Only significant property owners should be allowed to vote.

[btc_artist]

This is an old concept but good one. This used to apply in this nation and I certainly preferred it.

Why should people with little to nothing be allowed to vote away and steal the property of others? Shouldn't the law that regulates property only be handled by the property owners that the law mainly affects in the first place?

You are too soft on the spineless losers who make up the citizenry of your fair land.  Only the 1% should have the vote. 

Ironicly, less than 1% actually do have a vote.  The ritutual of voting for president every four years is an official poll, not a vote.  Nor is it 'democracy' in any direct sense.  The citizen casts his vote for his choice, then electors are gathered together to vote on who is president.  It's called the electoral system, and it usually has the same results, but it hasn't always and doesn't have to.  Most states bind their electors to the majority will of the state's citizenry for the first vote, but if there isn't a majority winner the first go, the electors can then vote for whomever they wish.  Very few states bind their electors for as many as three votes, but none beyond that.  Even so, the consequences for voting contrary (it's not a secret vote, btw) are not all that huge.

Yeah, the electoral college has got to go.

[1714807232]

1714807232

[1714807232]

1714807232

[1714807232]

1714807232

[1714807232]

1714807232

[FlipPro]

One day you will look back at your clown statements, and say to yourself Atlas. WTF was I thinking?

[MimiTheKid]

Why a lot of people think, that markets do not need external rules.

Rules don't emerge on their own, because of "moral hazard" and the Prisener's dilemma. There is no reason, why not breaking the rules, when it is for my advantage.

Even Greenspan thought that banks don't need regulations because they would appear, when needed, and caused the suprime-crisis and some other problems for the Us. Ooops. Happens from time to time. It was all for the economy.
And then he regulated the market via money-printing and buying of bonds.

[MoonShadow]

Yeah, the electoral college has got to go.

Of course, that would take nothing less than a constitutional amendment, and there are way too many people who take advantage of the system that would be unwilling to risk losing any perceived advantage to let it go easily.  And to what end, then?  Parlimentary systems such as a  common in Europe are easily just as easily screwed with.  A direct vote would actually be worse for voter fraud in the US than is common today, and a great many people would still agree with the original reasons for having an electoral college, namely as a means for the political class to insure against an ignorant electorate making a horrible choice.

[qbg]

This is an old concept but good one. This used to apply in this nation and I certainly preferred it.

Why should people with little to nothing be allowed to vote away and steal the property of others? Shouldn't the law that regulates property only be handled by the property owners that the law mainly affects in the first place?

Is your labor not significant enough?

[ALPHA.]

This is an old concept but good one. This used to apply in this nation and I certainly preferred it.

Why should people with little to nothing be allowed to vote away and steal the property of others? Shouldn't the law that regulates property only be handled by the property owners that the law mainly affects in the first place?

Is your labor not significant enough?

Common Law covers contract law pretty well in terms of labor. Commercial Code should be limited to labor and that's what newly mandated statutes apply to.

[bitlover]

Why should people with little to nothing be allowed to vote away and steal the property of others?

Why would you like to remove yourself from the voting pool? I mean, you cannot vote right now but when you finally are old enough to do so you're free to not do it. You don't need any legislation to stop you.

[ALPHA.]

Why should people with little to nothing be allowed to vote away and steal the property of others?

Why would you like to remove yourself from the voting pool? I mean, you cannot vote right now but when you finally are old enough to do so you're free to not do it. You don't need any legislation to stop you.

That's not the principle I am arguing for. I only want the law to stop allowing others to take property to only use for their own irrational self-interest. A good portion of the voting populace has nothing to lose from stealing through democratic means because they have no significant property that needs protection under the law. Property owners do. If the voting pool was left to only property owners, it would be against their self-interest to steal because it would mean their property would be stolen.

Preventing me from voting is moot. It doesn't solve the issue at hand. It's not an individual one but a societal one dealing with property rights. If I were to ever gain significant property, I wouldn't want it to be voted away by other people and that does not include only myself.

Again, your point is moot and irrelevant.

[RodeoX]

Us property owners just voted to take your guns away and use them to force you into a gay marriage.  How do you like us now? 

[ALPHA.]

Us property owners just voted to take your guns away and use them to force you into a gay marriage.  How do you like us now? 

Unconstitutional on a federal-basis and -- again -- I hold that law should only apply to commercial code dealing with the protection of property.

Social laws are unjustified in any case.

[Vanderbleek]

Property owners can have more sway -- it's called buying votes, people. Give people free food, and tell them how great a candidate is--politicians are not the only ones who can be purchased with gifts.

The way I look at the government is that it's a company. I have stock in it, purchased with my tax dollars. I get to elect who's in charge, and vote on very important decisions -- otherwise I let the people who are in charge do their job. If it gets to the point where I don't have faith in their business model, I'll switch my assets to a different company (by moving). Right now though, I think that USA Government Co. is doing a pretty good job.

[ALPHA.]

...by moving...

To another country controlled by the central-banking oligarchy. Gotcha.

[JA37]

...by moving...

To another country controlled by the central-banking oligarchy. Gotcha.

Somalia. Afghanistan.
I'm sure you can find refuge from the "central-banking oligarchy" there. Start packing.

[bitlover]

That's not the principle I am arguing for. I only want the law to stop allowing others to take property to only use for their own irrational self-interest. A good portion of the voting populace has nothing to lose from stealing through democratic means because they have no significant property that needs protection under the law. Property owners do. If the voting pool was left to only property owners, it would be against their self-interest to steal because it would mean their property would be stolen.

Preventing me from voting is moot. It doesn't solve the issue at hand. It's not an individual one but a societal one dealing with property rights. If I were to ever gain significant property, I wouldn't want it to be voted away by other people and that does not include only myself.

Again, your point is moot and irrelevant.

Well, to address your point directly I think it is a *great* idea to allow non-property owners to be able to vote in issues that have to deal with property rights. Yes, it is your property, you "wouldn't want it to be voted away by other people" but, what if that property was gained by unjust means? would you be capable to actually do the right thing, to vote and get rid of that property and change the laws to prevent it from happening again? Maybe you would be able to but I highly doubt that most people would do so. So, if only the guys with property are allowed to vote (about property laws) the laws will gradually favor them more and more, making it harder for the guys with little property (like you) to enter the club.

Yes, sometimes injustices are done against property owners and their stuff gets quite literally stolen. But your solution would create an even bigger problem. So yup, not only do I find your idea morally repugnant, but also bad for the society in general (it would most certainly lead to an even worse distribution of wealth/property). So, as a property owner, who most certainly has waaayyyyy more property than a high school kid (this is not jab against you, it's normal for a guy with your age/background to have very little property) I welcome you to vote about this in such a way that will benefit you because I don't think that having stuff makes my opinion more important than yours.

So go vote when you get the chance. You deserve it just for being there, even if you would like to take that right away!   HOW COOL IS THAT!?.  Welcome to a modern society.

[Vanderbleek]

...by moving...

To another country controlled by the central-banking oligarchy. Gotcha.

No, likely not. Probably an Eastern European country, possibly somewhere like Vietnam or Cambodia, maybe Mexico -- places where the government does not do a terribly good job of protecting citizens and enforcing laws (at least when presented with enough force/money). I'd have to hire some security, pay for improvement of roads to my business/etc, but I would probably be paying the same for that as I would in taxes.

Note: This isn't really what I'd do -- but that's not important. What is important is that under the people who would have enough power to significantly change things under the proposed system either:

a) Already do, through lobbying.
b) Have enough capital to do what I suggested above, if they felt it was necessary.

Besides, I think the demographics would surprise you -- most people who have nothing can't be bothered to vote.

[RodeoX]

Us property owners just voted to take your guns away and use them to force you into a gay marriage.  How do you like us now? 

Unconstitutional on a federal-basis and -- again -- I hold that law should only apply to commercial code dealing with the protection of property.

Social laws are unjustified in any case.

But why wouldn't property owners do away with that pesky constitution? Once in power new laws could be made to further entrench power for the greater glory of property owners. Anyone who doesn't like it can vote... Oh wait, no they can't, they are just surfs and peasants.
 
Your approach might work at a smaller scale, a commune or something. But a two tier democracy seems oxymoronic.

[boonies4u]

Alpha, you're getting a little (lol) out of hand with these.

Wouldn't this just take power away from land owning businesses that didn't have definite owners? They can no longer hold a grass roots grasp on democracy by in-house propaganda and bulletins about what is in the best interest of the company (AKA their jobs) regarding upcoming elections/votes.

Or could someone owning shares in a corporation claim to own a percentage of the land assets of the company?  That way they can just offer the minimum amount of stocks to allow their wage-slaves to vote the way they wish.

[johnyj]

In a Bank ruled society, no matter what people vote, they always end up with the same thing

Can I vote how much money Bernanke will print next month? Can I vote how much interest rate the bank will charge for my loan?

Financially it is still monarchy, this need to be changed

[714]

Us property owners just voted to take your guns away and use them to force you into a gay marriage.  How do you like us now? 

Everyone take a number and line up, the bride is getting antsy 

[fellowtraveler]

How about this:

Everyone is allowed to vote--BUT they're only allowed to use those votes for political decisions (They're not allowed to "take a vote" when it comes to basic human rights like life/liberty/property, since those things are sacrosanct. Instead, voting is restricted to political decisions only.)



"You shall not go after the majority to do evil.
Neither shall you testify in a matter of strife
to incline after the majority to pervert justice."
Exodus 23:2

"Do not pervert justice;
do not show partiality to the poor
or favoritism to the strong,
but judge your neighbor fairly."
Leviticus 19:15

"Hate evil, and love good,
and establish justice in the courts."
Amos 5:15

"Justice, and only justice, you shall follow, that you may live and
inherit the land that the Lord your God is giving you."
Deuteronomy 16:20



http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html#SECTION_G002

Life Is a Gift from God

We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life — physical, intellectual, and moral life.

But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.

Life, faculties, production — in other words, individuality, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.

Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.

What Is Law?

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?

If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.