I disagree with most every age restriction set by the government but should there be a minimum age requirement for voting or not in a libertarian society?
Since there will be opposition to republicanism as a whole, it would be better to ask if there should be a minimum age for participation in affairs of societal management. I’d say not (and I’d oppose all other age restrictions also), and add that it overlaps fairly well with civil libertarianism, if you’ve ever had a look at John Holt and Richard Farson.
Yes, 150 years old.
There should be a property requirement. Why would you get a vote for free?
You’ll vote when you can handle your liqour.
What exactly is the context of the vote? Condo association? Board of Directors meeting? American Idol?
35 and must own property.
I suppose it depends upon what your concept of a “libertarian society” is. In mine (anarchistic), I’m sure some tribes would have them, some would not.
It quickly becomes apparent that most of our “libertarians” are actually authoritarians who would enforce an elitist hierarchy. [^o)]
Most?
I don’t hold onto long refuted beliefs which claim that all men are in every way equal, and that some people have the right to steal property by voting. Nor do I believe that 16 year old’s, who have never opened a book in their entire life, and who are obsessed with myspace, should decide who and how our society is organized. Basically, I’ve abandoned my youthful ignorance and naivety for sober logic (though my logic is often flawed). Many still hold onto the belief that compromising your own welfare in order to destroy the property of others is somehow “social justice.” If it makes you feel better, those who have the right to vote will carry the tax burden (5% flat income tax).
Lakoff writes of U.S. “libertarians” having the same basic moral framework for their ideology as traditional social rightists, a fact that became apparent in Murray Rothbard’s denunciations of the exclusion of David Duke from mainstream political consideration in his later life, when he no longer had to hide his true beliefs for the purpose of alliance with leftists and could express his enthusiasm for rightist populism. These particular sentiments reinforce that view. The reference to “men” is a subtle trace of sexism and of a belief in the innate leadership qualities of men as opposed to women. The intent to exclude those without property is an elitist view shared by social rightists, where the myth of America as the Land of Opportunity allows them to blame poverty on a lack of individual discipline and self-reliance (character flaws) rather than deeper social problems. The disparagement of youth is straightforward ageism based on crude anecdotal stereotypes that ignores the fact that adolescence is effectively a modern social construct that artificially separates social adulthood from biological adulthood as well as the fact that actual empirical research indicates that adult-level reasoning abilities are acquired in early to mid adolescence.
And ignorance of diminishing marginal utility can be added to the support of authoritarianism. Lemme guess…it’s because our wealthiest citizens are the “most productive” and “best”? [;)]
However 35 year olds who have never opened a book in their entire life, and who are obsessed with myspace on the other hand should decide who and how our society is organized.
Ah, that sober logic.
So instead of actually dealing with my positions, you choose to call me a sexist because I said “men,” and an “ageist” because I don’t think 11 year old’s should decide how society is organized. Deciding the organization of society is no trivial task, that is, we don’t want ignorant and naive children voting themselves candy, porn, video games, and i-pods. Is this hard for you to understand? Is this statement controversial in your circles? It wouldn’t surprise me at all considering that you support an economic system where every single firm would be as efficient as congress (an economy run by “democracy”).
Voting for what? Surely you don’t believe that a free society would be one in which the majority can coerce the minority (democracy).
If they own property, they are less likely to support ruinous welfare and redistribution programs. They are also more likely to have an education and some sort of degree. You find this controversial?
This is absolutely meaningless by the way.
The true liberterian society has no political body.
voting… in a - libertarian - society?
I didn’t see that you’d actually advanced much of a “position” to begin with. You simply made bald assertions without qualification.