Limiting The Right To Vote

Limiting The Right To Vote

I don’t quite get why people seek out horror movies in order to “enjoy” a little fright. The vast amount of money spent in cinemas on horror flicks seems to me to be completely unnecessary. If you want to cower under your bed petrified with dark visions of an apocalyptic future, you only have to read the newspaper debate section for young people.

One of Norway’s leading newspapers has a regular feature in their culture/debate section. It is a page with an editorial from a young person, coupled with a “man on the street” type short blurb from another young person. The on the street interview asks what the interviewee would do if they were Prime Minister for a day. I’m a well-versed individual in the fields of politics and history, I know about a lot of terrifying historical occurrences. But still, what these young people are saying is absolutely dreadful and terror inducing. They are sadly the product of a left-wing dominated education machine, coupled with the left-wing dominated media landscape. The views they put forth on this page are exactly what you suspect.

These youngsters seemingly uncritically accept the environmentalist and socialist dogma that surround them. The thought that many of them are 18 or older, and thus have the right to vote makes me sad. There is a reason, a good reason that the right to vote has historically been limited in several different ways. In the early days of democracy only property owners could vote. In other words, people with a vested interest in the well being of the economy and the country in general. Young people like those featured in the newspaper are still in school, they don’t have a clue about what working for a living and having the state suck exorbitant tax from your paycheck. The concept of people without economic knowledge or economic skin in the game being able to vote on equal footing with the rest of the citizenry should be controversial. Is it surprising that they favor using the seemingly endless supply of free government money to funt their favorite pet projects?

Other limits on the franchise have for instance been based on sex. Women didn’t start out with the right to vote in most jurisdictions. The economic arguments outlayed above also applied to most women at the time of the turn of the 19th century into the 20th. We can also see that the enactment of welfare polities and the government as proxy husband followeed shortly after the enfranchisement of women. Molyneux has made a good case for this argument, unfortunately I can’t recall in which podcast he laid it forth. Nevertheless, women’s suffrage has undoubtedly moved the Overton window of economic policy to the left. A consequentialist case could thus be made about whether women’s right to vote has been good or detrimental to society.

Playing around with these concepts, I don’t particularly object to a severe limitation on the right to vote, as long as we live in a democracy. The arguments against democracy are too expansive to cover accurately in this setting, I’ll talk about them another time. I’ve been mulling the idea of limiting the right to vote to people 50 years old or older. Now, this means that I wouldn’t be able to vote, but if the reward is the prevention of ignorant teenagers/young adults mired in left-wing propaganda at universities from being able to vote as well, the price is worth it. Older people have more life experience and are past the stage where they are (usually) easily swayed by emotions. It would be interesting to see how a country would change if such a reform was enacted.

Another possible change is to structure the franchise to favor a technocracy, or rule by experts. The thought that a homeless starving artist has a much influence as a pillar of the community business executive leads credence to this line of thinking. On the other hand we often see so-called experts pulling stuff out of their exhaust ports. Just look at last year’s US election, all the experts didn’t have a frigging clue what they were talking about. Also, the thought of granting more influence to marxist university professors isn’t appealing. To sum up, I don’t have a concrete proposal I’m going to push for. But I would like to see a societal debate on the consequences of the current system in regards to voting rights and a debate on possible reform.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *