On the Franchise

Our current presidential administration has recently been overheard to be touting it’s own success in bringing democracy to nations that previously did not have it. I believe that as a result of a fundamental misunderstanding of what a democracy truly is, we have all been taught that the United States of America is a democracy, and that democracy is a good thing. It is not. I shudder to think of the terrors we are putting upon 49% of the denizens of these countries who we have liberated, if true democracy is truly what we brought to them. I was relieved to find that democracy was not the “gift” that we had given these countries, and that like us, they were developing into constitutional republics. Despite what you may have been taught in your public indoctrination centers (skoolz), or you may have heard in passing on the street, our government is not, and has never been, a true democracy. The Founding Fathers would have likely recoiled in horror if you were to look them in the eye and accuse them of having created one. They understood, in no uncertain terms, that true democracy was mob rule by majority, or, put more eloquently:

“…two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for supper” – Benjamin Franklin

There are a myriad of reasons for why the Founding Fathers, in general, were very much against a true democracy, and they were damn good reasons.

(what we are, in fact, is a “Constitutional Republic” which I will not go into explaining at this time. Google it to learn more. Simply put: “in a democracy, two wolves and a sheep take a majority vote on what’s for supper, while in a constitutional republic, the wolves are forbidden on voting on what’s for supper and the sheep are well armed.”)

Of the above reasons to shun true democracy, first and foremost is the fallacious idea, simply and eloquently espoused in the above quote, that the majority opinion is always the proper, right, and just thing. Falling in line with “true democracy” thinking would mean that if the majority of Americans voted to take half of your income, then that is what will happen, without constraint or redress. If the majority wants every person to be unarmed against violent criminals, then that is what will happen, without constraint or redress. If the majority wants all law-breakers to be summarily executed, then that is what will happen, without constraint or redress. I recall a quote from a recent movie that illustrates that democracy can become (and has almost always ended up being) a tyranny over a little bit less than half of the people in the country.

“I’ll not trade one tyrant 3,000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away” – Mel Gibson, “The Patriot”

Secondly, there is the idea originally espoused by Plato and Socrates, both of whom were fundamentally against democracy (they saw it as a form of “majority mob rule”, which is exactly what it is) that any true, perfect democracy, a system that extends the franchise (vote) to every warm body, will eventually destroy itself from within. This was not an uncommon sentiment amongst the Founding Fathers. Madison, Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and many, many others are on record as having routinely said that true democracies destroy themselves from within, and for one simple reason: Juvenal’s “Bread and Circuses.”

There is a popular Robert Heinlein quote that I am tempted to reproduce here, one that was basically a more pointed and eloquent way of saying the same things that Socrates said about democracy over 2,300 years ago.

"A perfect democracy, a 'warm body' democracy in which every adult may vote and all votes count equally has no internal feedback for self correction. It depends solely on the wisdom and self-restraint of citizens...which is opposed by the folly and lack of self-restraint of other citizens. What is supposed to happen in a democracy is that each sovereign citizen will always vote in the public interest for the safety and welfare of all. But what does happen is that he votes his own self-interest as he sees it...which for the majority translates as 'Bread and Circuses'"Bread and Circuses is the cancer of democracy, the fatal disease for which there is no cure. Democracy often works beautifully at first. But once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader--the barbarians enter Rome." Robert Heinlein.

Rather un-ironically, Socrates, the original anti-democratic activist, was executed in Athens after a popular vote among Athenians resulted in the affirmation his fate, so it appears that his dislike of democracy was more than simply theoretical. It was proven to be quite logical in actual practice.

To this second point, the Founding Fathers were not blind. Many people today see inherent racism, classism, and sexism in their original decision to extend the franchise only to reasonably affluent white males. However, if any of these three things had any influence on their decisions, they were only secondary to their real intent. They understood that extending the franchise to people who had no vested interest in the future of the nation, beyond what they could get out of the nation at that point in time, was a guarantee of national suicide in the same proportions of the collapse of every other true democracy. They intended to only extend the franchise to people with this vested interest, and to restrict it from the people that did not. It is unfortunate that the prevailing attitudes of the time included women and racial minorities in the “no vested interest” categories, but at the time, it is arguable that this policy made sense.

In 1789, women rarely worked outside of the home. They were not “producers” in the sense that they did not leave the household to produce anything for greater society, but instead, stayed home to take care of the domestic responsibilities; therefore freeing up her husband from such duties so that he was able to leave the home and produce. It was widely argued, and as offensive as this may seem today, not many women at the time would have disagreed, that a woman was left unaffected by politics and political appointments, as they would likely have little effect on her efforts inside the home, bearing and rearing children. Therefore, there was no established case for “vested interest” and therefore, no franchise was extended.

Likewise, in 1789, racial minorities were mostly in various states of standing in this country, many, if not most, of which would necessarily preclude having a “vested interest.” African Americans were mostly slaves at the time. American Indians were, almost to a man, NOT citizens of the United States, but were considered to have a standard similar to today’s “foreign national.”

Now, none of this is to say that any of this is right or proper, in any way, shape, or form. It was to prove my point, that racism, classism, and sexism, while possibly being secondary causes, were not the primary causes of restricting the franchise.

That being said, we have made a terrible mistake by interpreting the restriction of the franchise to simply be “ye olde racism,” and therefore setting it aside as a relic of racist days of yore. We finally understood, for certain and without reservation, that race should not be a determining factor on the extension of the franchise, and neither should gender, sexual orientation, or a myriad of other things that hold no bearing on a person’s qualifications to vote for our elected leaders. However, as often is the case, we overcompensated. In order to make up for past wrongs, we abolished any restriction on the extension of the franchise, in the name of equality, a noble cause. However, we failed to realize that while all men are created equal, all men are most certainly not equal, by any stretch of the imagination. This was our failure; our one, greatest mistake.

The Founding Fathers, if they were alive today, and adjusted and accustomed socially to our more liberal ways, would not agree with what we have done. They would not have opposed Women’s Suffrage, so long as the franchise was only extended to qualified women with a solid, quantifiable vested interest in the future of this country. They would have supported the notion of extending the franchise to racial minorities via the Civil Rights Act, so long as it was only extended to those with a vested interest in this nation’s future.

What we did, however, in our unfortunate overcompensation, was extend the franchise to everyone, and thus, beginning in about 1915, we became the “warm body” democracy to which our Founding Fathers had so strenuously objected. Today, we have social parasites, looters, and thugs holding a card guaranteeing them the franchise. Many of these people don’t give a damn about the future of this country, and are only concerned with what they can take from it before they die. That, my friends, is the root of the destruction that we were warned about by the Founding Fathers. That, my friends, is what will destroy us.

America today has nothing to fear from outside threats. We’ve faced and bested the most powerful military forces that the world has ever had to offer. We’ve prevailed in every battle in which we were allowed. No one today can match us in strength and power, and so no one dares provoke us. Attacks against us, while horrific and detestable, are paltry annoyances when viewed in the grand picture of that which is America.

No, friends, it is the “enemy within” that we have to fear. Listen to every candidate as they scramble and toil and compete for our votes. None speak anymore of what they can do for America, and how they can make her or keep her great. What they do speak of is what they can give us. Freebies abound; from universal healthcare to mortgage bailouts, the politicians have come to understand that when the franchise is extended to the plebe, the looter, the parasite, and the thug, that they can gain more traction and secure more votes by ensuring that the “bread and circuses” that they provide will be infinitely more tasty, exciting, and satisfying than those promised by his opponent, so long as they are, and they remain, “free.”

“Free” is an odd term to employ in this instance, for I can think of little that bears more cost to our society than freebies to non-producers, while the true producers shoulder the financial burden. As the parasites, looters, and thugs grow in numbers (and they will, and will continue to do so for as long as they are legitimized and supported by governmental handouts) they will eventually outnumber the producers. That day is close at hand. If you do not believe me, notice how close this presidential race is, and how close the candidate running on a platform of “wealth redistribution” has come to winning the race. What is to become of us when every producer’s financial burden in the supporting of parasites, looters, and thugs, is so great that he can no longer afford to bear and raise children? What is to become of us when the producer becomes so tired of toiling away every day for the benefit of others that he decides, simply, to quit? To become a looter himself? Who could blame him? Or worse, to simply pack his things and leave; seeking more friendly venues?

We need reform, and we need reform now. We need to develop a means to determine if a person is qualified to vote in this country, by way of establishing a vested interest in the country’s future. We need to restrict the franchise once again, with the same intent that our Founding Fathers had over 200 years ago, when they did the same thing. We need to ensure that when people go to cast a ballot, they do so with the best interest of the country in mind, and not the best interest of themselves. If this great country is to survive another 200 years, we need to take steps now to save her from the enemy within.

The action that I suggest we take is radical, and quite possibly anathema to so many people that have become convinced of the inherent goodness of democracy, and the “right” that all adult citizens have to vote. You’ll notice that I put the word “right” in quotation marks. I challenge you to find a place in the Constitution where this “right” is enumerated (aside from the aforementioned suffrage amendments). It is not, and for one good reason: the Founding Fathers never intended for it to BE a right. The only discussion of voting is summed up by saying that the legislature and the president will be elected “by the people” with no description of whom that may include. That was more or less left to the individual States to decide.

My plan of action is quite simple, really. Originally, the Founding Fathers only allowed land owners to vote. This was an excellent way, they surmised, to establish a vested interest in the future of the country, for while most assets are portable, and can be taken with the owner in emigrations to foreign lands, land is not. They surmised that a land owner wasn’t able to leave if things got too bad after the looting was over, and so surmised that the land owner would generally have the best interest of the country in mind when he cast his ballot. This won’t work today. There are too many good people who do not own land, but who still have a vested interest in our country. Therefore, I suggest that we start by restricting the franchise on the following individuals:

Transients with no permanent abode;
Those who have gone unemployed for a consecutive period no shorter than 12 months;
Any person on public aid, in the form of welfare, food stamps, public housing, etc, including using free healthcare services for themselves or their dependents;
Any person who has declared personal bankruptcy within the last 5 years;
Anyone with a criminal infraction greater than a gross misdemeanor (this person has already demonstrated their willingness to subvert our nation and it’s laws, why allow them a say in who leads it?)
Anyone not a natural born citizen of the United States, except for naturalized citizens not in violation of any of the other requirements, and who have legally resided in America for 5 years or longer;
Anyone not in possession of an accredited high school diploma or GED;
Corporations and labor unions do not and should not hold a vote, and should therefore be removed from the political process. They only have their own best interest in mind, and their monies and influence merely serve to dilute the will of the people, through the franchised voters.

Now, please, take a deep breath and calm down. I would like to explain myself, and why the above individuals should not receive the franchise. This is not a determination of their worth as a person, or as a citizen of this great nation. This is a measure that we can use to more exactly determine a person’s vested interest in the future of this country, and nothing more. Let me explain more fully by exploring the reasons why I chose each point, and also by granting exceptions to each point. It is very important to realize one thing, as we continue to examine this proposal, and that one thing is this:

None of the above conditions on this list are permanent, inextricable situations, with the exception of the criminal aspect.

This guarantees the franchise to anyone above willing to WORK to get it. For instance, no high school diploma? You can re-acquire your franchise by getting a GED. On welfare? Work to get off of welfare, and you may have your vote. Unemployed? Get a job, get a vote. It is truly as simple as that. What this means is that under this system, anyone without the franchise will have CHOSEN to relinquish it, in one way or another.

To the first bullet, I can see no reason why a transient would have vested interest in our future. They have no assets, no home, no permanent address, and therefore, upon looting the public coffers, could easily, and without compunction, catch a slow train to other, un-looted venues. This is not to say that all transients would do so, but we have no way to establish a vested interest to not do so, and so we must withhold the franchise from this class of individual.

To the second bullet, I would like to add several exceptions, because this one, to me, seems to be the most strict and would be the most damaging to a hard-working person that simply cannot find work. The exceptions include:

A person actively on unemployment benefits. This person, by the laws of the state, has had to prove that he is either actively in search of work, or is “on hold” from an existing job, pending re-hire, in order to remain on unemployment. This is good enough to prove a desire to be a productive member of society, but missing opportunity to be so, and therefore, vested interest is established.
A person on disability/workman’s compensation. I do not believe any more needs to be said. This person was likely injured in the act of producing for our society, and likely still would be if not for injury, disease, or illness. This is beyond good enough to prove a vested interest in our future.
A person not looking for a job, but still providing a valuable service to society. The one that pops into my head right off would be home-makers. Raising of children and freeing up a spouse to go out and produce is a valuable service to our society.

To the third point, I believe that this is one of the most evident. A person on the public dole, in any way, has become parasitic to the society. Again, this is not an analysis of their worth as a person. It is just not logical to extend the franchise to a person that is taking from society, instead of adding to it, regardless of circumstances. The franchise can be simply re-earned, by working to get off of the public dole.

The fourth point could possibly be the most controversial, because often times, bankruptcy is the result of a failed attempt to be a productive member of our society, and other times, it is the result of occurrences outside the control of the person declaring bankruptcy. In both cases, I must say that the good of our society should outweigh this downside of this particular requirement. A person who starts a business that fails would be insulated by this if only they filed an LLC or incorporated. The only way that a business failure results in personal bankruptcy is if you either didn’t properly insulate your personal self from the business, or, if you invested so much personal capital into the failed enterprise that it brought you down with it. If you’ve chosen to take that risk, you’ve done so knowingly, and should be prepared to be without the franchise for 5 years afterward. The reason that this should still be a requirement, despite this, is because bankruptcy is one of the ways that looters and parasites use to get what they want, at cost to greater society when they default on their obligations. Therefore, this must remain a franchise requirement.

The fifth item is one that is already in place, in most states of this great union. However, there is a push to remove this requirement in several states, mainly driven by the morally bankrupt idea that more looters and parasites in the system means more votes for candidates of a certain political persuasion. However, these people, by their criminal actions, have already proven a desire to undermine the rules, laws, and institutions of this country, and in doing so, have become a parasitic load upon the shoulders of producers everywhere. Anyone that has ever worked a hard days labor, only to find that they have been robbed at the end of the day, by people who did no work to earn what they have taken, will understand why criminals should have no suffrage.

The sixth item is also already a requirement in this nation, with the exception of one thing: the 5-year waiting period for naturalized citizens. This will at least create indications of an interest in our society, instead of allowing “Johnny-Come-Lately” to get naturalized, vote for a few years to get what he can, and then move on. 5 years adds up to a hint of commitment, and therefore, a vested interest in the future of this country.

The seventh item is merely here to ensure that the person casting a ballot is at least learned enough to understand what they are doing. It is not perfect, because undoubtedly, high school grads will still do stupid things like vote for a candidate, regardless of their politics, simply because of their race or sex, for instance. However, this level of education will hopefully help to ameliorate this problem enough that the people who do vote because they like candidate A’s smile the best, will become meaningless fringe voters, instead of the current (seemingly) near-majority. A high school diploma would also demonstrate a measure of commitment and work ethic on the part of it’s holder, further enlightening us all to their ability to be productive members of our society, and therefore, to their vested interest in its maintenance.

The eight item removes powerful parasitic and looting influence from the political process. “Big Money” donors, special interests, and the like all influence politicians away from the best interest of the nation, and towards their own best interest. That interest is not necessarily mutually exclusive to the best interest of the nation, but that is for franchised voters to decide, not the politicians that are in their pockets. They already are not allowed a vote, but simply have too much influence in the process, which they should not be allowed.

As with any idea or proposal, this is not perfect. Undoubtedly, there will be people who are qualified to vote, who hold a strong vested interest in our nation, who are denied the franchise under these new rules. For instance, a person on welfare may still vote for the nation’s best interest, and not his or her own. However, with no way to prove this on a case-by-case basis, we are forced to deny their franchise. I would like to reiterate that this person can re-acquire their franchise simply by working to get themselves off of welfare. None of these above ideas are permanently exclusive, with the exception of the criminal activity restrictions.

However imperfect this proposal may be, I submit that it is far, far more perfect than our current path. As the constituency continues to consistently vote in favor of the erosion of our fundamental rights, in exchange for lavish gifts or false security, our country, as a whole, continues to fall down the rabbit hole, closer and closer to the oblivion that Plato, Socrates, and every one of our Founding Fathers so strenuously warned against. As Thomas Jefferson once said “Those that would surrender essential liberty, in exchange for temporary security, deserve neither”. This sentiment would also apply to Juvenal’s concept of “bread and circuses.”

And finally, this will all be enforced by the creation of a no-cost to the franchisee, Voter ID Card and registry. No card? No vote. It is that simple. This can not be viewed as a poll tax, because the card would be publicly financed, and would therefore cost nothing to the franchisee. It is that simple.

I know that restricting the franchise sounds radical by today’s standards, but it is exactly what the Founding Fathers intended upon the consecration of this great nation. What is radical, in the sense that it is a deviation from the intended, is the extension of the franchise to every warm body in America. This is what the Founding Fathers would never have done. This is what they would have seen as radical, and damaging to our society. This is what will destroy us. Juvenal was right. The parasites, looters, and thugs want to erode away at our society, not because that is their goal, but because it presents benefit to them, in the form of reduced personal responsibility, financial security with no work required, and a perverted form of “liberty” in which they are free from having to lift a finger to care for themselves. Let us not continue in this manner until every amendment in the Bill of Rights becomes a dead letter, and every good aspect of American society; hard work, self-determination, responsibility, and liberty, become archaic concepts relegated to history books. Let us put a stop to this now, by giving voice only to those with America’s best interest in mind, instead of just their own.

Goober, the New Pamphleteer.