No, for the short-sighted, the ignorant, unwashed masses and those that just plain do not know, this has nothing to do with suffering. For those that do know, it has nothing to do with setting back women’s or ethnic rights either. How does that work without adversely impacting over two hundred years of progress? Well once again, we are fortunate that the real world has provided us with some examples to follow, even if the government is incapable of … or simply refuses to see them.
If any of you have ever owned or even run a business, you will probably see the logic and the reasoning in this right away. You see, when you own a business, you do not generally, as a rule at least, allow every employee to vote on every little thing. If you did, chances are really good that the business would go broke and you would end up with absolutely nothing for the time and finances you have invested to build a successful business. Employees would constantly vote to reduce their working hours, increase their benefits and making demands until the company no longer functioned and only cost the owner … which would mean that the company would ultimately close … FAIL … because of the “needs” of all the people being put ahead of the needs of those who pay for it … and any way to finance that.
Does this mean that a viable solution would be to prevent women and minorities from voting? Absolutely not! Again, let us look to the real world to see if there is a happy medium in there somewhere. This has always been a point of contention and confusion for me and one of the reasons I stay towards the right side of Libertarianism rather than leaning towards the left as many faux-libertarians do. When proposition 208 was brought up in the People’s Republic of California (I think it was 208, but I am writing this all from memory) it was worded almost exactly the same as the 1964 Civil Rights Act which is so often lauded and held high by the same democrats that voted so strongly against it … and even one recently departed Senator from West Virginia who actually held up the halls of the Senate with his personal filibuster … not to mention his support from the KKK of which he was an active LEADER at the time.
Yet despite being approved by the voters … that means that they voted on it and approved it or passed it, it was ultimately overturned. Why? Because by removing any reference at all to gender or race (or even sexual orientation) it became some type of mysteriously phobic and divisive piece of legislation that would undo civil rights as we know them. No, that is not a direct quote from the findings or adjudication of the courts but it is not an exaggeration either. The left leaning people would have us believe that a removal of any reference to race, gender or sexual orientation and giving the most qualified person the job, somehow promotes the idea of oppression and is racist … while at the same time telling us that the inclusion of race, gender and even sexual orientation … and providing jobs, services and benefits based solely on those merits … in other words, preferences dependent on race, gender and sexual orientation is not racist, sexist or in any ways unreasonable.
Nobody cares what color you are, what your gender is or who you sleep with when you vote!
All that should be required is that they are a productive, tax-paying citizen. Just like the employees who would vote themselves right out of a job if the business owner allowed them to, the (government created) dependency class would vote themselves right out of a country. Actually, this may not be totally accurate so please, allow the statement to be clarified. It is unlikely there would be enough of the country left for even the Russians or the Chinese to want it for anything other than the exploitation of our natural resources. That should make the watermelons stand up and take notice too! The point of parity is upon us where there are as many people paying income taxes as are not. The point of parity is a few years away … AT BEST for the point of parity for SSI … or supplemental security income … and if we keep up at this pace, the economy will crash. If the economy crashes, those on the welfare roles … and they will grow enormously under such conditions … will have to begin working for a living to support the very beast they are depending on for their sustenance now. If you think Sharon Jasper is upset about her sixty inch flat screen television and having to work for an entire one year period in her life, imagine how angry she is going to be when she has to work to pay for that same lifestyle!