The only people voting on a thing, should be the people effected by the thing.
Generally agreed, unless they're dependent on the government. The incentives created by letting people on welfare vote to give themselves more money should be avoided.
There was a reason originally only property owners had franchise in America.
If you're not paying into a system, you're not incentivized to ensure it's well run. Would someone on welfare, who pays no taxes, give a shit if they taxed everyone else 90% of their income and wasted all but a few dollars of it as long as their check remained the same?
Sure, they have a vested interest in ensuring the system paying their welfare doesn't collapse, but I honestly don't think people in that situation are farsighted enough to vote for responsible spending or, God forbid, a reduction in their benefits in order to sustain the system long-term.
If they're dependent on anyone else, they shouldn't get the right to vote. This is what Adams and Blackstone were pointing out with land requirements. If you don't own your own home and your own business, you are dependent on someone else, and you are voting in their best interests. Not yours. If they are dependent on the government, they don't get to vote. The government shouldn't vote for itself. In fact, I think there's an argument to ban government officials from participating in elections.
Generally agreed, unless they're dependent on the government. The incentives created by letting people on welfare vote to give themselves more money should be avoided.
There was a reason originally only property owners had franchise in America.
If you're not paying into a system, you're not incentivized to ensure it's well run. Would someone on welfare, who pays no taxes, give a shit if they taxed everyone else 90% of their income and wasted all but a few dollars of it as long as their check remained the same?
Sure, they have a vested interest in ensuring the system paying their welfare doesn't collapse, but I honestly don't think people in that situation are farsighted enough to vote for responsible spending or, God forbid, a reduction in their benefits in order to sustain the system long-term.
If they were that far sighted they'd hedge and save and develop alternative Oh I get it.
If they're dependent on anyone else, they shouldn't get the right to vote. This is what Adams and Blackstone were pointing out with land requirements. If you don't own your own home and your own business, you are dependent on someone else, and you are voting in their best interests. Not yours. If they are dependent on the government, they don't get to vote. The government shouldn't vote for itself. In fact, I think there's an argument to ban government officials from participating in elections.
Even better.