Quinn: "Originally, if you didn't have land, you didn't vote, and there was a good reason for it"

››› ››› HANNAH DREIER

Discussing the history of taxation and property rights in the United States, War Room with Quinn & Rose co-host Jim Quinn declared: "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." Quinn added: "But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited."

On the October 21 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose, while reading from an opinion column by conservative blogger Scott Johnson that discussed the history of taxation and property rights in the United States, co-host Jim Quinn declared: "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." Quinn added: "But, oh no, that was -- that was just too mean-spirited." Moments earlier, Quinn said, "Now -- I mean, I can hear the appeal to the masses: 'It's not fair, it's not the American way that you don't get to vote,' but let me ask you a question: If I don't own anything, what kind of a problem do I have with voting for a measure -- a tax, a law -- that takes somebody else's property and gives it to me? I have no stake in personal property ownership 'cause I don't have any. 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."

From the October 21 broadcast of The War Room with Quinn & Rose:

QUINN: Now, "given that poorer citizens always outnumber the rich, political philosophers have long worried that government based on majority rule could lead to organized theft from the wealthy by the democratic masses." Quote, "If the majority distributes among itself the things of a minority, it is evident that it will destroy the city," unquote. That's from Aristotle.

"The Founders of the United States shared Aristotle's worry. Up through their time, history had shown that all democracies" -- all democracies -- "as James Madison put it, are 'incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.' " That's why we have a republic and not a democracy. "Madison and others therefore made it a 'first' " -- 'cause this is a quote -- "first object of government," unquote, "to protect personal property from unjust confiscation."

Now, you see what happened with Kelo versus New London, and the confiscation of one American's property to give it to another private American based on the notion that the government making that decision will get more tax money from the second American than from the first.

This is one of the reasons why, in the original Constitution of the United States, it was only people who were landowners -- property owners were the ones who were allowed to vote. You couldn't vote unless you owned property. Now -- I mean, I can hear the appeal to the masses: "It's not fair, it's not the American way that you don't get to vote," but let me ask you a question: If I don't own anything, what kind of a problem do I have with voting for a measure -- a tax, a law -- that takes somebody else's property and gives it to me? I have no stake in personal property ownership 'cause I don't have any.

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.

He goes on: "Given that one of the clauses" -- I'm sorry. "Given that one of the causes of the American Revolution was an unjust tax, the founders understood very well that taxation could become a way for one group to prey on another group. So while the Constitution empowered the federal government to levy taxes, it limited this power mostly to indirect taxes such as tariffs, duties, and excise taxes. For much of American history, the federal government subsisted solely on those taxes."

We've changed our commenting system to Disqus.
Instructions for signing up and claiming your comment history are located here.
Updated rules for commenting are here.