[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.

[A4ET8a8uTh0_v2]

<< They want to import people who will benefit the nation state.

You might be getting a little ahead of yourself. Yes, the nation state does what serves its interest, but we are not discussing what the nation state wants. We are not even discussing what the populace through small d democracy wants ( as the two are automatically aligned ). We are discussing, who is a part of the group that can want.

[keybored]

> You might be getting a little ahead of yourself. Yes, the nation state does what serves its interest, but we are not discussing what the nation state wants. We are not even discussing what the populace through small d democracy wants ( as the two are automatically aligned ). We are discussing, who is a part of the group that can want.

I was replying to someone who brought the issue up. For unknown reasons. I pointed out that that is an issue about what the nation state wants. Not about the political franchise (as in the right to vote).

Yes, it is completely irrelevant.

> We are discussing, who is a part of the group that can want.

Anyone who is not comatose.

Then we usually (us small-d democrats) might argue that all who are mature enough (like 18 years or older) should have the right to vote. Out of all those people.

[ty6853]

>That has got nothing to do with the political franchise.

Until you consider getting resident visa is by far and away the most common way to franchise for immigrants, barring some exceptions like Argentina and citizenship by investment countries. It actually haze EVERYTHING to do with political franchise.

>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.

The implication is yours. We have had eminent domain, civil and criminal forfeiture, and fractional taking (property tax) for a long time, all of which has resulted in quite a bit of land seizure, although not significantly in the direction towards 'equal distribution' despite nearly universal franchise of citizens. Although admittedly mass-scale redistribution of land has happened some places.

>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.

Yes of course nations choose the residency path that leads to franchise for immigrants with skin that they can put in the game.

[keybored]

> Until you consider getting resident visa is by far and away the most common way to franchise for immigrants, barring some exceptions like Argentina and citizenship by investment countries. It actually haze EVERYTHING to do with political franchise.

I have lost the plot I guess? The original comment was about who got to vote way back in the day.

> The implication is yours.

Okay I thought that was your implication. Then forget it.

> Yes of course nations choose the residency path that leads to franchise for immigrants with skin that they can put in the game.

I don’t know what you are talking about any more.

The original comment. See that. I cannot understand what you mean skin in the game is with regards to deciding who (back in the day) got to vote. I know that America is a nation of immigrants. This could be simplified to just people who have lived there all their lives.

[ty6853]

You are incapable of seeing because you are blinded by an ideological rejection that property ownership can increase your skin in the game.

Go back and decide what is stopping you from seeing that. It is probably negatively affecting other parts of your life as well.