That is exactly the problem in our current situation.
No, you do not. However, there are other solutions. The way it traditionally has been handled is:
1. Voting and citizenship requires 3/4 of your grandparents to have been born in the locale in which you wish to be able to vote.
This stipulation worked very well and would still work very well.
2. No representation without taxation.
This means you must be a net contributor. You must pay more in taxes than you draw in benefits. Paying sales tax from purchases made with welfare checks do not count.
3. Property ownership.
This requirement for voting is not onerous, despite the leftist screeching. You must demonstrate the intention to remain in the community or nation and have a stake in improving it.
If property prices are the problem, then the solution is sacrifice for your right to vote, then use your indignation to demand they stop driving up property prices by importing hordes of migrants.
None of this is tongue in cheek. All of this has been successful in the past. It has been the most successful form of government and arguably the only highly successful form of government.
Every time a nation moves away from these 3 restrictions on voting towards mob-rule democracy, it initiates a collapse of the nation.
Thanks Rip. As much as I appreciate what I've learned and had the opportunity to consider over these ~6000 posts, I'm generally hesitant to wade into the discussion because I know that as much as I consider myself a centrist, by the standards of many around here I'm considered a leftist, which makes me a Marxist, which makes me a red skinned creature with horns, a pointy tail, and cloven hooves, intent on bringing about the downfall of civilization as we know it.
Ok, cool. I still meet 2/3 of your proposed alternatives, which I don't recall you bringing up until I called BS on the property ownership one, despite the fact that I've read every single one of these ~6000 posts, and more of the associated links than I can even remember at this point. If you did and I've just forgotten, my apologies. I was just pushing back against the "property ownership should be a requirement for voting and all city dwellers are social parasites" narrative that many of you seem to be pushing.
1. 3/4 my grandparents were born in Canada, and the one that wasn't is my maternal grandmother who came to Canada from England as a war bride. Does that make me "Canadian" enough for you?
2. What about sales tax paid by your two or three minimum wage, part time jobs, which still leave you under the poverty line, which, at least here in Canada means you're exempt from income tax if you earn less than a certain amount. Not everyone who doesn't pay taxes is a welfare recipient. Many are very hard working, but are still dependent on government services for things like health care, child care, and public education. I'm very much a net contributor, as I outlined in my initial post. However, I have an acceptable margin of my personal income I'm comfortable with paying in taxes because I believe that there are a lot of people who, through absolutely no fault of their own, will depend on some form of government service. Some would literally die without it, and some do every year despite the fact that the services exist in some capacity. While these services will never be perfectly delivered, and there are always going to be people who take advantage of them, I'm cool with kicking in a few extra bucks to make sure they exist at all. Sorry if that makes me a Marxist.
3. This is the one I don't meet, but the only one I recall you and others harping about previously, which is why I felt compelled to comment in the first place. I'm born and raised in Toronto, and have chosen to live here despite not owning property. It's insulting to me that you're implying I don't "demonstrate the intention to remain in the community or nation and have a stake in improving it" simply because I've made the decision that my money is better spent renting. Hell, my parents have lived in Toronto for 50+ years, and don't worry it's not because they're part of a "horde of migrants." They were just born in much smaller towns about an hour away, and chose to move here in their 20s for the employment opportunities it presented. They bought a house, paid their mortgage until they owned it outright, retired, and chose to sell the house and rent the property they now live in. What a family of useless assholes we are, eh?
...why is this surprising to you? Schools primarily function as distribution points for essential government aid. This has been the case for what is now a very long time. You are complaining about public funds being used on food and supervision for the children of your community? Dear God, man. The "cultural decay" threatening the West is THIS fucking attitude--not men wearing dresses. Get a grip!
Ooh, Rip... you're trolling me good. The frustration is just searing for me on this one
You CONSTANTLY rail against the cruelties and abjections wrought by unchecked government power, and then whirl around and proclaim that there's no good reason public sector employees ought to be able to collectively bargain???
... has decided that there is no need forworkers to be able to bargain with the government
You flatter yourself, sir.
And, Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you .. the brave men of Black Lives Matter: https://twitter.com/i/status/1296985124681256960
Such nauseating pussies. I'm sorry for posting this, but this is an important insight. Mothafuckin' animal mothafucka be dead!!! Black lives matter, mothafuckas!!!!!!!
This is how you win the 2020 election?
OK, this is without trying too hard (highest return on Google query), but I think the abstract (though a bit partisan toward homo sapiens in it's rhetoric) and the listed references give a decent indication as to recent scholarship in this area (as of 2006):
Nonhuman Species’ Reactions to Inequity and their Implications for Fairness | SpringerLink
The monkey part, at least, shouldn't really surprise anyone, I wouldn't think as they tend to show some component of most of our social behaviors... I would have thought that was fairly uncontroversial. The fact that other more distant species also seem to have basic fair distribution concepts is maybe more surprising if you haven't thought about it all much.
The two animals I have come to hate so much I now love them, are moles and raccoons. Both have caused damage to my home/yard/dog attack and both I have studied to try and get rid of them. After researching and understanding both these animals I have much more respect for them ( I have dogs, I still hate mole holes). However, I have lost a lot of respect for the other animals in this video.
The numbers aren't the point. The point is that there are situations where not being able to vote might be in your best interest. If there are 1001 parasites for every 1000 decent hardworking renters then it's still in your interests for renters not to be able to vote. On the other hand if the hardworking renters outnumber the parasites - and vote rationally - then allowing them to vote is in your best interest. Just being able to vote is not the gold standard of freedom.
This is the mistake I'm talking about.
You seem fairly okay with other people interfering with your rights to run a business as you see fit, move freely, dress as you want and speak as you want, but not with your right to put a piece of paper in a ballot box every four years. Why is all the freedom concentrated in the act of voting, and not the other things?
Ask yourself this: if the elements of the cultural left that have been associated with BLM were "winning", then would a lifetime advocate for law enforcement who has championed some of the U.S.'s most notorious law and order policy initiatives in the past 50 years and his ex-Prosecutor VP be polling at +11 nationally?