[tsimionescu]

Ah yes, the wonderful time of enlightenment when all straight white Christian land-owning men's rights became recognized, not just the nobility's. Just a few short centuries from there, the rights of poorer white men, children, women, people of any other skin color, non-Christian, and LGBT people would be recognized too.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

You jest, but skin in the game is argument is not irrelevant. It is called a franchise for a reason after all. You want a slice of the pie, you should be able to prove that you know what you are doing. Owning land was a good enough proxy then. We can argue what would be a good proxy now.

[tsimionescu]

Having the laws of the nation apply to you means you have skin in the game when it comes to deciding what those laws are. Owning something, land or whatever else, doesn't give you even one iota more "skin the game" than those that don't.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

I disagree, but lets for the sake of argument assume that I buy into your premise. In terms of degrees, do people who own land and have the laws of the nation apply to you ( which is a fascinating distinction by the way, which you may have not fully thought through, but I will leave it as a tangent unless you want to explore it further here ) have more skin in the game than those who only have laws of the nation apply to them?

[tsimionescu]

No, they have the same amount of skin in the game. Given that the state can decide to kill you, or to force you to work, land is irrelevant in the grand scheme of the law's impact.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

The response seems a little too emotional to be considered rational. Still, lets consider another perspective.

Would you agree that people with more money are treated differently from people with less money? Money is not exactly property or power, but would you agree that they stand more to lose than a person without either? If they stand to lose more, they automatically have more skin in the game. In fact, if we count money, we can give fairly definitive amount of skin in said game.

[tsimionescu]

No, this is an absurd idea. People with more money have more options - including easily leaving the country if they don't like its laws. In contrast, people with less money have less options and are more dependent on the state, and more at the state's whims if it decides to turn against them. For example, a wealthy person may be able to appeal a wrongful conviction, even taking things all the way up to international courts. A poor person will likely have to accept the initial decision of any judge. An increase of 50% in taxes will cost a wealthy person much more in pure monetary terms, but will have a much, much higher impact in quality of life for a poor person.

So, since laws and governance have a disproportionate impact on those with less money, I would say that, if anything, those with less money have more skin in the game. But I wouldn't put it like that myself - my position is that every person who lives in a country and is subject to its laws for a long enough time has, on balance, the same amount of "skin in the game". The only distinction related to the right to vote should beade based on the ability to take rational decisions (that is, while they still have just as much skin in the game, some people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they lack the ability to rationally understand the vote - but this only applies to children and to those with severe mental disabilities).

[keybored]

You’re saying that people who owned land (and humans) as property had skin in the game while everyone else did not. Just stop.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

There is no reason to conflate the two. To be frank, I explicitly stated land ( and not property as a more generic term ), which makes me question how much of a good faith of a conversation this is. My point stands on its own merits, but you seem to want to rely on cheap rhetorical theatrics a good chunk of the audience here can see through.

[keybored]

Okay, owning land then. My bad. All humans existing in the nation have skin in the game by the fact that they exist there. How do landowners have more of a stake?

[ty6853]

They have land that can be taken or voted away. I don't think only land owners should be able to vote, but it's worth noting worldwide having significant property is one of the most common ways for immigrants to qualify for a resident visa (other two common ways is job or business investment). Right or not it signifies enough skin in the game to many if not most societies to reflect reciprocated integration the community.

Remember in the early days there was almost no immigration control as well, so finding proxies for skin in the game might have been more challenging than today, when emigrating is almost impossible for the poor so they are stuck with their skin in America whether they like it or not.

[keybored]

> They have land that can be taken or voted away.

The assumption that these privileges would be voted away implies an eventual equal distribution of such thing. Then all would have equal skin in the game which would justify democracy under this bizarre definition of skin in the game.

> I don't think only land owners should be able to vote, but it's worth noting worldwide having significant property is one of the most common ways for immigrants to qualify for a resident visa (other two common ways is job or business investment).

That has got nothing to do with the political franchise.

> Right or not it signifies enough skin in the game to many if not most societies to reflect reciprocated integration the community.

No. It means that they want people with means. Same basic reason why some nations may want people with advanced degrees. Or for that matter poor people who are willing to work for low wages. They want to import people who will benefit the nation state.