Women Shouldn’t Vote
Now that I have your attention with that provocative title, let’s rephrase that:
Those without private property should hold no voting rights
Historically, perhaps given the fact that small townships existed and people were far more connected to their small communities, it was much easier to come to consensus on matters. When voting became a method of political decision making on the Federal stage, it was limited to those who possessed private property. To my knowledge, this was not limited to land itself, but property including real estate, livestock barns or even retail shops. Play a part, have a say, basically.
Yes of course, perhaps during such a time it was taboo for women to occupy title deed of such properties as we’re dealing with a different era in the culture. We wrote about one aspect of such thing here–> The scam that women have fell for and now cannot get out.
But now there millions and millions of home owners, business owners, farmers and land owners who are female. Both legally and culturally, there is no distinguishing between the sexes with respect to ownership of private property. Even in the Saudi Arabia right now there are hoards of female-only businesses. Despite my initial title, this is not anti-woman in the least–quite the opposite as you’ll find out.
Why Private Property?
Voting for one representative over another has drastic impacts on the future of the economy (now especially given the size of the state intervention!). Ironically, when such state intervention was absolutely minimal about 100-200 years ago, they understand that if you were to be making decisions on behalf of others, you best have your hat in the ring. Private property owners, whether through a business, those seeking oil, gold or water, farmers, those in construction or trade, were (and still do) bear the largest number of consequences from political decisions. An alteration to taxation, trade tariffs, police presence, land usage, trade with foreign states or countries, construction of pipelines, whatever you can think of, those who possess these assets are assuming a risk to them everyday. It’s only ethically that if anybody can influence the future economic situation it would be the ones who stand to not only benefit, but to lose from the inherent risk as well.
To clarify again, this concept is nothing new according to USA history.. in fact the idea of private ownership and respect of the individual is a unique concept in the world; most of the world still deals in Kings/Queens/Emirs/Dictactors/Sheiks where the right of private ownership is murky at best. The concept of a vote is non-sense in an authoritative dictatorship, but in the unique Free West, those who held private property were able to partake in the electoral process.
Now, everybody votes, even children
Currently, we have a system where those who do not directly assume any responsibility are able to make decisions. Criminals, children, vandals, welfare collectors. Is it ethical or morally sound that we may have 100 people who own no business decide to tax 15 business owners? Or that the government should make anti-mining laws by those who haven’t mined a day in their lives? Or that someone enforces children to be taught by the state from whom have no teaching experience? Remember the Ayn Rand quote, “When you must ask permission to produce by men who produce nothing… you might know your society is doomed”.
Another quote I like is by Winston Churchill, “The best argument against democracy is a 5 minute conversation with the average voter”.
The idea of voting, that you’re going to delegate your own responsibilities onto another individual is in fact an anti-freedom notion–as they say, democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding whats for lunch. Many oppose voting not only because they hate those in politics but because the idea is a lie; the fact that you will gain something for nothing. “All I have to do is sign a piece of paper and I’ll get my own way”, is a childish, immature concept yet it is the standard idea throughout the West. Don’t believe me? Literally walk outside… that is the result of those who produce nothing, passing off responsibility to those who are completely unaccountable.
I know you have tonnes of emails, thats why I keep it brief, informative and limited to one a month. Sign up!
So, what has been the result?
It’s exactly what you’d think would happen–a few generations of people who are addicted to the concept of decisions without consequences and (critically) the illusion that the state, the government or any other 3rd-party has their best interests. This poisonous lie has eroded the philosophy of individual liberty and private ownership in the West which increasingly resembles any other country that emerged from human existence. I’m sure the concept of limiting voting to those private property felt like a blasphemous, insane suggestion when you first read it–but ask yourself this, should we allow everybody to vote?
Why is not allowing voting for an immigrant worker a sensible conclusion, but many are pushing for an unemployed 15-year-old to vote with much consideration?
Women Have Been Used
The ethos of liberal philosophy always calls for more state intervention and a roll of the third-party or Big Brother to mediate free and voluntary transactions.
It’s no secret that women are far more liberal than men, so it does beg the question why the ones pushing for women to vote & partake in the political sphere to be none other than the government themselves. Government doesn’t care about the outcome of the country, the culture, the sustainability, the economy; they simply want to be the ones in control. I believe, women have been played like harp in widening the influence of the state and engaging apolitical types into the political game. I believe I know a dozen women who feel very political on some topics such as abortion, wages or firearms–but they are completely uninterested in other more serious matters such as the debt, unfunded state liabilities, foreign policy or low birth rates. Regardless, they’re now a voter (check the video at the end, you’ll chuckle).
Biological
Personality-wise, especially on the extremes, women are far more agreeable & more neurotic. In other words, the extremes of women, compared to those extremes of men, enjoy compliance, perceived support, group-gathering & bargaining on behalf of others’ account more than their own. This is likely as a tool to ease angst & negative affect (again, I’m only talking about the tail-end here).
One way this presents itself is that if we let biological innate tendencies to play out, there are way more female nurses & way more women seek psychological/emotional therapy than men. In a voting sense, there is an inherent bias to seek connecting with groups (more statehood and agencies) and having support arms of the government for each and every item of concern.
You can imagine someone who is easily comforted by the illusion of helping others fuelled by the constant anxiety of declared “problems”. Create a “problem” and people will encourage your existence to manage that problem–the end result is that the government agencies grow like a cancer.
Again this is not about Women as much as it is tactics used by government to create a purpose for themselves. Government grows like a cancer and it’s not easily removed.
Closing
This article is not about women, right or left politics or land title deeds–what it comes down to is highlighting that we in the West have allowed an infection [the governmental state] to fester and spread to encompass every vital organ of people’s lives. As I’ve previously wrote about, women have suffered the most from this.
Limiting voting to those who possess private property has a two-pronged benefit. Firstly, it ensures that those who want to partake in society will be rewarded for doing so and it will encourage this involvement. Everybody would place importance on production of goods & services and enterprise would once again be viewed as a priority, regardless of coming from a man or a woman.
Secondly, it would automatically reduce the size of the government who have no useful purpose beyond the brief interests of everybody. In so far governments’ are useful, their size can be cut by at least 90% to function just as well. A limited government means that there are less policies, less laws, less regulations, less taxations, less manipulation, less corruption so everybody (again, both men and women) can directly benefit.
If you’re reading this now, we possess an opportunity to achieve freedom on a scale that is truly rare around the world and across human history. Why aren’t we maximizing this? Bringing back personal responsibility to society immediately causes government to wither away. Actions have consequences.
Now get out there and see how you can get your own piece of private property!
#StayOnTheBall
