[Universal franchise] made things worse. Abolishing the vote for most of both blacks and whites would be preferred, but I'm not a believer in absolute equality to begin with, so I don't care if we get there by bits and pieces. You're getting into the danger zone as soon as the voters don't comprise a small aristocracy of people who all know each other and have a vested interest in upholding a foundational constitution. Every little step away from ideal is bad, so yes, letting blacks vote more easily was worse for long term societal outcomes.
11 comments
Wouldn’t it be a better idea to have everyone ultimately be of the same timbre as your (putative) elite? Come to think of it, why wouldn’t the non-elite have a vested interest in a stable constitution, or Kropotkin-anarchic equivalent thereof? (Remember that “anarchy” is “no archons”, not “no laws nor customs”.) Despite what the fundagelical party line might tell you, humans are not inherently treacherous, amoral horrors. Although painting us as that might have been why the Enuma Elish posited that we were created from the evil Qingu’s remains…
If you want real stability, and not the one from a prison watched by armed guards, then you should have more inclusive political systems, and the more people have their say, the most stable is this society.
@JeanP #196184
“but I WANT to be an aristocrat lording over people! I don’t want equality or equalitarianism, because it doesn’t let me be an aristocratic bastard able to do whatever the hell I want!” these types of people in a mocking way, because that’s basically their whole belief in a nutshell, especially in nations that have been democratic for decades if not centuries and they’re bitching about all the increases in civil rights for everyone that also decreased the power and ability of the rich and or aristocratic few.
@Peacemonger373 #196200
I’d take “so I can do as I please” more seriously if I had a sense of what pleases them, or rather if they have knowledge of what pleases them in the first place. The phrasing isn’t doing much to suggest they’re trained in long-term planning (and, probably erroneously, that they don’t really care for putting their sapience to use).
@Skyknight #196204
Usually when folks say “I can do what I want” I’m thinking of folks… like the Nazis or the Confederates, they also have a mindset that was pretty much paradoxically in the future where they were able to do anything they want while also acknowledging they’re still fighting for that future. basically a real “lost a step” sort of planning
…so you want someone who is white as PM in No. 10 instead of a person of colour?
Think very carefully before answering, OP.
@Anon-e-moose #196251
I don’t think they’d be bothered by the current denizen’s lineage, not by itself. It sounds more like they dislike the franchise being extended to all blacks at once, rather than just their upper crust. (I do not doubt they’ve come up with “better” ways to make that black upper crust precipitate than “mere” voting franchise.) Note that they don’t like wide white franchise either. No, they just want an aristocracy.
As of nary twelve hours ago, Sadiq Khan has been voted in as Mayor of London for an unprecedented third time: not even Bozo the Clown could equal that.
So does the population of London consist of more black/asian people than white, OP…?!
For you know the consequences - infinitely more dire than more than just the Conservatives’ candidate Susan Hall - to your opinions if your answer is the only one possible.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
