David Frum: What If the Allies Had Lost World War One?

[Berkut]

No, it would not.  But there was a time when voters did not think women or blacks should vote.  What seemed reasonable in 1840 may not seem reasonable today, and what's reasonable today may not be reasonable in the future, so "nobody considers children or felons to be in the group of those who ought to be able to vote" is not the most objective standard.

yeah, this is what i was thinking when i skimmed through the argument that not allowing women to vote back in the day meant the country wasn't a democracy. i'm under the impression that women were considered incapable of voting, and that's why the government kept them from voting. this is like the 16 year old voter argument rather than, say, denying women from voting merely because the government wanted to disenfranchise/silence strong women voters. some countries today allow sixteen year olds to vote, but those countries are probably not considered "truer" democracies than the countries that allow only eighteen and older to vote.

I think most people would acknowledge that there is some line for voting based on age, and the exact point of that line is hardly objectively fixed in stone. Both 16 and 18 and 21 for example are all pretty reasonable, and I don't think anyone has made the argument that the choice of one over the others would constitute anything that would effect a reasonable labeling of a country as a democracy. They are all variants with nominal practical impact.

Hardly comparable to not allowing any women to vote regardless of age, and restricting voting to only the wealthiest half of your population, or even creating laws designed to exclude those who the intent of the federal constitution is clear that they should in fact be allowed to vote.

[LaCroix]

Hardly comparable to not allowing any women to vote regardless of age, and restricting voting to only the wealthiest half of your population, or even creating laws designed to exclude those who the intent of the federal constitution is clear that they should in fact be allowed to vote.

the comparison to sixteen year olds was referring to the class of person's mental fitness/capacity to vote, not really the barrier based on age. back then, the government did not believe women had the capability to vote. as women gained more freedom and society changed, that mentality eroded away.

despite your assertion, the federal constitution's intent was not clear that women should be allowed to vote. the drafters wrote the constitution at a time when women lacked voting rights pretty much all over the world. today, we read the constitution and see that women clearly are allowed the right to vote, but that view is influenced by modern context.

[Berkut]

Hardly comparable to not allowing any women to vote regardless of age, and restricting voting to only the wealthiest half of your population, or even creating laws designed to exclude those who the intent of the federal constitution is clear that they should in fact be allowed to vote.

the comparison to sixteen year olds was referring to the class of person's mental fitness/capacity to vote, not really the barrier based on age. back then, the government did not believe women had the capability to vote. as women gained more freedom and society changed, that mentality eroded away.

The point however is that they were wrong to think that women did not have the capability to vote, while the reasons to not allow children to vote are well understood and it is rather likely that that is NOT wrong. So again, they are not comparable, unless you wish to either argue that they were right, or we are wrong now.

despite your assertion, the federal constitution's intent was not clear that women should be allowed to vote. the drafters wrote the constitution at a time when women lacked voting rights pretty much all over the world. today, we read the constitution and see that women clearly are allowed the right to vote, but that view is influenced by modern context.

I was referencing US Jim Crow laws.

[LaCroix]

The point however is that they were wrong to think that women did not have the capability to vote, while the reasons to not allow children to vote are well understood and it is rather likely that that is NOT wrong. So again, they are not comparable, unless you wish to either argue that they were right, or we are wrong now.

if we are wrong and 16 year olds should have the right to vote, then is the US currently not a democracy? if so, where does this end? who knows what classifications will receive the right to vote in the future. the point i'm making is that it's pretty dishonest to go back in time and say "this is not a democracy" based on a context that the contemporary society could not have known.

[Tonitrus]

Voting age should probably be closer to 30.

So if anything, we've had too much democracy. 

[Razgovory]

No, it would not.  But there was a time when voters did not think women or blacks should vote.  What seemed reasonable in 1840 may not seem reasonable today, and what's reasonable today may not be reasonable in the future, so "nobody considers children or felons to be in the group of those who ought to be able to vote" is not the most objective standard.

yeah, this is what i was thinking when i skimmed through the argument that not allowing women to vote back in the day meant the country wasn't a democracy. i'm under the impression that women were considered incapable of voting, and that's why the government kept them from voting. this is like the 16 year old voter argument rather than, say, denying women from voting merely because the government wanted to disenfranchise/silence strong women voters. some countries today allow sixteen year olds to vote, but those countries are probably not considered "truer" democracies than the countries that allow only eighteen and older to vote.

I think most people would acknowledge that there is some line for voting based on age, and the exact point of that line is hardly objectively fixed in stone. Both 16 and 18 and 21 for example are all pretty reasonable, and I don't think anyone has made the argument that the choice of one over the others would constitute anything that would effect a reasonable labeling of a country as a democracy. They are all variants with nominal practical impact.

Hardly comparable to not allowing any women to vote regardless of age, and restricting voting to only the wealthiest half of your population, or even creating laws designed to exclude those who the intent of the federal constitution is clear that they should in fact be allowed to vote.

Reasonable to you living in the 21st century.  You accept the premise that men and women are mentally equal, this is very modern.  This premise was not widely accept in 1840.  There are people living in this country now who don't accept this premise.  I don't accept that an 8 year old can make a rational choice in voting and thus should not be allowed to vote.  The rationale is the the same, but the initial assumptions and bar are different.  The idea that voting should be restricted to people with property was based in the idea that these people had more to lose then people without property and thus were more invested in their community.  Property restrictions on voting still has some adherents (I've seen it in discussed in libertarian circles).  I reject this as absurd, but people genuinely believe it.

[MadImmortalMan]

Property restrictions on voting still has some adherents (I've seen it in discussed in libertarian circles).  I reject this as absurd, but people genuinely believe it.

Show us these remarks so that we may mock them. I've never met anyone who believes that. Should be funny.

[Eddie Teach]

I think Neil may have argued for that at some point. Course, he's even less of a libertarian than Raz.

[Warspite]

Property restrictions on voting still has some adherents (I've seen it in discussed in libertarian circles).  I reject this as absurd, but people genuinely believe it.

Show us these remarks so that we may mock them. I've never met anyone who believes that. Should be funny.

I've seen it too.

[Razgovory]

Property restrictions on voting still has some adherents (I've seen it in discussed in libertarian circles).  I reject this as absurd, but people genuinely believe it.

Show us these remarks so that we may mock them. I've never met anyone who believes that. Should be funny.

Glenn Beck who self identifies as libertarian at times has endorsed these ideas.  I have also found libertarian thinkers who support the idea of monarchy over democracy which is a big property requirement to having a say in government!  I believe this all rooted in the belief that the poor will just vote themselves money and thus destroy that most important freedom, freedom from taxation.

[derspiess]

Balanced analysis there, Raz.

[crazy canuck]

The point however is that they were wrong to think that women did not have the capability to vote, while the reasons to not allow children to vote are well understood and it is rather likely that that is NOT wrong. So again, they are not comparable, unless you wish to either argue that they were right, or we are wrong now.

if we are wrong and 16 year olds should have the right to vote, then is the US currently not a democracy? if so, where does this end? who knows what classifications will receive the right to vote in the future. the point i'm making is that it's pretty dishonest to go back in time and say "this is not a democracy" based on a context that the contemporary society could not have known.

That is the problem with the Frum/Berkut analysis.  It does not allow for the fact that throughout the history of democratic governments there have always been groups who were disenfranchised.  Including today.   People between the minimum age to work and the minimum age of voting do work, pay taxes and generally participate in activities governed by the laws passed but others who are unelected by that group.  What happened to no taxation without representation?

But more fundamentally the Frum/Berkut analysis ignores completely that it is the form of government that determines whether or not it is democratic.  Not some self serving statistics.

[crazy canuck]

Property restrictions on voting still has some adherents (I've seen it in discussed in libertarian circles).  I reject this as absurd, but people genuinely believe it.

Show us these remarks so that we may mock them. I've never met anyone who believes that. Should be funny.

The other side of this is that many if not all local governments give voting rights to people who own property but who do not live in that jurisdiction.

[Razgovory]

Balanced analysis there, Raz.

And what would be a balanced analysis of the most important facet of libertarianism?

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm guessing raz is referencing the "neo reactionaries", sometimes posited to have a connection with libertarians as per say: http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/01/neoreactionaries.html

I have my doubts whether these views really exist, beyond maybe a dozen or so guys in the internet, and a few more fellow travelers who like playing along for fun.