Posted on 11/05/2015 12:05:36 PM PST by yoe
I was working and paying taxes at 17.
I'm not unique in that respect.
Just so's you know ...
I'm more than twice your age ... I think age, by itself, is worse than useless as a deciding parameter in who should get to vote.
Heinlein was wrong, but he was on the right track.
Well, what parameters do you suggest? Some people simply don’t become wiser with age, of course, but oftentimes college students don’t realize what the “real” world is like.
Only taxpayers should be eligible to vote.
Anything else eventually ends up with our present stupid unfair fraudulent elections and resulting socialist-burdened quagmire.
Age has almost nothing to do with it.
Having skin in the game has almost everything to do with it.
Heinlein was wrong with his fictional “veterans only” policy if for no other reason than it required the government to ‘hire’ anybody that volunteered and find something useless for them to do. But he was on the right track: voting should be limited to those who have demonstrated an attitude above “Gibsmedat!!!!” In the founding era, voting was largely restricted to real property owners, those who supported the government. A 17 year old with a job has more experience with the “real world” than a 30 year old perpetual student or congenital welfare recipient.
” A 17 year old with a job has more experience with the “real world†than a 30 year old perpetual student or congenital welfare recipient.”
Fair enough. People who live off the state through benefits should not have the right to vote. I do see the wisdom of only property owners being able to vote. That is another voting restriction I support.
Touche
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.