LIMITING THE RIGHT TO VOTE

One of my favorite hobbies is entertaining seemingly crazy ideas.

Nietzsche said that certain worthless notions become so ingrained in the conscious of a society that they become like the idols of old. He spoke of wanting to rap on the surface of the societal idols to hear if they were, indeed, empty inside.

So, let us rap on this idol; the notion that the right to vote is a sacred covenant of Democracy.

Should all adults be allowed to vote? What about criminals? What about the mentally ill?

Ought a person be allowed to vote if they can not read? Or, what about those who don't bother to read, or even consume any media at all? What if a person does not know the names of the candidates?

Or, what if the person is a WOMAN?

This is from Laurence Auster:

Here then is a proposal suggested by a friend recently, the basic principle and
outline of which make a great deal of sense to me. I am not embracing the
specific details, since a variety of means to obtain the same ends are possible.
But to me the basic idea seems compelling.

The franchise, my friend said, should be limited to married men with children who are net tax payers.

This means that the vote, and the ability to serve in political office, would be limited to men who are responsible contributors to society. Men who are not married, or who do not have children born in wedlock, or who are not net tax payers, do not have a sufficient material stake in the society as an ongoing enterprise to be counted on to play a responsible role in its direction. Therefore they should not have a direct voice--as voters and office holders--in its direction. Women, generally speaking, are too much guided by emotion and personal considerations to have a direct voice--as voters and office holders--in the direction of society. Look at the ridiculous things political parties today must do to appeal to women. The entire three day minority dog-and-pony show at the 2000 Republican Convention was basically for the purpose of convincing "soccer moms" that the GOP is "nice" to minorities. No serious politics is possible under such conditions. Married women are naturally represented in politics by their husbands, and can exert political influence through the influence they have with their husbands, but the husband is ultimately the one who votes for both of them. Unmarried women as a whole inevitably look to the state to be their provider, and therefore they should not have a direct voice in the government. Also, unmarried women under this proposal are barred from voting for the same reason that unmarried men are, which is that they do not have a sufficient material stake in the society to be counted on to play a responsible role in its direction.

Let us also note the positive changes in behavior and morals that such a change in our laws would encourage. There would be a stronger incentive for men to marry and have children, since they would not possess political rights in the absence of having their own family and being self-supporting.

The change in the franchise would also help restore men to their proper role as the head of the family and as responsible citizens and leaders of society. Today's belief, that women need to be leaders and heroes in order to fulfil themselves, is false. Women do not need those things, they do not suffer from their lack, and society does not suffer from the absence of women firefighters and generals. But males, and society as a whole, most certainly do suffer from the denigration of boys and men that is the leading note of today's feminist culture as enforced in the schools, in the
universities, in the popular culture, and in sex relations.

I think I'll withold comment for now. Can't wait to hear what others have to say about this.