This is an open trackbacks post. Link to this post and then track back. If you want to host your own linkfests, check out the Open Trackbacks Alliance.
Also note the other fine blogs featuring linkfests at Linkfest Haven.
Short shrift posting mode, again, so just a lil thought experiment/homework assignment:
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising them the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal responsibility, always followed by a dictatorship. —Alexander Tyler, Cycle of Democracy), 1770
Voting in our putative democracy is considered a right that every citizen has. But rights are something(s) inherent in a person, not given by the State. If a State grants to persons the license to do certain things, then those things are not rights but privileges, which can be revoked by the State.
In a republican democracy (or democratic republic) of the sort envisioned by the Framers, voting was not so much a right nor a privilege as a responsibility. And as such, they restricted the franchise to “freeholders”—those who owned real property free and clear. Such persons, they reasoned, were more likely to exercise responsible judgement in their voting.
Such is not the case in a pure democracy–something the Framers mistrusted as mob rule, which is what America has come more and more to approximate. In a democracy, the less responsible simply vote their greed, their lusts, their passions and simple stupidity.
Others have suggested different restricting the vote to different classes. Some have suggested tyhat only women should have the responsibility of voting. Robert Heinlein famously (or perhaps I merely assume his suggestion famous, since it’s common knowledge among most of my peers :-)) proposed that only veterans of a country’s armed forces should have the vote (not active duty, only those who have served).
What think you? It is obvious that some who do vote are too lazy or stupid to vote responsibly. And some simply sell their vote for a meal, a bus ride or enough money for their next fix (or for their next welfare check, which amounts to just about the same thing, IMO). Who should have the “right” to vote?
Heh. I’d almost forgotten the Starship Troopers approach to government structure. Not that anyone who saw the movie release would have the faintest idea what Heinlein actually had in mind. Good special effects, but completely decimated the actual story – but then, most of Heinlein’s work is too complex for film. (Who am I kidding…replace film with “readers” and the sentence still works, I’m afraid). Fortunately, there are still those of us out there who grok his meaning.
Not being born here, I am a stranger in a strange land, but I find it insulting that people who have limited intelligence actually vote. Those who have nothing, have nothing to protect and certainly everything to gain by voting for entitlements that they cannot themselves pay for.
If you do not earn enough money to pay taxes you shuld not be electing thieves to steal it from those who have earned the most. Of course under this plan, Democrats would lose millions of free-loaders, criminals, and dead people.
RY: Yeh, Heinlein had more on the ball than any movie made from his books?even the juvies?can do justice. In another of his “multiverses” an orderly society was encouraged by the simple expedient of requiring that all citizens go about with a loaded sidearm. At least it cut down on discourteous behavior…
Bernie: Of course the Democraps would lose out, but you might be surprised at how much the republican’ts would lose out, too. *heh* Heck, we might end up with a tweo party system, but if only those of moderate intelligence (and above) who lived responsible lifestyles voted, we’d probably have two entirely different political parties to choose between than we do today.