- Limiting The Rights of Those On The Public Dole

In an unsigned OpEd today, the New York Times is making the argument that the government should be authorized to disarm anyone living in public housing. This opens a debate which I think is fully warranted, and represents a serious threat to the well being of our country. I’m pleased to see that the New York Times is willing to acknowledge that rights aren’t absolute and that being ‘on the public dole’ is an appropriate metric by which to limit American citizen’s rights.

In fact, the NYT goes much further than that and comes out in support of the idiotic bill proposed by the increasingly antique Frank Lautenberg that proposes that anyone who is even suspected of doing something wrong should have their constitutional rights limited. I don’t go that far, and only a 'political fanatic' would in my opinion. But I do think this is an appropriate time to begin to consider whether to limit the rights of those in public housing or on other means of public support.

For the record, I don’t think we should force those in public housing to surrender their right of self defense. (In fact I think we’d see far less violence in public housing if we insisted on everyone owning a gun instead of surrendering them... but that’s really a separate debate.) But since the New York Times has made it clear that it’s OK to force those on public housing to surrender a right, I do think it might be appropriate for them to surrender their right to vote.

It is irrational in the extreme for a society to allow a person to vote for their right to benefit from the labor of others. History is replete with examples of how this inevitably works out… only the most illiterate can be unaware of them. The tyranny of the majority is as absolute and as evil as any other tyranny, and only adolescent ‘cult of democracy’ fools deny this simple fact. By allowing the bottom 51% of the country to use the ballot box to pick the pockets of the top 49%, we will ensure the inevtiable collpase of our once great nation. It's a clear recipe for disaster.

To simplify things, I think it would be appropriate to set the level this way: "no one should be allowed to vote unless they had a positive tax burden in the prior year." If they are paying a part of the bill, however small, then they should have a say in how the money is spent. But if they are not, then there is no reason to allow them to use their vote to ensure that they get a larger slice of a pie that only others have worked for. If you're surviving by the generosity of others, then you aren't a citizen, you are a dependant. And it would be in the interest of the country at whole for you to surrender your voice.

I’m pleased to see the New York Times open the door to debates like this. I think it’s in the interest of all American to decide which rights to deny those on the public dole and which to grant, and I’m particularly pleased to see them admit that these are questions worth asking. The Times think self defense should be denied them and the right to vote maintained, while I think the reverse. Both are valid questions and I look forward to them becoming a part of mainstream political discussion.