The best part about this dogshit take is that she even admitted later in the thread that she doesn't even own land and giving up her voting rights (paraphrasing) is a sacrifice she is willing to make for an idea she truly believes in.
Oh, who was that grifter who said America would be better if women didn't have voting rights and agreed she would give up her own if such a law came to pass?
Not only is this fucking dumb on its face, and obviously less democratic....but the people who currently do vote reliably are far more likely to own land anyway.
Might be worth mentioning that one of the instigating factors of the American Revolution was the British closing of the Ohio River Valley to new colonization. This was as part of an effort to cement their gains from the French & Indian War without incurring a bunch of new expenses in fighting native peoples at the ass end of their territorial control.
The whole "only people with land can vote" thing was a) more about incentivizing westward colonial expansion (sort of the Service Grants Citizenship! of its era) and b) about who could own that land (not women, not natives, not colored people, etc) and - by extension - who could grant title.
In the modern era, land titleship doesn't serve the same role. Any asshole can divvy up his turf into a million one-inch parcels and ostensibly enfranchise a community. But that's because we're in a neoliberal era when land is traded on a secondary market without the state playing a significant role. Access to land isn't a lever of power employed by the state. Access to credit and debt is the modern equivalent.
And we see access to credit/debt used as a controlling factor in who can vote by way of Driver's Licenses substituting for Voting IDs. If you are credit worthy, you can own a house in the suburbs. If you live in the suburbs, you need a car. If you own a car, you need a license.
People who are homeless, people who rent and change residencies frequently (like college students or the seasonally unemployed), people who rely heavily on public transportation... all of those people find it harder to maintain a current driver's license. And they all, consequently, find it harder to vote.
Do some states not have state-issued IDs that don't function as driver's licenses? I have one because I can't drive.
It's still a hassle to get. The line's always an hour or so long and you need 2 other forms of id.
Oh yeah definitely. I got mine when I was 18 and they wanted to see mail that proved I lived where I said I lived but since I was 18 I didn't have any "official" mail they would accept so I had to get two people to sign affidavits saying I lived there.
They already did that with startup incubators.
Some of them require founders to hand over 25% of future profits for access to a cubicle, a conference room, and "free" coffee.
And people who own empty houses on the other side of the country sure care a lot about the community it's in
But when only those people could vote, we didn't like, do a continental genocide right???
like nietzche whole the antichrist book thing when he is talking about christian charity really gets it like charity in the christian view becomes a easy way of feeling like you are a good person like in a moral and spiritual sense
"Minimum age of 25, own land, serve in the military in some capacity for a minimum of 2 years as well as be able to pass a basic I.Q. test, a civics test, and a test to see if you understand economics. That's what I feel should be the prerequisite to be allowed to vote."
- https://twitter.com/OmnusTaino/status/1307578720790642688?s=20
It's like an even more ridiculous version of the over the top, Starship Trooper's "citizenship" shit lol
"and a test to see if you understand economics." SO NOT A SINGLE PERSON WOULD BE ABLE TO VOTE LIKE NOT A SINGLE AMERICAN KNOWS HOW THE FUCK THE ECONOMY WORK IT IS JUST TECHONCRATIC MAGIC
Making sure they understand economics, but it just shows socialism is better in every way by accident.
"understand economics" = "agree blindly with the neoliberal consensus"
Also my fave was this: https://twitter.com/Realgeron/status/1307725147625984000
I disagree. It should be if you:
- are married
- have children
- served in the military or
- volunteer in your community.
I'm saying this as a liberal progressive who has done none of those things, but respects the intuitions that those people bring.
Owning land is patrician.
Wow, yeah, good thing he's around to give us a progressive perspective. Then he tops it off by saying:
Marriage, kids, military or community work are available to everyone.
Real brain genius hours.
REAL democracy is when only the people I deem worthy can vote.
Who am I kidding, this is the rEpUbLiC nOt DeMoCrAcY crowd, they get hard whenever civil liberties are restricted.
I felt like I was reading a parody thread, but these people are serious. What the fuck.
Sometimes it's 4am and you just be thinking about how to disenfranchise the peasants 😳
This is honestly one of the most braindead takes I've seen in a while... And I've been reading some real dumb shit on reddit
i think she is also clarifies later that she means LAND NOT PROPERTY and that this is so rural people can have a bigger say on politics which is funny as they are already overrepresented
