Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,789
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 363:
Line 363: + + + +
→Founding Fathers: if you were correct about this, then the wealthier a society is, the less socialistic it should be. That's not true. Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest states, and one of
My main point was that if you want to talk about how the founders prevented mobocracy, restricting the franchise ought to be mentioned, since this is a method that they obviously used. However, to respond to your point, yes maybe people of good conscience would have been barred from voting. The point of restricting the franchise was not to ensure that every good person voted, but to ensure that all (or at least most) voters were good. It seems obvious to restrict the franchise, after all, intelligent or capable of government is a prerequisite to just government. If this is so, then it seems only natural to restrict the franchise to those who have proven themselves to be intelligent and/or hard working, so that only those people can control the government. I find it incredibly hypocritical sometimes, that people praise the founding fathers for the government they set up, but ignore that that government had restricted franchise. Finally, I'm almost certain that if George Washington could see the state of our republic with universal franchise, he would horrified.
My main point was that if you want to talk about how the founders prevented mobocracy, restricting the franchise ought to be mentioned, since this is a method that they obviously used. However, to respond to your point, yes maybe people of good conscience would have been barred from voting. The point of restricting the franchise was not to ensure that every good person voted, but to ensure that all (or at least most) voters were good. It seems obvious to restrict the franchise, after all, intelligent or capable of government is a prerequisite to just government. If this is so, then it seems only natural to restrict the franchise to those who have proven themselves to be intelligent and/or hard working, so that only those people can control the government. I find it incredibly hypocritical sometimes, that people praise the founding fathers for the government they set up, but ignore that that government had restricted franchise. Finally, I'm almost certain that if George Washington could see the state of our republic with universal franchise, he would horrified.
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 19:20, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
--[[User:Double Edge|Double Edge]] 19:20, 21 May 2010 (EDT)
: You make a libertarian point here, and you make it well. But if you were correct about this, then the wealthier a society is, the less socialistic it should be. That's not true. Massachusetts is one of the wealthiest states, and one of the most socialistic. When it was poor, it was more conservative than today. An increase in wealth sometimes brings an increase in [[liberal]] falsehoods.
: I'm not convinced that limiting franchise would limit the size of government or liberal falsehoods. I think our nation is more [[conservative]] with universal franchise than it was when franchise was limited.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 16:21, 22 May 2010 (EDT)
== Lincoln ==
== Lincoln ==