"...women make themselves servants of the company or the state instead of living in union with their husbands..."
The unholy concatenation of the welfare state, feminism, and abortion has broken the building block of society, the family. It has occurred to me that it is the family unit to which suffrage applies, rather than individuals. I reckon the vote of the head of household of a family is the appropriate democratic input necessary to just governance of a society, because that vote represents consideration of the needs and felicity of all the members of the family, the children, the wife, and the husband, and derives from the economic strength or peril families face.
Neither a single man, nor a single woman, represent that fundamental necessity to healthy society that is a family, and when America was originally instituted that was how suffrage was availed, to mature family men with property that demonstrated responsibility necessary to functional society. Availing suffrage to every hobo and tramp breaks that responsibility for functional society, and children might as well be given the vote, because all the interests of the irresponsible and incapable will be assured when distributing suffrage beyond successful families. Then the lazy can vote themselves benefits taken from the savings of the diligent, just as you show is happening, and all the ills strong societies must avoid will quickly enable political pandering to empower the corrupt that hand out free stuff, which sober heads of household concerned for the future of their get would never permit in a million years.
I agree on all what you've said.
Such proposal could be formulated like this:
Only intact families should be entitled to vote democratically.
Which in addition
By ‘intact’ is meant:
Man and woman live together in a household with relatives (either their parents or children or siblings or other blood relatives). Or husband and wife alone, who already have adult children or cared for parents who have already died. In other words, they have fulfilled their intergenerational contract.
Verifying this qualification or form of community is easy because it can be proven by
This would protect all other data.
No morals included. Just facts.
All those who do not live with a family, who do not have employment or do not work in the family, who are too young to run their own household, who live on social welfare, who do not have citizenship, are excluded from the right to vote. They are thus relieved of the burden of having to make an intellectual effort on issues for which they lack practical experience and skill. At the same time, however, they are incentivised to make their participation possible if they marry, look after elderly parents, start a family and are debt-free.
We know, that this would outrage many people, don't we. We know that it will not be realized by the current zeitgeist.
It's not a ready proposal and certainly lacks things which I have not thought about.
LOL It sure would!
I hadn't thought much about the intergenerational aspect of family, because I dismissed the idea of actually restoring suffrage to it's most functional purpose and form, but you did and I appreciate that contribution to my understanding.
Some of your discussion reveals just how complex such undertaking would prove in the world today. Clearly before restoring suffrage more would have to be done to ensure the viability of families and reduce the pressures disrupting familial success.
I will have to disagree that freedom from debt would be necessary, doubt any means of dodging taxes such as barter would ever be superable, and also think social welfare payments are potentially an insuperable impediment.
Regarding debt, successful businesses use debt for sound business reasons. It is extremely rare that a successful business is able to become successful without using debt, perhaps even impossible. As soon as a business needs to grow, debt becomes an essential tool to fund expansion. It is almost unheard of that people purchase homes without borrowing money to do so, for example. Perhaps requiring that a family that has taken on debt is current on it's payments would suffice?
I find the economic evaluation of success to be very complex, and fraught with land mines that can contribute to making implementing such family suffrage even more difficult. I appreciate your mentioning these matters, though, because I wouldn't have thought about them if you hadn't.
Thanks!
That's right, as it stands at the moment, families with children are both a minority and do not have a good balance sheet. And the prospects to start a family in the first place are non-existent or barely incentivised.
On debt: You're absolutely right, when it comes to business, debt is more or less normal because you reinvest and the money never rests and is always in circulation. Which is a good thing.
I would separate company and private accounts here. According to this model, a family that has the right to vote as a household would not be checked for freedom from debt via business accounts (if so is such case) but via the private accounts of the individual members. Maybe that's not the right word, but what I mean by that is a kind of Schufa report that checks whether someone is creditworthy, for example. If you own a home, someone thought of you as worthy of credit, so that would not count as debt.
As I said, it's not a fully developed concept, but I can also imagine that people once started to think about elections and voting rights in the same way in the past. In the very first republics, for example. Yes, in order to eliminate the land mines, intelligent folks must work together and one day, if time is ready, release such new concept into the world. It never will be perfect but "good enough" is often good enough.
It may be that the reputation aspect is a nonsensical idea on my part - i.e. ‘freedom from debt’ or economic success - can be omitted altogether. Because it can be automatically assumed, for example, that families with several generations under one roof are already considered a success and other evidence is superfluous. The simpler, the better, is the motto, I guess.