I voted yesterday. I still wonder about the inclusiveness of American voting. Would it be better if the electorate (voting body) were only landowners, as in the founding of this nation? Wouldn’t that give a greater incentive to become a landowner? Wouldn’t that ensure that government kept the rights of landowners first and foremost?
I suppose one potential problem would be that the landowners could encourage government policies to make it more difficult for those not owning land to purchase land. In effect, they could discourage land ownership for those otherwise qualified and shut others out from the decision-making process altogether. But if the system is truly based (and would continue to be based) on private property rights and free exchange (i.e. capitalism), then land would continue to be sold to the highest bidder, and as long as the individual can pony up the cash, he could purchase the land.
A problem with including non land-owners as part of the electorate is that now their voice is equivalent to the land-owner’s voice. Government’s primary role of protecting private land ownership (private property rights) could be compromised, or degenerated, into doling out and redistributing resources from those who possess to those who do not.
But what of the private property associated with the person themself? Even if I am not a landowner, my capital, labor, and life are my own. Who is to ensure the protection of these? On the other hand, is it fair for me to have as much voting weight as a landowner?
As you know, I am interested, like Tom Woods, in asking questions no one else cares to consider.