Give me one good reason

Just one good reason why private property landowners shouldn't be the only people allowed to vote.

Just one.

PRO-TIP: You can't.

what if the system becomes so unfair that you can't acquire property but also can't change the laws to help you rise up?

1st response best response

In what society is a warrior less than a landowner and equal to the peasant? Are you trying to cause a rebellion by not letting the military vote because they live a barracks?

>implying the military is smart
I like the tanks but the people are expendable.

use your second amendment

The military is on average more educated than the civilIan populace.

>people with guns are totally gonna die for my right to vote and not hang me by by intestines...

Smarter then any retard believing this trash.

Then why are they in the military?
Why aren't they in politics?
They are sheep. They have purpose, but I hate them.

Because they want to better themselves and not be a cuck like you.

This.

Not to mention the government can kick you out on your ass if they need your land for something like a highway.

They would just abuse their power and make sure only the elites vote.

Which in return would make their end goal of two classes upper and lower that much easier to obtain.

In all actuality op if you believe what you just posted you are fucking retarded.

>waahh they're overseas so they can't vote

They are Americans. They get to vote

>Just one good reason why private property landowners shouldn't be the only people allowed to vote.
Because they would in theory make laws that apply to other people.

Also once 100% of the land is owned you have now created a defacto nobility of people with land and the right to vote and everyone else that can't vote.

What if our votes don't really matter?

Here's the reason. Because you're a retard.

Fiat money is worthless

Military come from white middle class families that usually own land

Gee, if only there were some kind of failsafe to keep citizens from being powerless against an opporessive government...

Because it's doesn't mean anything at all. Some bumpkin, meth-head living in his dead mom's trailer that he inherited (and living off food stamps) is not inherently worthy because of it. And a person making 150k/year in NYC, paying more in taxes than any two people in this thread combined, and renting an apartment, is as qualified as anybody to cast a vote.

You have a totally idealized picture in your head of what "land ownership" automatically signifies about a person.

>trailer
>land

Upper ranks is politics, yes the lower ones are sheep but they have intelligent leaders to guide them. There's been plenty of servicemen who go onto serve in actual politics

Yea... problem? An acre of land with a rusty, bedbug infested trailer in the middle of it is not umcommon. There's your glorious land owner.

People would just break up property into square foot sections and sell it to family friends who will vote with them.

Because in contrast to historic times, land ownership is less clearly delineated, given the existence of financial instruments such as ETFs and REITs that technically confer land ownership in a non-traditional sense of the term.

You're not wrong in your underlying position about universal suffrage being flawed, however.

Because government decisions effect them as well.

I guess OP didn't stick around to defend his lame post. Too bad. Wanted to argue with him.

Because property owners aren't the only ones funding government activity

Imo we need to do the following
>abolish sales tax
>only people who pay an income tax can vote

Gonna give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are trolling

You're right, I can't.