|30 Mar 2009 05:25||
|30 Mar 2009 05:25|
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