dogs? -- j
.

awareness of societal organization principles has
subsided and students of freedom are more scarce
these days. . we are in deep trouble, I believe, because
we are no longer vigilant for our freedoms as a society. -- j
.

Answer to your question: YES!
However, the author of the column didn't know that there were Black American and Women landowners and yes, they voted. Hell we even had some extraordinary Women and Black American people in local and the federal government...Any one of which would make the lot of the administration look like kindergartners.

I have a grown disabled son I also have help out like recently with a dental emergency and so forth.

We don't allow convicts to vote, right? What's wrong with us? They should be allowed. And, anybody with a pulse. Cats too.

(Friday sarcasm)

I'm the treasurer of a small club in which an individual membership is $15/year and a family membership is $20/year.
A few years ago, I floated the idea that we limit the number of family membership votes to 2, as we had families with 6 members or more, some of which who weren't even involved in our club. My reasoning was that, if you have a say in how the club spends its money, you should have to pay for that privilege.
Well, my idea was thoroughly rejected. Many didn't want to "offend" those larger families and "if it isn't broken...we shouldn't need to fix it".
I believe that this is one of the underlying reasons for the country's current voting structure...the desire to not "offend" anyone.
Unfortunately, it may have to be broken before any attempts to fix it will succeed.

let suggest a simple plan...as per Ayn Rand...those who produce earn the right to vote...when you go on producer assistance (welfare), you lose the right to vote...

Does not seem to be... vote better.

Precisely.

Government is the process of evaluating goals and building strategy/policy in pursuance of those goals. The institution known as government is merely the aggregation of those who attempt to decide on behalf of themselves and others what goals should be pursued and what policies lead to attainment of those goals. Those who self-govern assert that they own themselves and have the right to pursue goals of their own free will and choice. Those who accept other-government assert that there are aspects of their lives that they allow others to influence to some degree or other. Government is of course a measure of degrees, with that being termed "tyrannical" as being that exercise of government which attempts to override what an individual would choose to control themselves and that being termed "beneficial" as being that careful balance between pursuance of common goals and pursuance of individual goals.

It requires effort to govern in pursuance of any particular goal. The more self-actuated goals one chooses to pursue, the more work is required by the individual. The proper balance of group government and self-government IMHO is that which leaves the greatest leeway to individual governance which does not violate the rights of others to individual governance, but this presupposes a capability and a desire for the individual to exercise self-governance. It may be a naive supposition to attribute the desire for self-rule to all human beings.

" I may have enough money to personally back up my mouth."

No "may" here in my case. I still have two kids in college.

Maybe some well-heeled patriots should run Constitutionally accurate short messages about that and other such stuff through various communications channels.
Such a group should go by a name no one has heard of. "Voice Of Liberty" just popped into my head.
Should the Tea Party try that I can predict "Oh, how quaint!" kinda put-downs.
Me living off a state worker's retirement? Should Publishers Clearing House ever ring my doorbell, I may have enough money to personally back up my mouth.

Yes, servants or slaves, that's "us". "Them Rules"

Isn't that the only reason we need to abandon "the system" so-as to not ceding your rights to
Big Brother?

Never are humans unanimous.

Methinks that's not working, not at all!

2nd paragraph makes sense.

1st paragraph begs that we question "By WHOM"?

True. Got a solution?

Generally agree although we do not need to vote ourselves rights... we need to vote to keep the government from infringing on our rights.

No one who is a citizen should be excluded unless they can't pass that good old 5th grade civics test. That simple procedure would eliminate the ignorant, the oblivious, and the mentally deficient. Why do we have such a proclivity toward making the easy complicated?

When I was much younger I lived for several years in the barrios of Chicago amongst some very humble and economically challenged folks. I gained a good understanding of the draw of dictocratic communism. The lower you are on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, the more appealing it seems to have someone say "Surrender all your rights to me and I will supply all your needs." However, as you climb the ladder of the Hierarchy, you can see that dictocratic communism is very shortsighted and suboptimizes the human experience. So, it is to the benefit of the major parties, both Demoratans and Republicrats to have a substantial "lower" class to whom they can promise "Surrender all your rights to me and I will supply all your needs." because that lower class will vote to keep them in power.

Was.
Too many pudding heads can no longer make that key distinction.
That includes those in power.

Alexander Tytler said:
"A democracy is always temporary in nature...A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship."

Originally, we had a plutocratic republic, which worked quite well. We have since devolved into a democracy driven by public opinion polls...and look what it has gotten us; a nation that is both morally and fiscally bankrupt because ignoramuses vote for their own immediate self interest rather than being able to look a few years down the road. They are voting with their hypothalamus rather than their cerebral cortex. Those who can't figure that out should not be allowed to vote.

Not rulers. Servants. That's a key distinction.

I do believe humans must be governed. The real question is whether or not they are self- governed! ;)

It's easy to have someone else tell you what to do all the time. If you want that life, there are plenty who will oblige you by telling you everything you need to do ... from their opinion. Living for one's self, however, requires effort and thought. One can not be lazy and live for one's self.

ominous. . you'd think that we were smarter than that. -- j
.

Freedom includes the freedom to make mistakes. We can fix ignorance. It is; however, very hard to vote yourself rights you've lost when you loose the right to vote.