Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: LucianOfSamasota

‘When 35.4% of the population depends upon value taken by force...’

In my early voting days, in my hometown, if you “lived off the town”, as welfare was then called, you could not vote. Can we bring that law back? Welfare recipients should forfeit the right to vote before they are issued the first tax dollar.


12 posted on 03/25/2014 6:30:20 AM PDT by abclily
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]


To: abclily

“Welfare recipients should forfeit the right to vote before they are issued the first tax dollar.”

(You cant take away a persons right to vote.) We do with
convicted felons.

Welfair recipients, federal and state workers, politicians,
all have a conflict of interest along with their unions.

It would be better just to go to land owners only. If you
own property you can vote.


15 posted on 03/25/2014 6:37:58 AM PDT by Slambat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

To: abclily
In my early voting days, in my hometown, if you “lived off the town”, as welfare was then called, you could not vote. Can we bring that law back? Welfare recipients should forfeit the right to vote before they are issued the first tax dollar.

In the early US Republic, only responsible citizens were qualified to vote. Individual responsibility was measured through metrics such as property ownership (in a time when one could homestead farmland with no money to gain real property). Unfortunately, characteristics such as race, religion, and gender were also used to determine whether a citizen could vote.

When suffrage was granted to women, blacks, Jewish citizens, etc. the notion of 'universal' suffrage became popular. This was the 'egalitie' of the French Revolution. But the French proceeded from Jean-Jacques Rousseau, not Jefferson or Locke. Rousseau had developed the concept of 'Social Contract', a predecessor to modern collectivist theories. And those who obtain power through collectivist politics seem to embrace the notion that every convicted rapist, every drug addict, and every nonproductive member of society should enjoy the same privilege to govern as those who lead perfect Christian lives and work hard every day of their life.

So while the framers of our Constitution would largely embrace a restriction of voting privilege to those who support themselves, modern society would see such a regulation as 'discriminatory' and therefore inappropriate.

Even on FR, there will be those who support the flawed principle of universal suffrage.

25 posted on 03/25/2014 8:13:13 AM PDT by LucianOfSamasota (Tanstaafl - its not just for breakfast anymore...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson