| « | A Brilliant Summation |
»
|
|
Saturday, February 19, 2005
The Vote
It's been a while since the privilege of voting was awarded on any rational basis. Recent Democratic attempts to enfranchise convicted felons and fourteen-year-olds, and the lack of a substantive response by anyone with three functioning brain cells, have made it plain that your Curmudgeon's services are urgently needed in this vital national debate.
First, let's get this onto the table: regardless of all language and protestations to the contrary, there is no "right to vote." The vote is a privilege awarded under legal stricture. That privilege can be lost for procedural reasons, and under current law cannot be claimed simply on the basis of humanity or citizenship. All matters subject to debate are about what categories of citizens shall be awarded the privilege, and under what circumstances they may exercise it.
By the action of the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments to the Constitution, plus various "civil rights" laws, the original power to grant or withhold the franchise, which belonged to the states, was usurped by the federal government. The states can still place restrictions on residency, registration, and other minor matters, but for all practical purposes it's Washington that determines who has the franchise today. Every state is now obligated to grant the privilege of voting to:
- Any nominal citizen...
- ...eighteen years of age or older...
- ...who has registered in accordance with the laws of his state of residence...
- ...who has not been stripped of his franchise pursuant to a felony verdict and sentencing under the penal law.
For practical purposes, the franchise extends even more widely than that, as most states do not require positive identification and verification of one's franchise at the polls.
Is this healthful for the Republic? Does the warm glow from our steady advance toward universal franchise compensate for the extension of the voting power to millions upon millions of persons who plainly have no idea what they're about -- worse, many of whom have no incentive to wield it responsibly?
Don't all rush at once, now.
Time was, our "public" schools used to teach a mandatory civics curriculum, in which the structure of American government and the significance of the federal and state constitutions was explored. Today, such courses of instruction are cursory at best and treasonous at worst. They're often taught by persons dismissive of the subject and its impact.
Given that all political authority flows from authorizing documents such as the Constitution, oughtn't it to be a requirement for the franchise that a prospective voter display some understanding of both the principles of constitutionalism and the prescriptions and proscriptions of the document itself?
That's not a hard requirement to meet. The Constitution covers nine sheets of parchment and is written in very plain English. He who can't comprehend it is obviously unfit to elevate executives, legislators, or judges who will be bound by its provisions.
(Your Curmudgeon will pass in silence over the abortions most of the state constitutions have become. New York's constitution is such a joke that it's routinely amended to give the state government authority for piddling purposes; one recent amendment awarded Albany the power to modify ski trails. This is the consequence of public inattention to the doings of state legislatures, which is only to be expected at a time when "the action" is perceived to be almost entirely at the federal level.)
Given the reality of the one-vote effect, and the astonishing thinness of several recent, high-profile electoral victories, it's imperative that we find some basis for awarding the franchise that militates toward responsibility in its use. Granted that there's no imaginable set of qualifications that would guarantee such responsibility in practice, it's nevertheless important to try to screen out would-be voters who have no idea of the country's founding principles, or who would be moved to violate or vitiate them for any reason.
Such a screen might eliminate ninety percent of those currently considered enfranchised. That would be neither a good thing nor a bad thing, except as it would conduce to the health of our constitutional Republic. Numbers don't matter; rights, justice, and principles do.
Your Curmudgeon proposes the following criteria for awarding the power to vote:
- The applicant must be a citizen of these United States;
- He must present a photographic confirmation of his identity;
- He must be able to show continuous residence in one state for no less than one year prior to his application, that state being the one in which he seeks to be enfranchised;
- He must be able to present receipts for having paid sales, property, or income taxes within the state of his residence, no more than one year before his application, and for a total amount not less than $500;
- He must present a Certificate of Proficiency in constitutional understanding, earned no more than one year previously by his state's elections authority, said certificate to be awarded upon achieving a grade of 85% or higher on a multiple-choice test composed of twenty computer-selected questions on constitutional principles;
- In exchange for the privilege of voting in a specified election, he must agree to forgo and forswear until after the next general election:
- any position of profit or trust under the Constitution, in any federal, state, or local office, whether elective, appointive, or Civil Service;
- any and all payments from any organ of government, regardless of the reason for them;
- any and all personal or categorical privileges, exemptions, or subventions that may be awarded by any organ of government.
The attentive reader will note that under such a regime, he who would vote would perforce be self-supporting, stable of residence, provably able to read English, and would have no immediate incentive for bending public policy toward his own advantage or enrichment. Moreover, candidates for office would be forbidden to vote. (Why anyone who seeks the powers of elective office should be allowed to vote is a question for the ages.)
It's a stern set of requirements. It might reduce the enfranchised element of the populace to ten or twenty million persons, at least at the outset. But if it were to cleanse our Republic of the enemies of the Constitution numerous at every level of government, the flagrant self-seeking of millions of persons who continually vote for bigger subsidies for themselves, their favored groups, or their favored causes, and the ignorance of those who think President Bush somehow traduces the Constitution when he quotes Isaiah, it would be worth it and more.
Thoughts? Please, no blather about "the sacred right to vote." When someone presents your Curmudgeon with a baby who was provably born with a ballot in his hand, he'll take such an assertion seriously. Not before.
Comments
Mr. Porretto,
With all due respect, I must say that however desirable such a regime would be, it will never, ever come to pass. As you have made clear, the hurdle to overcome is nothing less than the repeal of several Constitutional Amendments, all of whom are broadly popular and whose popularity rests on a potent combination of self-interest, ideology and myth. I can imagine no harder target for worthwhile political reform.
Posted by on 02/19/2005 at 09:50 AMWell, yes, but one can dream, can’t one? Besides, discussing the qualifications for the vote is a side door into discussing the significance of voting—its nature as a power and a privilege rather than a right, and the dangers that have flowed and continue to flow from the overextension of the franchise.
The conversation is going on as we speak; I only ask that we make ourselves a part of it.
Posted by Francis W. Porretto on 02/19/2005 at 10:02 AMFran, could you clarify:
#5, Certificate of Proficiency in constitutional understanding - would this be a re-testing within a year of every election ? I’d also worry about who decides what the “right” answer is, i.e. is the right to bear arms individual or collective, etc.
#6, eschewing any and all payments from any organ of government - I assume this would not include tax refunds ?Even with these questions, you have my support for any method that prevents those too stupid to properly remove a chad from voting.
Posted by Joe on 02/19/2005 at 10:35 AMRAH, a number of times, had his characters discuss the franchise. I have thought of it not only as a privilege, but a duty...part of the price tag of citizenship. Jury duty (IMHO) falls somewhat under that same blanket of civic responsibilities. That an increasingly smaller amount of people are aware of the effect their vote can have, let alone take the time to go and vote in the first place, will perhaps bring a quicker end to our grand experiment then any invading army or hidden agenda(s) of political parties from within.
You also mention the distressing tendency of our schools (at all levels) to graph the instructors personal political agenda (or schools/school boards) into the civics curriculum (if they even have one any more). I wonder if the sea change wasn’t really felt when activism reared its head in the 60’s and 70’s as the answer to redressing concerns with ones government or government officials...and the youthful (and misguided) notion of not having to know about the government and how it worked was OK, one just needed to know how to subvert same.
I like the solution in “Starship Troopers”...you want to vote you have to have served in the military (despite what the nay sayers have to say...it sounds better to me every day). And if I read the darn thing right, Heinlein’s version of the military was far more then just the infantry. Now that I have probably stirred up a hornets nest, and await the first cry of “fascist”, I shall take my seat.
Posted by GuyS on 02/19/2005 at 11:06 AMA tax refund does not constitute a payment from government: it is simply the difference between what was paid to the government and what the government contends it is owed.
Posted by CGHill on 02/19/2005 at 11:11 AMPerhaps I’m soft, but I’ve always been of the mindset that a person who serves his time and returns to society and attempts to make amends for his crimes by being an upstanding citizen, should be able to vote as well.
I’m not suggesting we set up voting booths in prisons, I would never support that. I’m speaking of those who have been returned to society at large, they should have their freedoms reinstated. If they are not worthy of such, why release them?
Given how big the net to “catch criminals” is, I’m a bit wary of how some of these people are treated.
Of course, I believe in the future the net becomes larger, and more people will be caught in it. I’m basing this view on my observations of the present trends.
I’m all for a test of Constitutional knowledge, as long as it’s not given by University instructors.
As always a very thoughtful piece.
Posted by Heather on 02/19/2005 at 11:45 AMWell I was hoping I would be the one to bring up Heinlein but guy beat me to it.
There was a hugely active discussion on this topic at the Nation of Riflemen forums last year, under this thread:
http://www.kimdutoit.com/forum/threads2004.php?id=4266_0_34_0_C
It was a pretty frewheeling discussion, as those on Kim’s site tend to be.
My personal view on voting is that someone should have to earn the right to vote through service (military or otherwise), and must maintain that right through continued participation in society.
As to how that is all determined, that’s a pretty difficult question (and much of what the thread delves into)
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/19/2005 at 11:46 AMChris, please tell me you’re not proposing that someone must serve the state in order to have the right to vote. Am I misunderstanding you here?
Posted by Heather on 02/19/2005 at 11:50 AMHeather, don’t jump to hard on Chris...I tossed that bone in first, and yes....with the provisions for military service as outline in “Starship Troopers”...having to have spend some amount of time in the service of ones country should be a prerequisite to one being able to vote. What most folks fail tor realize...and Fran is right here...it is not a *right*, voting is a *privilege*. If you do not meet or no longer meet the requirements...you can not vote. Taking this one step further...this is a Constitutional(or more correct a Representative) Republic....we are NOT a Democracy in the true sense of that form of government...That the Constitution has been bastardised over the years, and the media and *progressives*, decry our lack of getting the voice of the people heard (ie: dropping the electoral college in favor of a direct popular vote)doesn’t make it any less true.
And, yes Chris, I went and read the thread on Kim’s site(after your suggestion). It was lively!
Posted by GuyS on 02/19/2005 at 01:08 PMI don’t disfavor limits on franchise. I sometimes wonder if women’s suffrage was all that good an idea.
However, I don’t like the idea of a citizenship test. It strikes me as too vulnerable to leftist mischief. (Or rightist mischief, for that matter.)
I do think, however, that it is wannsinnig NOT to demand proof of eligibility (as distinct from proof of identity) at the polls. The left’s refusal to countenance such strikes me as tantamount to an admission of intent to mischief.
M
Posted by Mark Alger on 02/19/2005 at 01:35 PMGuy, I don’t mean to come across as jumping Chris, I really want to know, I’ve not really heard this idea before to be honest. I see that you did initially bring the idea up, I missed that originally.
But I wonder what justification is there for requiring service to one’s country in order to have a say over electoral processes? I understand we are not a democracy, but our founders felt it important enough to ensure that the citizens had at least some say in the process.
I can’t imagine myself serving the state, especially the state as it is today. Does this mean I don’t love this country any more then someone else? Absolutely not. Does this mean I would not fight for this country, or support efforts for this country, certainly not.
What about those incapable of serving? Do they not have any say over the destiny of their homelands as well?
I admit I’m particularly bothered by this idea. Perhaps I don’t understand it.
Ha! My word is corps. God Bless the Marines.
Posted by Heather on 02/19/2005 at 01:43 PMEveryone,
I admit to being surprised to see that the majority of commenters here are so broadly sympathetic to the idea of restricting the franchise in one fashion or another. Perhaps our Curmudgeon is more in tune with the pulse of conservative opinion than I had thought. However, upon careful consideration, I have decided that I cannot support a proposal to drastically limit the franchise, even in theory.
As best as I can tell (and I am eager to be set to rights if this is an incomplete analysis) the motivations for restricting the franchise are twofold:
1) Elitism. Since each man’s vote is weighted the same, people who feel themselves to be better in some way (more moral, more intelligent, more deserving) are naturally upset at seeing their votes canceled out by lesser types.
2) Policy. There are certain policies that will never be put into force in this country as long as the political balance remains near to what it is today. Therefore, supporters of these policies may support a radical restriction of the franchise in the hopes of changing this political calculus in a way beneficial to their cause.
Well, in my opinion, the first motivation is simply unbecoming to those of us that claim to be defending liberty. Instead, it seems to me that the argument for extending the franchise as widely as possible follows directly from the best arguments in favor of the free enterprise system. We argue in the economic realm that there is wisdom in crowds. The aggregate decisions of many millions of people - even in the absence of perfect information - will achieve a result closer to the optimum than the careful ponderings of a handful of mandarins in Washington, D.C. So then why would this not be the case in the political realm as well?
As for the policy angle, I presume from the limitations our Curmudgeon wishes to be placed on the franchise that he is hoping to see the new electorate support a more limited state. I assume that he expects this for two reasons: historically, there is a correlation between the growth of the franchise and the growth of the state, and politically it would seem to be in the self-interest of those he allows to retain the franchise to restrict the growth of the state. There is much to be said for this line of reasoning. However, I don’t think it will work for one simple reason: it didn’t before.
By this, I mean that a limited franchise regime is inherently unstable. It is in the interest of any prominent politician to grow the franchise in order to turn the loyalty of the new voters against their political opponents. Moreover, social and political unrest among disenfranchised groups tends to be higher than among the enfranchised, as a rule. Therefore, limited franchise regimes tend to either buy off the disenfranchised with social programs (i.e. Bismarckian Germany) or they give in and extend the franchise. But there is no countervailing interest pushing for the restriction of the franchise once extended. Therefore, over time every limited franchise regime will tend to become one of universal suffrage.
For these reasons, I think that we who care about the cause of liberty would be better off working to limit the state directly rather than entertaining counterproductive fantasies of mass disenfranchisement.
Posted by on 02/19/2005 at 01:46 PMI forgot to ask, is paying taxes considered enough of a service to ones country?
Ha! My word is service how ironic. I know, I’m a nerd.
Posted by Heather on 02/19/2005 at 01:47 PMLet’s not forget the fringe benefits of the plan. My father always said that the best way to shrink the Social Security payrolls is to make anyone recieving a more from the government than he gives ineligible to vote, and I think he is absolutely correct.
Posted by on 02/19/2005 at 01:53 PMWow, this is a hot topic for me, it’s really peaked my interest.
Mark, would you care to elaborate as to why you think women’s suffrage was a bad idea? Would you feel that revoking men’s right to vote would be a good idea?
I’m no feminist, and I’m not trying to attack you, but I have read arguments that letting women vote is what messed up this country. As a woman who has always voted Republican, I understand that I’m in the minority there.
I have to admit, some of this comment thread is starting to ring of “let’s not let anyone vote who might vote for the opposition.” Perhaps I’m wrong.
Like Nicholas, I’m somewhat shocked at the course this thread has taken.
Posted by Heather on 02/19/2005 at 02:00 PMHeather, my apologies if I came off sounding too harsh (it is hard to be nuanced in a comment box *grin*). As for my nod to Heinlein, I shall let that rest for now. It would be a good idea...but alas, this is the real world, and so, short of revolution (which btw, was how his fictional government came to be), it would most likely never happen.
It does strike me as odd that so few are amazed at the thought of a limited franchise. Up until women were given access to the franchise. It was limited. (I would also argue had slavery been abolished at the signing of the Constitution, black males, who had reached majority, and were landowners, would have had the vote much like anyone else.) Perhaps using the tools that used to be in place at the grade school and high school level might be the way to go with this. In Illinois, in your sophomore year of high school, I believe you are required to pass a test on the state constitution, and at your junior/senior level pass one on the US Constitution. Why couldn’t this be done across the board in all states? It would not only be a requirement for graduation from High School, but one of the requirements for gaining access to the franchise as well.
1. Pass mandated civics classes (tested)
2. Have reached your majority by the date of any given election you wish to vote in.
3. Present photo ID (drivers license works but military ID’s also have photos and should be an acceptable substitute.
4. Be able to provide proof of citizenship (naturalization papers/birth certificate).As for familiarization of candidates...in a small town or county, there may not be all that many people you have to keep track of but for those who live in either a major suburban or urban environment, this poses a problem. Especially when there are judges and local school board members/city council members etc that add who knows how many pages to any given ballot. I don’t know of any simple answer for getting information out to the voter or how they can, in some cases, make a well informed decision sometimes.
Finally, (at the risk of using more of the good Curmudgeon’s bandwidth than should be allowed by law *grin*) if you have ever been convicted of a felony...and it was never overturned or removed from the records...you can not vote...now or forever. You have forfeited that privilege.Posted by GuyS on 02/19/2005 at 02:27 PMI agree with Fran that I’d like to see the system changed. There are entirely too many people voting with the desire to keep their hand in my pocket. An elderly woman I know voted for Clinton because Dole ‘was too old’. John Edwards’ main appeal to some was his youth and good looks, not his lunatic policy prescriptions. Folks need buses to get to the polls and when they do get there, they can’t make a little hole in a card. Students believe ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his need’ is part of our US Constitution. Where, then, does one start corrective action for these, and other, ills? Mention any one area, and there are at once fifty voices screaming, ‘you can’t do that!’ Well, what can we do, people? I’d start with repealing Jimmy Carter’s legislation allowing college students to vote where they go to school, rather than from their homes of origin. Where I live, we’re cursed with University of Chapel Hill’s ‘progressivity’ because the students vote to stick residents with the tax increases and then go home to the Blue.
Posted by on 02/19/2005 at 02:30 PMAs usual, Fran, a thought provoking issue. From a personal perspective, I have no problem with items 1 through 5 in your list, but I do have some difficulty with 6 since I am a military retiree and a social security beneficiary, both of which would prevent me from either voting, or eating, depending on selection. I understand that your motivation with item 6 is to avoid having citizens vote for people who would buy those votes with federal largesse.
Would not the same end be achieved by other means as well? For example, suppose that social security were completely privatized. Then the AARP lobby should pretty much go away. By the same token, suppose that all government pension plans were converted to 401(k)-type defined contribution plans completely owned by the government employee/military person and not administered by the government.
Then, how about payments in kind, like health care benefits, which, at my age, I am becoming more appreciative of. Perhaps a conversion to something like the HSAs would be a productive change. It seems to me that changes of this sort would be a productive alternative to current government handouts for reasonably responsible citizens.
Of course, this approach doesn’t deal with two large classes of putative disenfranchised voters, federal employees and welfare recipients. Of course we could eliminate welfare functions at the federal level and give the states the options of how to deal with indigent persons, which strikes me as rather sensible. Disenfranchising military personnel and government employees removes potential voters from the roles who may be more aware of policy issues at large than ordinary citizens, even those in the more stringent qualification set. This hardly seems reasonable, despite the lofty objective sought.
No, upon reflection, I think item 6, despite it’s worthy objectives, would not be productive public policy, although I do think the several alternatives I have suggested make some reasonable sense.
Posted by on 02/19/2005 at 03:05 PMI have always been in favor of seeing voting priviledges limited. Turning 18 doesn’t make one magically able to determine what’s best for a nation, let alone what’s best for themselves. I wonder why they even issue voters’ cards when they don’t demand to see them at the polling place. Insanity.
I’d like to see past civil service being a requirement as well. I don’t equate civil service to serving government as much as serving the people.
Posted by Deb S. on 02/19/2005 at 03:48 PMDeb considering the amount of taxation we presently live under, would you consider that as “serving the people?” I mean at the very least, if people are going to have hundreds of dollars taken from their gross income, they should at least be able to vote.
I guess I’m mean, or maybe too individualist, “serving the people” is a little too collectivist for my blood.
Eighteen is old enough to join the military and go off to war. At any rate, we should be ensuring those kids can have the right to purchase a beer legally if they choose. And they should certainly be able to vote.
Maybe there is just something wrong with me, but I can’t see requiring public service in order for people to have some very small say over which rulers they have to obey, it’s not like we can actually control them after they’re elected.
Now that I think about it, I’m determined that no change at all is really necessary in our system as far as voting is concerned.
Posted by Heather on 02/19/2005 at 04:42 PMI’m generally in line with Francis, having written on the same subject a time or two. My take on being elegible to vote:
1. Age of majority
2. One or more of the following:
a. Proof that you are NOT a ward of the state. Why should you be able to vote yourself MORE out of my pocket?
b. Honorable service in the armed forces in lieu of #2. You’ve earned it.
c. Owner of real property
3. Ability to read and fill out the application form IN ENGLISH. Exceptions to be made for the vison-impaired only.
4. Presentation of a photographic identification at the polling place in addition to proof of registration as a legitimate voter.Posted by mostly cajun on 02/19/2005 at 07:37 PMOk, the question of service to the state.
I draw a HUGE distinction between service to state, and service to the nation.
If you need me to explain that, then there’s too much philsophical background we’re going to need to get into first, because the difference is fundamental.
And yes, I do favor a restriction of the franchise. Very simply, that which is unearned, is unvalued.
This gets back into the difference between rights, and priviliges (philosophically not legally). A privilege is something which is granted, a right is something that is inherent to a man by virtue of his existence.
Rights are not granted by the constitution, they are inherent to man, the constitution defines how those rights can be restricted by our government.
The franchise is not one of those rights.
One could say that there is an inherent right to participate in the government you live under, and I think that argument has merit; but as privileges are earned, rights must be defended.
The defense of these rights is what I am talking about when I invoke service to the nation. If you are unwilling or unable to defend those rights, you are not deserving of them.
As there are some people who are mentally, emotionally, or morally unable, or unwilling to serve in a military capacity, there are other forms of national service which are just as much a defense of our nation.
Again if I need to explain how this is true, there’s a lot more background we need to go into before we have a useful discussion.
Hardcore libertarians might say this is slavery to the state. I contend it is something entirely different, it is duty to the nation, and ultimately duty to your fellow man, and to your self.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/19/2005 at 09:27 PMChris, you hit the nail on the head. A “Grumble From The Grave” perhaps? *grin*.
Posted by GuyS on 02/19/2005 at 09:42 PMHey Guy, I’ll take someone comparing my writing to Heinleins any day of the week.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/19/2005 at 10:29 PMHeather, no. I don’t consider our current taxation system to be service to the people. I consider it to be theft.
With regard to “those kids” - perhaps we should reconsider military enlistment ages. Kids should not be going to war.
Personally, I do not *like* the idea of restrictions either. Very likely I would not be eligible to vote. Unfortunately, many needs don’t fall into the realm of “things we like”. That doesn’t mean they aren’t the best answer.
Posted by Deb S. on 02/19/2005 at 10:44 PMRelating to taxation, and the utility of government, I wrote this somelace else, but it’s apropriate here.
The government isn’t actually good at anything except stealing and killing (that is their job when you get down to it), why would they be good at dealing with my money (or yours, or anyone elses)?
All taxation is theft.
Government paying for things that people wouldn’t pay for themselves tends to
a) be a bad thing because the government sucks at everything but stealing and killing
b) increase my taxes
c) get the government involved in yet more over-regulation
d) irritate mePosted by Chris Byrne on 02/19/2005 at 11:46 PMI keep thinking the phrase “taxation without representation” here.
If it were chosen for me that I would not be allowed to vote unless meeting the requirements that some have listed here, would I also be able to opt out of taxation given I have no say over the ruling body?
Aren’t we a little more evolved then societies that only allow male property owners to vote? This isn’t Saudi Arabia afterall.
Posted by Heather on 02/20/2005 at 01:30 AMYou cant vote on how a corporation runs unless you are a shareholder, why should jsut anyone be allowed to help control how the country is run?
What about children, they have to live under the government, shouldnt they get the vote? What about Felons?
How about the residents of Peurto Rico, Guam, the US.S Virgin Islands, Saipan, Rota, Tinian, Wake, etc…
The fact is we already have limited franchise. The question becomes, what is the apropriate limitation on that franchise.
If you dont pay nay taxes, why should you be allowed to vote on taxes. If you dont own any real property, why should you be allowed to vote on how real property is treated.
I could go on.
But I come back to my earlier statement. If you are not willing to protect your rights, with actions, not jsut words and sentiments, you don’t deserve them.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/20/2005 at 01:42 AMChris, I guess I’m a hardcore libertarian then. I don’t know.
I would like those who are speaking of this service to the nation requirement to please give me some examples other then joining the military. For one, this isn’t Germany where anyone and everyone can join the military, there are many people who would not be accepted into our military as we know it now.
I need examples, and options to choose from. I want to know what constitutes “earning” the privilege of voting. What things are acceptable? So far I’ve heard military service, what else?
Posted by Heather on 02/20/2005 at 01:54 AMChris, I’ve never stated that I was unwilling to protect my rights. Nevertheless our rights are stripped daily in this country, and many many bloggers are talking about it, but I have yet to hear of them storming the capital demanding to have their rights restored.
I don’t own a home, yet I care more about property rights then some of those who do (leftists) because I plan to own a home someday, AND because I realize that private property rights are an essential component of Freedom.
You don’t need to own property to know that.
Children are not adults, and do not pay taxes, therefore it would be somewhat illogical for me to include them in the argument.
Posted by Heather on 02/20/2005 at 02:05 AMChris I’m sorry if I’m being a pain, I’m sure you can imagine that to me the idea of stripping folks of the right to vote is not something that should be taken lightly.
Posted by Heather on 02/20/2005 at 02:17 AMWhile stimulating, this discussion seems to be running parallel without the chance of convergence.
Heather’s point(s) with respect to arbitrary conditions are not completely without merit.
Chris’ desire for earned enfranchisement is, I think, essential (albeit difficult to empliment). BTW, thanks for directing me here.
The question is: by what metric is this decided? We seem to have become more “socialist” than “classic liberal”, as a poulace (on the whole; certainly not the cognitive minority). Perhaps an old bargaining tool might be useful here: start with an extreme, so that a “comprimise” is close to what is desirable.
Let’s say, radical minarchy, for example. In such case, all government power could be transcribed on a 3"x5" card (this is my ideal). It seems to me that it would be easier to add minimal, “essential” qualifications, rather than to selectively remove the overly generous “right” to vote from the ignorant/opportunist.
...I must be dreaming...someone wake me when Revolution II begins.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 02:40 AMSee youre going back to the stripping of rights argument again.
The fundamental argument of limited franchise is that voting isn’t a right. If you don’t accept that then no rationale for limitation of it will be acceptable (nor should it).
As to what other types of service could be allowed, the Israeli, swiss, germans, finns, and others have, or have had national service requirements in the past. If one was unable or unwilling to serve in the military, the option existed to serve in nonmiltary tasks. Medicine, entertainment, sanitation, maintenance, anything that we now have as volunteer work, public works etc....
Also any type of law enforcement, emergency services, forest services, border patrol, or the essential services of civil life would qualify. Perhaps medicine and even lawyers, assuming they devoted a reasonable percentage of their time to work for the benefit of the nation.
Some time back (a few months after 9/11 I think) there was a proposal floated for a “national service corps” by some bloggers. It was modeled on the Israeli concept that everyone can and should serve the NATION (not the state) in some way.
I don’t believe it should be involuntary, forced service is indeed slavery, however there should be a strong incentive to service, and a strong (but not coercive)disincentive to not serving.
Some say this smacks of communism, but those folks dont really understand the concept. The tragedy of the commons is that because there is no personal investment, the commons are not valued.
This would create an inherent personal stake in the government, which was earned, and therefore the franchise, and the government itself would be valued.
BTW, I dont think this would be suitable at our current degree of statism. We would need a much more libertaian government for this entire concept to work.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/20/2005 at 02:41 AMChris, speaking of the need for a more libertarian form of government...individualism needs the pejorative stain (applied by collectivists for decades)to be lifted. Certainly, without a degree of cooperation, civil society is not possible. However, rather than “many” sharing one “mind”, the only peaceful/sustainable society is one that unequivically respects individuality.
Having said that, non-compulsary “service” is both beneficial and diverse. As one who seved with distinction, surely you realize that not all would be a net plus to the military. On the other hand, one that failed to meet reasonable requirements (literacy test, minimum competency, etc.) should “serve” their nation by NOT voting.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 03:04 AMAnd that is the bottom line. Voting is something since the inception of this republic that has been earned by one degree or another...you have to meet either standards (no felonies) or requirements (age, naturalization). It is neither a right or a constant given. If for some reason you fall short, you will be disenfranchised.
That Chris has stated one way to address the current concerns is to make the major qualification to becoming part of the franchise, would be to *earn* it by placing DUTY TO COUNTRY above SELF (personal gain). It is really that simple. The idea of a voluntary choice to partake in some form of military/CCC/NRA/work corps is always up to the individual. No one is either required to serve or is diminished as a citizen in any way other than they do NOT have the PRIVILEGE of casting a ballot. By doing so, you are creating real value/ownership not only in the franchise, but to an extent the country as well. Otherwise you end up with what we have now. “I’ll vote if I want to..if not this election then the next.” “It’s my right/choice to do with as I please.” Not only is that type of thinking wrong headed it shows just how little *value* is placed on something which has for the most part become free for all with not a second thought about what this plays in the overall scheme of the Republic.
Posted by GuyS on 02/20/2005 at 03:08 AMChris, I agree with you that it is impossible for me to imagine this type of thing working given the level of statism we currently exist under.
I guess I do see voting as a right.
I understand that makes the discussion a matter of banging each other on the heads with points that lead no where. In any event, it was an interesting discussion, I enjoyed it thoroughly, which is obvious by my many posts.
Posted by Heather on 02/20/2005 at 03:13 AMNo discussion, where the free and open exchange of ideas between engaged people reins, is wasted.
At the very least, it helps us to codify our own thoughts, feelings, and positions on the matter.
I always say, don’t hold any idea you aren’t prepared to vigorously defend, unless you are prepared for them to be changed.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/20/2005 at 04:00 AMDid y’all know its an offense in Australia NOT to vote?
It’s an absolute requirement that all eligible citizens vote or you face a minor charge, and a fine.
Perhaps that’s another way to deal with the issue, but to my mind it’s a poor solution. It MAY have the effect of involving more people in voting, but looking at the number of people willing to take a speeding ticket rather than obey the limit (especially when the limit is stupid)…
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/20/2005 at 04:07 AMI think the impasse is that you’ve started the discussion at the point of voting, and I think most would believe that if you pay taxes you should vote, however…
Back it up a bit. Why should citizenship be automatic? If we move the marker to that point, perhaps an agreement could be fleshed out.
I’m not suggesting that people who are born here, of legal citizens, get in line behind those at the INS, but by the age of 21 a person should decide if they want to become an American citizen. That comes with some prerequisites, such as some sort of service. It doesn’t have to be military (there are lots of ways to volunteer a year or so of time).
If you can pass the citizenship test, prove your year of service, THEN you can take the pledge of citizenship. THEN you can vote.
Posted by Connie on 02/20/2005 at 10:10 AMConnie, good point, and a WHOLE nother rant topic.
If the franchise should be universal for citizenship, should citizenship itself be universal?
This is a popular topic for Sc-Fi authors, unfortunately mostly of the dystopian variety. They envision a future multi tiered society consisting of citizens, who have full rights and privileges, and everyone else (presumably a much larger number) who live outside the system.
Of course the world they then present generally has the classic eloi/morlock interaction i.e. the citizens are fat, dumb, happy, and under total control, and the morlocks are scrabbling, starving, vicious, but free.
There are reasons why I don’t care for dystopian writers.
Our current citizenship (and immigration) laws are certainly completely screwed up, as you well know being the spouse of a naturalized citizen.
We end up denying residency or citizenship to the people we want in, and preventing the useful law abiding folks from doing the jobs that they want, and most other dont, while at the same time practically encourage illegal residence, immigration, and labor.
If we were a country where citizenship were earned, and all had an equal opportunity to earn it, wouldnt’ THAT put an entirely different perspective on things now…
Civic knowledge, and participation would be a requisite for full status in society. Anyone who had that knowledge, and the ability to participate could potentially be allowed to do so, and anyone who did not would be excluded. It could be entirely voluntary, and it would require deliberate effort, which themselves would change the entire social dynamic of citizenship.
Honestly the change would be so comprehensive as to defy short description. Society at the political level would be , quite literally, completely different.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/20/2005 at 10:26 AMI’m late to the discussion, but I will jump in here and hope somebody rounds back around to it.
I have problems with a number of these items so I will just state what I have no issue with:
Proof of citizenship
Proof of identity
Proof of residence in the area (though no specified time)I’ll add one and say they have to disclose all residents and a system of national coordination to identify potential fraud or multiple voters with this gap.
BAsically, you are saying you don’t trust the very people around you to vote.
All of the other ideas, including constitutional certificates, military or national service, not being able to vote if you receive a lawful government stipend or are a public servent, any number of items smack of fascist militarism. One might as well re-institute the need to pass a literacy test (recall this was used to dis-enfranchise any number of people in the past; Jim Crowe anyone?).
I’m not opposed to addressing the issue of constitutional knowledge or how the government works. I recall learning this in school from grade school on, but I don’t see it as a pre-requisite for voting. I can’t name all the cabinet members, maybe I shouldn’t be allowed to vote?
Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of stupid people running around voting, but I’m not about to disenfranchise a good portion of society because some bimbo can’t name the candidates on a Jay Leno show.
As for voting as a right or privilege, please read these words:
Article XV.
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.It says “the right of citizens of the United States to vote”.
How do so many people keep missing those words when discussing whether it is a “right” or a “privilege”? I’ll tell you that the main issue is how many people look at the body of the main constitution that lays out the process for constituting representation to the government does not specify it, but amendment 15 is very specific in calling it a “right”.
Frankly, I am overly suspicious of any party’s attempt to disenfranchise any part of society. Whether it is the left attempting to retain the their bought constituency or the right who would be bought.
Call me a libertarian in this regard.
Posted by kat-missouri on 02/20/2005 at 12:40 PMChris, I detect an inconsistency in your public service idea. On one hand you say that all the government is good for is stealing and killing, and on the other hand, you say that there should be public service oportunities. Which part of stealing and/or killing makes the government qualified to administer these service programs.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 12:57 PMAlso, perhaps I am more Randian than some, but the fact that I hold down a job which contributes to the free market strikes me as being all the service I need to do, even if paying taxes was not a requirement.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 01:00 PMCraig, who said anything about government administration.
As I said, government is really only good at stealing and killing (taxes, redistribution, and defense). Since the majority of what goes on for public service would be dealing with those subjects, I don’t see too much of a problem.
Of course in an ideal world your franchise would be a private contract between you, and the governmental corporation, in which all citizens are shareholders. That which benefits the government benefits all, that which is a detriment to it is a detriment to all, because we are all equal under the contract.
But that’s jsut a libertarian wet dream.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/20/2005 at 01:04 PMas far as the 15 amendment goes I do not think Cris’s idea violates it. Everyone is treated the same, you need to opt-in to the system to be allowded to partisapate in it.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 01:33 PMKat, okay, now we need to get into the hierarchy of rights.
Fundamentally, there are two types of rights: Inherent rights, and constructed rights.
Inherent rights are those rights we posess by virtue of being sentient beings. Constructed rights, are all other things, taken as rights, which are not inherent rights.
For example, inherent rights would include the right to not be attacked or killed out of hand by your fellow man; To own and hold property, and to defend ones life and ones property against others; To determine the course of ones life through free choice; To be judged fairly by ones actions; To think those thoughts that you wish to think, and speak those words that you wish to speak.
Those rights cannot be taken, or limited, but by force or willing consent.
The first ten amendments are primarily concerned with the limitation of how government may limit these inherent rights.
Constructed rights would include the right to privacy, the right to vote, the right to marry (civily), and others.
The thing is, you have stumbled into a nest of strict constructionists, who for the most part do not believe in constructed rights (yes I know that sounds wrong, but trust me, its correct).
A constructed right is a right by consent, not by inherence, and therefore is not truly a right, but a construct of the society in which one lives. It may be limited or removed by legislative action, or the will of that society at any time.
We recognize this principle in law most of the time. It is always lawful for someone to defend themselves against attack, however it is not lawful in most states for felons to vote. This is because voting is a constructed right that can be limited or removed without force or consent.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/20/2005 at 01:45 PMCompelling arguments all. With respect to Kat, the “right” to vote must be understood in context. The Constitution precludes discriminatoin based upon certain predefined criteria. Remember, the Constitution is a legal document for which the meaning of terms is essential. The question on the table is: by what criteria MAY sovereign states limit the franchise (i.e. lack of citizenship, prior felony conviction, diminished mental capacity, propensity to vote Democrat, etc.)
Bear in mind, the Electors (who actually vote) can cast their ballot for whomever they choose. Therefore, the right to vote is somewhat different from the right to due process and equality under the law, which are ostensibly irrevocable.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 01:49 PMLets muddy the waters even further.
Those that do not believe in constructed rights are known as constructionists. Those that DO believe in constructed rights are known as documentarists.
But wait, theres more…
There is a compelling constructionist argument that voting IS an inherent right, because in a society such as ours, voting is an inseperable component of the right of self determination.
Rough one that.
The legitimacy of a government without universal franchise is therefore dependent on the degree to which that government effects ones right to self determination.
This is what I was speaking of when I said earlier that this whole concept would never work without a very libertarian form of government.
Oh but Kat, you misused fascism. Fascism is a deification of the state, not a generic description of authoritarian government by elites as is often implied by the uninformed use of the term.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/20/2005 at 02:08 PMAhh… but a libertairian form of government presupposes an individualisticly minded populace (if indeed it would be actually consentual). Furthermore, such a mind-set requires the ability to think critically.
How many of your fellow citizens can be accused of independant thought? How many misused the franchise, to their own detriment and mine, because P Diddy or Pat Robertson urged them to because it’s what “we” do, not because they have clue one about the implications of their choices.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 02:49 PMWhich is of course among the motivations for limited franchise in the first place. It’s all a vicious (and viscous) circle.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/20/2005 at 03:11 PMWhile it is all well and good to debate the idiosyncracies of voting and citizenship and libertarian theory, perhaps we should look to our Curmudgeon’s “Quilt” series for the answer. Maybe the “service” we all need to provide to our country is education. Rather than concern ourselves with who is voting, why not focus on how they are voting. If libertarian ideals are as good as we all seem to think they are, give or take the subtle bits, then it should be staightforward to convince the masses.
Many of you with blogs are trying to do just this. However, are your efforts misguided? Before Connie decided to close down her blog, she wrote about cutting to the chase and not sugar coating the path. In essence, to write for Nock’s remnant. But the implication of Nock is that the remnant (perhaps we) will be the ones to rebuild after the collapse, to start over with the right ideas. But this also implies that the collapse is inevitable. Perhaps if we do sugar coat the path, and do lead the masses by small steps, we can avoid the collapse. Just maybe, the hit counter is something that needs more focus, that the idea of “I write for me” should be transformed to “I write for the United States of America”. And those of us who don’t have blogs (although as I write this, I feel inspired) should do everything we can to point people to the likes of Bill Whittle.
I’m not suggesting that I have any concrete ideas to implement this transformation, right now, but I certainly will be thinking about it a lot.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 03:11 PMArticulating a “liberal” ideal (in a forum such as this)is far simpler than amassing a coalition from the likes of the “dumb-masses”. When one extreme defines freedom as the right--indeed obligation--to conform to a moralistic norm, and the other sees liberty as the right to denegrate--indeed destroy--those who produce, while demanding to be supported...incrimental persuasion is most likely the only realistic hope.
This free intellectual intercourse could be a catalyst for meaningful change, if indeed it is as infectious as it seems. Arguably, younger generations are less likely to buy into either dogma, (with exceptions) given easy access to a wide range of ideas.
A working majority could likely bring along the easily led. Sadly, the more the notion of a “strong two party system” is promoted, the more they seem to be one two-headed beast.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 05:30 PMAh Robert, you’ve fallen into the trap. Your two extremes are, in fact, not extremes at all. They are kindred spirits on the extreme of the individual subordinate to the group. This is where education comes in; to eliminate the myth that leftist socialism and right wing dogmatism are at opposite ends of the spectrum. When presented with these two options as opposites, it is no wonder that most of the “dumb masses” choose a middle ground between the two. Unfortunately that middle ground is not middle at all. I suggest that the masses are not dumb so much as deceived by 150 years of dishonest philosophy. Seems about time for a new enlightenment.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 06:09 PMCraig, I think we agree. The two-headed beast exemplfies two variations on a theme, namely: replacing the individual with political groups that trade freedom for security...and of course end up with neither. When one speaks of the religious, the minorities, the poor, the rich, ad infinitum, voting behavior can be managed by way of conformity.
Any practical revolution at this point should be a war of ideas. As it stands, being a “regular” person has elevated mediocrity, while “over-acheivement” has becom a pejorative.
This is politically shrewd, if universal sufferage is the law. The highest acheivers will always produce; under acheivers will likewise be themselves. Consider the percentages of income. The lowest 50% of wage earners have the most to gain from the current system.
The higher one’s tax burden, the more likely one is to respect Hayek. Conversely, the lower one’s tax burden, (due to the progressive tax structure) the less likely they are to care who Hayek was.
I say: persuade those who use their minds and expect the rest to evolve of suffer the consequences of their folly.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 07:01 PMI have to say, whether it is constructionist or documentarian, in either case it is guaranteed under the constitution, the same way that the inherent rights are guaranteed. Frankly, I believe that all of the amendments have a strict purpose but I don’t believe that the 10 amendments are guaranteeing any inherent rights except the first three outlined in the declaration, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These are the only three unalienable rights outlined.
All other rights are designed to protect those three rights and each right guaranteed under the constitution.
For instance, the right to defend yourself maybe the right necessary to insure your unalienbable rights but the right to bear arms (while I fully concur with its necessity and refuse any attempts to modify it in anyway) is not an inherent right. There is no right under God or any other higher authority, that is an inherent right to defend yourself with a gun. However, since it is likely that the state or other entities have just such a weapon.
In either case, owning a gun is not an inherent right, but protects it. I agree with whomever said that voting is not an inherent right. It isn’t. But it is guaranteed under the constitution by the very words I indicated. you can’t make it go away or mean less than the other rights because it is not an “inherent” right.
The purpose of the constitution is protect all of the rights and each right after that is like a link in a chain. Any right broken means all of the rights are broken.
As for fascist militarism and misunderstanding the word “fascism”. i don’t misunderstand it. Causing one to be required to serve the state before achieving any set of rights is to cause the state to be above the individual. That is fascism.
Causing any right to be denigrated without the service to the state, that is fascism.
Nowhere in any document did any for father discuss nor require service to the state to be a requirement prior to achieving these rights. Had they done so, then the only people able to vote at that time would be congressmen, local representatives and the military which is exactly what they wished to avoid.
I missed who wrote it above, but I do agree that what we need is better education on the importance of ones civic duty. I believe that first starts at home and then the education system should just be the process by which the details are sorted out without implying any particular political point of view.
The problem would be that even people like us would obviously disagree on how the constitution would be taught.
Posted by kat-missouri on 02/20/2005 at 08:16 PMThere is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees your right to vote. Or wasn’t when the Founders wrote it.
The Founders very much supported the idea that only property owners should vote. I tend to agree with them--not in the literal sense, but in a stakeholder sense. There is no reason at all for you to vote on property tax issues (or anything that would impact them) if you are not directly responsible for the property tax bill. And before anyone mentions it, there is no such thing as “indirect taxes” so to suggest that renters are paying their landlord’s taxes is silly. The landlord has to adjust their rent to cover the costs of taxes, but not so high that he prices himself out of business. Plus, the landlord has the burden of upkeep, assumes all the risk, and cannot jump when the tax bill gets too high (as can the renter).
I wish there was a way to spread the voting to people who are affected by it. It is not possible, but I very much like the idea. If you own property, you can vote on school measures. Everyone can vote in their State’s elections and for POTUS, but local elections are kept to either property or business owners.
To paraphrase Cicero: “Our Republic is lost when the citizenry discover they can vote themselves a pay raise.”
And they should NOT be able to do that. You can only vote what YOU pay for. Further, all taxes should be the same. If there is an expense of $3 million, we each have to pay a dollar. If someone pays only 30% of what someone else pays, then they only get 30% of the benefits. Apportioning taxes is what set all this nonsense in motion. The Founders warned about it--but did we listen??
Posted by Connie on 02/20/2005 at 09:32 PMHR-25--the proposed national retail sales tax would do much in the way of reversing the class warfare mentality. Also, societal dead-beats would actually assume some tax liability rather than receiving tax benefits in the form of entitlements.
Posted by on 02/20/2005 at 10:24 PMConnie wrote: “I think the impasse is that you’ve started the discussion at the point of voting, and I think most would believe that if you pay taxes you should vote, however…
Back it up a bit. Why should citizenship be automatic? If we move the marker to that point, perhaps an agreement could be fleshed out.”
Have you been reading Pournelle? Actually, in Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers” not only was the franchise not automatic at age 18, but full citizenship was not either. You could not hold public office, including being a police officer, nor could you vote, until after you had completed a two year term of national service. It was quite clear that “national service” was not automatically military service and that there was no discrimination. At one point it was stated that there was no possible medical disqualification and that if you were in a wheelchair and blind a job would still be found for you so that you could serve. But it was absolutely voluntary and the enlistment process was set up to discourage volunteering. The goal was to make citizenship something you earned. This is based on the truism that you value what you earn.
Jerry Pournelle proposed something similar in his “Prince of Mercenaries” series of books.
Posted by Eric on 02/21/2005 at 01:53 AMEric,
Connie hates Sci-Fi, but she loves good ideas.
My favorite quote along those smae lines is from DeTocqeville “"The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.”
Oh and for us sci-fi fans, doesn anyone else see the eventual result of current governmental trends the creation of the peoples republic of haven ?
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/21/2005 at 09:26 AMOh and Connie, is the quote you’re thinking of from Sir Alex Fraser Taylor?
“ A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can
exist only until voters discover that they can vote themselves largesses
from the public treasury.”I referenced it in todays social security post.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/21/2005 at 09:41 AMVoluntary (earned) citizenship, with all of the priveleges and responsibilities implicit to it, as opposed gratuitous membership, would possitively alter the political/societal landscape.
Those who decided not to participate would likely be those for whom government is presently a life-support system.
Those who would participate could actually realize the limited, yet necessary government of popular consent that is tasked with the preservation/protection of the “smallest minority”.
This would create a clear distinction between “haves” & “have nots”, both of which being completely by choice.
Posted by on 02/21/2005 at 11:52 AMThere must be something in water…
My friendly neighborhood libertarian talk show (Boortz) is exploring this self same issue right now.
The snowball is increasing.Posted by on 02/21/2005 at 12:20 PMForcing folks into service, like forcing people into accepting religion, does not prove loyalty to God, or Country.
In other words, requiring service to the Nation does not guarantee in any way shape or form that they will be a good citizen, or love this country more. Many people will do their required year of service and move on.
Make people bow to allah in order to be considered good citizens, they will do it, it doesn’t mean they care about the country or the nation at all.
Leftists will still do their service in order to vote. I won’t. I will serve my country how I choose, and I don’t feel the need to prove anything to anyone.
If I can’t vote for not fulfilling some service requirements, then there’s not much worth voting for in my opinion.
It won’t work.
Posted by Heather on 02/21/2005 at 08:05 PMFor the record, I never said the fore fathers wrote in the original constitution that voting was a right. It was an amendment, just like all the amendments that came before and after it that still outlined specific rights. it was designated a right through congress
and, for the record, I am a single property owner that pays a nice chunk of change for property tax on a home and two vehicles; who makes a nice chunk of change against which I pay a nice chunk of income tax and every other type of tax known to man not to mention sales tax, city tax, etc, etc, etc.
Even if somebody didn’t own property, they still pay taxes. Even the poorest among us pay taxes and don’t always get it all back in a total exemption.
So, I’m not discussing this from the point of view of a person that pays nothing and wants something for nothing. I pay plenty, but it doesn’t mean I’m going to start depriving people of the same privileges or rights that I have simply because they don’t have my life.
And, in regards to de Toqueville, I’d like us to consider that voting largesse isn’t just about voting assistance from the state in terms of direct income, but people in power are notorious for voting themselves even more power, tax breaks etc.
This is not a partisan issue because it happens when either party takes control. It’s the thing we need to fight against whoever is in power. Also, I might point out that once you start into the “who owns property and who doesn’t” then you have to determine what property and where, which takes precedence (if a multi state property owner) and, the Lord forbid that we start putting minimums on the amount that would qualify you because that just starts you down the next ugly path of deciding that one persons property, smaller and worth less than the next, does not qualify them to vote. Pretty soon, I wouldn’t be able to vote because my $100k home is one of the smallest on the block and I do not pay as much taxes as the homeowner across the street with their nice new $250k home or their business as opposed to me working for someone.
That also sounds like buying the privilege or right (however you want to look at it).
If you want people to vote for something, then they must be convinced that it is good, period. Trying to eliminate the people’s voices is a very scary concept and I can’t believe we are talking about it hardly 50 years after the elimination of Jim Crowe laws and 80 years after women’s suffrage.
That is elitism at its worst and has some very ugly history behind it.
Posted by kat-missouri on 02/21/2005 at 08:51 PMI am an Elitist.
And damned proud of it
In my world achievement is recognized and appreciated
In my world accomplishment is respected
In my world excellence is strived for
In my world results matter
I my world intentions and motives count for something, but not much
In my world self esteem is a by product of good results, not the primary goal of any action.
In my world there is no quality time
In my world Responsibility is the core of everything
If you can handle it, you’re welcome to join us in my world; Otherwise get the hell out of our way.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/21/2005 at 10:41 PMChris, may I immigrate?
Posted by on 02/21/2005 at 11:17 PMMr. Byrne,
That’s a very pretty speech. However, I trust that you recognize that such a full-throated embrace of elitism - as expressed by the desire to limit of the franchise to those twenty million you deem worthy - is political suicide. Moreover, as I have detailed above in comment 12, such a measure would create an inherently unstable system with a tendency to produce worse political decisions than a universal suffrage system. So the great political cost would be a pointless waste in the pursuit of a boondoggle, simply so that activists on our side can claim that they are better people than those who would be disenfranchised. I can imagine no worse use of our energy than to attempt to bring this to pass.
Posted by on 02/22/2005 at 01:56 AMNicholas said it much better.
And Chris, I don’t like elitism and I won’t get out of your way. I will stand firmly in front of you and any other, right or left, that would diminish the rights of others, disenfranchise any portion of society that is legally, bound through contsitutional law, to those rights, because either side, and both have tried it, would try to decide who should be their idea of the elite capable of leading this country or making decisions.
It is E pluribus unum. From many, one. Not “From some, one” nor “A few above the rest.”
Elitism invariably fails because it invariably finds itself out of ideas or takes upon itself the decisions for whole societies or begins to decide which part of society is worthy. We are already facing those struggles through the advent of abortion on demand that is used against the most vulnerable of our society, attempts to legalize or at least find acceptable euthenasia for the elderly or sick, the take over of our schools by extremely liberal teachers minimizing conservative idealism. These may all sound like an attack on the left, but I assure you that it would be equally egregious if only conservative idealism was allowed in schools or elites onle were allowed to vote or hold office or make laws.
Recall that this elitist format has been tried and failed throughout history, whether it is the king and lords in a feudal state (which we fought and over threw over 200 years ago), or Nazi Fascism (which we fought and defeated 60 years ago) or communism as much as it claimed to be for the people and was more about the select few governing the state on behalf of the people wherein you could not vote or hold office unless you were a member of the party (recall the fall of the USSR).
I will not allow it, whether this idea comes from the left or the right. Neither will I support the enfranchisement of illegal aliens or other non-citizens or people who are currently excepted from the ability to vote nor will I support any attempts to disenfranchise legal citizens for some idealistic “more intelligent with more to lose” elite.
I recall during this last election, the left in their guise of elitism, tried to brand those who voted Republican as stupid, bible thumping rubes whose family tree didn’t have many branches and should not be allowed to vote for their stupidity. The left tries to wipe out all identity through insistence of a complete secularist state. If they had their druthers, civil and public servants would have to deny their religion and swear to uphold secularism in order to hold office.
Here you are trying to claim people who don’t own property or meet some other guidelines you claim should not have the right to vote either.
You all have a lot more in common than you think. I don’t support either. I won’t support either. The day that a Republican congress attempts to actually pass this law through congress is the day I become a revolutionary. I guarantee that if the day ever comes that such a law is passed, you will have civil war.
Remember that the ones you would disenfranchise are the ones who would fill the army, work in the factories, check out your groceries, take your money at the gas station cash register or any number of activities. These are the people of every day and they are at least half of this country.
Remember that rights are not guaranteed nor secured through the auspices of the elite but are “unalienable” and given by “the Creator”, not some guy who owns a house on 51st and Garner.
When you forget that, you are doomed to repeat the very failures of the ones that came before because it is only a short leap from that first disenfranchisement to the next.
Who knows, maybe one day you are the disenfranchised, then what will you do?
Posted by kat-missouri on 02/22/2005 at 03:34 AMI’m not opposed, in principle, to some restrictions on the right to vote. And if one accepts restrictions in principle, I think Francis’s list is a reasonably good start (although I’d want some clarification that 6b didn’t cover such things as tax refunds or employment with privately-incorporated government contractors).
But we have something of a chicken-and-egg problem. I think such restrictions might lead to better government. But I would never trust such restrictions in the hands of any government not sufficiently better than our current one that franchise restriction was unnecessary.
Posted by Matt on 02/22/2005 at 08:44 AM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
