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.
The Clintons: not Jewish. Atheist.
Obama: not Jewish. Atheist.
Stalin: not Jewish. Atheist.
The CCP: not Jewish. Atheist.
You've been suckered by confirmation bias so badly you can't even see enemies unless they conform to what you want to see.
What? That the USSR preached 'scientific atheism'? That they formed the League of Militant Atheists? That every Bolshevik was a nonbeliever? That Stalin ('Koba') was a bandit? That atheists vote Dems at higher rates than all other religious blocs?
Look it up. You've been lied to by your antisemite atheist friends; they left out all the bits that didn't fit their narrative, they're as dishonest as CNN.
"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.
They sure did. Atheism was the official religion of the USSR, and antifa are atheists. Atheists in France invented socialism. Atheists are the most left wing religious voting bloc, far more so than Jews.
Incidentally, most of the Bolsheviks finances came from banditry, organized by none other than (Gentile atheist, surprise, surprise, Stalin). There were loans, etc too but they were comparatively small fry.
The irony is that those who obsess over Jews invariably are believers in the ACTUAL source of most evil in the West: atheism.
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?
Homosexuality got accepted during the Julio Claudian era in Rome. Their Golden Age was a century later. It's not as simple as you make out.
Abortion must surely indicate selfishness and lack of long term perspective.
Nope nope nope. The word refers to a split within the radical socialist movement. They weren't claiming to be a popular majority.
In fact, Leninism differed from original Marxism in that Lenin's theory was that Marx's dream of mass revolution would never happen and that revolution needed to be driven by a small but competent and very driven revolutionaries. It was in no way a grassroots movement.
The state will wither and die due to the lack of the contributions you insist it obviously doesn't need.