Having a Stake

Last week I posted a post on Rush Limbaugh talking about the wisdom of the founding fathers in making sure only property owners could vote because only property owners had a stake in the system.

Well that argument piqued Random Goblin's ire, so much that he posted a comment and then e-mailed me his comments as well. The thing is, he makes some good points, so I am going to give them a more prominent position.

I've been thinking about what Rush Limbaugh said (you printed it on your website) for a couple of days, and it's really been ticking me off. Here's why:

He says that only property owners have a stake in the system, and that poor folks don't, so they shouldn't be able to vote. Basically, right?

But poor people live their lives in the system and directly affected by the system. They have children who will grow up shaped by the system.

Yet, this does not qualify as "a stake."

Essentially, what Rush is saying is that property and wealth are more valuable and important than human lives and children's futures.

And you're going to have a hard time finding something that's going to piss me off more than that.

This is hard to dispute, and it is very annoying to me as well.

Of course on another note, the "system" always disproportionately helps the poor and the working class. Frankly that's what it supposed to do, protect those who can't protect themselves. This shouldn't come as any great surprise, but the wealthy can protect themselves pretty well. It's the poor and working class and middle class who need a system to protect them. Anyway, well worth considering.