In an earlier essay published in Canada Free Press (see An Issue For Debate: Universal Suffrage, March 13, 2016) I made the case for limiting the right to vote to citizens who had "skin in the game", meaning they had reached a stage in life where they had something of value at risk. With certain exceptions, those with skin in the game are generally mature persons who have acquired tangible assets such as real estate. Mature in this case usually refers to age, although it is acknowledged that many older people may not themselves have acquired such assets. But what age is "mature"? Persons who disagree with my thesis are likely to state something like, "Young people who haven't lived long enough to acquire tangible assets are regularly enlisted in the armed forces, voluntarily or via conscription, and may be required to put their lives at risk protecting those who have been around long enough to acquire tangible assets. They should be entitled to vote in national elections where electees may be involved in decisions that lead conscripts into armed conflict". A fair argument as far as it goes, but it could very well be specious.

---

Support Canada Free Press

---