I am glad to get your response and I have to apologize for being an amateur philosopher in using words that can have multiple interpretations. In my mind, I have come to certain definitions of words that make sense to me, but may not necessarily be mainstream definitions, so I will do my best to argue what I mean.
My current interpretation of taxation as the basis of suffrage is that you get voting power proportional to how much you pay in taxes. If you pay $10,000 in taxes, you get 10,000 votes (assuming 1 vote per dollar), if you pay $100,000 in taxes, you get 100,000 votes. Essentially anyone paying taxes gets to participate in voting (they’d only be excluded if they paid no taxes), but those who pay more, will get more voting power. However, there are significant technical difficulties with this that I’m trying to resolve such as: 1) assume an income tax: should you only get representation for the period you paid income tax? What if you pay a bunch of income tax one year, but none the next, should your suffrage change that drastically from year to year? Also, what about outside investors who don’t make income until down the road, but made a big investment upfront? Should they have no suffrage until they are profitable? 2) assume a wealth tax where all wealth is taxed a percentage every period (say using GAAP to appraise the value of wealth): should people who are productive, but have little wealth (say productive kids fresh out of college, and perhaps with debt) not have any suffrage? Would seem to under-represent laborers compared to the wealthy (I’ve tried resolving this problem by attempting to quantify people as a form of wealth based on their income, but that’s quite a rabbit-hole given people aren’t slaves to be bought and sold on the market, however you could use cost-basis, but not perfect) 3) assume a sales tax: is it the consumer who gets the suffrage (entity buying the good that’s taxed), or the producer (entity selling the good that’s taxed)? 4) what about entities/persons that receive government funding who then go on to pay taxes on that funding, should they still get suffrage, or should it be discounted somehow to prevent conflict of interest in voting for more funding?
Figuring out the details is a work-in-progress but I think there’s promise in the principle. I believe the principle of productivity is important here, where practically, only those who are productive (or were productive in the past to accumulate wealth in the present) can be taxed. One of the beauties here (at least how I see it), is that you will only be able to pay taxes once you start becoming productive, so it’s just a natural derivation that sovereignty/suffrage would stem from being productive.
The following is semantic abstractland so don’t take what I say too seriously if it gets annoying. I suppose I use the term “rights” because the term “property rights” is used readily and not “property privileges”. I would use the term “property privileges” (assuming your definition of privileges), but that’s just not a commonly used term. I don’t really like the definition of rights as things that can’t be taken away. I think anything can be taken away by the government (or criminals or nature for that matter), including your body and property. However, I understand there is the concept of natural rights, which the argument is that rights are bestowed by nature (or God) and these can’t be taken away. However, given the government can imprison or kill you if so inclined, I find this a hard definition to accept. I personally prefer the definition of rights as the things granted by a social contract (constitution). The constitution establishes the government which is chartered to protect the rights outlined in the constitution. Perhaps a communist constitution may have completely different rights from an egalitarian constitution, or from a capitalist/productivist constitution, or from a hedonistic/utilitarian constitution. I’m just trying to argue what should be the rights for a constitution composed of individuals who produce wealth. It’s probably not a very great deal for individuals who don’t and won’t produce wealth.
The idea that voting rights and property rights are determined by the competency to contract is a reasonable interpretation. However, I would argue that without being productive, what do you have/own to contract with? A productive individual can contract their labor, which allows them to build wealth, with which they can further contract. Perhaps it is productivity that enables the competency to contract?
I’m not a father, but would like to be someday, so take what I say on parenting with a grain of salt. My evil, engineering, non-romantic interpretation is that I see people as productive machines. The goal of parents (if you ascribe to productivism) is to raise children into productive members of society, similar to an entrepreneur raising a business. However, unlike a business where you can sell it to a buyer, children achieve sovereignty (self-ownership) through their ability to be productive in society. (of course back in the old days, parents did sell their children and own their labor). I can’t argue for slavery, but definitely parents/sponsors should have a significant measure of control/responsibility in upbringing children to be compatible with society.
Regarding retirement, I agree that the productivist would not believe in retiring (i.e. consuming the wealth that they produced). This isn’t so unreasonable to swallow, there are many individuals who never retire (still make more than they consume) until they are close to death (e.g. probably most millionaires and billionares). Even the ones who don’t actively labor, they at least invest their wealth so they are making more than they consume. I argue a productivist would pass on their wealth (refer to Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth for some interesting points regarding philanthropy) or transform their wealth for future use (such as spending their wealth raising a family) rather than consuming it before death. I’m not an old man, but I know many get bored once they retire (I suspect my father would be if/when he does retire).
Now, whether or not the government should then seize the property of unproductive individuals is definitely contentious and I don’t have the exact answer. Unless you believe eminent domain is universally always bad, you must at least give in somewhat to this possibility. Perhaps if people knew that their future wealth would be taken from them once retiring, they may end up being less productive overall (e.g. don’t work as hard), so on the net, society may suffer from confiscation. This is a probable dark side of productivism. A libertarian would probably argue that the Europeans colonizing America was ultimately wrong, while a productivist would argue it was ultimately right, since the Europeans could be far more productive with the land and resources than the native Americans. Is the woodsman trespassing on the bear’s territory in the right or wrong to kill the bear when it attacks him? Is the bear sovereign? Is the native American sovereign? Productivism would argue that if the native American could be a productive member of society (i.e. they produce wealth), then yes; otherwise, no.