11/18/2004 Entry: ""
Posted by Maynard @ 11:36 AM MST
Disenfranchising the Dolists
Harvey at Bad Example has a thought provoking opinion: we should disenfranchise the bribed.
There's a thought I've had for years, but rarely dare to speak publicly, lest I be branded some sort of hate-monger, but here it is:
If you get direct payments from the government, you don't get to vote.
Why? Because you've been bribed. There's a direct conflict of interest. If a judge had a direct financial stake in the outcome of a trial, he'd have to recuse himself. Why should voting be any different?
This would be an incentive for people to think twice before suckling the government teat, and would also help keep incumbents from buying votes with cash payments.
Fedora tip: Boots & Sabers
But to what extent do you enforce the ban? Does it include those who are employed by the government? What about the military? I think my wife would be in there too, since she accepted student loans from the government. Yes, Harvey only applies the suggestion to those on the welfare dole. But to be consistent, we would have to apply the ban to others taking money from the government, lest they vote for candidates that would promise them continued employment. True, the difference between the two is one gives a benefit to the government while the other does not, but the possiblity to vote themselves largesse from the public purse still exists - hence the need to impose the ban on both if it is place on either.
But at what level of government do you stop? I've heard that 60% of the people here in Tucson are on the government payroll at some level (having a military base and a state university will cause that). Should Tucson city employees be banned from city elections? And how much handout constitutes a disqualifying amount?
The problem Harvey tries to solve is that people are voting unto themselves milk from the government teat. His conclusion is to prevent them from doing so - but why is there a government teat to begin with? Why not shut off the spigot so people stop drinking from it?
But that's too simple, and its already been suggested. Besides, advocating disenfranchisement allows you to have Google index your site under that word, currently in vogue among talking heads - thus guaranteeing an increase in hits.
(From the peanut gallery) "Ah, but shutting down the welfare roles would be cruel and heartless!"
Unlike disenfranchisement? Besides, ending welfare is not cruel and heartless - if you get people to rely on themselves.
We're all in this together, people. Let's not permit the foundation of our great big house to crack under the ire of a bitterly paid handout. Lets get those on the handout to work for themselves, by weaning them off it. Once they are self-reliant we can discuss improving the nation broadly, since we would have improved it incrementally.
Add A New Comment
