WASHINGTON: It is a full-circle proposition. At the beginning of the republic, the idea of the “right and duty” of voting had little or no consideration, because the numbers of voters was less critical. Thoughtful voters were of importance.
However, trying to distill this concept through reason is why the battle for elections becomes nothing more than a school-yard brawl between taxpayers and tax-takers. Sheer numbers of voters bring the prize.
There is a news clip of Bernie Sanders brazenly and boldly stating that health care is a right. Presumably, he is appealing to voters since he made the statement during his campaign for president. There is no such right– but that doesn’t matter. The few voters who show reason, he knows, will be outnumbered. Tying to trade rights for votes, however, is the democratic way. The republican way is something else.
Is it reasonable to believe such voting balderdash? How does any reason fit into Sanders statement of a “right”?
“Error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” Thomas Jefferson
If the majority of a lynch mob cries for a rope and a hanging, the victim hangs. Reason has nothing to do with it. No one ever reasoned with a lynch mob. If Bernie Sanders says you have a right to healthcare then it will require a doctor who will work for nothing if so ordered; though another “right” specified in the 13th Amendment disallows such. Where does reason fit into two mutually exclusive opposites?
With no parenthetic apologies, the Constitution clearly states that among the qualifications for the offices of president, senators, and representatives, the person(s) must respectively be thirty-five, thirty and twenty-five years of age. Why doesn’t the Constitution define age limits for voters? Because the Constitution left such decisions to the people in the states and the states left such reasoning to the local governing bodies which passed along their views to the state legislatures.
There is no mention in the U.S. Constitution of voters or voting.
That is because voting is not a right but a responsibility. Not unlike, and based on the norms of the time, one analogy is the family as a republic. The children did not get a vote. The parents may have had different systems of governing, but they were assumed to be the responsible governing authorities. Moreover, children without fully developed reasoning powers, had no vote, though their opinions are often sought. The perfect government for the family, according to present-day liberal standards, would be for all children, and parents to vote since that would have been democratic.
Today taxpayers (parents) and tax-takers (children) vote. Elections become wars to get out the vote. Like the lynch mob, reason in campaigns is pushed to the sidelines by unreasonable people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Casio-Cortez.
When elections have the intention of the winning group getting free stuff from the losing group, at least one group loses their rights. Which is no more reasonable than a child demanding a parent provide whatever the child wants.
“For me, democratic socialism is about—really, the value for me is that I believe that in a modern, moral and wealthy society, no person in America should be too poor to live.” Alexandria Casio-Cortez.
Her reasoning is what? That if one is “too poor” then someone with more
must shed part of his right to property?
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are
willing to work and give to those who would not.” – Thomas Jefferson
The unfettered race to universal suffrage by the mass of citizens brings the elections to the verge of disaster. Now, the race to allow noncitizens the same status as citizens, including voting, is not reasonable to anyone with a modicum of reason.
However, what can you say to unreasonable people? One day everybody will vote, and there will be no rights. After that, there will be no more elections.
“Democracy is the road to socialism.” Karl Marx
Which is why we must fight to keep the founder’s grand experiment and remain a republic.