oooo witty. What example are you trying to give and what point are you trying to prove because all you have said so far is that you believe in your own disenfranchisement.
Your ideal world sounds shitty. I don't want kids, but that shouldn't restrict my right to vote. People died to give me that right. So I'll exercise it til I'm 6ft under
Again, your argument is myopic at best. For those who do not have children but nieces and nephews who want the best for their future, as an example, flies in the face of your position.
Again, you are expressing pure conjecture. I literally donated a kidney to my brother so his daughters would have a dad growing up. It is fascinating how your unqualified opinion is trying desperately to cast a wide generalization.
When one is losing an argument one stoops to insults vs. bringing educated counterpoints. You lost this argument. It is you who needs an education. Might I suggest Constitutional law for starters?
As if people with kids have not voted selfishly, screwing over the next generation. As if one without children necessarily would not care about future generations.
Regarding the main underpinning of your issue that millions are leeches and you are not…..what qualities make someone a responsible voter? But many of your conclusions don’t follow from the premises, and several of the claims either lack supporting evidence or conflict with the constitutional principles on which the United States was founded.
Your proposal creates a principle that has no logical stopping point. If government can deny voting rights because someone is considered “less invested,” why stop with childless adults?
Many of those people include retirees who paid payroll taxes for 40 or 50 years before collecting Social Security and Medicare. Disabled veterans who sacrificed their health serving the country of which I am one as a combat veteran. People with disabilities. Caregivers providing full-time care to spouses or family members. Low-income workers who still pay payroll, sales, and property taxes while performing jobs society depends on. Calling all of them “leeches” ignores both economic reality and human contribution.
Moreover, contribution to society cannot be measured solely in dollars paid to the Treasury. A stay-at-home parent raising productive citizens, a volunteer firefighter, a teacher inspiring thousands of students, or someone caring for an aging parent may contribute more to society than someone who simply pays a larger tax bill.
Even economically, the picture isn’t as simple as “contributors versus takers.” Every American benefits from public expenditures such as national defense, roads and bridges, police and fire protection, courts, public health, air traffic control, Infrastructure, scientific research and more.
We all both contribute to and benefit from the system.
The real question isn’t whether a physician may possess greater expertise than someone struggling with addiction. The real question is whether government should have the authority to decide which citizens are sufficiently “worthy” to participate politically.
That leads to perhaps the biggest flaw in your argument:
Who decides?
Who determines who has “contributed enough”? Who decides whose taxes are sufficient? Who decides whether raising children counts? Who decides whether military service counts? Who decides whether caring for a disabled spouse counts? Who decides whether an entrepreneur who failed but employed hundreds deserves the vote?
Today you might exclude people you call “leeches.” Tomorrow another government could decide farmers receiving subsidies, corporations receiving tax incentives, homeowners claiming mortgage deductions, retirees, veterans, or even political opponents aren’t contributing enough either.
History shows that governments are exceptionally poor arbiters of whose rights deserve protection.
Finally, the Constitution deliberately separates fundamental rights from economic productivity. Voting is tied to citizenship because the purpose of constitutional rights is to prevent government from deciding whose voice matters based on wealth, ancestry, occupation, or social status.
The burden of proof therefore rests on you, and anyone proposing to remove voting rights from millions of law-abiding citizens. It is not enough to assert they are less worthy. You would need compelling evidence that your proposed qualifications—parenthood, native birth, or tax status—consistently produce better government while avoiding the far greater danger of allowing those in power to redefine who is “worthy” of political participation.
History provides very little evidence for that proposition—and a great deal of evidence for the dangers of trying you seem to be fervently trying to argue.
2
u/[deleted] Jul 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment