Why would wishing to change voting requirements be incongruous with personal liberty? I think the point being made is that if you have limited voting access to those who have property, you are less likely to have votes for the redistribution of wealth.
I think its a bit much myself -- but I would get rid of the direct election of Senators in a heartbeat.
It might not be, but only to the extent that your personal liberties would be preserved if you weren't among the group allowed to vote.
But to me, the oft-cited argument that land owners have more of a "vested inerest" in the community is, to put it generously, bullshit. If I live in a particular place, I spend as much time subject to its laws, consuming its services, and paying its taxes (all its taxes- do landlords not build property tax rates into their tenants' rent?) as the guy who owns his house next door. I fail to see how I could be considered less entitled to a vote merely because the deed to the property at my address doesn't necessarily have my name on it.
I think the point you drive home about paying taxes indirectly via rent is the most compelling argument against their position (which I do think is foolhardy). Only incredibly foolish renters want higher income taxes, thinking that they won't pay.
However, in a very twisted sense, it is an attempt to preserve personal liberty... it's just an assumed "MY personal liberty against those lazy layabouts that just want the government to tax my money and give it to them".
And I think it would be more honest if they presented it this way -- eh, if you are on the dole, you are disenfranchised due to conflict of interest. (Note: not saying this is a good idea, but that I think it would probably drive to the heart of what they want). Of course, if you include social security on this, that wipes out a lot of voters.
If they did make that sort of argument, one could easily counter that if one owns property or has taxable funds of any kind, one has a conflict of interest: there will be an inclination to vote for anybody who will (or at least convinces you that they will) reduce one's tax burden, even if it comes at the expense of services, social or otherwise. That conflict increases with increasing wealth. Clearly, then, land owners should not be allowed to vote either. Actually, pretty much nobody should, except those who are neither on the dole nor have taxable income or assets.
Well, you forget, law is merely supposed to protect yourself - therefore you misapplied this to the Tea Party folks, because laws are supposed to benefit them =o)
I think its a bit much myself -- but I would get rid of the direct election of Senators in a heartbeat.
Reply
But to me, the oft-cited argument that land owners have more of a "vested inerest" in the community is, to put it generously, bullshit. If I live in a particular place, I spend as much time subject to its laws, consuming its services, and paying its taxes (all its taxes- do landlords not build property tax rates into their tenants' rent?) as the guy who owns his house next door. I fail to see how I could be considered less entitled to a vote merely because the deed to the property at my address doesn't necessarily have my name on it.
Reply
However, in a very twisted sense, it is an attempt to preserve personal liberty... it's just an assumed "MY personal liberty against those lazy layabouts that just want the government to tax my money and give it to them".
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment