4 ms·

The US was founded on fighting back against being forced to act by others. Why would making subsets of the population work and rent but not allow them a voice

The US was founded on fighting back against being forced to act by others. Why would making subsets of the population work and rent but not allow them a voice improve anything? Everything you suggested would result in the current problems getting worse. Land owners don't mind the raising housing prices as long as the taxes don't impact them. Older people got theirs and are fine with policies that lead to younger generations getting screwed.

anonym29 3y ago
>Why would making subsets of the population work and rent but not allow them a voice improve anything? The first litmus test needs to be in determining whether one has a vested interest in the long-term stability of the whole system. The second litmus test is more about capability to participate in the system as intended by determining whether one even understands the system (and hence their role and responsibilities in it). I like another commenter suggesting US native-born citizens should be able to pass the same immigration test that immigrants are required to pass in order to naturalize and gain the right to vote. What I'm not for is making sweeping changes that aren't peer-reviewed, discussed, and widely agreed upon, precisely for the reasons you outlined - the intent is not to benefit any one segment of society at the expense of another. We all have blind spots and the ability to call out eachother's blind spots (as you've done for mine) is kinda the selling point of peer review :)
- Guvante 3y ago
  Feel free to point to a single example of restricting the right to vote in a Democratic society improving that society. Hell I would love to hear an example of such a restriction that wasn't beneficial to a particular part of society. This isn't a "need better rules" thing it is a "access to voting is not our problem" thing.

4 ms·

The US was founded on fighting back against being forced to act by others. Why would making subsets of the population work and rent but not allow them a voice

by Guvante 3y ago

anonym29 3y ago
>Why would making subsets of the population work and rent but not allow them a voice improve anything? The first litmus test needs to be in determining whether one has a vested interest in the long-term stability of the whole system. The second litmus test is more about capability to participate in the system as intended by determining whether one even understands the system (and hence their role and responsibilities in it). I like another commenter suggesting US native-born citizens should be able to pass the same immigration test that immigrants are required to pass in order to naturalize and gain the right to vote. What I'm not for is making sweeping changes that aren't peer-reviewed, discussed, and widely agreed upon, precisely for the reasons you outlined - the intent is not to benefit any one segment of society at the expense of another. We all have blind spots and the ability to call out eachother's blind spots (as you've done for mine) is kinda the selling point of peer review :)
- Guvante 3y ago
  Feel free to point to a single example of restricting the right to vote in a Democratic society improving that society. Hell I would love to hear an example of such a restriction that wasn't beneficial to a particular part of society. This isn't a "need better rules" thing it is a "access to voting is not our problem" thing.