I would offer another important but often overlooked factor; whether the citizen is a net taxpayer or a net tax recipient.
Since the primary job of a citizen voting in a representative republic is to elect leaders who will decide how tax dollars are spent, I think it is a conflict of interest, having a perpetual class of tax recipients who get to vote for themselves to receive more tax dollars.
In an ideal world, net tax recipients would not be able to vote, but would have the option to check a box on their tax returns, which would allow them to forfeit the tax dollars they would be receiving, but in exchange, have their right to vote returned.
For me should is a tough question. See I don't think anyone should be voting depending on what the vote is on because a mob should not have control of what is not theirs. And as a system I don't think democracy works all that great. Of course a lot of other systems have flaws too, but I don't think democracy is some special system devoid of flaws that justifies other systems being overlooked. It isn't a given. So should be able to vote implies that we should have a democracy which I think isn't a given.
But being the progressive deontological anarcho capitalist that I am I do believe in improving the system we've got. So then the question isn't a moral one because it won't be moral in any case. It is what will get us better outcomes.
I think we'd get better outcomes if we had more assessing the candidates professional and intellectual qualifications rather than the likability of the candidate. So I'd select anything that I think would have even a slight bias toward thinking that way. So I'd say IQ, Age, Sex, and Race.
Now if we see bad outcomes from some of those I'd re-nig on any of them. I think if any race were given an exclusive right to vote and still treat other races within ethics it would be whites. Look at how much political authority we've given other groups. And this is something we did while we have absolute political authority. No one forced us. No one could. That's what absolute political authority means. We are the only racial group that decent treatment is even above 20% odds for others. But if we don't get ethical outcomes from that then I'd can race as a factor.
We already have unethical outcomes from the current selection of voters. We have disparities in who is receiving welfare and who is paying into welfare. We also have block voting on that issue which is mob violence. So we just might get more ethical outcomes with a more selective vote.
The other possible reason to consider race is when considering the purpose of a nation. I'm not a statist, but the statist eighth of my brain does consider what states are made for. In every other part of the world the self admitted purpose of a state is to advance the interests of a people.
Take a look at the current Russian conflict. There are so many ways that western media has attacked the legitimacy of Russias actions. But the one area that has been acknowledged from the beginning is that Russia has a concern over the interests of those with the same ethno-linguistic identity as them even across borders. Why isn't the basis of that under attack by western media? Because anyone who covers geopolitics understands this is a normal way of thinking for any country that isn't the US or Europe. For most of the world this is what a state power is.
Basically if states have any legitimacy they derive their authority from the corporate rights of groups of people, to have a state power that represents them in a world of state powers that don't. They don't derive their legitimacy or authority from the existence of borders. Borders are an end consequence of states existing, so they can't be the initiating moral force behind states having legitimate power.
So then if the existence of a state is moral (I don't know that it is), but if it is, it is in seeking the interests of the people who established that state. So then if you need to poll what those people want a racial vote makes sense. That said it is moral that in seeking positive virtue that negative virtue is avoided. Feeding the homeless is positive. Violently robbing people to get the money for it is not. The established purpose of a state, and thus its claimed positive virtue is seeking the interests of a self-identified group of people. But it can't oppress others in the name of that pursuit and be a moral entity.
Now back out to the matter of voting. While I don't think anyone has a moral claim to suffrage if anyone does it is the people who are most impacted by the state. So I'd say property owners and people with criminal history might be able to claim a moral right to vote above others. Besides people with criminal histories are the most likely people to know how our system is broken. You should probably consider their vote before that system breaks further and you find yourself in the same classification for entirely stupid reasons. And property owners need to vote so they don't just get robbed by the mob.
Log in
I would offer another important but often overlooked factor; whether the citizen is a net taxpayer or a net tax recipient.
Since the primary job of a citizen voting in a representative republic is to elect leaders who will decide how tax dollars are spent, I think it is a conflict of interest, having a perpetual class of tax recipients who get to vote for themselves to receive more tax dollars.
In an ideal world, net tax recipients would not be able to vote, but would have the option to check a box on their tax returns, which would allow them to forfeit the tax dollars they would be receiving, but in exchange, have their right to vote returned.
Sorry, short essay here.
For me should is a tough question. See I don't think anyone should be voting depending on what the vote is on because a mob should not have control of what is not theirs. And as a system I don't think democracy works all that great. Of course a lot of other systems have flaws too, but I don't think democracy is some special system devoid of flaws that justifies other systems being overlooked. It isn't a given. So should be able to vote implies that we should have a democracy which I think isn't a given.
But being the progressive deontological anarcho capitalist that I am I do believe in improving the system we've got. So then the question isn't a moral one because it won't be moral in any case. It is what will get us better outcomes.
I think we'd get better outcomes if we had more assessing the candidates professional and intellectual qualifications rather than the likability of the candidate. So I'd select anything that I think would have even a slight bias toward thinking that way. So I'd say IQ, Age, Sex, and Race.
Now if we see bad outcomes from some of those I'd re-nig on any of them. I think if any race were given an exclusive right to vote and still treat other races within ethics it would be whites. Look at how much political authority we've given other groups. And this is something we did while we have absolute political authority. No one forced us. No one could. That's what absolute political authority means. We are the only racial group that decent treatment is even above 20% odds for others. But if we don't get ethical outcomes from that then I'd can race as a factor.
We already have unethical outcomes from the current selection of voters. We have disparities in who is receiving welfare and who is paying into welfare. We also have block voting on that issue which is mob violence. So we just might get more ethical outcomes with a more selective vote.
The other possible reason to consider race is when considering the purpose of a nation. I'm not a statist, but the statist eighth of my brain does consider what states are made for. In every other part of the world the self admitted purpose of a state is to advance the interests of a people.
Take a look at the current Russian conflict. There are so many ways that western media has attacked the legitimacy of Russias actions. But the one area that has been acknowledged from the beginning is that Russia has a concern over the interests of those with the same ethno-linguistic identity as them even across borders. Why isn't the basis of that under attack by western media? Because anyone who covers geopolitics understands this is a normal way of thinking for any country that isn't the US or Europe. For most of the world this is what a state power is.
Basically if states have any legitimacy they derive their authority from the corporate rights of groups of people, to have a state power that represents them in a world of state powers that don't. They don't derive their legitimacy or authority from the existence of borders. Borders are an end consequence of states existing, so they can't be the initiating moral force behind states having legitimate power.
So then if the existence of a state is moral (I don't know that it is), but if it is, it is in seeking the interests of the people who established that state. So then if you need to poll what those people want a racial vote makes sense. That said it is moral that in seeking positive virtue that negative virtue is avoided. Feeding the homeless is positive. Violently robbing people to get the money for it is not. The established purpose of a state, and thus its claimed positive virtue is seeking the interests of a self-identified group of people. But it can't oppress others in the name of that pursuit and be a moral entity.
Now back out to the matter of voting. While I don't think anyone has a moral claim to suffrage if anyone does it is the people who are most impacted by the state. So I'd say property owners and people with criminal history might be able to claim a moral right to vote above others. Besides people with criminal histories are the most likely people to know how our system is broken. You should probably consider their vote before that system breaks further and you find yourself in the same classification for entirely stupid reasons. And property owners need to vote so they don't just get robbed by the mob.