Wednesday, October 29, 2008

Re-Education Camps coming?

A friend of mine at work and I were chatting about this and that the other day and he has what I find an incredible to believe idea. Let me see if I can get this right and if you can follow it as he intended. He believes that in order for a democratic society to make good and correct voting decisions that at least the majority of voters need to be intelligent. He believes that people should have to pass a test of minimal intelligence in order to be granted the right to vote. He qualifies this view by admitting that currently there is no way to truly measure intelligence as that all current methods are flawed by such varying things as the language they're based in and so on.

He is of course a liberal voting for the Messiah.

I occasionally have a fleeting idea, which I immediately dismiss upon further thinking, that those who pay no taxes have no right to vote. As a conservative I strongly believe in democracy and one person one vote. It should be noted however that we of the United States do discriminate for voting rights. Those under 18 years old are not allowed to vote, and serious (lawless) criminals are not allowed to vote. In addition non-citizens are not allowed to vote in our elections.

My amazement at my friend is; how a liberal who believes in socialism and the concept of the equality of all people in all things finds it just as easy to justify the discrimination of voting rights based on intelligence.

I wonder if his version of intelligence also includes agreement with his political and economic ideals and whether those that believe in capitalism and the belief that the only way for a nation to truly have a future is for people to have personal responsibility and support themselves will be found as having faulty sub-standard intelligence. Freedom minded Republicans . . . prepare to be hauled away to re-education camps to have your intelligence raised to a minimal socialist acceptable level.

1 comment:

Gordon R. Durand said...

OK I'm going into ramble mode and I don't expect you to follow it all 'cause it makes my head spin just writing a little.

The founders were well aware of the dangers of Democracy, having read their Polybius and his essay on the Roman constitution: there are three forms of government, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, and each degrades over time into, respectively, tyranny, oligarchy, and mob-rule.

So they designed the government of these united states (it didn't become the United States until after the Civil War) to combine all three forms of government in hopes that they would each act as a check on the pernicious tendencies of the others.

The President (monarch) was to be selected by a college of electors, selected by the states in a manner to be determined by the states themselves. Popular vote was an option, but not required. The electors could just as well be appointed by the state's legislature, or by the governor. That was up to the state.

The senators (aristocrats), two to a state so that small states would have an equal vote to the large states, were to be selected by the legislatures of each state. They were to represent the states' interest, not the interests of the mob as a whole.

The representatives, and the representatives alone, were intended to be popularly, democratically, elected. The lower house was to represent the people as a whole, the mob. That's why the number of representatives is proportional to the population, and why the Census was required by the Constitution. Revenue bills, incidentally, must originate in the House—it's the people's money.

Originally, each state could set its own voter requirements. Literacy was generally required, as was property ownership. Until the 19th Amendment (1920), you had to be male. The 24th Amendment (1964) enfranchised everyone else, drooling idiots included. (Your caseworker will "help" you if you don't understand the ballot.)

The 17th Amendment (1913) decreed that senators shall be popularly elected as well. So much for the aristocratic component, the idea of senators representing the interests of theirs states. Now they have to pander to the mob as well.

As far as I know it is still legal for presidential electors to be selected other than by popular vote, and in fact not all states select electors by the usual state-wide winner-take-all: New Hampshire and Nebraska each elect electors by Congressional district, with the two left over going to the popular vote winner. And, although it rarely happens, electors are not bound to vote as instructed.

So there you have it. The President, elected by a college of electors. The Senate, elected by the states themselves. And the House, elected by the people. Monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. A combination of all three forms of government.

Not. Not! Democracy alone.

At least, not as originally intended.