What I am going to say is radical and not something I think can be achieved, but is a thought experiment to assist us in how to think about this issue and put it into focus.
We have the idea of the "Chiltern Hundreds", where an MP must resign if they take the State's/Crown's coin, for they have been, effectively, "bought".
In 1908 laws were tabled allowing people who earn their living from the State to vote. This is where the problems started. Once you allow vote buying, for that is what it is, the Welfare State as we know it is almost certainly going to happen and far worse will happen thereafter.
Allowing those on benefits or paid by the State to continue to vote is to support vote buying. We can remove many people from State employ, such as Nurses and Teachers if we get a Libertarian Party that will dismantle the State-run monopolies. We will be left with Police, Army, Prisons and some other people such as those in Mental Health and elderly care.
The question is what is the greater wrong? To make as a clause of employment the lack of a vote OR to allow the taxpayer to end up as a form of indentured servant? Democracy is not our end goal, Ladies and Gentlemen, but Rule of Law.
1 comment:
That's quite an interesting post.
I have been trying to construct a post arguing the both the power of the state and the extent of the franchise should be reduced. As a baby step I'd kinda worked out the policy makers in the publics sector should not be able to vote.
I was imagining buying them out of their vote with a Knighthood or a inflation linked pension or something.
I hadn't known that some people had been in such a position (state educated see).
Have you got any good links on how the franchise has changed over time?
Post a Comment