ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, July 28, 2014

Mailvox: contra suffrage

Chris Gerrib asks
VD, why shouldn't every free adult human be able to vote in the country they are a citizen of?
For the same reason unfree children who are not citizens are not permitted to vote: it is expected that their votes will not be in the long-term interests of the country or its citizenry.

Another commenter, Shelles, appears to be of the David Futrelle school of debate, in which her inability to imagine an effective argument is confused with the nonexistence of such arguments. Which I found a little amusing here, since she somehow manages to touch on two effective arguments while missing the aspects that make them effective.
The only way to win the argument that women should not have the vote is to be able to successfully equate them with others that do not have the vote: minors, felons. The condition of being a woman is in no way like either of these.

The other possibility is to argue that the country will be better off if women don't vote because women have a tendency to for for X, Y and Z, all of which will harm, if not destroy the country. The obvious problem with this argument is that it depends on one's personal on view of exactly how the country ought to operate. This is countered by offering another personal view of how the country ought to be that is best advanced by women having the vote.

Done.

In essence the argument is: Women should not have the vote because it's in the interests of a certain group.
It is certainly not the only way, but it is true that one will win the argument that women should not have the vote when one is able to successfully equate them with others that do not have the vote: minors, felons, and so forth. However, the fact that "the condition of being a woman is in no way like either of these" is irrelevant and does not suffice as a counterpoint. The way women are successfully equated with others who do not have the vote is to demonstrate that their votes are equally incompatible with the long-term national interest as the other classes of current non-voters.

This can be done using a variety of metrics, including what Shelles describes as another possibility to the only way. Just to give one example, if the reason children are not permitted to vote is due to their limited time preferences, a comparison could be made between children's time preferences, women's time preferences, and men's time preferences. If women's time preferences were determined to be more akin to those of children than those of men, that would be a clear justification for denying the vote to them.

But to return to the option to the only way, Shelles says "the obvious problem with this argument is that it depends on one's personal on view of exactly how the country ought to operate". But since the argument rests on the country's freedom, well-being, and future existence, her counter relies upon arguing that the country should be unfree, worse-off, and nonexistent. This is not a successful or convincing counter, even if it truly represents the personal view of the interlocutor rather than a hypothetical position of Shelle's imagination.

One should always be careful when attempting to summarize an opponent's position. Words like "in essence" or "basically" tend to be red flags alerting a critic to holes in one's arguments.  They aren't necessarily so, but in this case, they are. Because the statement is true: Women should not have the vote because it's in the interests of a certain group, so long as that "certain group" is defined as "all the citizens of the country, including the women".

There are very solid rational, Constitutional, and historical reasons for denying female suffrage. John Adams summarized them best in his famous written exchange with his wife:

"I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.

"Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.
 

"Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."
- Abigail Adams, 31 March 1776

"Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects.

"We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight."
- John Adams, 14 April 1776

Events have proven John Adams correct. Free men are accustomed to voluntarily limiting the use of their power and not pushing it to the full extent of its capabilities. Women, to say the least, are not. Just as an angry woman does not pull her punches, women in politics do not restrain their instincts to attempt to control the uncontrollable. Abigail Adams is projecting: she wrongly assumes all men would be tyrants if they could because she knows that is true of herself and other women. And women do not hold themselves bound by laws in any case, regardless of whether they have had voice or representation or not. They are bound by fear.

This is why a nation that wishes to remain wealthy and free does not permit female involvement in its governance, and why totalitarians from the Italian Fascists to the Soviet Bolsheviks have historically made a priority of female involvement in the political process.

Labels: ,

286 Comments:

1 – 200 of 286 Newer› Newest»
Blogger Vincent Castrillo July 28, 2014 4:53 AM  

I once told my wife how fervent the Italians courted the women for their version of National Socialism and how reliant the Nazis/Brownshirts were upon women to get into power.

Only a page :

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1878178?uid=3739912&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104405395467

I then was about to go into the USSR, China, NKorea, large swaths of Latin America etc. when she said, "yep I already get it, women should be no where near anything position of responsibility."

She's the best.

Blogger bethyada July 28, 2014 4:54 AM  

I think the argument needs to be made separately for both suffrage and governance.

In general, voting is a statistics game (though the can be some restrictions on this). So granting any group suffrage needs to be weighed by how they as a group tend to behave. The drive to younger voting is encouraged on the left because although many youth will vote right, a higher percentage will likely vote left.

Because it is probable that most women tend to want security it is possible that many will vote for government provision of what it is intended for husbands to provide for; and if so this will be more common among single women. Thus making policies of provision and security of higher priority than justice.

Then again, other groups may be likely to vote with short term preferences such as the poor and unemployed, but one would not wish to disenfranchise them either. While favouritism to the poor is not good, neither is favouritism against them.

Concerning governance, the issue here is who what a particular person holds to, not what there group tends to on average. Thus there are many specific women who would rule better than some men. This is the (traditional) biblical pattern which makes a woman subject to her husband so she is are not subject to other men. And such a woman may run a household or business as a boss over several men.

It seems an unusual position to deny suffrage but not governance to women, though presumably the UK under Elizabeth I was somewhat like this?

Anonymous VD July 28, 2014 5:22 AM  

Then again, other groups may be likely to vote with short term preferences such as the poor and unemployed, but one would not wish to disenfranchise them either.

I don't know about that. Bankers observably have very short term preferences and we'd be much better off disenfranchising them. The core problem is the need to disenfranchise anyone who receives direct financial benefit from government distribution. The Founders unfortunately didn't think in those terms because they conceived a government that was too small and limited to even have such a problem.

Anonymous Roundtine July 28, 2014 5:33 AM  

It seems an unusual position to deny suffrage but not governance to women.

The latter is controlled by the former.

Anonymous Roundtine July 28, 2014 5:41 AM  

The core problem is the need to disenfranchise anyone who receives direct financial benefit from government distribution. The Founders unfortunately didn't think in those terms because they conceived a government that was too small and limited to even have such a problem.

I agree they didn't imagine this government, but the poll tax was quite common. I don't know the origin of it, but if it cost $10,000 to vote in presidential elections and $5,000 to vote in off-year elections, a hell of a lot of people would stop voting. And that isn't even trivially expensive next to what is paid in payroll and income taxes over 4 years by most Americans. You could even make it a reverse poll tax these days due to the taxes. If you want to vote, you can. If you choose to give up your voter registration, every 4 years you get a $10,000 tax rebate.

Anonymous Roundtine July 28, 2014 5:42 AM  

And of course the poor will also get a big one time cash payout to not vote as well.

Blogger Scintimandrion July 28, 2014 6:16 AM  

Elizabeth I was a notable exception. In those days, I understand queens regnant were expected to marry and relinquish actual power to their husbands. All Elizabeth's officials, as well as MPs, were men, except for (presumably) some of her household staff and personal attendants.

Although not a logical contradiction to have women eligible for appointed or elected office but not eligible to vote, it would seem strange to most people, given that the official has more actual power than the electors.

Anonymous DF July 28, 2014 6:43 AM  

"...what Shelles describes as another possibility to the only way."

This made me laugh.

Blogger Bibby July 28, 2014 6:52 AM  

The only way to win the argument that children should not have the vote is to be able to successfully equate them with others that do not have the vote: felons. The condition of being a minor is in no way like being a felon.

See, Shelles? That there is what's called reduction ad absurdum.

Anonymous The Great Martini July 28, 2014 6:54 AM  

By 1930 I'm sure it will be totally evident that female suffrage is disastrous.

Anonymous Stilicho July 28, 2014 7:05 AM  

Exactly Vox, direct gov't benefit = no vote. Huge step in right direction and would remove most of the unproductive and short time preference folks from the pool immediately.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 7:47 AM  

Exactly Vox, direct gov't benefit = no vote. Huge step in right direction and would remove most of the unproductive and short time preference folks from the pool immediately.

I'd go even further and remove all government employees and employees of firms with 40%+ revenue from government contracts. And any firm that received a bailout. And yes, that includes the troops.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 7:48 AM  

To clarify, I meant remove from the voting pool.

Anonymous ivvenalis July 28, 2014 7:50 AM  

Your first paragraph reminds me of this post by Ilya Somin in which he, Bryan Caplan style, uses standard progressive axioms to quite validly reason that children should be able to vote and then bites the bullet and advocates it:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/11/06/suffer-the-little-children-to-vote/

Anonymous TheExpat July 28, 2014 7:51 AM  

Make taxes 100% voluntary and give everyone one vote for every dollar they pay in net taxes.

Anonymous Salt July 28, 2014 8:00 AM  

Reminds me of renters gaining the power to dictate the terms to the landlord.

Anonymous Clyde July 28, 2014 8:03 AM  

"her inability to imagine an effective argument is confused with the nonexistence of such arguments."

I think the issue is more that leftists tend to confuse their values with logical arguments. Absolute male/female equality is a core value; for them, it is a self-evident truth that requires no further evidence - as obviously true as the sun rising in the East and setting in the West. Same with racial equality and the various positive rights they believe in.

"But since the argument rests on the country's freedom, well-being, and future existence, her counter relies upon arguing that the country should be unfree, worse-off, and nonexistent."

The problem here is that leftists use circular logic and confuse means and ends. For example, diversity is good because it leads to more diversity.

You'll never convince Shelles (but she isn't the target so much as the tool).

Anonymous Rantor July 28, 2014 8:05 AM  

Speaking of giving children the right to vote, socialists and greens across Europe are fighting to lower the voting age to 16. In some areas it has already happened. This will not turn out well for anyone long term - but certainly the socialists and greens will benefit short term

Blogger Robert What? July 28, 2014 8:06 AM  

There is a reason that the Founders limited the vote to male landowners. They wanted to ensure that voters had a "skin in the game", so to speak. The problem we are facing now, as many others have observed, is that the takers can vote themselves more goodies at the expense of the producers. That is what we are seeing now as the takers are close to outnumbering the producers in this country.

OpenID cailcorishev July 28, 2014 8:10 AM  

Women like Shelles probably shouldn't encourage us to think too much about all the ways in which women can be equated to children and felons.

Anonymous Koi July 28, 2014 8:21 AM  

"Speaking of giving children the right to vote, socialists and greens across Europe are fighting to lower the voting age to 16. In some areas it has already happened. This will not turn out well for anyone long term - but certainly the socialists and greens will benefit short term"

What is short and long term in this case? Short-term (40-50 years) will not turn out so well, but long-term (100-200 years) may reap the benefits of our many mistakes.

Anonymous Stephen J. July 28, 2014 8:24 AM  

I think it was Alexis De Tocqueville who said that any democracy will last only until its members discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. Seems to me that that's hardly a sex-limited trait, though if it is true that female preference for security combines toxically with (still) largely male politicians willing to gratify *their* short - term time preferences by pandering to them, that might be a factor worth interfering with.

What if you separated both vote and candidate by sex? Women can only vote for female candidates and men for male? And limit who can run for office by who has raised at least one child to 18 who has graduated school with no criminal record; nothing encourages civic conscience like personal investment in that society's future.

Anonymous dh July 28, 2014 8:34 AM  

Make taxes 100% voluntary and give everyone one vote for every dollar they pay in net taxes.

At the very tail end of the Bush administration, their was a project that was intended to tie together accounting at 5 major payers of US outlays - the IRS, the Social Security Administration, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the Veterans Administration and the Department of Agriculture. The theory was you could converge the outlays - basically, who is getting what money - and use it as a tool to track down fraudsters and people who had lied. If successful, the program would have needed enabling legislation because IRS data is supposedly private, and so are the other islands of data (but less specifically so, in the case of the IRS it's black letter law).

Several of us on the database team naively designed the system to be double-booking, double-entry at the row level. This means that when doing the accounting, every debit is matched to a credit, and the system is always mathematically at zero. It's the way that companies that do accounting according to generally accepted principles operate. It's the whole business world. In government, however, accounting is done using all manner of principles that are not generally accepted and not standard.

Towards the end of the alpha-alpha stage, we were capturing payment information in an unusual but innovative way (which is why I came in), which was by getting identical copies of the check-run and ACH-run data and importing that into our data warehouse.

Eventually the project was cancelled, and I have always believed the reason was that you could see, essentially effortlessly, what the 'net' government 'account balance' was for any given person. All the outlays being correlated and all the incoming tax revenue collected and debited/credited from one ledger account meant you could assess the "profitability" or unprofitability of any given tax-payer/hand-out receiver.

Just correlating those 5 data sources, for a tiny pilot program was so politically risky that the program was bound to never see the light of day. It was a technologically interesting project, one that I went to replicate at a major credit card company, which they used to cull over a million accounts when the credit market deteriorated. By correlating the sale price of debt-backed credit securities with the profitability of the customer it became a major component of the companies determination of your credit worthiness. That model, incidentally, went on to be sold from the credit card company, to Fair Isaac, where it is now a commercial model that can be purchased for any swath of people.

Anonymous dh July 28, 2014 8:35 AM  

And any firm that received a bailout. And yes, that includes the troops.

That's very true. You can't let the armies decide who gets invaded next. The retired general brigade is already doing it's level best to get involved in as many wars as possible.

Blogger Crowhill July 28, 2014 8:38 AM  

One way to approach the issue of women's suffrage is to ask what any given vote is supposed to represent.

For example, what is being represented when a Congressman votes? What is being represented when a Senator votes? What is being represented when an elector to the Electoral College votes?

I don't get to vote in any of those things, but that's not "discrimination," it's just the nature of that sort of vote.

So then, what is being represented in popular elections, and why?

Land owners? Individuals? Households?

Asking the question that way doesn't necessarily lead to any given conclusion, but it may set the discussion in a more profitable context.

Anonymous Mike M. July 28, 2014 8:39 AM  

"Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects.

"We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight."
- John Adams, 14 April 1776

Behold the REAL power and meaning of "patriarchy"! :-)

I recollect a quote from Jeff Cooper, "The more manly the man, the easier it is for a womanly woman to wrap him around her finger."

Blogger Joshua_D July 28, 2014 8:43 AM  

Stilicho July 28, 2014 7:05 AM

Exactly Vox, direct gov't benefit = no vote. Huge step in right direction and would remove most of the unproductive and short time preference folks from the pool immediately.


Is public school a direct government benefit? What about roads? What about law enforcement and the courts?

Anonymous Mike M. July 28, 2014 8:46 AM  

I'll add one other point. Restricting the franchise can be justified on the grounds of observed performance.

When the nation was founded, a voter had to be free, male, over 21, and posessed of either property or income (a requirement disaualifying about 30% of the adult free male population). This produced leaders like Washington, Franklin, and Madison. True geniuses.

Fifty years later, the property requirement was abolished. This produced leaders like Andrew Jackson, Lincoln, and Davis. Good men, but not as far-sighted, wise, or honest as their prececessors.

Fifty years after that, in the early 1900s, we allowed women to vote. This produced leaders like Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. Short-sighted, inept, and with a strong fascist streak.

And in the 1950s, we lowered the voting age to 18. This produced Lyndon Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. Corrupt to the core and utterly incompetent.

Forget theory. Go with what demonstrably worked.

Blogger Joshua_D July 28, 2014 8:47 AM  

TheExpat July 28, 2014 7:51 AM

Make taxes 100% voluntary and give everyone one vote for every dollar they pay in net taxes.


Wouldn't corporations simply buy the government? I know they already do, but this seems like it would make it much easier for them.

Anonymous VD July 28, 2014 8:52 AM  

Is public school a direct government benefit?

What part of "direct" do you not understand? Do they hand you money when you walk in the door? Do they hand you money when you drive onto the federally-funded highway? Does law enforcement walk around distributing cash to people?

Anonymous YIH July 28, 2014 8:55 AM  

Then again, other groups may be likely to vote with short term preferences such as the poor and unemployed, but one would not wish to disenfranchise them either.
A better example are africans. In my younger days South Africa was a quite advanced, 'first-world' country.
Starting in the 1970's through the agitation and outright lobbying (by a certain 'Tribe') in 1994 blacks were granted suffrage.
Since that happened things have gone severely downhill for that country. So much so that those of ''the tribe'' had to escape the hellhole they had turned that country into.

Anonymous Difster July 28, 2014 8:57 AM  

If only voting actually mattered anymore.

Anonymous Philalethes July 28, 2014 8:58 AM  

From the previous thread, relevant to this one:

A single woman voting for her husband the state is quite a different political creature from a married woman voting for her husband's interests, which are also her own.

You don't understand the problem. If a married woman will vote "for her husband's interests", why does she need the vote? The same result can be accomplished when women don't vote. If you look at the history of women's suffrage, it's clear that women in the 19th century wanted the vote because they felt that their husbands weren't managing things properly, so they needed to step in and "fix" the situation. Sound familiar? Read the Declaration of Sentiments. There is really nothing new about modern feminism, except for its unprecedented success.

Before the "19th Amendment" (I consider none past the 12th to be legitimate, since all were imposed by Lincoln's unConstitutional dictatorship), even many women were opposed to female suffrage, because they expected (rightly, as it has turned out) that giving women the vote would destroy the family, by allowing women to rebel against their husbands' "interests" in a very consequential way. Women's suffrage gives women very substantial incentive to "blow up" their marriages to mere men and marry the State instead.

I would suggest asking this line right after the women should vote because they are humans too! argument.

me: Then why do we not allow children to vote?

Works everytime.


Be careful what you ask for. I remember reading a few years ago that feminists in Europe were proposing that since it is only fair they should have a voice in their future, children should be given the vote. Next?

As VP explains above, the answer to the question of female (or children, or animal, whatever) suffrage turns on what kind of country you want to have. If you want a Republic (as did the Founders—most of them anyway) in which the primary social unit is the family (not the masses of atomized "voters"), then the franchise should be restricted to heads of families (here of course the definition of "family" is key; does a woman + her children without a man comprise a "family"? the question must be addressed). If you want a government that is not a kleptocracy, then the franchise should be limited to citizens who are responsible and personally economically successful. (Maybe not all men should vote.) And so on; the question of who should vote is fundamental to the character and structure of a Republic, and should be examined in detail. All men may be "created equal", but all men do not behave equally.

Anonymous Stilicho July 28, 2014 9:00 AM  

Is public school a direct government benefit? What about roads? What about law enforcement and the courts?

No.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 July 28, 2014 9:01 AM  

The women's suffrage movement can best be illustrated by the fable of the scorpion and the frog.

Blogger Bob Wallace July 28, 2014 9:04 AM  

Women put Hitler into office.

Anonymous Shelles July 28, 2014 9:08 AM  

" If women's time preferences were determined to be more akin to those of children than those of men, that would be a clear justification for denying the vote to them."

Being akin to something is not being that. In many ways men are like children. In many ways they are akin to children. To use the children example in order to justify the revoking the female franchise, you'd have to show how women are substantially like children in their reasoning. Not merely akin.

" Shelles says "the obvious problem with this argument is that it depends on one's personal on view of exactly how the country ought to operate". But since the argument rests on the country's freedom, well-being, and future existence, her counter relies upon arguing that the country should be unfree, worse-off, and nonexistent."

In order for this part of the argument to work, you'd need to outline exactly what you mean by the country's "freedom", it's "well being", and "future existence". Undoubtedly your idea of "well being" is going to be different than the next persons.

In the end, the person advocating a revocation of the women's franchise has to make the case that women ought not have the opportunity to protect their liberty nor participate in the disposition of their liberties, while still being held to all the responsibilities of citizenship. It must be argued that their freedom and liberty ought to be out of their hands completely and subject to men alone.

I think this is a difficult case to make.

Blogger Joshua_D July 28, 2014 9:11 AM  

VD July 28, 2014 8:52 AM
Is public school a direct government benefit?

What part of "direct" do you not understand? Do they hand you money when you walk in the door? Do they hand you money when you drive onto the federally-funded highway? Does law enforcement walk around distributing cash to people?


Stilicho July 28, 2014 9:00 AM
Is public school a direct government benefit? What about roads? What about law enforcement and the courts?

No.


I understand what direct means, as in a direct cash payment of some kind. I guess I should have said that I don't see much difference between direct and indirect payments from the government (as the government operates today), and I'm not sure that using that metric would be a good way to determine the franchise.

Anonymous Stilicho July 28, 2014 9:14 AM  

The retired general brigade is already doing it's level best to get involved in as many wars as possible.

Hardly surprising since the ones you see advocating for this are typically employed directly or indirectly by defense contractors who stand to profit from it. As usual, Cui Bono?

That gov''t database you worked on would be political dynamite. It would be enormously beneficial to conservatives and libertarians, but it would show most politicians as net takers too, so broad bipartisan support to kill it and keep it dead will always be there.

Anonymous Philalethes July 28, 2014 9:17 AM  

Public schooling may not be a "direct benefit", but it is certainly a conflict of interest. When the State controls the education—indoctrination—of future "voters", i.e. those who will "control" the State, the State cannot but grow into unlimited power. The question of Who will educate the children? is also vital to the design of a Republic.

Anonymous bw July 28, 2014 9:20 AM  

Feminism is pushed exactly because it is regressive, not because it is presumed to be "progressive".

Is public school a direct government benefit?

Govt programs and their workers are Net Consumers of the Economy.
And yes, it is a direct benefit to the government and its workers - for a time. Once the parasites consume the host...

Anonymous Stilicho July 28, 2014 9:24 AM  

I'm not sure that using that metric would be a good way to determine the franchise.

It is quite simple: no one gets to vote themselves checks from the gov't. It may not be perfect, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. Plus, it is voluntary: no one has to accept the dole, it is a matter of choice. It may be a hard choice and it may be a matter of a lot of bad choices leading to that hard choice, but, with the limited exception of the truly mentally incompetent (who should not be allowed to vote for other obvious reasons), it is always a matter of choice.

2 questions for you now: 1) do you receive a direct check from the gov't? and 2) please explain why you think this might not be a good way to determine who gets the franchise?

Anonymous VD July 28, 2014 9:24 AM  

I think this is a difficult case to make.

I'm sure you do. I think you're very stupid. It is not necessary to "outline exactly what you mean by the country's "freedom", it's "well being", and "future existence" to make the case. How stupid do you have to be to not understand "exists" versus "does not exist"?

Or do you need me to define "stupid" more exactly than simply saying: "of a cognitive capacity akin to Shelles's"?

It must be argued that their freedom and liberty ought to be out of their hands completely and subject to men alone.

No, it doesn't, for the obvious reason that freedom and liberty is not limited to voting. As I noted, you are very stupid. Male or female, you certainly shouldn't be voting. Or driving, for that matter.

"Is that a "green" light? Or is it a "red" light? I suppose it depends upon what you mean by "green"? Never mind, I'll drive through it.

Anonymous the bandit July 28, 2014 9:25 AM  

I wonder about the incentives behind a voting restriction to males with legitimate children....

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 9:26 AM  

I guess I should have said that I don't see much difference between direct and indirect payments from the government (as the government operates today), and I'm not sure that using that metric would be a good way to determine the franchise.

Your logic leads directly to Elizabeth Warren's "you didn't build that" speech.

As if the man whose factory is accessible via a government road is somehow morally and economically equivalent to a third generation welfare queen supporting three kids from three fathers with the entire panoply of government assistance. Or the retired cop or teacher drawing three different pensions from three different jurisdictions.

OpenID cailcorishev July 28, 2014 9:26 AM  

You can't let the armies decide who gets invaded next. The retired general brigade is already doing it's level best to get involved in as many wars as possible.

Wasn't Ron Paul, the most anti-war Republican, the favorite of uniformed military? If so, maybe soldiers should be allowed to vote as long as they're enlisted, but lose it when discharged.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 9:31 AM  

Wasn't Ron Paul, the most anti-war Republican, the favorite of uniformed military?

By campaign contributions, yes. By votes? Who knows. You'd probably have to look at county by county data near military bases.

Anonymous bw July 28, 2014 9:32 AM  

Or the retired cop or teacher drawing three different pensions from three different jurisdictions.

Speaking of welfare queens who produce only harm..

Anonymous Philalethes July 28, 2014 9:34 AM  

In the end, the person advocating a revocation of the women's franchise has to make the case that women ought not have the opportunity to protect their liberty nor participate in the disposition of their liberties, while still being held to all the responsibilities of citizenship. It must be argued that their freedom and liberty ought to be out of their hands completely and subject to men alone.

I think this is a difficult case to make.


Difficult, yes, but not impossible. VD has made it pretty well above, if only a beginning. The problem is that few women will be convinced, since women are not convinced by logic—as VD also notes. They now have the power, and are simply incapable of seeing how their exercise thereof has not actually been to their benefit (or anyone's, except for the criminal class—including the politicians, financiers, et al.). So they won't give it up, until the circumstances they themselves have created take it (and everything else of value) from them, as our civilization sinks further into barbarism.

"Women rule the world. No man ever did anything unless a woman allowed or encouraged him to do it." – Bob Dylan, Rolling Stone interview, 1988

"[W]omen ought not have the opportunity to protect their liberty nor participate in the disposition of their liberties..." for the simple reason that they will inevitably "dispose" of their liberties—and everyone else's. But women simply cannot see what is before their eyes, if it conflicts with their passions. So the disease must run its course—and quite likely nothing will be learned even from the final catastrophe, and the cycle of barbarism —> civilization —> barbarism will simply repeat itself endlessly.

Anonymous Shelles July 28, 2014 9:40 AM  

"How stupid do you have to be to not understand "exists" versus "does not exist"?

Very Stupid. But the fact that after nearly 100 yeas since the women got the vote and the country still exists, then it seems this goal is achieved with the women voting.

"No, it doesn't, for the obvious reason that freedom and liberty is not limited to voting. As I noted, you are very stupid. Male or female, you certainly shouldn't be voting. Or driving, for that matter.

Nor is the existence of the country depended entirely on who has the franchise. However, by removing the franchise from women in a representative democracy, you remove an important way for them to participate in the preservation of their liberties and freedoms.

Anonymous Stilicho July 28, 2014 9:45 AM  

However, by removing the franchise from women in a representative democracy, you remove an important way for them to participate in the preservation of their liberties and freedoms.

How does women voting preserve their liberties and freedoms if greater than 50% of them vote to do away with those liberties and freedoms in return for the promise of safety and money?

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 9:47 AM  

Ankle biter bingo?

Anonymous Shelles July 28, 2014 9:47 AM  

"Difficult, yes, but not impossible. VD has made it pretty well above, if only a beginning. The problem is that few women will be convinced, since women are not convinced by logic—as VD also notes."

Well, he has suggested that it is in the "well being" of the country that women not vote. If he means that the country still exists as a sovereign nation, then he fails since the country still exists after years of women voting. However, I think by "well being" he means something else. Not sure what, but I'm sure it's a meaning derived from his personal ideology that is probably a different ideology than other men and women...particularly when you get down to the details.

"They now have the power, and are simply incapable of seeing how their exercise thereof has not actually been to their benefit (or anyone's, except for the criminal class—including the politicians, financiers, et al.)"

Can you give an example of how they can't see this?

"for the simple reason that they will inevitably "dispose" of their liberties—and everyone else's."

And yet here are a collection of men proposing that one of the most significant liberties one possesses in a representative democracy be removed from half the population. But of course this leads to the question, which liberties ought to be protected most and which need not be. This goes back to the issue of what is meant by the "well being" of the country.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 9:53 AM  

And yet here are a collection of men proposing that one of the most significant liberties one possesses in a representative democracy be removed from half the population.

What is a more significant liberty, gun ownership or voting?

Anonymous Shelles July 28, 2014 9:58 AM  

"How does women voting preserve their liberties and freedoms if greater than 50% of them vote to do away with those liberties and freedoms in return for the promise of safety and money?"

Every liberty imaginable does not necessarily deserve protecting. I would guess some would argue that the ability to abort a fetus is a liberty that does not deserve protecting. Others would argue this is a fundamental liberty. Who is to decide?

Anonymous Shelles July 28, 2014 10:00 AM  

"What is a more significant liberty, gun ownership or voting?"

This is a good question. But there is one that proceeds it. In a representative democracy, who should decide?

Anonymous Philalethes July 28, 2014 10:01 AM  

[M]aybe soldiers should be allowed to vote as long as they're enlisted, but lose it when discharged.

Robert Heinlein, among many others, proposed that military service should be a qualification for the franchise. This sounded like maybe a good idea (and I never was in the military), until I gradually learned that the U.S. military has never been involved in a legitimate, justifiable defensive war since at least 1815—and a good case can easily be made against that war. (And even against the War of Independence, when the question "Were Americans better off after Independence?" is honestly examined. The "Whiskey Rebellion" was not against the British colonial government.)

The sad fact is that the famous Republics of the past—Rome, Athens—which inspired the classically-educated Founders, both morphed into empires. It seems there is something about the republican form of government that unleashes tremendous energy in a nation, which energy will almost inevitably be expressed by going out and conquering its neighbors—usually with the justification of "bringing freedom and democracy to the world". Unfortunately, most men are not very smart either, nor much inclined to restrain their passions. The Founders made an effort to establish a lasting Republic, but it was only a beginning, and sadly but not surprisingly, instead of being further developed it has been gradually abandoned. Monarchy is the natural, default condition of human society; our own Halfrican Dictator is now King in all but name.

Anonymous Salt July 28, 2014 10:02 AM  

But the fact that after nearly 100 yeas since the women got the vote and the country still exists, then it seems this goal is achieved with the women voting.

Give it time. It's quite evident you mistake historically short term time frames for long.

Anonymous indpndnt July 28, 2014 10:03 AM  

John Lott (yes, that one) has a short article discussing some of the impacts of women's suffrage:

http://johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/WashTimesWomensSuff112707.html

He's convinced, from the data, that women having the vote will cause an increase in the size of government.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 10:05 AM  

This is a good question. But there is one that proceeds it. In a representative democracy, who should decide?

Sorry sugartits, answer my question first.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 10:08 AM  

For the same reason unfree children who are not citizens are not permitted to vote: it is expected that their votes will not be in the long-term interests of the country or its citizenry.

We don't allow children to vote because they don't have the same mental capacity as adults (by definition). We (in the USA) don't allow non-citizens to vote because they do not have the education to make an informed vote. This is why we impose a citizenship test on immigrants.

In neither case do we deny the vote because they won't vote for the long-term interests of the country. Actually, that "long-term interests" probably sounds better in the original Italian, as it is intellectually the same as Mussolini's Fascism. (All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.)

In any event, we as a society have decided that adults should be allowed to determine for themselves what their long-term interests are and act accordingly. To decide otherwise means creating a dictatorship in which a minority rules. It's the opposite of a government based on "consent of the governed."

There were a number of comments to this post regarding the advisability of limiting the vote to men with property. I would remind everybody that the reason we expanded the vote to all men was because those that didn't have the vote threatened to take it by force. Not allowing all men to vote creates a permanent underclass, which usually ends badly. Ask the Russian and French aristocracy about that. (Many of the later lost their heads over the matter.)

Anonymous Roundtine July 28, 2014 10:08 AM  

I think this is a difficult case to make.

Voting does not equal liberty. If I move to Singapore, where I have no right to vote, do I have no liberty?

Women have restricted their own freedom by voting. Most women (except the poorest) used to have a choice of working or not working outside the home. Today, only a minority of women have that choice, the richest. A benefit enjoyed by all but the poorest of women, now only available to the wealthy or those who choose to sacrifice.

Any woman who truly desires liberty will oppose womens' suffrage, along with restricting the suffraging of males. Because suffraging is bad. If you want more people suffraging, you are bad.

Anonymous Steve July 28, 2014 10:10 AM  

How about this rhetorical formulation?

The issue being raised is not, as it is falsely being framed, the issue of "denying women the right to vote". An argument not to extend the vote to women is,fundamentally, an argument to weight the political system in favor of men.While it may seem shocking to contemporary sensibilities, there are many good arguments to weight the political system in favor of men.

The first argument for this is the kind of sloppy,spurious,mean-spirited and malicious arguments being marshalled to champion its inverse.The aforementioned "right to vote" argument is a classic example. To give women the "right" to vote is itself a tipping of the scales in their favor, since men are extended the "privilege" of voting,conditional on their acceptance of absolute servitude to the state to the point of committing suicide on its behalf in the pursuit of its military goals. Any argument to extend women the "right to vote" is then an argument to weight the political system in their favor.

The second argument,therefore is to weight the political system in men's favor as a form of punishment for the vicious,underhanded,and sneaky weighting of the poltical system in the favor of women, which has in fact been successfully accomplished,as women presently enjoy the "right" to vote, while men enjoy the "privilege" of voting,conditional on military servitude and approaching absolute servitude (closer to absolute servitude than it was when originally conceived by men) to the state.

Related to this argument is the argument that the nature of the state itself has been changed by the effect of women's participation in it. It is now a "democracy" whereas originally it was a republic characterized by a democratic electoral process. In a democracy,which we may regard as a degraded form of republicanism,absolute numbers matter more than traditional sentiments,nationalism, patriotism and eventually more than the humanity of each individual human being as democracies begin to fail and slide still further down into Communism. A democracy is corrupt from its inception because votes can be bought, and indeed many have observed that this is how democracies generally conduct business, and how they eventually are put out of business.


The third argument is that women have intentionally brought about these changes, in the collective, through their female representatives in the workforce and government and the leaders of interest groups acting in their name as they were supported physically,verbally,materially, or through inaction.At every step of the way, these changes have been objected to. For a meticulously video-documented example of more recent changes being brought about through the politcal action of women,with numerous arguments both pro and con, and the methods which were employed,search the terms "atheism+ rebecca watson" or "women vs tropes in video games anita sarkeesian" also "dongle gate". There the objections are numerous and strenuously voiced,and the utterly opportunistic and contra-virtuistic actions of the women are ham-handed and amateurish and thus,as it were a blue stain added to a labratory culture, the virus of such anti-social politics is shown in high relief against the sterile medium of the wider culture which it inhabits.


There is no sane moral or rational argument with which one can justify the firing of a man with 3 children because he made a joke about "dongles" which one woman had to crane her neck to hear,and thus take offense at. And yet it happens in America,and it happens every day,we just don't always hear about it.

pt 1

Anonymous Steve July 28, 2014 10:10 AM  

Futrelle says "There is no reasonable reason to deny anyone the vote because of gender."

But the argument is a little more complex than that,isn't it? Men don't "deny women the right to vote" just because they have an innie and we have an outie. No one is that silly. That,is a strawman argument. Contrary to this, men don't "deny women the right to vote" at all, in fact men have granted women the right to vote, while they themselves only have the "privilege" of voting,conditional upon servitude unto death in the interests of the state. And while it is a slight digression, it is important to add here that this goes for the entirety of men's relation to the state. Men do have "privilege". Men have "privilege" (usually conditional), while women enjoy absolute rights, the "right" to vote,the "right" to free helathcare, the "right" to an education,the "right" to an abortion, and so on and so forth.

It is plain to the eye that the act of granting women the "right to vote" is an injustice against men,which are forced to alone carry the weight of the state like a yolk around their neck, and carry the burden of the state's misfortunes and disrepute,which may caused by women,as well. That it is an injustice, I hope that I have demonstrated sufficiently enough-however I will tell you that it is also foolish.For who will care more for the condition of the state? The one granted absolute rights to it,who may abuse,misuse,or impoverish it without consequence;OR the one who has purchased the state with his blood,nourished it with his sweat,suffered in its creation,suffered in its maintenance,and who suffers in its destruction? Who must be instructed how to care for his home,the homeowner or the apartment tenant? Of apartment tenants,who loses more when these rules are not followed,the one who leases the room (who may be evicted and/or lose his property) or a freeloader (who brings no home and little if any property to the table) sleeping on the couch?

By agreeing to grant women the "right" to vote (not only now, but across the Western world and throughout history on many occasions) while they themselves enjoyed only the "privilege" of voting, and in general granting women "rights" while they themselves enjoyed only "privileges",men have shown themselves to be more than fair to the fairer sex.

The question is not whether to deny women the right to vote or not, but why women should have any "rights" at all.


What do you think?

OpenID cailcorishev July 28, 2014 10:11 AM  

But the fact that after nearly 100 yeas since the women got the vote and the country still exists, then it seems this goal is achieved with the women voting.

If someone hits you in the face with a brick, do you say it was harmless as long you don't die right away? Vox is right, you're too stupid even to understand the argument.

I think this is a difficult case to make.

No, it's a difficult case for many people to hear, but an easy one to make. You can even make it in a variety of ways. You can go inductive, looking at the nature of women and how they make choices and showing that this will logically lead them to vote for increasing tyranny. You can go deductive, looking at the results of women voting and whether or not things have improved or worsened. You can combine the two a bit by looking at the people -- men and women -- who opposed female suffrage and the predictions they made; if their predictions came true, then it's likely that their reasoning against it was correct.

We're spoiled for choice here, but it won't matter what argument we use because you're not listening.

Anonymous Philalethes July 28, 2014 10:11 AM  

But the fact that after nearly 100 yeas since the women got the vote and the country still exists, then it seems this goal is achieved with the women voting.

The country may still "exist" as a set of lines on a map, but as what the Founders intended it is almost entirely gone. As VD noted, women have relatively short time frames; 100 years is not so long in the history of a nation. And it is obvious, to anyone not blinded by passion, where it is going. You continue to make his argument for him. And quite articulately, I might add.

[Y]ou remove an important way for them to participate in the preservation of their liberties and freedoms.

Indeed, and why? Because of the observed fact that women, given said way to participate, will not preserve "their liberties and freedoms". Maybe the "freedom to vote", yes, but is that truly more important than the freedom to walk down the street without being attacked, raped, etc.? Which freedom has demonstrably almost entirely evaporated in "nearly 100 years".

...do away with those liberties and freedoms in return for the promise of safety and money?

A false promise, it should be noted.

Can you give an example of how they can't see this?

You have already done so, and continue to do so with exemplary enthusiasm. My hat's off to you.

But of course this leads to the question, which liberties ought to be protected most and which need not be. This goes back to the issue of what is meant by the "well being" of the country.

See above, for just one example.

Anonymous Cederq July 28, 2014 10:11 AM  

Mike M. 8:46am,

Check your facts, 18 year olds were not allowed to vote until 1976, this I know from actual experience, I turned 18 in 1976 and voted in the elections that year. Not the 50's you espoused.

Anonymous Porky July 28, 2014 10:11 AM  

Abigail Adams is projecting: she wrongly assumes all men would be tyrants if they could because she knows that is true of herself and other women.

It's true of all men, which is why the founders attempted abortively to limit their governmental power.

The heart of man is exceedingly wicked.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 10:12 AM  

We (in the USA) don't allow non-citizens to vote because they do not have the education to make an informed vote. This is why we impose a citizenship test on immigrants.

The fact that we don't impose a voting test on citizens negates your neat little theory.

Blogger Joshua_D July 28, 2014 10:19 AM  

Stilicho July 28, 2014 9:24 AM
I'm not sure that using that metric would be a good way to determine the franchise.

It is quite simple: no one gets to vote themselves checks from the gov't. It may not be perfect, but it would be a huge step in the right direction. Plus, it is voluntary: no one has to accept the dole, it is a matter of choice. It may be a hard choice and it may be a matter of a lot of bad choices leading to that hard choice, but, with the limited exception of the truly mentally incompetent (who should not be allowed to vote for other obvious reasons), it is always a matter of choice.

2 questions for you now: 1) do you receive a direct check from the gov't? and 2) please explain why you think this might not be a good way to determine who gets the franchise?


I agree. No one should get to vote themselves checks from the government. I also think that it would be a step in the right direction.

1. Yes. I work for a local government in western NC, so I receive a check from the local government.

2. I don't think direct vs. indirect is a good metric for determining the franchise, because I don't think it addresses the core issue of taking from the public trough. Like public school, I think there are plenty of ways to vote for indirect payments, which are still very beneficial and paid by taxpayers - social security, medicare, medicaid.

I think it may possibly be better give the vote to net taxpayers, and prevent net tax takers from voting. But I'm not sure how easy that would be to figure out given the current structure of government and the tax code, and like you mentioned, if someone is receiving a check from the government, I would think they are likely a net tax taker and should not vote.

It seems to me that a lot of the problems come down to the size and scope of our current federal and state governments and the myriad of services that the governments pay for citizens via taxes.


Josh July 28, 2014 9:26 AM

Your logic leads directly to Elizabeth Warren's "you didn't build that" speech.

As if the man whose factory is accessible via a government road is somehow morally and economically equivalent to a third generation welfare queen supporting three kids from three fathers with the entire panoply of government assistance. Or the retired cop or teacher drawing three different pensions from three different jurisdictions.


I don't think my logic leads to that, but if it did, then I'd agree with you that I was wrong. I agree with you. I don't think the factory owner who benefits from a government road is equivalent to a welfare queen. Like I said above, I think a better metric would be net-payer vs. net taker.

Anonymous YIH July 28, 2014 10:19 AM  

Is public school a direct government benefit?
What do you mean when you say ''benefit''?

Anonymous Athor Pel July 28, 2014 10:19 AM  

" ShellesJuly 28, 2014 9:08 AM
...
Being akin to something is not being that. In many ways men are like children. In many ways they are akin to children. To use the children example in order to justify the revoking the female franchise, you'd have to show how women are substantially like children in their reasoning. Not merely akin.
..."



More than forty years of direct observation of every woman I've ever known has proven to me women rarely grow beyond their mid to late teens in regards to overall maturity. When it comes to women's weakness in the face of emotional manipulation they tend to act as an even younger child, in being manipulated and manipulating in turn.

To state it plainly, women are easily led into doing things that are not in their best interests, long term and sometimes even in the short term. They are easy to seduce and easy to instill more fear in. Politicians know this and use it.

The saddest part of this is how women are complicit in their own destruction and lie to themselves in order to keep it going.

If you ask why a woman would be complicit in her own destruction I will merely point to one glaring fact, sin is fun and the feeling of empowerment that sin imparts helps push back the ever present fear.

Anonymous Roundtine July 28, 2014 10:22 AM  

In a representative democracy, who should decide?

In Nazi Germany, who should decide? Hitler, right? Now you see why Hitler wanted women to vote.

Anonymous zen0 July 28, 2014 10:23 AM  

@ Shelles

However, by removing the franchise from women in a representative democracy, you remove an important way for them to participate in the preservation of their liberties and freedoms.

Liberties and freedoms are not granted by government. Liberties and Freedoms are restricted by government.

Plus, the US has a Republic, not a representative democracy.

OpenID cailcorishev July 28, 2014 10:24 AM  

Robert Heinlein, among many others, proposed that military service should be a qualification for the franchise. This sounded like maybe a good idea (and I never was in the military), until I gradually learned that the U.S. military has never been involved in a legitimate, justifiable defensive war since at least 1815—and a good case can easily be made against that war.

Right, but as far as I know, the enlisted men never declared any of those wars. Young men like to fight and test themselves in battle, and a good number of them will generally go off to war pretty readily without knowing or caring much about the greater geopolitical and legal issues -- if there's a war on. But does that mean they'll agitate for war and vote for warmongers to create a war to fight in?

I don't know, but I found it interesting that the only candidate opposing the war in Iraq got such overwhelming donations from men in uniform. As far as I heard, no one ever sat down with a bunch of them and asked them why. Was it just that they hated the desert, and wished they could be fighting in jungles or mountains? But Paul was generally anti-interventionist, so he didn't promise a different war. Was it that they found something distasteful about that particular conflict? Was it that many of them today joined up for the travel and job training promoted in the TV ads, and didn't want to fight at all? I don't know, but I wish someone had tried to find out, because the support he got from them definitely goes against the stereotype.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 10:25 AM  

Like public school, I think there are plenty of ways to vote for indirect payments, which are still very beneficial and paid by taxpayers - social security, medicare, medicaid.

Social security is a direct payment, and Medicare and Medicaid are direct benefits.

Anonymous Athor Pel July 28, 2014 10:27 AM  

" JoshJuly 28, 2014 7:47 AM
...
I'd go even further and remove all government employees and employees of firms with 40%+ revenue from government contracts. And any firm that received a bailout. And yes, that includes the troops."



I've never understood from a purely practical point of view why federal government employees and military members pay federal income tax. It's just trading the money back and forth.

I do understand it from a government obeisance point of view. I guess our self appointed masters need every psychological advanatage they can get.

Anonymous Philalethes July 28, 2014 10:29 AM  

In 1995 I watched a PBS program celebrating the 75th anniversary of the "19th Amendment", wherein it was noted that some opponents of women's suffrage predicted it would result in alcohol prohibition. I found it interesting that nothing more was said about this—for instance, that that prediction came true. The actual history just didn't fit the narrative. Why they even mentioned it I don't know.

True, the "18th Amendment" (Prohibition) predated the 19th—but it seems to be generally forgotten (e.g. our commenter here who cites "nearly 100 years") that women were already voting in various state elections at least 20 years before the "19th Amendment"; the latter was simply the completion of a lengthy process.

For the record, I am not necessarily categorically against women voting. It's simply clear to me that a republican form of government, if it is to survive, must be founded on the principle that those accorded the franchise—i.e. the power to control the government—must be those whose natural interest is in maintaining and enhancing the liberties of the entire population. How that group is to be defined is, of course, the most important question in the founding of a republic—and what is being discussed here. For starters, it would seem clear to me that envy, resentment, and other passions, as well as an inability to understand the basic principle that liberty depends absolutely on responsibility, are probably not the best qualifications for the franchise.

Anonymous Stephen J. July 28, 2014 10:33 AM  

"No, it doesn't, for the obvious reason that freedom and liberty is not limited to voting."

Is it meaningful to speak of possessing freedom and liberty when one has no political power to participate in the apparatus which guarantees these things? There is a difference between "freedom" as the maximum liberty a particular government permits you, and "freedom" as the minimum liberty no government can justly deny you.


Blogger Joshua_D July 28, 2014 10:34 AM  

Josh July 28, 2014 10:25 AM

Like public school, I think there are plenty of ways to vote for indirect payments, which are still very beneficial and paid by taxpayers - social security, medicare, medicaid.

Social security is a direct payment, and Medicare and Medicaid are direct benefits.


True, but people do a lot of voting before they receive those direct payments. I would assume, and I may be wrong, that a lot of people who currently don't receive benefits from those programs vote for politicians who support SS, Medicare and Medicaid because they hope to receive those benefits in the future.

And a lot of people (adult children) have parents who receive those direct payments, so there is an indirect benefit to the adult children by having the state take care of their parents, so to speak. But I'm not sure that would matter if the SS, Medicare or Medicaid recipient was a net tax payer. But what would be the point in paying more into SS or Medicare than you got back?

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 10:35 AM  

The entire reason suffragettes wanted the vote was to restrict vices, namely alcohol and prostitution.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 10:35 AM  

The fact that we don't impose a voting test on citizens negates your neat little theory. - we did, but it was used selectively to prevent blacks from voting, so we stopped it. We did replace that requirement with mandatory civics classes in high school.

Anonymous Salt July 28, 2014 10:39 AM  

I'm quite sure this sort of discussion has happened every time throughout history. This is to say that unlike what some believe, this time shall be no different. We're entering the rinse cycle.

Anonymous Porky July 28, 2014 10:39 AM  

There is a difference between "freedom" as the maximum liberty a particular government permits you, and "freedom" as the minimum liberty no government can justly deny you.

There it is. Well done, Stephen J.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 10:40 AM  

We did replace that requirement with mandatory civics classes in high school.

Are students required to pass that class before they can vote?

Blogger The Deuce July 28, 2014 10:43 AM  

However, by removing the franchise from women in a representative democracy, you remove an important way for them to participate in the preservation of their liberties and freedoms.

It's women voters who get in the way of women participating in the preservation of their liberties and freedoms by voting. Like everything else you've said, this is rank question-begging, since the whole question at hand is whether women's voting preserves or destroys liberty and freedom.

You might as well say that by not letting small children drive, you remove an important way for them to exercise their driving skills.

Blogger Joshua_D July 28, 2014 10:44 AM  

YIH July 28, 2014 10:19 AM

Is public school a direct government benefit?

What do you mean when you say ''benefit''?


I mean benefit in the sense of financial benefit. As in parents who send their children to public don't have to directly pay for the education of their children either by writing a check or sacrificing a second income by having mom stay at home to educate the children.

Anonymous bw July 28, 2014 10:45 AM  

"Destruction!" they mean when they cry "well-being of the country" and "promoting the general welfare".
Their "rights" are that of affecting other human beings - who live and believe differently and have different outcomes - negatively. They falsely believe they have that "right", after all.

Government exists to recognize and protect inalienable rights of individuals, ie. not transferable to another or capable of being repudiated.
That is the foundation of the united states of America. These self-loathing (really just "loathing") destroyers wish to change that, and yet still call themselves and their project "American". It is not. They are not.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 10:45 AM  

The entire reason suffragettes wanted the vote was to restrict vices, namely alcohol and prostitution. The history of Prohibition was complicated, but to simplify, one of the main social problems facing America was rampant alcoholism. This was especially hard on families, because the main breadwinner would get too drunk to work, forcing the woman to not only run a house but find a job.

One of the things I find dismaying in the comment threads is the idea that if a woman was not working outside of the house she wasn't working. Prior to WWII, running a household was a 60+ hour a week job. For example, laundry involved boiling a large vat of water over a fire (usually done outside), soaking the clothes in the vat by hand, then running them through a wringer. It was an all-day job, requiring constant attention. Similar issues faced cooking, cleaning, etc. (Ever try to cook on a coal-fired stove?) One of the reasons women are able to work outside of the home is the increasing availability of machines, reducing the amount of time required to do these domestic tasks.

I'm also dismayed at the heartburn over public schools. The people who wrote the Constitution also wrote the Northwest Ordinances and made explicit arrangements to pay for public education. They felt that ignorant people couldn't run a democracy.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 10:47 AM  

Josh - here in Illinois, you can't get a high school diploma without passing the test. Don't know what the rules are elsewhere.

Anonymous rho July 28, 2014 10:47 AM  

Social security is a direct payment, and Medicare and Medicaid are direct benefits.

These things are nominally returned payments the citizen gave to the government. In actuality they are nothing like that, but that was the theory.

Direct/indirect payments from the government is a little muddled, IMO. If you want to make the case that welfare recipients should be disenfranchised, say that. But disenfranchising civil servants is a little off the reservation.

What about people who work for government contractors? Are they disenfranchised? You can make the argument that they are not receiving direct payments, being employees, but if that is the dividing line, then welfare recipients are no longer direct recipients of government money if they are filtered through private institutions. For example, if the government cuts checks to banks who then disperse the payments to the people on welfare.

It's fun to have thought exercises with the franchise, but in the end a clear and unambiguous set of rules is preferable. Citizens over 18 who are not felons, for example. Or white male landowners. Or only people named "Steve" who have beards. The more addendums and loopholes you add the greater the chance that somebody is going to play jiggery-pokery with the rules.

While I'm sure many arguments can be made to disenfranchise women, it's worth noting that men managed to screw things up just fine on their own, e.g. the various central banks and the Federal Reserve in 1913. The problem isn't who voted; the problem is that MPAI and man is fallen. Folly and failure is the end of all worldly things.

Anonymous Philalethes July 28, 2014 10:48 AM  

Is it meaningful to speak of possessing freedom and liberty when one has no political power to participate in the apparatus which guarantees these things?

True, "freedom" is not a single thing, but exists on a spectrum. When I was a teenager, my father sat me down one day and told me I could have as much freedom as I was prepared to be responsible for; I am forever indebted to him for teaching me this principle, which I have found to be unlimited in its usefulness for understanding questions which most people consider "complicated". As an adolescent minor, clearly I possessed some freedoms I had not when a preadolescent child, but not others I would have later when I was ready to assume full responsibility for myself.

Unfortunately, these days—in great part as a result of general acceptance of the idea of "sexual equality"—there are rather few people who are prepared to accept full responsibility for themselves; nearly everybody is dependent on the State (the Golden Calf of modern times) in some way. And hardly anybody understands the principle of freedom = responsibility outlined above. Indeed, politics can be defined as the perpetual effort to gain freedoms (aka power) without the troublesome responsibilities associated therewith. Which is why everybody wants the vote.

So, would you propose granting the franchise to children, so that they would have "political power to participate"? The logic of your argument leads directly to this question, and further.

Anonymous Sam Adams July 28, 2014 10:50 AM  

don't have to directly pay for the education of their children either by writing a check or sacrificing a second income

a) see "property taxes". Are you subsidizing Prussian schooling as much as the next guy in your county?
b)who is raising your children while two incomes are "not being sacrificed" and what are they training them to be??
It is a net-negative, historically and prophetically.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 10:50 AM  

I'm also dismayed at the heartburn over public schools. The people who wrote the Constitution also wrote the Northwest Ordinances and made explicit arrangements to pay for public education. They felt that ignorant people couldn't run a democracy.

Funny you should mention it, but immorality was as equally important as ignorance. From the ordinance:

Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 10:51 AM  

Josh - here in Illinois, you can't get a high school diploma without passing the test. Don't know what the rules are elsewhere.

Can non graduates vote?

Anonymous Stilicho July 28, 2014 10:52 AM  

True, but people do a lot of voting before they receive those direct payments. I would assume, and I may be wrong, that a lot of people who currently don't receive benefits from those programs vote for politicians who support SS, Medicare and Medicaid because they hope to receive those benefits in the future.

They certainly do. And if they have to relinquish their vote when it's time to collect there are 2 benefits 1) it removes those who were too shortsighted to provide for their own future from the voting pool and 2) it makes hose who can see the long term consequences less likely to vote for such programs before they themselves become recipients. Of course, another reasonable solution is to eliminate these welfare programs. How do you propose to do it?

But what would be the point in paying more into SS or Medicare than you got back?

1) You don't pay "into" any of the programs. You simply pay taxes that are spent on whatever the current gov't wants to spend them on. When you become eligible to draw a check from such programs, you do so on the basis of how much the current gov't wishes to give you.

2) the costs are simply borne by the productive portion of the population through taxation and debt issuance.

3) N.B. if the majority (or even a significant minority depending on the relative level of taxation and benefits) "gets back" more than they "paid into" such programs, then the system must collapse. Anything else is mathematically impossible. The only question is one of timing. Savvy?

Anonymous zen0 July 28, 2014 10:53 AM  

@ Josh

>The entire reason suffragettes wanted the vote was to restrict vices, namely alcohol and prostitution.

And now, ironically, women are in the vanguard pushing for legalized prostitution and free needle exchanges for druggies.

Anonymous Gary Player July 28, 2014 10:58 AM  

The people who wrote the Constitution also wrote the Northwest Ordinances

And they also obviously extended and believed in special rights for women to practice irresponsibility and death where a woman's womb was concerned, no?

These clowns have no more depth than their vacuous belief that "Sex is Free!".

There is no place among the future of humanity for those who believe such. None.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 10:59 AM  

Josh - yes, non-graduates can vote. Again, we got away from literacy tests to vote because in practice, white guys were asked to recite their ABCs while black guys were asked to quote Shakespeare. (It's actually worse - I've seen some of the literacy tests used, and some of the questions did not have a right answer.)

My point is, we try to educate citizen before they vote so they can make an educated vote.

Anonymous Porky July 28, 2014 10:59 AM  

The people who wrote the Constitution also wrote the Northwest Ordinances and made explicit arrangements to pay for public education.

I don't think they did. I think they "encouraged" education.

Blogger Longstreet July 28, 2014 11:00 AM  

But the fact that after nearly 100 yeas since the women got the vote and the country still exists, then it seems this goal is achieved with the women voting.
There it is. That sentence right there.

However deficient Shelles may be in other areas, she has BEAUTIFULLY illustrated VD's point, with one short sentence.

One of the worst things, maybe THE worst thing, that can happen to a woman if for her to do something stupid and get away with it.

Anonymous Gamma Game July 28, 2014 11:01 AM  

namely alcohol and prostitution

Which is to say, "to war with and attempt to control men".

Anonymous Philalethes July 28, 2014 11:02 AM  

The people who wrote the Constitution also wrote the Northwest Ordinances and made explicit arrangements to pay for public education.

It's clear by now that at least some significant percentage of those who wrote the sainted Constitution actually intended the result we now have, writing in the loopholes that have been used to destroy the Republic. The Constitutional Convention was, in fact, a coup d'état. Patrick Henry was right.

(Lincoln's declaring himself Dictator, of course, was totally extra-Constitutional, but the Congress let him get away with it.)

They felt that ignorant people couldn't run a democracy.

Well, some of them at least did not intend to create a "democracy". In any case, I believe Aristotle said something about how a republic will decay to democracy, which will then collapse into dictatorship.

Ignorant people are certainly a problem, but giving them "education" (i.e. indoctrination by the State) is not the solution. It is an established principle that people do not value what they are given, only what they earn.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 11:03 AM  

My point is, we try to educate citizen before they vote so they can make an educated vote.

Except that we really don't.

Awkward: Americans can't pass the US citizenship test

When USA Today asked ten questions from the citizenship test in a poll in 2012, only 65 percent of Americans got a passing score. The year before that, Newsweek found just 62 percent of Americans could pass their own citizenship test.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 11:06 AM  

And they also obviously extended and believed in special rights for women to practice irresponsibility and death where a woman's womb was concerned, no? - technology matters. You might as well rant about the Founders inaction in the matter of aviation safety.

Although, historically, women weren't considered pregnant until the "quickening" when they could feel the fetus inside of them. I'm told that this doesn't usually occur until the 14th week, or after the first trimester.

Anonymous Stilicho July 28, 2014 11:08 AM  

I don't think they did. I think they "encouraged" education.

Come on Porky, get with the times! Reading comprehension is so 19th Century.

Blogger Joshua_D July 28, 2014 11:11 AM  

Sam Adams July 28, 2014 10:50 AM

don't have to directly pay for the education of their children either by writing a check or sacrificing a second income

a) see "property taxes". Are you subsidizing Prussian schooling as much as the next guy in your county?
b)who is raising your children while two incomes are "not being sacrificed" and what are they training them to be??

It is a net-negative, historically and prophetically.


I'm not sure I understand the point you are making.


Stilicho July 28, 2014 10:52 AM

True, but people do a lot of voting before they receive those direct payments. I would assume, and I may be wrong, that a lot of people who currently don't receive benefits from those programs vote for politicians who support SS, Medicare and Medicaid because they hope to receive those benefits in the future.

They certainly do. And if they have to relinquish their vote when it's time to collect there are 2 benefits 1) it removes those who were too shortsighted to provide for their own future from the voting pool and 2) it makes hose who can see the long term consequences less likely to vote for such programs before they themselves become recipients. Of course, another reasonable solution is to eliminate these welfare programs. How do you propose to do it?

But what would be the point in paying more into SS or Medicare than you got back?

1) You don't pay "into" any of the programs. You simply pay taxes that are spent on whatever the current gov't wants to spend them on. When you become eligible to draw a check from such programs, you do so on the basis of how much the current gov't wishes to give you.

2) the costs are simply borne by the productive portion of the population through taxation and debt issuance.

3) N.B. if the majority (or even a significant minority depending on the relative level of taxation and benefits) "gets back" more than they "paid into" such programs, then the system must collapse. Anything else is mathematically impossible. The only question is one of timing. Savvy?


Yes. I understand your points.

Anonymous The other skeptic July 28, 2014 11:12 AM  

This is why a nation that wishes to remain wealthy and free does not permit female involvement in its governance, and why totalitarians from the Italian Fascists to the Soviet Bolsheviks have historically made a priority of female involvement in the political process.

Is that really the case, or was it simply a case of expanding the franchise and diluting the political power of the opposition?

These days it seems like expanding the franchise involves elimination of national borders.

Anonymous Don July 28, 2014 11:15 AM  

None of you seem aware that we allow the mentally retarded to vote. Now most of them 'vote' by mail and most of their ballots are either filled out by their parents or as their parents tell them to but there are are plenty of mentally defective people who already vote. And their vote mirrors women's voting.

Anonymous Bz July 28, 2014 11:18 AM  

This weird style of first putting forth some argument, then regally declaring you've won reminds me of nothing so much as eleven-year olds. Maybe younger. Whoever does it impress?

Anonymous YIH July 28, 2014 11:18 AM  

Joshua_D:
I mean benefit in the sense of financial benefit.
It's commonly acknowledged that a government school diploma would likely be more useful if were printed on toilet paper.
As in parents who send their children to public don't have to directly pay for the education of their children either by writing a check
Never mind all those 'candy drives', et al. ''to support publik edumaction'' right?
And considering it's ''school supplies'' time of year again...

Anonymous VD July 28, 2014 11:19 AM  

Actually, that "long-term interests" probably sounds better in the original Italian, as it is intellectually the same as Mussolini's Fascism. (All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.)

Your attempt to appeal to Italian Fascism is amusing, as it is nothing of the sort. In fact, I draw your attention to the original Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle and its very first plank:

"Per questo NOI VOGLIAMO: Per il problema politico
a. Suffragio universale a scrutinio di lista regionale, con rappresentanza proporzionale, voto ed eleggibilità per le donne."

Since you probably don't speak Italian, allow me to translate.

"For this WE DEMAND: For the political problem:
a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women."

Female suffrage is literally a Fascist position, Chris.

Is it meaningful to speak of possessing freedom and liberty when one has no political power to participate in the apparatus which guarantees these things?

Of course. Refugees can't vote, and yet they leave their countries in search of safety, security, freedom, and liberty, (depending upon the refugee). I left the USA for a place where I could live more freely and I couldn't vote there for years. How free are the people in Gaza? They have the vote after all.

Anonymous liljoe July 28, 2014 11:19 AM  

Other skeptic beat me to it. I agree with Mr Day's conclusions on this subject, I can't think of any prominent female Bolsheviks

Anonymous Philalethes July 28, 2014 11:20 AM  

None of you seem aware that we allow the mentally retarded to vote.

Was not aware it had gone that far, but am not surprised.

Only I would have written "the mentally retarded are allowed to vote." To write "we" includes yourself in the number who allow this; is that the case? It matters; that's why the lib/progs always talk about "we"—if you accept that premise, they've already won the argument.

Anonymous Don July 28, 2014 11:21 AM  

Here's the question: Have we moved further left since women were granted suffrage? Is our government bigger or smaller? Are we more or less free?

Now I can answer all those questions on my own or I can ask my grandmother. The answer is the same either way. We have moved left, we have a bigger government, and we are by all measures except for some fringe Jim Crow stuff much less free.

We are living in a nation our grandfathers and great grandfathers wouldn't have recognized much less the Founding Fathers.

Are women like felons in voting patterns? Well, yes, yes they are now isn't that interesting.

Blogger The Remnant July 28, 2014 11:23 AM  

And let's remember that even among men, the franchise was once limited to productive citizens with a legitimate stake in good governance (e.g., landowners). Since many (if not most) men AND women today are parasites who lust to expand government power and further enrich themselves, the franchise would have to be pared back considerably to get us out of this mess. That won't happen, so the problem itself is the only solution: let the system collapse, and rebuild it with the benefit of recent hindsight.

Anonymous Don July 28, 2014 11:31 AM  

I wrote we as in the sense of we the people of the United States as opposed to say 'Italy' or 'Israel'. I know we have people here posting from both countries but I shouldn't have to write an epistle when 'we' is sufficient for most people to understand.

Saying my country allows something is in no way an endorsement of that position.

More interesting is how they vote which is in line with female voting or felon voting. That by itself should end this discussion. Felons, mental defectives, and women all have similar voting patterns.

Done. Now can we figure out how to prevent all three from voting? Oh and illegal aliens too let's not forget them.

Anonymous zen0 July 28, 2014 11:33 AM  

@ Don

And their vote mirrors women's voting.

Are you saying someone might have told them how to vote?
Balderdash! No woman would stoop to such unethical tactics!

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 11:34 AM  

Female suffrage is literally a Fascist position, Chris. yet they didn't actually get the vote until 1946, well after Mussolini's death. Perhaps once Mussolini got into power, he wasn't particularly interested in letting anybody vote.

My point is that focusing on the long-term interests of the state is not why we vote. We vote, and have government, to focus on the long-term interests of the People. It may, for example, be in the interests of the People to dissolve the State.

If we hold that governments exist "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" then how can we consider a government to have just consent of the government if half those people being governed have no voice in the government?

Anonymous VD July 28, 2014 11:35 AM  

Is that really the case, or was it simply a case of expanding the franchise and diluting the political power of the opposition?

It was really the case. They knew women were more malleable and responsive to security arguments. Of course, once in power, they had no use for them in political power and promptly ended that whole problematic "voting" thing.

If you can't see the process even after it's explained to you, then I can't help you.

Anyhow, no one is going to take away women's voting rights. This is all just to be sure everyone understands why the collapse of the West happened so we can avoid making the same mistake in the future.

Anonymous Don July 28, 2014 11:35 AM  

zen0 - I was shocked to see (mostly mothers) fill out those mail in ballots. Shocked I tell you.

Anonymous VD July 28, 2014 11:38 AM  

If we hold that governments exist "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" then how can we consider a government to have just consent of the government if half those people being governed have no voice in the government?

Because "consent of the governed" obviously doesn't refer to voting. I didn't consent to Obama governing. Tens of millions of people actually voted against him. Consent of the governed means "not emigrating and not revolting".

Anonymous Will Best July 28, 2014 11:40 AM  

I understand what direct means, as in a direct cash payment of some kind. I guess I should have said that I don't see much difference between direct and indirect payments from the government (as the government operates today), and I'm not sure that using that metric would be a good way to determine the franchise.

The question is which government. While the Fed Government plows large sums of money into education these days it is still dwarfed by what the states contribute, and many (if not most) districts (such as my own) are funded 97% through local taxes, and 3% through incidental grants for whatever flavor of the month program and for the handful of special needs and poverty students. So clearly the families in my neighborhood shouldn't lose Federal or State votes due to their kids enrollment in public schools.

It's fun to have thought exercises with the franchise, but in the end a clear and unambiguous set of rules is preferable. Citizens over 18 who are not felons, for example. Or white male landowners. Or only people named "Steve" who have beards.

In this day and age with computers that are already spying on you anyway it is rather easy to set rules. You get to vote if:

1) You are the head of household (default to person earning 51% or more of the income)
2) Nobody in that household, or your minor children, has received a direct government benefit in the time since the last election (2, 4 or 6 years depending on office).
3) You have not been convicted of a felony
4) If your age adjusted life expectancy is below 10 years, you have grandchildren.
5) For state and local elections, you must have further resided in the state or locality for 10 years prior to voting.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 11:44 AM  

Consent of the governed means "not emigrating and not revolting". those are two ways to measure consent. Waiting to see if a revolt breaks out is a lousy way to run a country. A less bloody and destructive way to measure consent is take a vote and majority wins.

Anonymous Porky July 28, 2014 12:00 PM  

1) You are the head of household (default to person earning 51% or more of the income)
2) Nobody in that household, or your minor children, has received a direct government benefit in the time since the last election (2, 4 or 6 years depending on office).
3) You have not been convicted of a felony
4) If your age adjusted life expectancy is below 10 years, you have grandchildren.
5) For state and local elections, you must have further resided in the state or locality for 10 years prior to voting.


Great. So the Unabomber could have voted but Brad Pitt cannot.

Brilliant.

Anonymous Stephen J. July 28, 2014 12:11 PM  

"I left the USA for a place where I could live more freely and I couldn't vote there for years."

But while you were there and you couldn't vote, your freedom was dependent upon the voting decisions of those who could; you were only as free as their votes allowed you to be. Again, there is a principled difference between being the loser in a game, and suffering the consequences of losing despite not being allowed to play.

Would you have chosen a country to live in where you could never have had any possibility of ever gaining a vote? What protections would convince you that the lack of a vote would not unduly affect your freedom? What restrictions would you consider acceptable in return for those protections?

Anonymous dh July 28, 2014 12:25 PM  

those are two ways to measure consent. Waiting to see if a revolt breaks out is a lousy way to run a country. A less bloody and destructive way to measure consent is take a vote and majority wins.

You left off a major piece - a majority (of total voter) wins. It's been quite a long-time since a majority of eligible voters made an affirmative decision to do anything in this country, let alone select representatives or the Constitutional offices.

This is all window dressing, since, as we have seen, the forces of big-government and centralized control will simply deny the right to self-determination as they see fit, with no regard to representation, consent, or even the law that is supposedly being upheld. The pretense is nearly irrelevant.

Would you have chosen a country to live in where you could never have had any possibility of ever gaining a vote?

I have done exactly that. I will NEVER be able to vote in the United States, yet it's still preferable, for the time being, to live her and experience the remaining freedom than experience the alternate of my original homeland. There are thousands of people living here, and in any number of countries, who have done exactly what you think is improbable. It's not that unthinkable. Voting is a very small measure of freedom.

Anonymous Harsh July 28, 2014 12:30 PM  

We (in the USA) don't allow non-citizens to vote because they do not have the education to make an informed vote.

This is completely wrong.

Again, we got away from literacy tests to vote because in practice, white guys were asked to recite their ABCs while black guys were asked to quote Shakespeare.

Appeal to racism.

A less bloody and destructive way to measure consent is take a vote and majority wins.

Why should the majority opinion rule?

Anonymous MontyDraxel July 28, 2014 12:31 PM  

The USSR had a great constitution. And the people could vote! The USSR was big on equality and women's rights.

Does anyone think that the citizens of the USSR were free?

Now, what has kept the USA relatively free (receding by the year) for as long as it has? Divided government. Conflict in the political class.

To paraphrase Gordon Gecko: Gridlock is good.

Conflict is a masculine enterprise. Compromise and consensus are feminine enterprises. Ask yourself, what benefits of liberty will we enjoy when there is no longer gridlock, but unyielding compromise?

The wages of female governance: bureaucracy, regulation, war, taxes, - a police state resulting in a tsunami of lost freedom.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 12:40 PM  

Appeal to racism. - appeal to fact.

Why should the majority opinion rule? - because disenfranchised minorities get pissy. Ask the French and Russian aristocracy how that worked out for them.

Conflict is a masculine enterprise. Compromise and consensus are feminine enterprises. - Women engage in conflict too. Historically this conflict has been less overt and physical, but conflict it is.

Anonymous VD July 28, 2014 12:41 PM  

But while you were there and you couldn't vote, your freedom was dependent upon the voting decisions of those who could; you were only as free as their votes allowed you to be.

So what? That's obvious.

Would you have chosen a country to live in where you could never have had any possibility of ever gaining a vote? What protections would convince you that the lack of a vote would not unduly affect your freedom?

Yes. Irrelevant. My ability to vote or not is not a protection of any kind. Frankly the suggestion that it might be suggests either innumeracy or extreme stupidity.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 12:47 PM  

My last should read "disenfranchised majorities" tend to get pissy.

Anonymous Stephen J. July 28, 2014 12:48 PM  

"Voting is a very small measure of freedom."

Then why not take it away from everyone? If we don't need the vote to guarantee our freedoms, why have it at all?

All arguments about who should be excluded from voting turn on one or more of several claims:
A) "You (group to be disenfranchised) don't need the vote";
B) "You (group) can't be trusted with the vote";
C) "You (group) haven't earned the vote."

Claim A rests on the key assumption, "Because those of us who do have the vote will never vote to benefit ourselves at your expense in a way for which you have no legal recourse."

Claim B rests on the key assumption, "Because those of us who do have the vote can be so trusted, and are not ourselves vulnerable to the corruption of voting for self-interest or partisan interest over long-term national interest."

Claim C rests on the key assumption, "Because the process by which the vote is earned could never itself be subject to corruption and co-opting by those already possessed of that privilege, and its results are always a reliable indicator of voter quality and voter entitlement."

Whatever potentially disenfranchiseable group one falls into, surely it does not take much imagination to see how all of these assumptions might be highly questionable.

Anonymous MontyDraxel July 28, 2014 12:51 PM  

Here is an interesting idea: instead of removing the vote of any group, we limit voting age based on the office age requirements. That is, to vote for president, one must be as old as the age requirement of the office.

So, a lawful citizen of the US could only vote for president when he or she is 35, 30 for senate and 25 for the house. The individual states could have their own voting requirements for state and local offices. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_office_age_requirements#United_States

I would prefer that heads of household vote (man or woman) - but again this is all just a thought experiment as we'll have to endure collapse before power is put back in the hands of men.

Anonymous Jack Amok July 28, 2014 12:51 PM  

It seems an unusual position to deny suffrage but not governance to women.

Jery Pournelle reprinted a John W Campbell editorial (Constitution for Utopia) in the Republic and Empire anthology he edited. In the editorial, Campbell argued that the form of government wasn't terribly important. With good leaders, any form of government could be good and workable, but with bad leaders, any form could be terrible. So they really important thing was deciding who choose the leaders.

So, if you assume you have solved the problem and created an electorate able to make good choices for leaders, there's nothing inherently wrong with them choosing a leader from outside their ranks. It would certainly be infrequent, but not surprising to find that from time to time, the best leader came from an outside group.

A very interesting hypothesis Campbell made in that column was that the group with the franchise had to be a minority of the population, and specifically a minority that had reason to fear a rebellion. That would give them an incentive to keep the interests and well-being of the disenfranchised majority in mind. Allowing a majority to be the electorate removed that fear and that incentive, allowing for tyranny.

Anonymous Kill Democracy Dead July 28, 2014 12:52 PM  

The ONLY people who should be able to legally vote are Strong Black Women and Gay Men.

Any straight white male who votes is a true sucker...

Anonymous Stephen J. July 28, 2014 12:57 PM  

Or, conversely, if "[The] ability to vote or not is not a protection of any kind" -- which strongly implies its political irrelevance -- why bother to argue for depriving women specifically of it, if it's so irrelevant?

Anonymous Anti-Dentite July 28, 2014 12:57 PM  

Why do you bother to even converse with a faggot mouthbreather like Chris Gerrib ? Just Tad part 1,204. Same shit, different day.

Better question: The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) is 100 times worse than women's suffrage...

Discuss.

Anonymous Harsh July 28, 2014 1:03 PM  

My last should read "disenfranchised majorities" tend to get pissy.

I'd argue that disenfranchised minorities tend to get pissy as well. Rules decided by a 51% majority do not imply consent by the other 49% so your original statement was wrong. Bloodshed can be started by a small minority that feel they are being coerced by the majority.

Anonymous the bandit July 28, 2014 1:04 PM  

"A very interesting hypothesis Campbell made in that column was that the group with the franchise had to be a minority of the population, and specifically a minority that had reason to fear a rebellion. That would give them an incentive to keep the interests and well-being of the disenfranchised majority in mind. Allowing a majority to be the electorate removed that fear and that incentive, allowing for tyranny."

was great to read after Chris Gerrib's inept strawman

"Waiting to see if a revolt breaks out is a lousy way to run a country."

Anonymous Harsh July 28, 2014 1:04 PM  

Appeal to racism. - appeal to fact.

"Debate over, I win!"

Anonymous Oy July 28, 2014 1:08 PM  

disenfranchised minorities get pissy. Ask the French and Russian aristocracy how that worked out for them.

Sorry, ignoramus, but neither revolution was caused by minorities being disenfranchised.

Anonymous Orville July 28, 2014 1:18 PM  

Chris is a well known troll at Rand Simberg's Transterrestial Musings. I guess he got tired of the abuse there, and is in need of VD's tender mercies.

Anonymous map July 28, 2014 1:19 PM  

Chris Gerrib,

"In any event, we as a society have decided that adults should be allowed to determine for themselves what their long-term interests are and act accordingly. To decide otherwise means creating a dictatorship in which a minority rules. It's the opposite of a government based on "consent of the governed."

Really? You can't even decide what your children should be taught in school or who you can associate with. You are living in a dictatorship.

Anonymous Will Best July 28, 2014 1:23 PM  

Great. So the Unabomber could have voted but Brad Pitt cannot.

Brilliant.


By most accounts Brad Pitt makes more money than Angelina. Though I did say default to. I honestly don't care if a household wants to assign their vote to any particular individual living within it.

I am struggling with the relevance of the unabomber though. I don't want to put words in your mouth. Are you suggesting that any such limitation on the right of vote beyond children needs to be able to anticipate future criminal acts of the voter? Or is your issue that Brad Pitt contributes a lot of tax dollars whereas the unabomber contributed very little?

Anonymous Porky July 28, 2014 1:23 PM  

My ability to vote or not is not a protection of any kind. Frankly the suggestion that it might be suggests either innumeracy or extreme stupidity.

The french "franchise" and frankish root "franc" meaning "free" frankly suggests it is. Frank you very much.

Blogger Rseven Rocket July 28, 2014 1:31 PM  

If you want men to commit, women must submit...

Anonymous Dumb founded. July 28, 2014 1:33 PM  

"This is why a nation that wishes to remain wealthy and free does not permit female involvement in its governance, and why totalitarians from the Italian Fascists to the Soviet Bolsheviks have historically made a priority of female involvement in the political process."

Is that really the case, or was it simply a case of expanding the franchise and diluting the political power of the opposition?


From what I found, women were allowed to vote in local elections in Italy from about 1925 and did not get full voting rights in Italy until 1945. However, they were fully enfranchised around 1918 in Germany.

So, the franchise had already been expanded.

Also, I guess that there are other ways for women to influence the outcome of voting.

Anonymous Porky July 28, 2014 1:34 PM  

I honestly don't care if a household wants to assign their vote to any particular individual living within it.

Oh God you seriously think Angelina should be allowed to vote?

Are you suggesting that any such limitation on the right of vote beyond children needs to be able to anticipate future criminal acts of the voter?

Well, the very argument against suffrage is that we can predict the future deleterious acts of women. But given the history of the past couple of hundred years we can say with reasonable certainty that white male landed heads of households will inevitably enfranchise women, thus bringing down civilization.

So what's the point of this exercise?

Anonymous FP July 28, 2014 1:36 PM  

I see as the primary reasons for denying women suffrage being abortion and socialized medicine. Women today seem to have no problem believing in "their body, their choice" when it comes to their reproductive rights but not for others. Then they turn around and vote in government control of their bodies aka slavery. Thus, they're insane and not competent to vote. Heck, they're violating the 13th and 14th amendments.

I win. The end. Thanks.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 1:49 PM  

and specifically a minority that had reason to fear a rebellion. That would give them an incentive to keep the interests and well-being of the disenfranchised majority in mind. - the slaveholding minorities of Haiti and the American South had good reason to fear revolts, as did the serf-holding (minority) aristocracies of France and Russia. None of those minorities were noted for keeping the well-being of the majority in mind. In fact, they were noted for spending considerable time and effort coming up with ways to more efficiently oppress the majority.

You can't even decide what your children should be taught in school - private schools and homeschooling are now illegal?

who you can associate with - you can decide not to associate with anybody you want to. You just can't open a business (as opposed to a private club) and decide who you'll associate with.

Anonymous Porky July 28, 2014 1:55 PM  

I mean, given that women typically don't get suffrage unless men grant it to them, wouldn't the logical suggestion be that female suffrage is symptomatic (rather than causal) of male induced civilizational decline?

Anonymous An Associate July 28, 2014 1:56 PM  

you can decide not to associate with anybody you want to. You just can't open a business (as opposed to a private club) and decide who you'll associate with.

Thereby making the first sentence a lie.
Nice.

Anonymous i win debate!!! July 28, 2014 2:05 PM  

Vox = Hitler

Anonymous Porky July 28, 2014 2:08 PM  

Futrelled again, biatch!

Anonymous Stilicho July 28, 2014 2:14 PM  

You can't even decide what your children should be taught in school - private schools and homeschooling are now illegal?

Both of which are subject to regulation by the state.

Anonymous map July 28, 2014 2:18 PM  

John Glubb is a pertinent source on this topic. In his monograph, The Age of Empires, he notes that feminism, charity and other leftisms are the hallmarks of civilizational decline. Even the Abyssinian Muslims allowed women to be judges and clerks and have a lot of the rights of men. Abyssinian Islam suffered a huge collapse shortly thereafter, which is why Muslims restrict women's freedoms to this day.

Anonymous map July 28, 2014 2:19 PM  

From Glubb:

The works of the contemporary historians of Baghdad in the early tenth century are still available. They deeply deplored the degeneracy of the times in which they lived, particularly the indifference to religion, the increasing materialism and the laxity of sexual morals. They lamented also the corruption of the officials of the government and the fact that politicians always seemed to amass large fortunes while they were in office. The historians commented bitterly on the extraordinary influence acquired by popular singers over young people, resulting in a decline in sexual morality. The ‘pop’ singers of Baghdad accompanied their erotic songs on the lute, an instrument resembling the modern guitar. In the second half of the tenth century, as a result, much obscene sexual language came increasingly into use, such as would not have been tolerated in an earlier age.”

“An increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. The later Romans complained that, although Rome ruled the world, women ruled Rome. In the tenth century, a similar tendency was observable in the Arab empire, the women demanding admission to the professions hitherto monopolized by men. “What,” wrote the contemporary historian, Ibn Bessam, “have the professions of clerk, tax collector or preacher to do with women? These occupations have always been limited to men alone.” Many women practiced law, while others obtained positions as university professors. There was an agitation for the appointment of female judges, which, however, does not appear to have succeeded. Soon after this period, government and public order collapsed, and foreign invaders overran the country. The resulting increase in confusion and violence made it unsafe for women to move unescorted in the streets, with the result that this feminist movement collapsed. The disorders following the military take-over in 861, and the loss of the empire, had played havoc with the economy. At such a moment, it might have been expected that everyone would redouble their efforts to save the country from bankruptcy, but nothing of the kind occurred. Instead at this moment of declining trade and financial stringency, the people of Baghdad introduced a five day week.”

“When I first read these contemporary descriptions of tenth-century Baghdad, I could scarcely believe my eyes……The resemblance of all the details was breathtaking – the break-up of the empire, the abandonment of sexual morality, the ‘pop’ singers with their guitars, the entry of women into the professions, the five day week. I would not venture to attempt an explanation! There are so many mysteries of human life that are beyond our comprehension.”

Blogger Random July 28, 2014 2:21 PM  

More proof that democracy is stupid.

Enlightened Catholic monarchy FTW!

Anonymous An Associate July 28, 2014 2:23 PM  

i win debate!!! July 28, 2014 2:05 PM

Vox = Hitler


The devastating knock-out blow.
It's all over now. :(

Anonymous dh July 28, 2014 2:23 PM  

Then why not take it away from everyone? If we don't need the vote to guarantee our freedoms, why have it at all?

Voting is not a guarantee of "our freedoms". Guns and the willingness to do violence are the closet thing to guarantee there is, and even that is not so much. If you have any doubts, go ask the southerners who voted to secede from the Union how well their vote protected their freedoms. Not very well, in fact.

There is a fundamental weakness to the argument about voting and freedom. It's ahistorical. There is no promise of freedom from voting. There is simply the opportunity to have representation. There is absolutely no direct power to do anything vested in voting.

Anonymous true reactionary July 28, 2014 2:27 PM  

voting is yet another Protestant heresy

Anonymous Stilicho July 28, 2014 2:39 PM  

I call for a roll call vote of the Ilk on the issue of whether Chris Gerrib should be banned. Yea or nay, what say you?

Blogger The Deuce July 28, 2014 2:44 PM  

those are two ways to measure consent. Waiting to see if a revolt breaks out is a lousy way to run a country. A less bloody and destructive way to measure consent is take a vote and majority wins.

Except, as has been repeatedly pointed out here with numerous historical and contemporary examples, universal voting achieves nothing of the sort, and has often facilitated bloody and destructive revolts.

Anonymous Don July 28, 2014 2:46 PM  

Stil - I don't know. It's a tough question and 'The Beverly Hillbillies' is on. Plus I don't want to be mean. Maybe we should let him post blog topics? I mean why shouldn't he? Or perhaps we can let him decide who can post here since he believes so fervently in freedom of association (the kind that he approves of not the bad kind).

I'm just too busy to decide. Granny's chasing Jethro with a wooden spoon.

Anonymous inhumanist July 28, 2014 2:49 PM  

"In the end, the person advocating a revocation of the women's franchise has to make the case that women ought not have the opportunity to protect their liberty nor participate in the disposition of their liberties, while still being held to all the responsibilities of citizenship. It must be argued that their freedom and liberty ought to be out of their hands completely and subject to men alone."
1. Women do not have liberty. They are born slaves. Slaves to the uterus, and their frailty, and their fickleness. They inherently lack agency like children, like impulsive criminals. This is a philosophical question as well as a biological question. Both types of evidence are easily supplied to make the case.
2. They can never participate in the protection of their liberties, nor much else, due to their weakness. They are utterly dependent upon the protection of men and patriarchal institutions at all times.
3. Their responsibilities of citizenship are extremely limited. They are excused at every turn. They are bailed out in every crisis. They are dismissed from many burdens. They are given a free ride through life if they will but ask for it- and even still when they don’t ask for it. They are disproportionately subsidized by men, against men. Men are not afforded these powers and protections and liberties.

Blogger Tom Kratman July 28, 2014 2:52 PM  

"This sounded like maybe a good idea (and I never was in the military), until I gradually learned that the U.S. military has never been involved in a legitimate, justifiable defensive war since at least 1815..."

Your point would be better if there were any correlation between the military being sent to legitimate, justifiable wars, for which it didn't vote anyway, but which largely non-military pols did (so...the War in the Pacific, after we were attacked? Illegit, eh?) and good government. As it is, it's is a intellectual dung heap, covered with shitty-footed flies.

Don't like that characterization? Well, what ytou have just said could well be summarized as: a) we go to illegtimate foreign wars for which, b) the military didn't by and large vote, so c) that proves the military, which again, didn't vote for them, is less fit to vote on domestic matters. I do hope the flies wipe their feet before settling on my lunch.

The principle behind the system is Starship Troopers is based on civic virtue, defined as placing the good of the state and people over the good of self - AT AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL, since the intellect will tend to tell people to look out for themselves and theirs first, last, and always. The way it works is by a) testing for it, through a term of shitty, miserable, low paid, dangerous service which, Heinlein's later insistence otherwise aside, is, b) from textev, entirely military or paramilitary. An understated corrolary to it is that people who did not so demonstrate, people like me, in other words, are not allowed to vote until age and death have trimmed our ranks and influence substantially.

Perfect? No, but perfection, more than a foolish consistency, is the bugaboo of small minds.

Eternal? Unlikely, but nothing mortal is.

Better than what we have? Maybe, maybe not. Could it be worse?

One of the interesting aspects and major advantages of it is that it would very likely _massively_ reduce female political participation and liberal political participation, where those differ.

Anonymous Stilicho July 28, 2014 2:55 PM  

I'm just too busy to decide.

But that's the point, Don. We can vote until we're blue in the face, but we don't get to decide. Yet, we have considerably more freedom to discuss issues on this blog than we do on blogs where such votes (formal or informal) would decide his fate.

Anonymous Harsh July 28, 2014 3:06 PM  

You just can't open a business (as opposed to a private club) and decide who you'll associate with.

Why not? Forget about legality, what possible moral reason is there for forcing someone to do business with someone he doesn't want to?

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 3:08 PM  

The principle behind the system is Starship Troopers is based on civic virtue, defined as placing the good of the state and people over the good of self - AT AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL, since the intellect will tend to tell people to look out for themselves and theirs first, last, and always.

Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State?

Anonymous Don July 28, 2014 3:09 PM  

Stil - Wait, we don't get to choose who does what on this blog? Maybe that's what brings our most common trolls back time after time? They think they are storming the Bastille when they are actually kids crying because they have to follow the rules.

Anonymous Harsh July 28, 2014 3:09 PM  

I call for a roll call vote of the Ilk on the issue of whether Chris Gerrib should be banned. Yea or nay, what say you?

Heh, I see what you're doing there.

Yea!

Blogger Tom Kratman July 28, 2014 3:15 PM  

No, Josh, that's a bit more than the theory seems to imply. And nothing in textev suggests anything remotely like that. Did you, perchance, see the movie and let yourself be fooled that it had any real relation to the book?

In any case, if the book says anything it's, "Very little inside the state, almost everything outside the state, you can be against the state if you like but we won't listen." You wanna turn that into The Fascist Manifesto? I think you need to kick down and start sharing whatever it is you're smoking with the rest of us.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 3:17 PM  

If you have any doubts, go ask the southerners who voted to secede from the Union how well their vote protected their freedoms. So a people who fought a war in defense of their right to enslave others should be our guide on voting rights?

(read the South Carolina Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. All slaveholders rights, including the "right" to silence abolitionists.)

Blogger Tom Kratman July 28, 2014 3:19 PM  

No, Chris, it's not as a guide to voting rights; it's as a guide to the limited utility of voting rights. These are different things, like, say, port and starboard. Both are directions, yes, but not the SAME directions.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 3:22 PM  

So a people who fought a war in defense of their right to enslave others should be our guide on voting rights?

Danger Will Robinson...

Anonymous Harsh July 28, 2014 3:24 PM  

So a people who fought a war in defense of their right to enslave others should be our guide on voting rights?

You agree that voting can be used as a tool to inhibit freedom. Interesting.

Anonymous Hunsdon July 28, 2014 3:26 PM  

@ map

It is always nice to see a reference, in whatever context, to Glubb Pasha.

Anonymous Anonymous July 28, 2014 3:28 PM  

Vox: "The core problem is the need to disenfranchise anyone who receives direct financial benefit from government distribution."

I'd take it further Vox. Disenfranchise both the high time preference types and those who don't have skin in the game long term. Along with your suggested limits and some others by those above, I'd say voting citizens need to also be married and have at least 2 kids, the inheritors of the country after they pass. The vote is given to the household, not a person, so divorce removes the right to vote for the household. Certain others who break this rule but have devoted themselves to the health of the culture and country and thus avoided marriage or kids should also be granted the right to vote after proper vetting.

Voting should be limited to those who invest in the future of the country and in those who would be inheriting it after them. Voting should be tied to virtuous behaviors that if violated can temporarily or permanently remove ones voting rights and ability to serve in a government office. Or, if one shows such virtue, allows them to move up. An actual meritocracy that rewards the best and virtuous while punishing the inept, the stupid, and criminal. Funnel those who would be servant-leaders to positions of power while the sociopathic and narcissistic are prevented or under strong surveillance to reduce their power grabs and financial graft.

I note that such rules would remove my right to vote.

- Roland

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 3:30 PM  

You wanna turn that into The Fascist Manifesto? I think you need to kick down and start sharing whatever it is you're smoking with the rest of us.

The heart of your theory is that civic virtue = state > self, specifically at an emotional level. That strikes me as very similar to the heart of fascism or national socialism.

Anonymous Stilicho July 28, 2014 3:30 PM  

It's rather simple in the final analysis: a vote is only as effective as your power to enforce it. Moreover, even an effective vote is just a tool that nominally serves whatever purpose its user desires. It is a means, not an end.

Blogger Tom Kratman July 28, 2014 3:37 PM  

Not my theory, Heinlein's theory, for a novel, for the explanation of a possibility. I am just explaining it. My explanation on you is apparently lost. Oh, well. I guess you will believe what you will. But what you quoted has no relationship whatsofuckingever with the system except what you can pervertedly construct in you mind. What part of "almost nothing inside the state, almost everything outside the state, and you can be against the state," actually translates in your head to "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State," and who is your dealer? Or do you live in Colorado? Is it some new dictionary where everything = nothing, nothing = little, and can be = can't be? Where can I find a copy of that dictionary?

Anonymous Will Best July 28, 2014 3:37 PM  

Oh God you seriously think Angelina should be allowed to vote?

It is funny that you somehow think Brad Pitt (who distances himself from his pro-life mother) is the better voter in that household.

Well, the very argument against suffrage is that we can predict the future deleterious acts of women. But given the history of the past couple of hundred years we can say with reasonable certainty that white male landed heads of households will inevitably enfranchise women, thus bringing down civilization.

So what's the point of this exercise?


In essence this is about gerrymandering. You start with the government you want, and then work backwards to figure out which sort of voters support that government. But you are limited in that whatever voter screen you have must be reasonably easy to apply, and be perceived as fair.

This is how we got into this mess because the elite realized they could set up a de facto oligarchy by fudging around with who gets to vote.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 3:38 PM  

No, Chris, it's not as a guide to voting rights; it's as a guide to the limited utility of voting rights. - seems to me that by the South's limiting the vote, they guaranteed a civil war.

You agree that voting can be used as a tool to inhibit freedom. - I did? No, the problem with the South is that they based a society on the rights of some to enslave others. This historically does not end well.

Blogger Tom Kratman July 28, 2014 3:39 PM  

Chris, stop the fucking intellectual dishonesty, would you?

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 3:45 PM  

What part of "almost nothing inside the state, almost everything outside the state, and you can be against the state," actually translates in your head to "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State," and who is your dealer?

What part of civic virtue, defined as placing the good of the state and people over the good of self - AT AN EMOTIONAL LEVEL translates to almost nothing inside the state, almost everything outside the state, and you can be against the state?

Anonymous Harsh July 28, 2014 3:51 PM  

I did? No, the problem with the South is that they based a society on the rights of some to enslave others. This historically does not end well.

No one voted in the South? The leaders of the Confederacy didn't vote to secede from the Union to preserve slavery? I think you're fooling yourself if you think that slavery cannot be instituted and maintained by voting.

Blogger Tom Kratman July 28, 2014 3:51 PM  

That the individual who decides that the welfare of his people matters more than his own is not co-equal with the all-encompassing state, Josh. They're simply orthagonal.

Anonymous Tom Fartman July 28, 2014 3:52 PM  

Only veterans should have the right to vote queers, Mrthodist, wetbacks and liburals into mass woodchippers. Grind up at least 6 million -- just spare my wetback wife and meztizo half breed children.

Anonymous Porky July 28, 2014 3:56 PM  

This is how we got into this mess because the elite realized they could set up a de facto oligarchy by fudging around with who gets to vote.

I don't have a problem with that, per se. Free association and all that.

Problem is when the aristocrats tell you that you can't vote, then tell you they still expect you to pay taxes.

Isn't that what sparked the whole bloody revolution in the first place?

Blogger Tom Kratman July 28, 2014 3:56 PM  

Harsh, Chris' grasp of history is quite poor and his ability to distinguish and reason on matters historical, political, or moral, is therefore very weak. That's part, I think, of why he falls so readily into intellectual dishonesty.

If it were not, he might have paid attention to the sequence of events, from every state / nation allowing slavery, pretty much, to it gradually fading in most places as uneconomical, demoralizing, and distasteful, and which lasted in the south due to certain unplanned peculiarities of the agriculture there, not as any deliberate effort to base a society around slavery.

Anonymous Josh July 28, 2014 3:57 PM  

That the individual who decides that the welfare of his people matters more than his own is not co-equal with the all-encompassing state, Josh. They're simply orthagonal.

State != people. Your original formulation was good of the state and people

Blogger Tom Kratman July 28, 2014 3:58 PM  

You know, fuckface, someone can be an asshole on line and I'm fine with that. Someone can post anonymously on line and I'm fine with that, too. When someone posts anonynously online to be an asshole, I just call "coward" and generally dismiss him.

Blogger Tom Kratman July 28, 2014 4:00 PM  

He controls the state, among other things to prevent it oprressing the people, Josh, because he has been tested by difficult, low paid, miserable, and dangerous service to prove his character. This is good for people and state both.

Blogger Chris Gerrib July 28, 2014 4:01 PM  

No one voted in the South? The leaders of the Confederacy didn't vote to secede from the Union to preserve slavery? - apparently this is the "fucking intellectual dishonesty" that Kratman would like me to stop.

Of course white southerns voted to secede. Do you think that if all men (black and white) in the South could have voted that the same thing would have happened?

If a minority restricts unto itself the right to vote of course part of what it can vote to do is to oppress the majority.

Of course, voting is not the be-all or end-all of democracy. (See Iraq.) Voting is, however, a necessary part of democracy, and one of the quickest ways to wreck a democracy is to arbitrarily restrict the vote. (Another is the communist method - restrict who one can vote for.)

Blogger Tom Kratman July 28, 2014 4:01 PM  

Now, Josh, I've answered your questions. Would you please explain how "almost nothing inside the state, almost everything outside the state, and you can be against the state," actually translates in your head to "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State," OR tell us who your dealer is?

Anonymous Harsh July 28, 2014 4:04 PM  

Harsh, Chris' grasp of history is quite poor and his ability to distinguish and reason on matters historical, political, or moral, is therefore very weak. That's part, I think, of why he falls so readily into intellectual dishonesty.

He also seems to believe that disenfranchisement can cause loss of freedoms but voting never can despite the fact that there are historical examples of people being voted into servitude. But since he never answers directly it's hard to know exactly his position.

Anonymous Heh July 28, 2014 4:05 PM  

Working definition of "fascism":

Whatever Tom Kratman and Vox Day want.

Anonymous Porky July 28, 2014 4:06 PM  

and which lasted in the south due to certain unplanned peculiarities of the agriculture there, not as any deliberate effort to base a society around slavery.

Ha! That was just a dress rehearsal for the Knights of the Golden Circle, bro.

Blogger Tom Kratman July 28, 2014 4:07 PM  

I think both _can_, but if disenfranchisement actually does, if you lacked the power to keep from being disenfranchised, your hold on the vote was already doomed anyway.

1 – 200 of 286 Newer› Newest»

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts