| 1238390704|%a|agohover |
|
1238390704|%Y|agohover |
I posed Timothy Foster a question the other day (see here):
In humans it is natural to have opinions on things that really don't concern us individually. In a democracy that when it comes to voting on a particular issue, everybody must vote to approve or reject the proposition. Is it fair that the people the issue does not concern, vote and their vote accounted for?
~ James Kanjo
Essentially, it's true. We all have opinions on anything and everything (well, most of us do anyway). But that is our basic right as individuals. We have the right to think whatever we want, and believe whatever we wish to believe. We are, however, taught something at a very early age that isn't very true: opinions are always right.
A car smashes into a street lamp at around midday. A man standing on the side of the road witnesses the whole thing, as does a woman on the other side of the road. They witnessed the same accident from different viewing angles. When they tell the police about what happened, they have different stories — different stories of the same accident. Therefore they have different opinions on the same accident; but both opinions are correct… in this context.
It's a common fact that 2+2=4; however there is this one individual who believes that 2+2=8. He is perfectly entitled to believing this nonsense, so does that mean his opinion is correct? No. This proves opinions are not always right.
This is not the point I am trying to achieve here. I mention this because democracy depends on the fact that everybody is entitled to their own opinion, and that everybody's opinions should be taken into account when it comes to bringing forward a proposition.
I think this is wrong.
If something does not concern you, then you have no right to vote on the matter. You are perfectly entitled to your own opinion on it, advertising it and such; but if it doesn't concern you, then it's none of your business. If it's none of your business, you have no right to participate in it.
Let's apply this ideology into context. America recently had an election, and Barack Obama was voted to being the president of the US. All of the American citizens voted on this, which is fine, because it concerns them directly. But does the population of Australia vote on the US president? No. Does the Australia have an opinions on who should be elected the US president? Certainly, and we did discuss them frequently. But frankly, it is none of our business, and that is why we didn't vote.
 © James Kanjo 2009 |
Now let's apply my ideology to some important issues.
There are laws globally on homosexual marriage, and it is essentially disallowed. In the US state of California, gay marriage was legalised. But then a bunch of people weren't happy about this, so they applied pressure on the Government, and hence Proposition 8 was brought forward (and approved). Now, who brought forward Prop. 8? I can assure you it was not by any homosexual. To me, the so-called "issue" is the business of only the homosexuals of California. Shouldn't it be up to the homosexual's to decide whether homosexual marriage is legal? It certainly concerns no heterosexual couple. Why then are heterosexuals granted the right to vote on Prop. 8?
Should raped females be entitled to abortion? If such a proposition be established, then only raped females should be entitled to vote, as only they can truly understand what it means to be raped and be pregnant. It doesn't matter if YOU think that the unborn child deserves a chance at life: YOU weren't the one who was raped.
Should the TAB be open on Good Friday? If such a proposition be established, then only people who go to the TAB should be entitled to vote on it.
Should women be entitled to vote? If such a proposition be established, then only women should be vote on the it.
Essentially, if it doesn't concern you, it's none of your business. If it's none of your business, then you've no right to vote on it.
Is a democracy where people vote on issues that have nothing to do with them fair? No, it most certainly is not.
~ James Kanjo
This was a very good question and took me a few hours of thinking before I was able to answer it. Perhaps another question we should ask is does the topic being voted on concerns us?
For the case of homosexual marriage, it actually does concern heterosexual couples. Perhaps not directly, but there is someone it does affect directly: the children. If the heterosexual couple were to have children, would they want to raise their child in an environment where homosexuality is allowed, considered acceptable, or maybe even encouraged? Therefore, should they be allowed to vote on it?
For abortion, there is someone certainly affected by it that really cannot vote. Should the child being aborted be allowed to vote? Of course, that sounds rather ridiculous since the child simply cannot physically vote. But who then will be the voice of the child? If allowed to grow, would he/she have been ok with have being aborted whether or not it was by rape? I hope there is no one out there strange enough to say, "I wish I was aborted."
Something like this makes us ponder whether our system of government is really as efficient as we believe. Really, no matter what government we have, it will be unfair to somebody. At least, that's my opinion.
Timothy Foster — My Site ~ My Blog
— Blog ~ Life's Handbook ~ Wikidot Design & Development
Wow, that is interesting. However, if you look at the French Revolution, you will notice how that wanted a "Pure Democracy". However, when they where going to vote about the classes, they where optimistic, because the lower of the 3 classes could outnumber both of the upper classes combined. However, each group was given one vote each, and of course, the two upper class would vote together. So that was simply a two to one voting block.
If we where to get a group of smokers, and ask them, and only them, if they should be able to smoke anywhere, they would simply say yes. However, it does affect everybody else. When you are saying that I, or anybody else shouldn't be able to vote on something, simply because it does not concern me, that is Selective Democracy, which is a very dangerous thing. You see, by saying that, since I have never smoked, I should not be allowed to vote on this matter, you limit the freedom of someone. In fact, you may have smoked, but if you have never smoked these Cuban cigars, well, you can't vote on this. And YOU! You can't vote on abortion rights, because you've never been aborted. Not only is this Selective Democracy, it is Restrictive Freedom.
Of course, if we are going to go into Restrictive Freedom, you must ask, "Where do I get this Freedom?" How much is it? Where do I get it? Is it one of those two for one deals? Lol, although these are some interesting questions. First off, all freedom comes from God, simply because He created us. If you where to take God out of the picture, you would be left with the idea that we have our own freedom, and are not held responsible to any "higher power". But with the idea of a God, this imposes restrictions, and rules, which is one reason people turn away from God. Although we have the freedom to live or die, freedom is actually dependent upon rules. You might say, I have the right to speech, and I have the right to vote! Who gave you those rights? Well, in this case, the U.S. government. Can they take it away? Yes. Can they impose laws that take away your freedom? Yes, as in one case being the freedom of religion. It is being taken away from schools. People see that things are happening, but do nothing about it. Humans are simply defiant. Did you know, that if the U.S. government where to take away the freedom to congregate, and go to church, everyone would go to church, just because they where told not to! Freedom is not free, and if you are not careful, it can be taken right out from under your nose! We have a responsibility to act!
Quoted from a very amazing document, whose name is in itself powerful, "But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." Declaration of Independence. July 4, 1776.
Post preview:
Close preview