I?ve been in a cantankerous mood lately.? It probably has something to do with the ongoing dumbing down of American political debatee across the cable news spectrum as well as the banalities that keep cluttering my Twitter feed (check back tomorrow for case studies).? The souls of Daniel Webster and Henry Clay probably spend their time debating with great oratorical skill exactly when we decided to turn the process of selecting the leader of a nation that is home to 300 million some people and a decently well equipped nuclear arsenal into a very expensive version of a fourth-grade name calling contest.? Either that or they argue over whether our school system sucks so badly that nobody knows who they are anymore.
Last Friday I swerved way off the straight and narrow road that is personal finance and off the cliff that is suggesting the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans.? Today I would like to continue crashing down that cliff.? If nothing else the wreckage should make for an interesting sight for passers-by.
When the country first got going with this grand experiment we call our system of government voting rights were by and large restricted to property owners.? The logic, while perhaps disagreeable to our aggressively democratic national psyche, was simple: property owners had ?skin in the game? and would thus take the time to be informed citizens and to participate in the political process.? The drunk on the corner might not care either way about one state taxing the import of lumber from another state but the dude who owns the lumber mill probably does and will want to have a say in the matter.
Over time we became a little more enlightened and extended the franchise beyond white male land-owners.? Good for us.? We even dropped the voting age down to 18 which, I tell you as a political science major, I am not convinced was a great idea.? I got it, the whole ?old enough to die for your country, old enough to vote? thing is catchy but its not exactly a?convincing argument .? How about we set the voting age at 21 and allow anyone under the age of 18 who serves in the military to vote?? Doesn?t that take care of the problem?? If, on the other hand, you don?t particularly want to risk being sent off to fight in a foreign land you can just wait three more years and vote when you are 21.? If not serving in the military means that much to you I figure trading three years of voting for Senators, congressmen, and judges (time it right and you won?t miss a presidential election) would be a small sacrifice to make.
Which brings me to the topic of being a property owner.? Currently, I rent.? This is mainly a byproduct of being in a profession where I have not lived in the same place for more than a year since I graduated from college.? If you really want to get down to it I have been picking up and moving at least once a year every year since graduating high school.? My travels have taken me across the country, both east-west and north-south, and to the other side of the world.? Given this state of existence I decided that I can wait to buy a house.
Being a renter has disenfranchised me?at least on the most local of levels: the apartment complex?s homeowners association.? If there was ever a more big brotherish HOA in the history of HOAs I have not yet heard of it. It simply boggles my mind how many safety signs can be placed in an area that is about 150 square feet with an average traffic speed of 2 mph.? It?s ridiculous.? HOWEVER I bend to every whim because it is a lot easier and cheaper to follow a stupid rule than it is to pay the fine for breaking it.
Who is it exactly that votes on whether or not the instructions to not cross the 15 ft wide driveway until pedestrians have cleared out of the way should be painted in big white letters on the pavement?? The landlords who own the units that my neighbors and I pay rent to.? As a renter I am simply a source of cashflow for the landlord who he trusts won?t do to much damage to the unit before I move out.? I don?t really care if we should put in multiple dog-crap bag stations across the lawn in order to keep it clean (the vote was to do exactly that?and in large numbers) because I will be in the unit for less than a year.? The landlord on the other hand has an interest in keeping the property looking good for the next set of prospective renters so his interests are different than mine.
And that is the point: he has skin in the game, I don?t, so he gets the vote while I settle for a nice apartment with a great lanai.
On a larger scale though I think the argument to restrict voting rights to property owners doesn?t apply well to the way the nation operates in 2012 regardless of what Judson Phillips says.? Renters have sources of income, varying levels of education and also pay taxes so therefore they have skin in the game just like the property owners do AND they have the potential to be just as informed and involved in the political process as property owners.
That said, I need to tie this into personal finance somehow before a blog title change becomes necessary.? I therefore nominate?the below commenter (from a different site) for whatever political office he wants to hold simply because of his response to the idea of restricting voting rights to property owners:
Like this:
Be the first to like this.
Source: http://6400personalfinance.com/2012/07/23/restricting-voting-rights-to-property-owners-bad-idea/
kc chiefs kc chiefs judy garland j r martinez j r martinez long island serial killer wizard of oz
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.