THE ERA OF TRUMP

[Speaker to Animals]

At least you disavowing trump's voting rights is consistent.

I mean the idea that only military services gives you "skin in the game" is batshit looney land, but so it goes.

It's literally the primary skin in the game, and should be pretty much the only skin in the game at the federal level.

Nah.

Land ownship has been the primary skin in the game for most of western civ.

Carthaginians for example used mercs for year. Or the idea that some chick who is about to be raped when the siege of the city falls has no skin in the game, for example, is a pretty silly ascertion.

Soldiers being the only one's prepared for fight for a civilization is fantasy.

My blood for example has never volunteered for peace army, but volunteered for conscription when the call went out WW2/WW1/Civil/Revolutionary.

It wasn't the soldier who created the United States out of the frontier. The soldier was a tool in the box. Next to the plow and the ax.

The fight for what is America continues everyday, the soldier's role has been a small part in the play.

Land ownership was synonymous with obligation to serve in the army or militia, Nick. There is nothing special about land ownership per se outside of the context of muster duty.

[Speaker to Animals]

When we initially limited enfranchisement to men of property, it wasn't because owning property was somehow a mark of distinction, but because male property owners were literally the militia.

You are simply wrong.

No, not really.

[Speaker to Animals]

If you actually go back and look at the laws for militias in the colonial era and early American republic, it's always landholders and their sons. You didn't see requirements for a traveling schoolmaster, for example, to serve in the militia, though nothing likely precluded him from volunteering in it.

If you owned land in a town or village, you had to serve in the militia to some capacity.

Hence why enfranchisement was limited to land-holding men.

There was the racial component too, but that's a different topic.

[BjornP]

On early American militias: http://www.history.org/Foundation/journ ... oldier.cfm

On voting in early US history: http://www.history.org/foundation/journ ... ctions.cfm

[Speaker to Animals]

A man without property is somewhat transient. He could move from one community to another and not really be relied upon to serve in the militia. A man with a farm was on average there for life. He had a stake in the community and therefore a stake in the militia. He was easily accounted, recorded, and contacted.

There were reasons that the property ownership qualification was put in there that has NOTHING at all to do with how special you are because you own land. In fact, land was easily acquired in those days. You could get land so cheap in the frontier (really freely so) that it was no special mark of character or quality.

But it did mean you had a stake in the community. You were easily contacted and mustered when the time comes. You would be in the militia for life.

What they didn't want was a large group of freeloaders moving from place to place, voting for gibs and special privileges, and then moving along to the next town if something started to arise that could potentially result in them being mustered to fight.

[nmoore63]

The property requirement had everything to do with the fact that he was vested in the long term success of the community and very little to do with ability to be a soldier.

[Speaker to Animals]

The property requirement had everything to do with the fact that he was vested in the long term success of the community and very little to do with ability to be a soldier.

Those were the same fucking thing, Nick.

[nmoore63]

The property requirement had everything to do with the fact that he was vested in the long term success of the community and very little to do with ability to be a soldier.

Those were the same fucking thing, Nick.

No its really not.

Being prepared to be a veteran, is not the same as being a vetern.

Nor is it the same as society that would require me to waste our resources becoming a vetern when we don't need that currently.

Being a soldier is one way of showing commitment to a community, it is absurd that it is the only way to prove skin in the game.

[nmoore63]

Whether the neighbor farmer is a soldier/warrior/vetern or not is largely irrelevant to whether or not his farms prosperity is connected to the next farms.

Historically speaking.

[Okeefenokee]

The property requirement had everything to do with the fact that he was vested in the long term success of the community and very little to do with ability to be a soldier.

Those were the same fucking thing, Nick.

No its really not.

Being prepared to be a veteran, is not the same as being a vetern.

Nor is it the same as society that would require me to waste our resources becoming a vetern when we don't need that currently.

Being a soldier is one way of showing commitment to a community, it is absurd that it is the only way to prove skin in the game.

They were literally the same fucking thing.

Same thing in Rome.

Same thing in Athens.

Stop making stuff up.