4 ms·
> The people who live in an area, it seems, should rightfully decide the rules of that area This sounds nice, until you consider that "people who live in an ar
by jjk166 5y ago
> The people who live in an area, it seems, should rightfully decide the rules of that area
This sounds nice, until you consider that "people who live in an area" is merely a proxy for community members, and a poor proxy at that. The people who work in an area are part of the community too, and should not be excluded from the decision making process. If towns can tax non-residents who work there, they can give them representation.
- slt2021 5y agothis is medieval England thinking, where only landlord had a vote and could decide the future of the country/community
- iso1631 5y agoIt's founding father thinking. Madison for example said "Allow the right [to vote] exclusively to property [owners], and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property [owners] ...may be overruled by a majority without property.... " Back in 1776, you could vote in the US. If you were 1) White 2) Male 3) Owned property 4) Were not Catholic, Jewish or Quaker When Washington was elected in 1789, only 6% of the population could vote. Even as late as 1850, some states (North Carolina for example) still denied the vote to white men (let alone anyone else) who didn't own property, and it was 1964 when the idea of paying to vote was finally outlawed with the 24th amendment.