Comment by lazyasciiart
1 day ago
It was supposed to only count landowning males over 25, which was expected to consist of mature able citizens with assets.
1 day ago
It was supposed to only count landowning males over 25, which was expected to consist of mature able citizens with assets.
you’re forgetting white, straight, and cisgender on that list
obviously it’s horrendously wrong but like someone else said kudos for speaking your “truth” or whatever
I don't know what you are trying to say. Obviously what you are complaining about has changed and now all adults should be capable citizens.
Is it wrong that the state wants to create capable and mature citizens who can be trusted with participation in government?
He is suggesting that in the past, landownership was used as a proxy to determine who was a complete and mature citizen – and perhaps, most importantly, to determine who actually had skin in the game. Human bodies can leave a governing area with else, land cannot.
Times have changed. That model wouldn't work today for many reasons. But we haven't replaced the proxy with something that does fit modern times. Nowadays we see literal students who are still trying to become capable and mature citizens participating in government. And per the internet (take that for what you will), up to 40% of those students will move to a different jurisdiction after graduation, so not only are they not yet mature, there is little risk to them if their participation burns things to the ground.
Maybe that's okay. The world is our oyster to live in as we see fit. But it is noted earlier that it isn't how things were expected to be when our ideas about government were originally formed.
so the problem is actually allowing renters to vote? that's a wild take I didn't expect to see on the orange site today but points for honesty and boldness I guess