideal world of minimal government, no public education, no welfare, etc.
Re “incentivisation” - no, not a valid use of voting power. The vote isn’t something that is used to shape society the way you want it to go, it’s a privilege that’s earned by contributing to meeting the cost of your government’s obligations.
I can’t argue your third point, but I can’t support it and retain any kind of intellectual honesty :)
I do agree that parents of children have a greater stake in the future than childless people - maybe you get 1 vote for being a parent and 1 for being a taxpayer? Whatever the right solution looks like, universal suffrage is definitely a mistake.
Do you oppose disabled veterans voting too? Are you really on the fullblown 'fuck service, money's the only metric of worth' wagon?
As long as
a) the people involved are working hard and doing/have done their share, and
b) they are not incentivized to free ride, citizens should be allowed to vote.
Note housewives demonstrably satisfy b, as evidenced by their voting patterns.
I get that you have to draw the line somewhere and taxes are a convenient way, but it's not actually a principled way, it just looks like one because you've forgotten that money is only a proxy for the production of value, not the production itself.
PS How's the public purse doing? Funny how despite housewives not contributing, their disappearance and the resulting lack of children is going to melt that purse down all over the West...
I said fuck all about “disabled veterans” so I’m not going to bother defending something I never said.
Measuring someone’s right to decide how money is spent by whether they actually contributed any money is more “principled” than universal suffrage - and stfu about what you imagine I’ve “forgotten”, you know nothing on that score.
I don't scorn you, you politely defended your ideas and I have no beef with you. If my tone was too aggressive, then sorry.
You did, however, run with the premise that it's all about taxes.
I've merely pointed out the near-consensus case that is disabled vets as a counterexample that demonstrates my principle that at least some nonfinancial contributions are worthy of the vote.
It's fair to test you for consistency, isn't it? Disabled vets, voters or not? Do you actually believe in the premise you ran with, or not?
When you say they “contribute”, I’d say no they don’t - because what we’re talking about here is TAXES, and they don’t contribute anything to the public purse. Of course this is in my ideal world of minimal government, no public education, no welfare, etc. Re “incentivisation” - no, not a valid use of voting power. The vote isn’t something that is used to shape society the way you want it to go, it’s a privilege that’s earned by contributing to meeting the cost of your government’s obligations. I can’t argue your third point, but I can’t support it and retain any kind of intellectual honesty :)
I do agree that parents of children have a greater stake in the future than childless people - maybe you get 1 vote for being a parent and 1 for being a taxpayer? Whatever the right solution looks like, universal suffrage is definitely a mistake.
Do you oppose disabled veterans voting too? Are you really on the fullblown 'fuck service, money's the only metric of worth' wagon?
As long as a) the people involved are working hard and doing/have done their share, and b) they are not incentivized to free ride, citizens should be allowed to vote.
Note housewives demonstrably satisfy b, as evidenced by their voting patterns.
I get that you have to draw the line somewhere and taxes are a convenient way, but it's not actually a principled way, it just looks like one because you've forgotten that money is only a proxy for the production of value, not the production itself.
PS How's the public purse doing? Funny how despite housewives not contributing, their disappearance and the resulting lack of children is going to melt that purse down all over the West...
I said fuck all about “disabled veterans” so I’m not going to bother defending something I never said.
Measuring someone’s right to decide how money is spent by whether they actually contributed any money is more “principled” than universal suffrage - and stfu about what you imagine I’ve “forgotten”, you know nothing on that score.
I don't scorn you, you politely defended your ideas and I have no beef with you. If my tone was too aggressive, then sorry.
You did, however, run with the premise that it's all about taxes. I've merely pointed out the near-consensus case that is disabled vets as a counterexample that demonstrates my principle that at least some nonfinancial contributions are worthy of the vote.
It's fair to test you for consistency, isn't it? Disabled vets, voters or not? Do you actually believe in the premise you ran with, or not?