Bruce Metcalf wrote:
But how does an educational requirement strike the rest of you?
Okay, that produced some interesting responses. Now for a new question:
What if the criterium were neither age (as at present) nor education (at
some undefined level): What if the criterium for suffrage was to be a
landowner and taxpayer?
Note carefully here what this presumes:
* Ownership of the land where one resides or which one works as a farm,
so renters and sharecroppers are out;
* One is considered otherwise legally competent to own (imposing a
hidden age limit in most countries); and
* One is assessed taxes on his property -- and perhaps other things --
and is current on said taxes. This does not suggest a poll tax would be
permitted.
The logic offered in support of this rule is that when America's
founders wrote "All men..." they meant only white, male, free, adult,
landowners. No doubt we agree the first three are no longer reasonable
and that "adult" may need adjustment. But 200 years ago, ownership of
land was the one stable form of wealth, and it also offered some promise
that the land owner would be sticking around and not jaunting off to the
next province if the prospects there looked better.
Comments on requiring land ownership?
Bruce
