The same friend that fell for the "The Constitution Is Not A Contract" ruse by the liberal left intended to divide conservatives has now sent me yet another alarming email showing that the liberal conditioning we have received over our lifetimes thanks to the media, education, and entertainment industry was once again allowed him to fall for yet another dangerous leftist attack on our souls.
He wrote:
I found the records for the election of 1788 in Virginia and discovered that only 38,815 people voted out of a total population of 747,500 people living in Virginia. only 5% of the residents voted. In the elections to determine the delegates for the state ratifying conventions, I assume that the voter participation would have been vrtually [sic] the same.
The people that were elected were the financial elite at that time. They were predominately lawyers, merchants and wealthy land owners.
In Virginia approximately 85 of the states delegates representing the wealthy rich aristocracy voted to ratify the Constitution out of a population of over 747,000. Is that what we call the consent of the governed?
First of all there is a difference between an elite, and an elitist. Second, the vote was by those that had skin in the game. More specifically, property owners. Others would have no reason to vote for a candidate except based on gifts from the treasury, a.k.a. entitlements. Remember, we are not a democracy, we are a republic, and as dangerous as too much power in the hands of government can be, it is also dangerous in the hands of the masses. The Constitution created a happy medium.
Your argument is filled with Marxist ideas, and you don't even realize it. We have been conditioned to believe in the will of the people, but even the will of the people can be dangerous when outside the standards set by the Constitution. The talented elite often become rich, that is a fact. And those people are the ones that elevate to power. Have you ever been hired by a poor person? Of course not. So why would we expect the poor people to be the leaders?
You said, "They were elected by their fellow white, wealthy brethren to ratify a document to would benefit themselves not necessarily the best interest of the whole people." That is the argument used by Marxists. The argument creates a divide, pits the proletariat against the bourgeois Is that really what you support?
Obviously, I do not support a pure plutocracy, but at the same time let's not teeter to the other extreme, either, and fall right into the hands of the Left. The arguments you are using were created with the purpose of dividing those that stand against the statists. Don't be their pawn.
If it was up to me, property owners would be the only ones allowed to vote, because they have a better chance of being an informed voter. Non-property owners only vote based on what the politicians can give them, and that is where the 47% Romney mentioned comes in (of course not every person in that 47% is a willing participant in the madness, many are working to get out of it and believes in the free market, and our nation as founded).
Liberalism thrives on the votes of the uninformed, which is largely also those that have no skin in the game.
Blessings,
Doug
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Your argument is filled with Marxist ideas, and you don't even realize it. We have been conditioned to believe in the will of the people, but even the will of the people can be dangerous when outside the standards set by the Constitution. The talented elite often become rich, that is a fact. And those people are the ones that elevate to power. Have you ever been hired by a poor person? Of course not. So why would we expect the poor people to be the leaders?
You said, "They were elected by their fellow white, wealthy brethren to ratify a document to would benefit themselves not necessarily the best interest of the whole people." That is the argument used by Marxists. The argument creates a divide, pits the proletariat against the bourgeois Is that really what you support?
Obviously, I do not support a pure plutocracy, but at the same time let's not teeter to the other extreme, either, and fall right into the hands of the Left. The arguments you are using were created with the purpose of dividing those that stand against the statists. Don't be their pawn.
If it was up to me, property owners would be the only ones allowed to vote, because they have a better chance of being an informed voter. Non-property owners only vote based on what the politicians can give them, and that is where the 47% Romney mentioned comes in (of course not every person in that 47% is a willing participant in the madness, many are working to get out of it and believes in the free market, and our nation as founded).
Liberalism thrives on the votes of the uninformed, which is largely also those that have no skin in the game.
Blessings,
Doug
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
No comments:
Post a Comment