Shild raises some reasonable, if predictable, objections:
1) “The right to vote and freedom are not the same thing.”
Of course they’re not. This can be said of MANY rights. The fact that totalitarian governments have elections too does not mean that the PRESENCE of the right to vote somehow takes away freedom.
To be sure. But first, note that there is no unalienable God-given or human “right” to vote. If there were, it could not be taken away from felons, resident aliens and so forth. But the main point is that while the presence of the privilege to vote does not inherently take away freedom, nor does it inherently create freedom as the purple-fingered suffrage fetishists insist.
2) “Women/Blacks/etc. are not part of Western Society Proper, and have inflicted such terrible things as feminism/affirmative action/etc. upon us poor WASPs.”
The idea that women (and most other groups) as individuals are not capable of making informed, intelligent decisions is absurd and false.
More seriously, the idea that an individual’s rights should be taken away becuase s/he MIGHT abuse those rights disagrees with the basic assumptions of individual liberty. This is the same kind of thinking that gave us the Patriot Act.
A better summary would be to say that women and blacks, (to use your terminology), have historically played almost no part in the creation and development of Western society – except the absolutely vital role of women in allowing it to sustain itself – and in the equalitarian era are enthusiastically participating in its ongoing destruction. This will ultimately turn out as badly for women and blacks as it does for the poor WASPs, in fact, if history is a reliable guide, it will turn out much worse for them.
The idea that women and ALL other groups are not capable of making informed, intelligent decisions is proven to be true every single day. Do you not know any women? Do you not interact with human beings? Watch Oprah for an afternoon, I’m sure you’ll see no shortage of examples. The vast majority of individuals of all races, sexes and genders are incapable of making informed, intelligent decisions; some groups are dependably worse than others.
3) “Voting can lead to the Tyranny of the Majority, so if a majority of voters were cannibals, we would all have to be cannibals.”
If citizens have no say in government, you can end up with Tyranny of the Minority, so if one or two big wigs in charge were cannibals, we would all have to chow down on long pork.
While I agree that most people (men AND women) are not smart enough/informed enough/do not care enough to vote rationally, I certainly do not see how turning the United States into an Aristocracy would help.
First, it’s a lot easier to replace one or two bigwigs than it is to replace an entire electorate of short-sighted idiots. Second, you already have an aristocracy, it’s merely cloaked in the illusory form of a popular democracy. I mean, you have noticed that Bush I, Clinton, Kerry, Bush II and Rodham-Clinton all attended the same small school of 5,300, right?
No one who favors the inherent limitations of “representative” democracy can reasonably argue against other forms of aristocracy or different limitations on to whom the privilege of voting is granted. You have already accepted the principle, you are merely quibbling about the particular way in which it is applied.
I argue that if there are to be limitations on the popular will, they should be applied in a way to maximize human liberty and freedom for the entire population instead of being applied in a way specifically designed to curtail both. But I’ll settle for direct democracy, why won’t you?
Why do you hate people and want to oppress them? Why do you deprive them of their right to vote on the laws under which they live? Why?