Live free! OPC International http://offshoretrust.nu =================================================================== [2] Is Universal Suffrage the Tool of Socialism? =================================================================== Universal suffrage, the right of everyone who's reached the age of majority to vote in an election, has long been considered the benchmark of a fair and civilized society. As long as one holds citizenship and has lived long enough to accumulate the required number of years to one's name, one may vote without any further qualifications. Proponents argue that this is the most fair and just system, primarily because no individual is discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, wealth, education, or other such variable. The noble ideal, of course, is that all humans have the rational capacity to think logically and then vote intelligently in such a way as to further their own best interests. Not only that, but also all voters are rendered equal: even the simplest, humblest citizen is able to express his/her deepest convictions with a worth and value equal to that of the mightiest and most wealthy. In other words, no matter what one's success in any aspect of life (or lack thereof), one may express an opinion on desired future political events. The right to vote is given, not earned. There is a downside, of course: like most items available for free, one gets what one pays for. In practise, the vast majority of voters are not motivated to think rationally and clearly about their choices. They may think they think, by watching the television debates, by reading the columns of reporters with political science degrees, and by discussing "the issues" with close friends at cocktail parties. But what is happening is that they are regurgitating the opinions of everyone around them and not actually thinking at all. The deepest and most profound questions concerning political parties, platforms, and candidates are rarely even considered, much less discussed by the average citizen. "Democracy operates on the principle that the people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard" -H.L. Mencken Since there is little if any original political thought emanating from the average voter, this means that what political thoughts he/she has, have come from "informed" sources which may not necessarily represent the best interests of that voter at all. The sources may appear to represent those interests, but words and actions rarely coincide during the political process. Labels and slogans are mere conveniences to persuade the simple-minded, not principles or ideals meant for actual use in the real world. Thus in politics, it becomes easy to say one thing and do another, all with the gullible and implicit endorsement of an unquestioning public. As an example, most voters would not cast their ballot for any political party suicidal enough to specifically call itself a Socialist party (at least not in North America or the UK), but most voters can be persuaded to cast their ballot for a party endorsing socialist ideals. So long as they don't use the frightening S-word itself, parties may promote campaign promises straight from the pages of socialist doctrine and then smear any who attack them as heartless monsters who care nothing for the poor. Labels can be so important, regardless of the actual ingredients inside the package. The ideal of socialism is to make everyone equal, utilizing the kindergarten principle of "share and share alike and everyone will be happy forever." Of course, the fundamental flaw with this concept is that people aren't equal and therefore must be forced to be equal. (Except, of course, those charged with enforcing the equality and who therefore must be more equal than others.) When the "equality is a right" principle infects a population, it inevitably promotes the presence of a vociferous and malcontent majority who endorse cutting off the head of anyone who dares to rise above the crowd. Envy and revenge is completely acceptable in the name of the glorious revolution, of course. In parallel with the head-hunting is the fervent belief that everyone can be wealthy together if only the government provides the right programs. Of course, all such "progressive" spending is to be paid for by endless riches accrued from elsewhere. A temptingly inexhaustible source is the private gold piles hoarded by the evil elite who have dared to become wealthy before the masses. With universal suffrage, the vote of a penniless, envious loser - - and this would include the working poor who live precariously from one payday to the next -- counts for exactly the same as that of a self-made, productive millionaire. Unfortunately, there are a lot more envious poor in a population than there are wealth-creating builders of businesses. This makes it rather easy for the frustrated masses to vote themselves an apparently higher level of prosperity at the expense of the wealthy businessman. In reality, the higher standard of living is mostly "paid" for by debt, which must somehow be discharged by a combination of currency inflation and high taxes. The brunt of such measures is inevitably imposed upon the largest base of taxpayers, namely the very working poor who wanted easy prosperity in the first place. Poetic justice perhaps, but hardly a productive and happy way to build a wealthy nation. Furthermore, it breeds a vicious cycle of further envy and increased class hatred, which sets the stage for even more treacherous wanderings down the path toward an all- powerful Big Brother. Unfortunately, we are left with the sad result that the more universal the suffrage, the more socialist the political climate over time. This achieves the exact opposite of what universal democracy is intended to do, which is allow greater freedom and choice in one's personal affairs. This poses an interesting question: if the people want socialism, is it the right set of policies to implement? Yes, if they know exactly what it is that they are voting for, but no if they do not. We suggest that it is highly unlikely that voters are aware that by voting for Big Government, they are endorsing the very same discredited system used by the Soviet USSR and Communist China. There must be a better way. Certainly, educating people as to the long-term consequences of their voting actions might help. Teaching people to think is the ultimate prize in an enlightened society, but our current education system doesn't promote this concept. Furthermore, it is virtually certain that a sizable percentage of the population will simply refuse to think for themselves no matter how effective the educational program. Just how many individuals will listen to rational, reasonable arguments when politicians are masters of more compelling emotional arguments that persuade the voter that cutting his/her own throat is the right thing to do? "Vote against privatized healthcare because it will make doctors richer!" "Vote for stronger anti-gun and anti-porn laws so that your children will be safer!" "Vote against tax cuts because it will jeopardize social security payments to those least able to help themselves!" And so on and so forth. Rational arguments have no hold on people's minds when fear and greed and guilt are used so shamelessly by the manipulators. If universal enlightenment is too difficult to achieve, is there a standard that can be set so that only voters with appropriate qualifications may cast their ballots? In other words, is there a way to select for voters who have somehow earned their right to vote and therefore value it highly? Ideally we want a way to select for voters who will think for themselves. Various sources have proposed restricting voting rights to land owners or to those who have attained a certain degree of net worth or education in their lives. These ideas all have possibilities, but the howls of outrage from the suddenly disenfranchised would never permit such measures to be implemented. A better idea, and (we will freely admit) one perhaps no more likely to be put into practise: extend the right to vote only to those who do not draw salaries or income from the public treasury. Those who live off taxpayer dollars may not vote, no matter if they are a politician, a civil servant, a welfare recipient, or other beneficiary of public largesse. If someone derives even a partial income from the public purse, they are ineligible until they give up the public teat. Only if someone earns their own living, may they vote. A radical proposal? Perhaps, but a sensible one also. When only those who pay tax from their personal earnings are permitted to decide policy by electoral vote, it is unlikely that stealth socialism will continue to be endorsed as public policy. Its major proponents will have been rendered politically voiceless, and the road to freedom and prosperity will have begun. =================================================================== [3] Reader Feedback =================================================================== You might want to take a look at www.votescam.com for one of your articles. Great book and the first 5 chapters can be read online. A very interesting and appropriate story. http://www.votescam.com COMMENT: While we maintain a healthy scepticism of most conspiracy theories, www.votescam.com's allegations of rigged computer vote-counting are most interesting. Even if not entirely accurate, the inside look at the vote counting history and process is both enlightening and disturbing. -----------------------------------------------------------------