| « | Now Pay Attention, There's Gonna Be A Test On This |
»
|
|
Tuesday, February 22, 2005
The Vote Part 2: Readdressing The Misconceptions
Critical to the contentions and propositions of the previous essay on this subject was the assertion that the franchise is not a right, but a privilege. As you can see, Gentle Reader, from the commentary on that point, it's a claim some are indisposed to accept.
This is understandable, and forgivable. Propaganda and misconceived language about the "right to vote" have proliferated so greatly that few persons give the subject much thought anymore. But even a cursory examination of the franchise in contrast to other things acknowledged to be rights -- that is, acknowledged to be inviolable in an absolute moral sense, unless the holder forfeits them by himself committing a violation of others' rights -- reveals the franchise to be something radically different and inferior.
First, the franchise is conferred, not upon the whole of the resident population of the country, but upon a legislatively defined subset thereof. Non-citizens may not vote. Minor children may not vote. Persons subject to legal detention, absent a legitimate and unanswerable writ of habeas corpus, may not vote. Non-citizens may not vote. Persons who have not complied with the registration requirements of their states may not vote. Only persons in the complementary set of the abovementioned may vote; it is their privilege, for having met the requirements of the law.
Second, the franchise, once conferred, may be lost for reasons other than a violation of the rights of another person. The simplest and most dramatic example is a change of residence -- a move to a state where the registration requirements include continuous residence for a period longer than that between one's relocation and the next election. Obviously, for Smith to move from one state to another violates no other man's rights; yet by doing so Smith might lose his franchise in the state of his "origin" and fail to gain it in the state of his "destination" in time to exercise it in the next general election. No genuine right is ever treated this way.
Third, the franchise may only be exercised when and where the conferring authority allows it, and often only with regard to certain candidates for office or petitions for initiatives, referenda, or recalls. One may not vote whenever one pleases, on whatever subject, or for whatever candidate. No other right has ever been so limited -- especially when one factors in the restrictions imposed by the legally privileged major political parties.
The "right to vote" misconception stems from badly chosen language in several Constitutional amendments, and has been reinforced by the propaganda of various interest groups. It's been a central tenet of left-wing thought that political freedom -- liberty -- equates to two and only two things: freedom of expression plus the "right to vote." There's an obvious agenda behind this. It becomes more obvious when one notes the great success the Left has had at limiting effective freedom of expression through its dominance of the broadcast media, the universities, and most other organs capable of disseminating opinions widely. If the only sentiments tolerated are those of which the Left approves, and if the nation's electoral mechanisms can be suborned in the Left's favor, our "liberty" will have been destroyed by stealth. Herbert Marcuse's vision as presented in his infamous 1965 essay "Repressive Tolerance" will have been achieved.
Contrast this stunted, deformed vision of "liberty" with the crystal-clear apprehension of Frederic Bastiat:
I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be. In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual's right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder -- is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege? If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone's interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?
Those words were written 155 years ago. Our understanding has deteriorated since then. It's time to bring it back to health.
Comments
Hear, Hear! And a Here too, as it needs to be heard and understood here!
Posted by Laughing Wolf on 02/22/2005 at 08:53 AMOne wonders why such is not common knowledge.
Most probably because common folk have allowed their critical thinking faculty to be supplanted by rank emotionalism, fueled by poisonous envy.
Posted by on 02/22/2005 at 12:36 PMI contend that the rise of the valuation of constructed rights, is essential to the core value of collectivism, and the single greatest cause for the decline in personal and moral responsibility that has occurred in our society since the mid 1960’s.
In allowing people to escheat responsiblity for their own inherent rights to the sate through the practice of social welfare, the value of those rights is nullified. In fact, as long as one accepts state control over ones means of existence,and ones protection, one has no inherent rights, because one has willfully consented to their removal.
The fundamental principle of political collectivism is that the rights of the individual are subsidiary to the rights of the collective, as administered by the state.
In order for this ideology of the supremacy of the state to succeed, the percieved value of inherent rights must be destroyed, to be replaced by those rights granted by fiat of the state.Once the populace is conditioned to accept this as the natural order of things, as they have been in europe for generations, the eventual descent into collectivism, and totalitarianism seems, to me, to be inevitable.
This is not to say that constructed rights are invalid, simply that they are not truly rights; They are rights by fiat, and in accepting that any core value of liberty can be created by fiat, one must also accept that it can be destroyed by it.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/22/2005 at 12:50 PMEveryone,
One can, as I have, agree that the vote is a privilege and not a right, yet still oppose the idea of restricting the franchise greatly. As I have said before, I only see two reasons for this course of action. By far the most popular seems to be the desire to remove the franchise from those who are not worthy - full-throated elitist disdain of 100 million of our American fellows. The problem for all of you who express this haughty aristocratic disdain is that America was created by those who wished to escape their would-be social betters. The sheer revulsion to the idea of forced deference to the elite is probably the deepest-seated idea in our polity. Any political movement that goes up against it so directly will be quickly routed.
Think about it. For the 50 years in which economic conservatism was the political preference solely of the business elite, this country went through the Great Depression, the New Deal, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Great Society, the Vietnam War, Detente, the Oil Crisis - in short, hell. It was only when the conservative movement of the ‘60s and ‘70s did the long, slow, hard work of convincing (or reminding) regular folk that liberty was in the best interests of everybody that conservatism regained its present ascendancy. Think for a second about the rhetoric that successful conservatives (like Reagan) use: it’s all about trusting the people with their own money and their own lives. At the same time, the liberals are recast as the self-appointed elites - out of touch in their ivory towers and glittering social scenes. This carefully constructed (and true) narrative would be undercut if we publicly committed to not trusting our neighbors with something so basic as a semi-annual say in the composition of their political leadership.
And no one has rebutted my contention that even if it were politically benefical to achieve such a goal (the drastic restriction of the franchise) that it would not be a stable system. Therefore, I maintain that the combination of extreme political toxicity and sheer pointlessness should be a clue to us defenders of freedom to steer our energies into causes more worthy than this.
Posted by on 02/22/2005 at 04:48 PMI reject the idea that having standards is a negative thing.
I reject the idea that being judgemental is a negative thing.
I reject the idea that elitism is a negative thing.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/22/2005 at 06:20 PMMr. Byrne,
What does it feel like to be so superior? How does it feel to know, deep down in your heart of hearts, that you are simply a better human being than 99.9% of your countrymen? What must it be like to know that you are such a paragon of virtue and intellect that if the world would just see fit to recognize your greatness and bend knee, you could quickly solve all of the problems of the world in a fortnight?
Myself, I am just a humble commenter on a website. Nothing more than a lowly commoner, compared to your shining Glory - one small step short of the Divine, if even that. It’s a wonder that you found it within yourself to bestow upon me a few sentences from your incomparable pen. To be honest, my feeble common mind was almost overcome by the brilliance - nay, the sheer intellect! - contained within those few dozen characters.
Of course, you have not seen fit to logically rebut the arguments I attempted to pose earlier. I can only assume from this that you hold me in such disdain that even logical argument with one such as myself is beneath you. Very well, then. I shall scurry off to my menial employment and not trouble ones of your greatness any further. I just pray that, in your infinite wisdom, you will not thrash me too badly when we pass on the street. Insolence has always been my greatest vice.
Posted by on 02/22/2005 at 08:11 PMNicholas, that is jsut ridiculous.
It is the assumption of some that by insisting on AT LEAST SOME STANDARDS, that one somehow is an arrogant, discriminatory bastard.
I don’t think I’m better than everyone, for one thing, what the hell is better? How would one define better?
What I do think is that insisting on standards is a GOOD thing, even when it is for something like voting.
I was making a very basic statement of principle. You clearly stated that elitism was a negative thing, and I flatly disagree, without qualification. There is no logical rebuttal because we are arguing from different first principles. There can be no useful conversation or argument about our conclusions, unless we first agree on our assumptions.
Elitism in and of itself is a positive thing. Unless you insist on excellence, all you will ever get is mediocrity, and mediocrity isn’t something to strive for.
As to your rather heavy handed offended sarcasm, I have a question. Why on earth do you take this personally?
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/22/2005 at 09:12 PMExcuse me, I have shown a distinct lack of respect to you Mr. Stipanovich in using your first name without either close familiarity, or your permission, while you extended me the proper respect.
I was wrong in this, and I apologize.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/22/2005 at 09:14 PMMr. Byrne,
First off, I accept your kind apology and feel that I owe you some explanation for my last post. I was first drawn to this debate by the argument proposed by our Curmudgeon, namely that the franchise ought to be greatly restricted in order to restore the Republic to health. This is (or at least can be) an honorable position. However, upon some consideration, I decided that there are at heart only two reasons people who are fond of liberty as a political principle would take this position. One was a logical presumption that the restriction of the franchise to the proper sort of people would limit the incentives of the voting public to support socialist, redistributive programs. I attempted to rebut this proposition logically - but so far there have been no takers.
The second reason is an elitism, seemingly grounded more in emotion than reason. It appears to be the feeling of many of the commenters here that they are more deserving of the vote than their political opponents, because they have served in the military, come to own property, or fulfill some other criteria. At first, I tried to rebut this with an appeal to practicality. From my reading of history, positions cloaked in elitism have gone down to crushing defeats in this country. Only by shedding the old elitist deadweight has the idea of liberty come into vogue again. But this line of argumentation apparently failed.
Thus, in my last comment I used an admittedly heavy-handed satirical style. I did this in an attempt to communicate my belief that when one takes the elitist impulse to its logical end, without qualifications, one is inexorably led to the world of rigid social hierarchy. This is not to say that having high standards is wrong or even harmful. But imposing those standards on society in law (by restricting the franchise to those people you deem worthy, for example) will not have the beneficial effects you hope for. At best, you will create a world in which the disenfranchised majority accept your enlightened rule and carefully avert their eyes as you stride down the streets. At worst, you will incite revolution among the people that you believe deserve no political representation. And I don’t want to live in either of those worlds.
Posted by on 02/22/2005 at 09:44 PMAt this poing sir, you are arguing motives, not principles.
Motives are certainly important in life, but in logical arguments you need to argue the principle not the motive. Imputing undesirable motives is generally a way of discrediting a positon, without arguing it’s validity.
Saying that the motivation for limiting the franchise is to restrict it to a fascist elite is nothing more than a resort to emotion. It does nothing to refute the principle.
First, one must acknowledge that the franchise is in fact, already limited in many ways, and that this discussion is actually about what types or restriction of the franchise are acceptable and desireable.
Now, the discussed limitation of franchise will only restrict those who are unwilling to meet the basic requirements.
Those requirements should be set so that any one of an intelligence above say 85 (I’m just throwing an arbitrary number out here), and a minimum level of knowledge about how our government, and voting work.
The other requirements as dicsussed, showing that you paid taxes for example, and you are a citizen, should be an automatic prerequisite for political participation in our society should they not?
As to real property ownership, i’m not sure I’m in favor of limitng the franchise in that way, though I understand the logic behind it. Only those that own a stake in the ground should be able to vote about how that stake is affected by government.
As to your statement about elitism, this is only correct if you assume an authoritarian state enforcing the elitist will and standards upon the populace that does not meet that standard. If elitism is a matter of individuals, even acting in concert so long as it is without the corecive nature of the authoritarian state (whic is a different argument entirely), then I believe elitism is an inherently positive thing.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/22/2005 at 10:19 PMOh, and feel free to call me Chris BTW.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/22/2005 at 10:19 PMChris,
Actually, I am not arguing motivation. That is why I used the satirical form; I believe that you, too, desire not to live in a society where elitism is the official watchword. I just don’t think that you have fully explored the consequences of your stated beliefs. Of course, I could be wrong about this - I do not claim omniscience.
I would like to correct a misconception you seem to have about my argument. I have not accused you of any authoritarian leanings. The reason is that, as far as I can tell, elitism and authoritarianism are largely independent qualities. The elite can be fascist, communist, monarchical, liberal, conservative, or even radically libertarian. They may prefer to maintain their position in ways ranging from harsh police repression to simply outcompeting their fellows in the marketplace. But if they entrench their preferences in law, making membership in the elite a requirement to having a political say, then the results are hardening social inequality resulting in either submission or rebellion on the part of the disenfranchised. As an anti-elitist (democrat?) I consider these to be negative consequences.
I admit that the franchise is, and ought to be, limited in many ways. Still, I maintain that there is a fundamental difference between the universalist and restrictionist positions on suffrage. One, such as my self, who is in favor of the broadest possible voluntary franchise argues that one ought to trust the people on questions such as who their political representatives ought to be. Having the power to vote gives a person a method by which to buy into the system, simultaneously venting dissatisfaction and creating a small sense of ownership of the result. This both enhances social stability and increases the quality of the resultant policies. If we do not like the positions that these people support, then it is incumbent upon us to convince them to support our side instead of trying to strip them of the vote.
As for your particular suggestions for the restriction of the franchise, I admit to not liking any of them. First off, I am highly suspicious of making my check over the government contingent upon my passing a test provided by that same government, unless that test wholly consists of certain objective facts (like “Are you a citizen?"). Secondly, I don’t like the idea of taking the vote away from people simply because of a low IQ. This country would have become entirely socialist after WWII if only intelligent people had had the vote - sometimes wisdom can be found among the least of us. Thirdly, restricting the vote to real property owners strikes me as a very bad idea simply because that would rule out at least 30% of the voting public (about twice as many as your IQ 85 restriction). Admittedly this is less extreme than our Curmudgeon’s suggestions, which all told would have taken the franchise away from about 90% of the voting public. But it is still a big enough number to cause all sorts of havoc.
Posted by on 02/22/2005 at 11:24 PMWe already “take the vote away” from people with very low IQ’s. Legally, one who is not competent to live independently, is also not alowed to vote, though some states will allow vote by assignment of proxy regardless of competence.
The restrictionist positon that I personally maintain isn’t about trusting the people. It’s about setting a minimum standard of participation which everyone should be able to meet. Therefore if you choose not to meet this standard, your exclusion is entirely voluntary.
Excepting of course the incompetent as I mentioned at the top of the post.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/22/2005 at 11:50 PMEven if one agrees in principle, the problem remains of how we get from the government we have _today_ to a government that can safely be trusted with a drastically limited public franchise.
Posted by Matt on 02/23/2005 at 02:07 AMAllow me, if I may, to contribute two cents or so. It seems the term: elite, has been misconstrued. In times past, certainly a segment of society (indeed various civilizations) used their “sense of superiority” to oppress the masses. This supposed quality distinction was perpetuated by brute force and enslavement of perceived lessers.
The current paradigm (constitutional protection of a minority of one) provides for a common starting line. Herein lies the rub: if all are free from hinderance, there will inevitably be diversity of accomplishment. Some differences will be the result of ability; some due to ambition. Eliteism is simply a term of art that descibes a higher degree of quality (not intrinsic, but rather volitional). Ideally, the Constitution should prevent the Congress from drafting laws that benefit one at the expense of another. Universal sufferage would not be problematic if those elected actually respected the spirit and the letter of the very “liberal” Constitution. Sadly, the power to tax has devolved into the power of citizens to use the ballot as currency to purchase that which another has earned. To deny this is to deny both history and present reality.
With respect to a popular revolt by those who lag behind, let me say this: brutes and thugs should be dealt with civily, yet harshly. Those who are otherwise capable, but have taken advantage of current “progressive” forced equality, would either become a productive member of society (with all of it’s implications) or fall into the outlaw fringe.
An axiom may be helpful here: there IS room for ANYONE at the top, but there IS NOT room for EVERRYONE. The current societal structure (sufferage included) disallows nature to take it’s course.
The assertion that an alteration of sufferage would create divisions among the populace presuposses that there are none now. Furthermore, there has never been, nor will there ever be actual equality among human beings. Pointing this out is not arrogance, but reality. In the final analysis, one tends to act according to one’s self interest. Any such restiction need not be permanent. As one satifies the obligation, one is rewarded with the privilege. The motivation is built in.
If self interest is served by exploiting an effortless exercise of the vote…
If self interest is served by meeting basic requirements to enjoy the franchise…
Posted by on 02/23/2005 at 03:42 AMIn my humble opinion, there seems to be an inverse relationship on the degree of the State’s intrusiveness on people’s lives and the force with which they cling to the “vote” as an expression of “choice”.
If I’m not able to decide even simplest things that only of consequence to me - say, using IQ tests to employ people -, then my vote gradually becomes a substitute for that authority. I start expecting that somehow by voting those who claim to understand my desire to keep what is rightfully mine - or, conversely, to plunder with impunity what is rightfully others’ - I’ll get back that authority.
Similarly, when kat-missouri revolts against the idea of her vote being degraded to a lower status due to her financial standing, she probably assumes an “organ” (?!) of the State apparatus legislating this formally and imposing that on us. This is entirely misguided. If we were left alone, face to face with our own destinies, then our economic means would, of their own accord, *put the brakes* on our ‘desires’ anyway. As things are, desires are written into “election” programmes, and short of changing this wealth-transfer mechanism, the only knee-jerk reaction of those with humbler fortunes would be to feel “excluded” from the stampede of the populace of voting itself a ‘raise’ on others’ resources.
The underlying dynamics of this points to the fact that simply declaring the “mechanical” reality of voting a “privilege” will not offset the desire to be compensated for the rights that are violated by the modern State. To the contrary, it’ll appear to add insult to injury.
Either the bloody State gets out of our faces and leaves us alone in ALL MATTERS THAT CONCERN ONLY US, or no one can be declared exempt from it “by definition” - no, not even convicts; not when the prisons are filled with the victims of ‘War On Drugs’.
Posted by on 02/23/2005 at 07:09 AMA shorter way of saying the above is, for voting to become a privilege, its subject matter and scope must cover only items that are a privilege.
If the vote is on, say, instituting universal draft, and if I’m an eligible male, no one can exclude me from voting on it since sending me off to distant lands to have my cojones blasted off is nobody’s bloody privilege.
Posted by on 02/23/2005 at 07:15 AMWhich brings us back again to my statement form the vote part 1, that the significant limitation of franchise must presuppose a more libertarian form of government for success.
Posted by Chris Byrne on 02/23/2005 at 11:58 AMEveryone,
This brings us back again to my point from The Vote Part 1 that a significant limitation of the franchise will lead to either a less libertarian form of government or an expanded franchise. Most likely, it will be one after the other. This precludes any possibility of success.
Posted by on 02/23/2005 at 04:32 PMUm...to make it clear, I actually would qualify under even the most stringent rules for “voting privileges” posted here. Property owner, taxed to the gills, national service, etc.
My point is that there are a number of “middle class” people I know who do not own a home, but rent. Yet these same people work a job (or two if it’s a family), pay their bills, pay taxes, etc. Under these rules, these folks would be disenfranchised.
I know some people that make very nice money, yet they live in the city, lease an apartment and don’t own a car because it’s not practical where they live. Under these rules, people would be “disenfranchised”.
You see where I’m going? What about the single mom who works at the grocery store as a manager, rents an apartment, isn’t on the dole, etc, etc. Is she to be disenfranchised because she doesn’t own “property”?
You all are talking specifics and I’m looking at some of the details. Once you start trying to specify, if you don’t think the people I listed here should be disenfranchised, then you have to make some more specific rules, then some more and then some more.
The reason certain “rights” and other language of the constitution were left in some vague format is because the fore fathers understood once you started making it “specific”, the true intent of the rule could be lost or could be written away under the more specific language. Worse yet, once you start defining it to that specific, you actually open it up to even MORE challenges because you now have specify every exception.
And, with all due respect to curmudgeon, I must respectfully disagree that the language “right to vote” in the amendment was simply “poorly worded”. In which case, maybe the “right to bear arms” is poorly worded? Or any number of other rights are poorly worded?
I don’t think that those words were used by accident. I believe they are specific because the “right” was never specified before and the lack of that specification as a “right” led things like discrimination of blacks and other minorities at the voting booth. And women, let’s not forget women as I am one.
Let us also remember certain issues with the original revolution. We simply weren’t fighting to remove the king and replace him with a democracy. We were fighting the stamp act and a number of other taxation issues: No taxation without representation.
Do you really expect that people who pay their income taxes, social security taxes, medicare taxes, FICA, etc, etc, etc are just going to happily pay them and not demand representation?
I might also remind that those taxes pay for roads, military, representatives and presidential salaries, etc.
What I’m saying is, if I did not own property or serve the nation, I would still pay taxes and I would still demand representation, ie, my right to vote.
It doesn’t have a damn thing to do with collectivist idealism or trying to implement something good for the “collective”. I want a say in where my money goes, period.
You should also know that, just because somebody doesn’t pay property tax it doesn’t mean they don’t support the local school system or local police, etc. Many cities and townships have instituted a separate tax payable by renters.
What I’m saying is that your whole premise of disenfranchising these other folks is extremely flawed because you simply have not taken into account the thousands of ways in which your ideas would otherwise disenfranchise a huge part of our population.
And, as somebody pointed out, once you do that, you open up a whole other can of worms. Namely, a second (or third if you count the civil war) revolution.
I like our current regulations on voting. What i think is the problem here is that you are not looking for ways to implement and enforce those current regulations but instead want to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Maybe we need national ID cards and a national voters data base which can be accessed in each state and is updated via the social security department on who is alive or dead or a citizen, etc.
And, even as a principle property owner with a nice chunk of change in multiple investments, I’d chuck it all and become a revolutionary if your ideas took hold. Not because I want “socialist” government, but because I don’t want a “non-representative” government and that is exactly what we would have.
It stinks up the whole idea of this country in the first place and that is what I would defend.
Posted by kat-missouri on 02/23/2005 at 10:21 PMI have to say in this instance I pretty much agree with Kat. In the discussion of the first essay, some stated that those who don’t own property should have no say, i.e. vote.
I understand the importance of property rights in a free society. However, money is property as well, but few seemed to have a problem with taxing those same people they would like to disenfranchise.
I have a problem with that.
None of this seems to solve the real problem and that is our government is out of control, our Constitution is under constant assault, and I honestly do not believe that stripping certain individuals of the ability to vote will solve anything.
I would be one of those individuals who would be disenfranchised, but I guarantee there are plenty of statists who would meet the criteria proposed in order to be allowed to vote though.
Posted by Heather on 02/24/2005 at 12:25 AMHeather & Kat-missouri; there must be a conceptual confusion here. Do you mean, by “property”, a “house” or some other form of land?
Money, according to Austrian economics (specifically Mises) is the most marketable commodity. If you’re paying taxes, as you cannot unless you have “money”, that means you have “property” - in the sense economists understand the word.
What I meant was the idea of making the vote proportionate to property has a good reason in that, in real life, regardless of the form that your property takes (cash, land, car, stock), your actions that involve public exchange of any material nature are limited by your “financial” capability.
But given our present day reality, however, a man who makes, say, 30K can demand a kind of, say, health service that only someone that makes 100K can afford, and yet consider his demand “legitimate”. Now, health service, since it has to be provided by someone, and since we cannot put a gun against that someone to make him provide that service, is *not* a right; it can only be a privilege you acquire with your money (property). But in a “one-man-one-vote”, all-votes-are-equal system, once you reach the necessary critical mass (a big challenge (?!) in the case of health), you can vote yourself “better health services; the state should intervene if necessary” rally with pitchforks.
The “nuance” I was trying to make was, as far as the State intrudes in private matters, it makes them public. So, as the vote is considered the only legitimate legal tool for political decision-making, nobody whose life has been “publicized” wants to relinquish it.
Two wrongs don’t make one right.
- - -
Side notes:
- Kat-missouri, I didn’t make any assumptions about anybody’s finances; I only referred to your example of a 100K house in the block, and your argument that you’d reject being sidelined simply because it was worth less than others’. There is a confusion here. Please note my explanation above.
- Heather: Should I interpret your siding with Kat-missouri as being against my words? I thought I was siding with *your* arguments that insisted on the “right” to vote in our current situation. There is also a confusion on that one - I think.
Perhaps *my* postings were poorly worded.
Posted by on 02/24/2005 at 06:44 AMAllegro, yes I agree with what you said, as I understand it you are saying as long as the state has such an enormous scope over our lives then it only makes sense that people should not be exempted from voting about matters that will affect them.
Posted by Heather on 02/24/2005 at 12:25 PM
Comment Form
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
