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?
The premise I stand by is that only those who are net contributors to the state should get a vote, not those who are net recipients. How that’s determined is a bigger question.
You may also have missed that in my ideal world your vote doesn’t actually matter that much, because the state has almost no say in how you live your life - no welfare, no public education, no public healthcare, almost no regulation etc. The state only exists to protect your rights, nothing else.
"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.
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?
Show me where I said it’s “ALL” about taxes.
The premise I stand by is that only those who are net contributors to the state should get a vote, not those who are net recipients. How that’s determined is a bigger question.
You may also have missed that in my ideal world your vote doesn’t actually matter that much, because the state has almost no say in how you live your life - no welfare, no public education, no public healthcare, almost no regulation etc. The state only exists to protect your rights, nothing else.
"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.