TexasCHLforum.com

"And I am completely against universal suffrage. Intelligence is one issue, but even more fundamental is the principal that you don't get a say in that in which you have no stake. If you don't own property you shouldn't get to vote to raise or lower property taxes (actually though, there shouldn't be any property taxes, since effectively, they mean that you can't really own property, you can only rent it from the government). If you're on welfare and a net tax consumer you shouldn't get to vote, period. It's ridiculous that people who are not contributing taxes can vote to make those who are contribute more. Some people advocate tests for voting, but I don't think intelligence would be particularly relevant or tests necessary if we only allowed legitimate stakeholders to vote."

So if we use this logic I guess we should give Michael Bloomberg a ton of votes because of his wealth and maybe give you one vote and see what the outcome is. Even the person on welfare pays sales tax on the items they buy so the population in general does pay tax. The most intelligent people probably vote liberal so I wouldn't put too much into IQ testing. I do agree about reforming the drug laws. On the other hand, if Obama had been arrested for his cocaine indiscretions as a youngster we would have not been dealing with Obamacare today. Just the luck of the draw. Many of your arguments have validity though. I asked my stupid brother why he continues to live in California and he replied "The weather!". At least if they steal a weapon now, it will have to have a California certifed magazine or whatever else that ridiculous state requires.