Lawrence Auster writes here:

It appears to be the case that if a society gives equal political rights to women, then over time there will inevitably be an expectation of equal political outcomes for women. How is this dynamic to be forestalled? By stating up front, by establishing it as a fundamental principle of the society, that the sexes are different, that women naturally have different social functions from men, and that the exercise of political power, including the franchise, is not for women. Only the stoutest bulwarks against women’s procedural equality can stop the ultimate devolution of society into gender socialism and the spiritual death and loss of freedom it brings. If liberty is limited, then liberty can be maintained.

But if I’m wrong,–if it’s not possible to contain liberty and equality within strict bounds where they do not ultimate turn into socialism–then the American experiment in government is a failure, its principle are void, and we must start over again on an entirely new basis.

I don’t believe that to be true. I devoutly hope that it is not true. But I’m saying that it might be true. 

Steven Z. writes:

Liberty will not be lost by feminism, liberty will be lost by stupidity. The founding fathers of the U.S. knew that the the thing which kept the whole show running was the character of the populace. Democracies are only as strong and vigourous as their constituents. Corrupt men produce corrupt societies and the wasteland you see about is not the product of some stupid law or local aberration in behaviour, but a general cultural decline. Feminism is but one head of the Hydra. The rot is much too deep.

Laura writes:

This mind rot is the deliberate creation of modern schools, our factories for stupidity, passivity and despair. A child enters at the age of five (or three or four) and emerges some seventeen years later a sheep-like adolescent incapable of sustained thought, virtue or adult responsibility. This is no accident, but the end product of an educational leviathan that worships scientific management and despises human freedom. Our founding fathers could spend but ten minutes in one of these factories to know that their own aspirations could not be sustained by such a people, deliberately alienated as they are from family, home, community, country, tradition – and thought itself. Our schools are opposed to democracy and represent a formidable enemy to liberty.

But, I don’t agree that our cultural decline is such that we can’t successfully resist this stupidity or the Hydra itself. Just as people know they have grown obese and can feel their physical decline in every movement, people can perceive this stupidity and eventually come to resist it.

Steven writes:

I’m rather pessimistic since I believe the core problem of our society is unqualified democracy, or in other words, the right to vote based simply on one’s citizenship. When the U.S. was founded, voting rights were restricted. The idea behind it was that man should have demonstrated his good prudential sense by having attained a degree of success in the test of life. A man who could govern himself wisely, was a man whose opinion was worth something. I personally don’t think giving women the right to vote was wrong, as I would rather be ruled by an intelligent woman than a stupid man.

The problem is that our voting rights are extended to the weak-willed and stupid and it is their votes in the end that carried the day. The Hydra lives and grows because the good men that would trample it are restrained by the moronic.

Laura writes:

Can you imagine if the franchise were limited to graduates of Harvard? We’d be in far worse shape than we are now. 

I’d like to see the vote confined to married fathers over the age of 25 (felons excluded). I know that would shortchange intelligent women, but they would have the ear of intelligent men.

Steven replies:

Yep, I would imagine it would be a total disaster. I have spent my life in the company of egg heads, I know how stupid they are. But I would limit the franchise to those those who have shown themselves capable of managing their affairs. For instance, possession of a certain amount of assets, (by the way possession of too much would be exclusionary) would qualify you for the vote. Having a mortgage on your primary home would disqualify you. I’m a hard bastard.

Laura writes:

Given the size of this country, the potential for political violence by the disenfranchised and the considerable taxes paid by those with mortgages, I would limit your property qualification to national elections for Senate and president. I would lessen or omit the property qualification for Congress and local bodies, restricting the electorate in all cases to married fathers.

Possession of too much would be exclusionary? That makes sense too, although it would lead to a lot of phony shifting of assets. 

This all should be very easy to accomplish. : – ) But, just think. We’d never have to worry about Madonna becoming president someday.

Please follow and like us: