Lying Lester Believes That Voting Is Not A Right

Lying Lester asks that you consider Ayn Rand's take on Representative Government and then ask yourself: should voting be a "right" or a "privilege"?

Via The Ayn Rand Lexicon... The theory of representative government rests on the principle that man is a rational being, i.e., that he is able to perceive the facts of reality, to evaluate them, to form rational judgments, to make his own choices, and to bear responsibility for the course of his life. Politically, this principle is implemented by a man's right to choose his own agents, i.e., those whom he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. To represent him, in this context, means to represent his views in terms of political principles. Thus the government of a free country derives its "just powers from the consent of the governed". (For the basis of this discussion, see "Man's Rights" and "The Nature of Government" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.) As a corroboration of the link between man's rational faculty and a representative form of government, observe that those who are demonstrably (or physiologically) incapable of rational judgment cannot exercise the right to vote. (Voting is a derivative, not a fundamental, right; it is derived from the right to life, as a political implementation of the requirements of a rational being's survival.) Children do not vote, because they have not acquired the knowledge necessary to form a rational judgment on political issues; neither do the feeble-minded or the insane, who have lost or never developed their rational faculty. (The possession of a rational faculty does not guarantee that a man will use it, only that he is able to use it and is, therefore, responsible for his actions). (Link).

Hm... The last sentence kind of sums it up and is why I do not believe that everyone should be allowed to vote. Lying Lester thinks some kind of test should be applicable when deciding if a person should be allowed to vote or not. The kind of test, IMHO, should have something to do with the level of success attained by said individual.

I mean, if the individual seeking the privilege to vote is a loser who has nothing, then the likelyhood of them voting for a representative who favors parasitical redistributive laws and policies is quite high. Take, for example, the election of bArack oBama, a sOcialist who enticed individuals - slackers who refused to take personal responsibility and WORK for what they need to get by in life - into voting for him by promising them free goodies.

Surely if these loathsome individuals had been denied the privilege to vote for a man, and I use the term loosely, who bought them off by stealing from their betters to give to them... well, obviously Mittens Romney would be president right now.

And, while Lying Lester is no fan of Mittens, if he were president we certainly would have a fairer tax code. One that did not steal from those who EARN what they have in order to give to those who do not deserve such freebies.

With those facts in mind, I think that anyone who earns less than what they would need to in order to qualify as Middle Class should not be allowed to vote. These people will, in all likelihood, only vote to steal from those of us who work hard for what we have, which, in Lying Lester's opinion is evil.

Hey, here is an idea for all the parasites out there... if you want what we have... why not work hard yourselves? And if they refuse? Keep them OUT of the voting booths I say!

Byline: This insiteful commentary was authored by Lord Lying Lester: Man of Reason (AKA Lester Nation). Purveyor of insites. LLIN-042.