Well your terms are a bit rubbish - it’s entirely possible to be “a disabled veteran” but still have a job like anyone else, so I’m assuming you mean like someone who had their arms and legs blown off plus they were blinded, ie completely unable to participate in contributing to the state in any way. I’d have to say no, they don’t - at least not by sole virtue of being a “disabled veteran”. However, in my ideal world they would have taken out TPD insurance before they joined up so they would still have an income that allowed them to contribute to the running of the state and get a vote that way. I’d also be open to a kind of Starship Troopers model where you earn a right to vote by serving. But none of this as simple a “yes/no” proposition as you’d like it to be, which should be obvious but clearly isn’t.
What's the difference between the stereotype disabled vet you've outlined and Starship Troopers? I'm pretty much arguing for Starship Troopers here.
Here's where I think you're wrong, and weirdly statist:
The state exists to serve society by providing necessary services such as defense, law and order, and protect rights. It's a tool, and not the source of societal worth.
A housewife or soldier serves society.
Neither chooses to free ride, both perform a completely necessary societal function, both are essential for the continued existence of the state.
To me that gives them both the same moral right to have a say in how the state serves them, regardless of their lack of earning, as a taxpayer. Time is money.
You're alternately arguing that contributions have to be financial, or even worse, that one's worth to the state determines their right to influence the state, despite the state only being a tool of society and not the other way around.
No, housewives are not “essential for the continued existence of the state”, obviously. If every mother chose to return to work instead of staying home the state would not wither and die. I never made any claim whatsoever about anyone’s “worth”, so I don’t even know where you’re getting that from. And judging someone on their “moral right” to a vote instead of a tangible contribution is a recipe for disaster, guaranteed to be constantly expanded to include everyone - that’s why we’re where we are right now.
The point I’m making is that universal suffrage in a welfare state will destroy the entire society - it’s just a matter of how long it takes. So there needs to be another solution.
Well your terms are a bit rubbish - it’s entirely possible to be “a disabled veteran” but still have a job like anyone else, so I’m assuming you mean like someone who had their arms and legs blown off plus they were blinded, ie completely unable to participate in contributing to the state in any way. I’d have to say no, they don’t - at least not by sole virtue of being a “disabled veteran”. However, in my ideal world they would have taken out TPD insurance before they joined up so they would still have an income that allowed them to contribute to the running of the state and get a vote that way. I’d also be open to a kind of Starship Troopers model where you earn a right to vote by serving. But none of this as simple a “yes/no” proposition as you’d like it to be, which should be obvious but clearly isn’t.
What's the difference between the stereotype disabled vet you've outlined and Starship Troopers? I'm pretty much arguing for Starship Troopers here.
Here's where I think you're wrong, and weirdly statist:
The state exists to serve society by providing necessary services such as defense, law and order, and protect rights. It's a tool, and not the source of societal worth. A housewife or soldier serves society.
Neither chooses to free ride, both perform a completely necessary societal function, both are essential for the continued existence of the state.
To me that gives them both the same moral right to have a say in how the state serves them, regardless of their lack of earning, as a taxpayer. Time is money.
You're alternately arguing that contributions have to be financial, or even worse, that one's worth to the state determines their right to influence the state, despite the state only being a tool of society and not the other way around.
No, housewives are not “essential for the continued existence of the state”, obviously. If every mother chose to return to work instead of staying home the state would not wither and die. I never made any claim whatsoever about anyone’s “worth”, so I don’t even know where you’re getting that from. And judging someone on their “moral right” to a vote instead of a tangible contribution is a recipe for disaster, guaranteed to be constantly expanded to include everyone - that’s why we’re where we are right now.
The point I’m making is that universal suffrage in a welfare state will destroy the entire society - it’s just a matter of how long it takes. So there needs to be another solution.
The state will wither and die due to the lack of the contributions you insist it obviously doesn't need.