Lacking education to be rich; possessing education to vote intelligently

Okay, okay, before you come after me and write me off as a complete jerk let me explain myself. There is a divide between why people believe that some people are poor and others are rich. Many people believe that people are either rich or poor based on choices they make throughout their life. Sure, not everyone starts with the same set of cards, but in places with a decent amount of economic freedom, like America and Europe, if you're born poor you don't have to remain that way. You have the ability to go from poor to rich in places with economic freedom. We see this all the time.

But now we also have an increasingly common viewpoint that states the people who are rich or poor are born that way and it is a result of their environment. We are seeing more and more people who believe that people don't really have the ability to make their way in life and decide whether to be rich or poor. We now have people who say that you are what you are born into.

If you're born poor, well then that sucks, you're out of luck and you're a victim of the system.

Now you're screwed and unlucky. People born rich are totally lucky but not so much for you. You just have to rough it and accept that other people are rich because you're poor.

So this is the divide. These are the two opposing ideologies. Of course, most rich people believe that they are rich by choice because, well, they are and many poor people believe that they are poor because they're a victim of [insert any excuse here]. The list of reasons for people being poor is endless and if you don't buy these excuses then you've obviously never been poor and you're a bad person with no compassion. Shame on you for telling poor people that they have control over their lives!

I've written an entire article talking about this before and the topic is quite heated. You have some people backing me and agreeing with what I'm saying and then you have some people that think I'm a privileged white guy who has had everything handed to me my whole life simply because of the color of my skin.

Environment or Choices?

So are people poor because of their environment or because of choices? Of course the answer is mixed. I think everyone will agree on that. So then the question becomes, well, which one is it more? Are people poor more because of their environment or are people poor more because of choices, or more specifically, bad choices they've made? I obviously am of the opinion that it is mostly due to choices that people make.

And if you agree with this then this article isn't for you.

If you agree that poor people, as all people, are pretty much responsible for their decisions that they make in life then that means that these people are accountable to the decisions they make. This means that people are adults who are actually capable of making mistakes and taking ownership of bad and good decisions. This means that if people mess up it isn't always because they were a victim or because they came from a bad environment. This means that if people mess up then it is usually on them and not some external factor outside of their control. Yes, of course there are exceptions. Yes, of course it's not always 100% on them. I get that. But it most certainly is not 100% not on them. It's not even 50% not on them. Most of the time it is on them. And if you disagree with this then let's continue based on the thesis that people are not responsible for their own choices.

Permanent Victim

If people are poor by circumstance and don't have agency over their choices then we can't possibly allow them to vote. Voting is for people who have the ability to make choices. If people just end up wherever the wind takes them and life is basically one giant lottery then we can't possibly change our situation. If this is the case then we must accept the following about poor people:

Poor people are not responsible for their choices.

If this is the case then we can't possibly let poor people vote. If poor people can't actually take responsibility for choices that lead to poverty then they can't take responsibility for votes that affect their life in any way. These are people that are incapable of making choices on their own, or more specifically, being held accountable for the decisions they make. This isn't my standard. This is the standard of people saying that poor people are victims and it's not their choice to be poor.

We don't let children vote because they are not responsible.

Children aren't mature adults who are responsible for their actions. Children don't have the foresight to fully understand the effects of their actions. We know that children are easy to manipulate and fool which is why we don't give them full agency over their decisions. This is also why children face different penalties for wrong actions they may do. Children are not fully responsible for their actions which is why we don't let them vote. The same thing can be said about poor people who are not responsible for their actions.

But they don't have access to good education

If poor people are not responsible for their choices because they lack education then we clearly can't have poor people voting. Many people will say that poor people make bad choices, or are not responsible for their bad choices, because they don't have access to the education that rich people have. First of all, this is pretty false, especially these days when even poor people have access to the Internet. But let's assume that it is true.

If poor people lack education because of the environment they were born into then do we want uneducated people voting? If they're not responsible for decisions they make in their everyday life because they failed to receive proper education then why do we want them voting on topics that they are not properly educated on? Do we want educated people voting or uneducated people voting? I'm not trying to be rude about it, but this is the logical conclusion of what people are promoting. If people are not responsible for decisions they make in life because they lack education and proper training how can we expect them to be responsible for decisions they make in voting?

Why do we hold this duplicitous viewpoint? Why this contradiction?

We're literally treating poor people like children and then thinking it is okay for children to vote. I'm over here telling poor people they're not children and they are responsible. So which is it?

Yes, I can hear it already:



You might say but then we'll just have a ton of rich people getting even more control over the society. Rich people already run the country and they will just seize even more control if we get rid of poor people voting. If poor people don't vote then rich people will just screw the poor people, the very people who shouldn't be getting screwed and can't afford to be screwed. Okay, let's dissect this a little bit more.

The whole idea of everyone having an equal vote irrespective of education, property or other metrics is a relatively new concept. Originally in America it was only property owners who had the ability to vote -- i.e., non-poor people. You don't have to be rich to have property, however, most people with property probably aren't poor. And people with property probably have a decent education. And there is a good reason why America operated this way: if you don't have property why is it any of your business on how people who do have property handle their property?

If you don't own property why is it your concern on how a tax or a law should work concerning what property of others gets transfered to you?

It clearly isn't.

Radio host Jim Quinn sums this up nicely:

Now, back in the day, when this was the law of the land, anybody who wanted to vote needed to step up to the plate, achieve, get a stake in America, and then vote. I know you think this is anti-democratic. Well, actually it is anti-democratic because you don't want a democracy. Democracy is mob rule. You want a republic. Originally, if you didn't own land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it: because those without property will always vote away the property of other people unto themselves, and that's the beginning of the end. But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited.

There are many more poor people who make use of tax dollars than rich people. To put it simply, rich people pay taxes while poor people consume taxes. Taxes are a win for the poor and a loss for the rich. So rich people basically pay for poor people. I'm not saying this is a bad thing in itself, but I'm saying rich, or rather, non-poor people are the ones who pay all the taxes. So without rich people to pay for taxes poor people would really be in trouble, or at least need to depend much more on themselves.

Low on income, big on government

Now, people vote in their own, personal best interest. This is human nature and it is obvious. Rich people want to pay less in taxes. Poor people want rich people to pay more in taxes so that they will have more taxes coming to themselves. It's a well known fact that Democratic/Liberal policies favor the welfare state which is why so many poor people are Democrats. Poor people vote more Democratic because they want the state to take resources from the rich in the form of taxes and transfer them over to themselves.

This now gets into an economic discussion, which isn't really the point of this article, but suffice to say rich people obviously have a better understanding of economics. Rich people are better with money and know how to create more of it. Rich people know how to create wealth. No, I'm not talking about crony capitalist wall street bankers who leverage fiat currency. I'm talking about the vast majority of rich people: creative, hard-working entrepreneurs who have earned their wealth.

Not every rich person is a stereotypical asshole. In fact, the vast majority of rich people are honest, resourceful, kind and charitable.

But another thing the majority of rich people are is forward-thinking. Most rich people know economics and know what creates wealth and what works long term. This is usually why they are rich in the first place. And because of this they know that government programs that redistribute wealth are a long term disaster. They get it. It's not that hard to figure out. But when you're on the receiving end of government taxes and when you've been told your whole life that the only reason other people are rich is because you're poor then it shapes the way you view rich people and the whole world. When you believe that you're an actual victim because of rich people then you want to do everything you can to take their money. And you also don't care about the long term consequences of this.

Margaret Thatcher said it best:

"The trouble with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money"

Margaret Thatcher

And rich people know this. Poor people may know this as well but they don't care. They don't care about the future. They care about having enough money right now to carry on with their immediate life. Some of this is precisely why many of them are poor to begin with.

So we have to understand that everyone will vote to their own best interest. And the best interest of poor people is to take as much as they can from the rich. If you're allowing poor people to vote to take away money from the rich in the form of welfare why would they not vote for it? And why would this not encourage even more people to become poor?

When we have poor people voting they are going to trend to take away the money of rich people.

The problem is, rich people are much more effective at spending money. When you use money for government welfare programs you are getting less bang for the buck. There are unseen losses that nobody talks about and unless you have a certain level of insight, which many people do not have, you'll never see it. You can spend money a number of ways. And not all ways of spending it are equal.

More government spending on welfare programs to take care of poor people is just going to encourage more poor people. It's going to discourage poor people actually taking care of themselves or finding ways to become wealthy. It's going to discourage other types of charity outside of government which will more efficiently use the money and also more efficiently help poor people get out of poverty.

The point I'm trying to make is to show that poor people don't always have their own best interest at hand. We've all heard the saying: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Too poor to vote?

Simple. Stop being poor. Unable to stop being poor? Then you don't possess the criteria necessary for voting. This is what I am saying.

People go from poor to middle class all the time in the modern world. This happens on a daily basis. People shift their financial class based on decisions they make every day. All you need to do is work towards it each day until you accomplish it. And working towards it means you need to stop making excuses for yourself. Working towards ending your own poverty means changing the way you view the world and yourself. Working towards wealth means taking responsibility for yourself and your actions. Instead of blaming others you need to start blaming yourself for where you are.

When we vote we are letting people who have a stake in something determine what to do with that something. With early America property owners were determining what to do with their property. They were determining what the state, not federal, government should do with the funds contributed by property owners. In many ways this is an improvement over how we currently do it because it doesn't allow good intentions to destroy the people who actually create jobs, wealth, innovation and improve the standard of living (rich people).

When you have a car you don't let other people determine what to do with your car. It's your car. You decide what to do with your property. Why should voting be any different? Why is it understood that you shouldn't be allowed to mess with somebody else's car but you should be allowed to mess with somebody else's money via taxation? Because we all voted for it? Get it -- voted for it. Maybe that should have never been on the table for voting to begin with. And in early America it wasn't.

The double standard

If we are going to let poor people have a say in what to do with property they don't have then we should allow rich people to have a say in what to do with property they do have.

If poor people can vote to take money from rich people then rich people should be able to vote to not pay taxes for poor people.

And this is how it worked earlier on. This is exactly what was going on.

But of course the cries of people trying to make rich people feel guilty eventually took hold and things slowly started to change. Eventually rich people were convinced that they were bad people for working to become rich and then choosing how to use their taxes. Instead, non-property owners needed to be included in the mix of voting. And so the barrier for voting became lower and lower until now all that's required is a pulse, if that. Now anyone can vote. It's a basic "human right". Right. Okay.

Let's recap

Here is the view many people have on poor people:

  1. They are unable to make good decisions (it's not their fault, they're a victim, etc.)
  2. They are not responsible for their bad decisions (it's not their fault, they're a victim, etc.)

If these are true then poor people shouldn't be voting. Again, we don't allow children to vote for precisely these reasons. So if you're going to play the victim card on poor people, and not hold them accountable to their decisions, then you need to revoke their voting ability. This is something people who are able to make good decisions can do, or at the very least, somebody who is going to take responsibility for their decisions.

Poor people need to take some responsibility for their lives. I know all day long the media and governmental institutions feed poor people with the BS that they are victims. No you're not. You're a human being capable of making good and bad decisions just like everyone else. We all come from different starting points and we all face challenges. Some of us face harder challenges than others. So what? Own up to the decisions you make, including the bad ones. Stop acting like and using the same excuses as a child.

I'm on your side, but you're not.

 Filed under: Politics / Government, The Point of No Return, Victim of Life, But What About The Poor People?, Doing Bad While Feeling Good, Good Intentions / Bad Education

About The Author

Quinton Figueroa

Quinton Figueroa

Facebook @slayerment YouTube

El Paso, Texas

I am an entrepreneur at heart. Throughout my whole life I have enjoyed building real businesses by solving real problems. Business is life itself. My goal with businesses is to help move the human ...



Anonymous: Your dumb

Your dumb

Anonymous: *youre're dumb
@Anonymous (view comment)

*youre're dumb

Red Kite: Yes, I got your point and you

Yes, I got your point and you're right that poor people have a poorer perspective over state affairs.
While this system (that you've mentioned) does allow the individual to climb the social ladder, it would still create a government that is too controlled by the rich and it would get nearly impossible to take the power away from them.

Switzerland has a highly democratic system as we all know. And yet the people there rejected a referendum on whether to implement the basic income or not. In a nutshell, the people rejected a referendum to get free money.

In America the government is seen as an evil external controlling entity, but elsewhere (only if the country is democratic, of course) the people see it as an intermediary of the society built to better organise ourselves in order to live better and freer lives. Financial freedom is vital to Germans for example. Because let's be honest, being poor but free sucks, therefore many people believe that we should help everyone to achieve their potential so that we can normally live.

When the poor are well educated and the government is community-oriented most people will take greater responsibility when voting. As we've seen in both Switzerland and Australia.

"If poor people can vote to take money from rich people then rich people should be able to vote to not pay taxes for poor people."
Yeah, that just wouldn't work and would cause another french revolution.

Also the Nordic model and Benelux economics work, an average man is living very high life standards there. There are so many poor Americans rotting in McDonalds, because they are not educated enough and cannot afford some decent food.

You can still become a billionaire in Nordic countries, just like Olav Thon for example. But I'll admit it's harder, yet your taxmoney doesn't finance slackers, but regular working people.

Jonas: Red Kite summarized it pretty

Red Kite summarized it pretty well.
Here in Finland we are also have a very democratic system. We are very far left on the scale, paying high taxes... And we have almost no poor people.
Now let's say we stopped paying taxes. We would get more poor people, more uneducated people since we can't keep schools free.. And what will these pooor people do? How will they get their food on the table? Well the easiest way is to steal it. Sure some rich people might get hurt or die during the robbery, but at least they don't have to pay taxes. And that money they'd had put on taxes? Well they go to pay for their personal education, health care, security, roads, parks etc. So it's not like they gain any money from not paying taxes. They still have to be paid, just in another form.

Kilough: Hey. Always loved your

Hey. Always loved your article because of it always encourages me to do and try better in my life.
I'm relatively poor but I don't want to stay that way and I believe i can soar above this. It's just difficult to try sometimes when you're unwillingly and unwittingly pulled back by the damaging perceptions of other people. That's one of the things in myself that I don't like the most, that I'm very vulnerable to others' perceptions (unless I have set up mental defenses beforehand) - so thank you for this article, and for all your other articles. They're very interesting, they make sense, they educate you, and they're truthful IMHO.

Kilough: Love this article. Thanks for

Love this article. Thanks for sharing!

BIC: Not Let Certain Groups Vote? Are You Joking or Trolling?

I'm going to risk assuming that you mean voting at a ballot box here. Correct me if I am wrong. In essence, voting is an act of volition. It is an expression of will. If you vote at a ballot box, you're just making it a matter of record and providing a frequency count of votes that makes volition quantifiable. How many people voted at the ballot box? How many were in favor? How many were opposed? Volition does not cease to exist just because you didn't visit a ballot box to record your expression of will. Your vote counts because government is by the will and the consent of the people, not by the quantification and tally of that expression of will, or that phenomenon. The ballot box is a survey, or a sample, not identical to what it measures or quantifies. Since vote counts can be manipulated, forged, tampered with, inaccurate, or non-representative, they rarely are identical to the will of the people who are present or interested in a given area. This was evident in the case where thousands of illegal aliens flooded over the borders in the US and attempted to vote-tamper. Likely how Obama was elected. But no one who did not support those policies was going to be affected because elections and measures aren't made at the ballot box alone. They pass or fail when good people decided to support or oppose them in their everyday lives. If there is no true support in the body, the measures fail no matter what the election results or the ballot counts look like. People vote with their feet, their currency, and their time and attention. If they don't give you presence, attention, or heed, you didn't win anything. Since you cannot deprive anyone of their volition, their free will, you cannot deprive anyone of their essential vote. All you could possibly say -- and I don't know why you would say it -- is we won't provide access to a ballot box. Everyone votes in essence when they determine that a course of action is either agreeable or disagreeable, that they will or won't support someone else's proposal based on their best judgment about what is good, right, and fair to everyone. There is always an alternative to a course of action you don't agree with and do not wish to support. Whether you visit a ballot box or not, you have a right to choose what is best within your own personal circumstances, barring any harm to others of course, and I would submit, you have an obligation to form a considered opinion about what is just, proper, and best for everyone, not because what any one individual thinks or wants should be universally true, but because of the fact that other's lives may be in need of your consideration. We would never want it to be the case that anyone else is underprivileged, under represented, neglected, abused, or harmed. Voting it seems to me is about asking simple questions about courses of action that affect everyone's interests, not just some people's interests within a group, or a state, or a country, and perhaps, where cultural boundaries do not dictate otherwise and some universal structure is possible, then globally or within a known universe. Those simple questions are the same no matter the level of organization or size of the population. "Is this beneficial to everyone?" or "Is this fair to everyone?" or "If there isn't a unanimous vote, what opt-outs and alternatives will there be for the dissenting populace?" A vote count might give you some indication of where people are on an issue, but it is not infallible. Not even close. Your will is your vote. Your perception and insight is your vote. Your choices are your votes. Whenever we see programs and policies that are not fair to everyone, and not beneficial to everyone, or that do not give non-supporters options, we know we need to change those policies and improve those programs. That's what it means to have a conscience, and also what it means to have proper respect for the free will of others to live their lives as they choose. I don't think many would like to live under autocratic rule, dictatorship, or the dreaded tyrannical government that gave history the Declaration of Independence in the American Revolution.

Eli Couchman: Ok I see where you're coming

Ok I see where you're coming from, but what about all the stupid rich people? To name a few: Kodak Black, Donald Trump, most rich right-wing conservatives, many more celebrities like Kim Kardashian, Kendrick Lamar, and lots more. So if you really are proposing that some people arent allowed to vote, don't do it by worth, make everyone take an IQ test or make it a requirement that you passed high school in four years, that would make a lot more sense, because some poor people are very smart and just got unlucky, and many rich people seem as if they are mentally disabled (like the person who won the lottery and died because he tried to plate his testicles in gold). So don't restrict the poor people from voting, restrict the stupid, dumb, and idiotic.

Quinton Figueroa: You make a very good point.
@Eli Couchman (view comment)

You make a very good point.

Jose: Sort of
@Eli Couchman (view comment)

Yea. but these are individual examples highlighted which doesn't represent the majority of rich people and does not have significance considering the entire population of rich and successful people. The rich but dumb people don't stay in that position long enough time to make a significant impact, for example the lottery guy you described. Lastly, I think do think these people you mentioned are extremely smart, just different and not of your liking, so you may consider them stupid... but they really are not. People don't become president by accident, even if they did, it must be the work of stupid voters right? Donald trump has already accomplished what past president did not, for decades. You may or not may agree with his actions/policies, but you can't deny his results. Who came closest to making progress to denuclearize north korea? Not obama.

Bongstar420: Lets just impose an IQ and

Lets just impose an IQ and educational requirement. Everyone gets access to the same educational facilities.

Otherwise, you are just another derp in the tremendous ocean of derp we are currently drowning in.

Think about it. You are comfortable with any moron having a vote so long as they have money. Let the derp rain! Heck. Even any moron with money can be president.
Shit...even any moron can have money


Quinton Figueroa: > You are comfortable with
@Bongstar420 (view comment)

> You are comfortable with any moron having a vote so long as they have money.

A fool and his money are soon parted. High IQ people have the money.

Anonymous: What about people who choose

What about people who choose to be poor, like monastics or the Amish? If you bar them from voting based on their economic status then you're not preventing them from voting because they lack the qualities to vote (since they chose that lifestyle), you're preventing them from voting because they do not share the same values as you. That's awful totalitarian.

simon: The problem of your argument

The problem of your argument is that its not backed up with any empiric material. U seem to have no interest in historic reality or reality at all, but just derping out some thoughts u had. U dont even bother to mention any sources you read about the topic, despite your own book. Do you think you are the first person in history thinking about this topic?
So let me try to help you out:

"But now we also have an increasingly common viewpoint that states the people who are rich or poor are born that way and it is a result of their environment."
This is actualy what people allready thought a long time ago. If you ask some middle age feudalist, if he earned his wealth, he will tell u that this is the place he was born which is gods will. We had a shift in the 18th century.

"The problem is, rich people are much more effective at spending money."
False. The less money you have, the more is your share of spending. National and political economy is different to buiseness economy. You should try to understand that.

Heres a list of books you can read to improve your economic knowledge:

Adam Smith: Wealth of Nations. Adam smith did not just started economy as a science, he also saw the necesarity of a wealfare state to ensure stability and safety. Jonas made a good comment about this. USA is one of the most inequaly Nations and has more dead by firearms than any othe country in the world. Also does inequality corelate with unhapiness.

Thomas Piketty: Capital in the 21th century. Maybe you have allready heard of this, it shows the history and status quo in wealth distibution. Critics mostly concentrate about his formula r>g, (interest > growth), but the big part of his work is collecting Data.

Noam Chomsky: Requiem for the American Dream. Short history of political economy in the USA, easy to read, lots of sources.

Yuval Harari: Short History of Humanity; Homo Deus.
David Graeber: Depts - the first 5000 years. Mindblowing. Both are very good to get a picture of human history and nature.

If u dont have time to read, maybe because your are bussy blogging abd have to chose one, David Graeber would be the guy to read. I realy hope, u will read one of them ( or at least any book from time to time...)

s: voting criteria

Your argument is fairly similar to that made by the Athenian philosopher Socrates in "Republic". He disliked democracy to the masses, particularly the un-thinking voter. He quite convincingly argues that voting is a skill, not a right. Those that lack skill in selecting expert statesman will elect demagogues. Ironically he was put to death via a democratic vote.

Add new comment