Property qualifications are traditionally tied to voting, not because intellectuals think landowners make good technocrats, but because they own the national territory between them. It isn't a question of administrative competencies, but of rights that emanate from property A freeholder could be (and in many cases, actually was) a total moron and an irresponsible wastrel but would still have the right to vote, since he owns a share of a common stock and hence has a right to have a say in its disposition, even if philosophers don't think much of him. Would you buy a condo and pay condo fees if you knew you couldn't even vote for the board? You bet your life you wouldn't.
Your statement is partially true. Would you buy a condo if you knew you couldn’t vote for the board? In many cases, actually, yes, people would, both today and historically. In feudal Europe, many landholders would buy into (or accept the inheritance of) properties with zero expectation of any sort of vote in leadership. This happens in China and Russia quite a lot today - people participate in the political system without any expectation of outcome. However, your claim is true that any king or autocrat would be wise to accept the vote of the people who own and maintain the land that the leader needs to function. Without that support, you get something like the War of the Roses (which happened very frequently). A historical balance between these two ideas looks something like the Witan process mentioned in the article.
Likewise, Jefferson and many of his contemporary’s concerns about peasantry voting was that their status as renters would leave them vulnerable to persuasion from property owners, which is most certainly true then and today. This implies some level of sophistication of the property owner in understanding markets, economics, etc. Likewise, in a modern capitalist system (aka not feudal Europe), property owners are certainly more competent than their forebears as any incompetent property owner would go out of business very quickly.
I don’t think I could pass the Alabama test. I don’t know or care the exact date people take office for instance. And while I’m aware that presidents have to be middle aged, I’ve never care if that meant 35 or 40 or 45.
The obvious rebuttal to this is that mass literacy is very rare historically. The fact that nearly every American citizen who is not actually mentally disabled can read negates much of this argument.
People can read, but I’m not convinced “functional literacy” is up. Just because I can read words and scribble out “muh patriarchy” does not mean I am capable of dispassionately assessing the effects of a given policy.
Unless your bar for mentally disabled would consider the average poster on Reddit.
“…federal government ought to be ‘compromised’ of extremely virtuous men;”
Don’t you mean comprised?
It’s disconcerting to be rocking along agreeing with the author that lack of excellence is the problem, only to stumble across a very sloppy mistake. It undermines the author’s credibility.
It wasn't the part where he suggests that doctors report their patients' medications to the state voter registration system? It was the typo that got you down?
Property qualifications are traditionally tied to voting, not because intellectuals think landowners make good technocrats, but because they own the national territory between them. It isn't a question of administrative competencies, but of rights that emanate from property A freeholder could be (and in many cases, actually was) a total moron and an irresponsible wastrel but would still have the right to vote, since he owns a share of a common stock and hence has a right to have a say in its disposition, even if philosophers don't think much of him. Would you buy a condo and pay condo fees if you knew you couldn't even vote for the board? You bet your life you wouldn't.
Your statement is partially true. Would you buy a condo if you knew you couldn’t vote for the board? In many cases, actually, yes, people would, both today and historically. In feudal Europe, many landholders would buy into (or accept the inheritance of) properties with zero expectation of any sort of vote in leadership. This happens in China and Russia quite a lot today - people participate in the political system without any expectation of outcome. However, your claim is true that any king or autocrat would be wise to accept the vote of the people who own and maintain the land that the leader needs to function. Without that support, you get something like the War of the Roses (which happened very frequently). A historical balance between these two ideas looks something like the Witan process mentioned in the article.
Likewise, Jefferson and many of his contemporary’s concerns about peasantry voting was that their status as renters would leave them vulnerable to persuasion from property owners, which is most certainly true then and today. This implies some level of sophistication of the property owner in understanding markets, economics, etc. Likewise, in a modern capitalist system (aka not feudal Europe), property owners are certainly more competent than their forebears as any incompetent property owner would go out of business very quickly.
I don’t think I could pass the Alabama test. I don’t know or care the exact date people take office for instance. And while I’m aware that presidents have to be middle aged, I’ve never care if that meant 35 or 40 or 45.
The obvious rebuttal to this is that mass literacy is very rare historically. The fact that nearly every American citizen who is not actually mentally disabled can read negates much of this argument.
People can read, but I’m not convinced “functional literacy” is up. Just because I can read words and scribble out “muh patriarchy” does not mean I am capable of dispassionately assessing the effects of a given policy.
Unless your bar for mentally disabled would consider the average poster on Reddit.
“…federal government ought to be ‘compromised’ of extremely virtuous men;”
Don’t you mean comprised?
It’s disconcerting to be rocking along agreeing with the author that lack of excellence is the problem, only to stumble across a very sloppy mistake. It undermines the author’s credibility.
It wasn't the part where he suggests that doctors report their patients' medications to the state voter registration system? It was the typo that got you down?