• HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    The logic is sound when viewed in isolation - in theory parents care more about the future as their kids live in it, I can see that. And that’s about where the logic ends.

    • what about those who chose not to have kids to provide for a better future?

    • those who have kids to get more votes, undermining the whole premise

    • those who are actually making a better future as non parents.

    • the basics founding block of democracy of one person, one vote?

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      “the basics founding block of democracy of one person, one vote”

      No it isn’t. Democracy as an electoral system does not have any such requirement in it’s definition.

      It was still a democracy when black people and women couldn’t vote. People just eventually agreed that it should be more equal. We still don’t let certain people vote though (kids have no voice, and neither do some criminals)

      As for those other people, they still have a vote, it’s just a smaller amount than people who would have kids.

      Again, I don’t actually think this is a good idea, I just see that there is potentially good outcomes from it.

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Not the ones who downvited you, your points are valid.

        My argument back is that at these times black people wernt people, and women were property therefore no vote. Hell, you wernt a man if you didn’t have land (hence the landowner vote).

        I don’t think its a good idea either, but society progresses when we can bring things into the open to discuss pros and cons - just so happens this holds considerable cons… and ironically came from a con.