Comment by constantcrying
6 months ago
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.
I’m saying you are completely wrong about what liberal democracy was envisioned as. Nobody thought the state had to create anything. People were believed to either be capable and worthy, demonstrated by holding assets - or not.
> liberal democracy was envisioned as [..] a state, which created complete and mature citizens,