"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."
"only people who are net contributors to the state financially should get the vote,"
I may have been off with my tone, but with respect, I was not with my characterization of your position, at least as initially presented. That is a statement that taxes ("TAXES") are the criterion for voting and that non financial contributions don't count. Hence housewives not voting, right?
I actually had you pegged as someone who displays common sense and proportion and therefore would come around to the idea of non financial contributions having or at least possibly having legitimacy, which you did. At this point, we share the same or similar premises.
(I also want a small state, although I've become more open to welfare in recent years, having seen the success that Hungary and Poland are having in preserving their culture by means of welfare chauvinism while woke capitalists in the US run rampant)
Feel free to tell me why housewives still don't qualify if you feel like it, or debate some other point, or not. No hard feelings either way.
Easy answer - because housewives don’t contribute to the state.
And you can’t have a welfare state and universal suffrage - pick one. As soon as you have both it’s only a matter of time before government collapses yonder it’s own weight because people will always vote to give themselves more “free stuff”.
Do you think everyone should have a vote, or only some people?
"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."
"only people who are net contributors to the state financially should get the vote,"
I may have been off with my tone, but with respect, I was not with my characterization of your position, at least as initially presented. That is a statement that taxes ("TAXES") are the criterion for voting and that non financial contributions don't count. Hence housewives not voting, right?
I actually had you pegged as someone who displays common sense and proportion and therefore would come around to the idea of non financial contributions having or at least possibly having legitimacy, which you did. At this point, we share the same or similar premises.
(I also want a small state, although I've become more open to welfare in recent years, having seen the success that Hungary and Poland are having in preserving their culture by means of welfare chauvinism while woke capitalists in the US run rampant)
Feel free to tell me why housewives still don't qualify if you feel like it, or debate some other point, or not. No hard feelings either way.
Easy answer - because housewives don’t contribute to the state.
And you can’t have a welfare state and universal suffrage - pick one. As soon as you have both it’s only a matter of time before government collapses yonder it’s own weight because people will always vote to give themselves more “free stuff”.
Do you think everyone should have a vote, or only some people?
Now you strawman me as if I'm a universal suffragist.
No. I think people who choose to be dependent shouldn't vote.
Housewives do contribute. Have you seen what demographics are about to do to the West?
No, I didn’t strawman you - I asked you if you supported universal suffrage, I made no assumptions.
Housewives don’t contribute to the state, no. They may well contribute to the culture, but that’s not the same thing.
Can you please clarify if disabled vets should or should not have the vote?