People without $50,000 in net worth shouldn’t get to vote. No skin in the game, no seat at the table. Buncha 25 year old socialists talking about how to spend my money, taking more than they give. Let’s differentiate between citizens and civilians.
I disagree with this guests literal message, but think (hope) they were illustrating a point. That excluding voters for not being like you is dumb. How old is “old?” How rich is rich or how poor is poor? It’s relative isn’t it? There was a time you thought of the age you are now as old. I used to think 30 was old- until I was 30. Age carries more opportunity for experience and wisdom, but youths are the ones that will live longest with the decisions we make now, and are the primary briningers of change in society. Races, economic status, career field, location, religion, blah blah etc, we all face our own challenges and have different perspectives on the same issues. That’s why we have voting. Everyone able should get to vote, and who is “able” should be as loose as practical to ensure that we don’t control the vote by controlling who we deem worthy to vote. So while guests example is prejudiced, so is the OP.
^ i agree! There are a whole host of unconnected tribes from all over the globe who consult the village "elders" when faced with tough decisions. CEO's of almost every large business are required to report to a board, which are almost exclusively old and experienced people. Even the constitution of the United States doesn't allow a president under the age of 35. This is'nt an accident. It's this way because we acquire wisdom as we age. Nobody wants to be told at the age of 25 that they can't possibly posses the knowledge needed to make the right decisions (i know i sure didnt at 25) when it comes to complex issues.
.
A cold hard truth of life is that there is no correlation between what "feels good" and what "is good".
Who knows when anyone is going to die. You could be 25 and hit by a bus,or you could be 85, totally sound of mind, and live to be 100+. It would take someone who can see the future to make that idea work.
Where do you draw the line? Age 80? Age 90? That person might live to 100 and want a voice in a healthcare initiative that could affect their lives for the next 10-20 years. Should a 20-year old with a terminal illness be excluded from voting then? What if the disease hasn’t killed them by the next election cycle? Should they be allowed to vote then? I don’t think you can apply equal voting rights based on a variable you can’t control. When you learn how to predict death so we know which people to exclude from the voting booths, let me know.
.
A cold hard truth of life is that there is no correlation between what "feels good" and what "is good".