Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
I guess the whole, taxation without representation doesn't mean anything to you, since you're basically saying that those that cannot vote are just your tax base fodder.And who's to say that they don't have a particular testing strategy that Omits you from voting... if you say that that's fare then too, then I'm all behind you.
Otherwise, sorry, no taxation without representation, it's what the country was founded on, and what I feel is only fair for tbose that do have to pay taxes which is each and everyone of us.
|
First of all, when our ancestors used the rallying cry of "No taxation without representation," they certainly weren't advocating universal suffrage. In colonial society, only land-owning white males were permitted to vote.
For the sake of argument, let's not even discuss the early settler's view of Blacks, white women, and non-land owning white males. If for one second the leaders of the American Revolution would have thought that one day the illiterate would be allowed, no actually encouraged, to cast a ballot, they would've thrown the whole thing in. "No taxation without representation" was NEVER an argument for universal suffrage.
Unlike our American ancestors, I believe that all
literate citizens, regardless of race, gender, or economic class, should have the franchise. But like the Founding Fathers, I understand that the survival of democratic government depends on an educated and informed citizenry.
Look, democratic governments spend billions on public education. If you are lucky enough to find yourself living in a democracy, you have very, very few duties or responsibilities placed on you by the society. The least that citizens can do, for the benefit of us all, is to learn to read and write.
Democracy is not a suicide pact. There's nothing in its theory or in its practice that says its survival is dependant on the bag-lady vote.