Bunthorne has modestly proposed that folks with children vote not only for themselves, but also for their children. His reasoning is hard to counter: not only are children otherwise unrepresented and thus unable to exert a governmental influence equivalent to their percentage of the population, but adults with children have a greater stake in governmental policy (and how that policy affects the common good) than do adults without children.
To these points, one might add that the choice not to have children is often a selfish one, an attempt to retain all the fun of life for the me-monster. Conversely, the choice to have children is often a selfless one, a choice for generosity. It seems only fitting that the choice most often characterized by self concern have less influence on the common good than the choice that is most often characterized by concern for the common good over self.
Some may object that this would give less voting power to those who wish to have children and cannot. On the one hand, this doesn't touch Bunthorne's original arguments; on the other hand, these people can adopt if they feel the need for more voting power. And if I had three hands, I would add on the third one that those wishing but unable to have children will generally agree on policy with those wishing and able to have children, so Bunthorne's proposal is overall in the favor of all in favor of children.
Ironically, the strongest opponents of Bunthorne's proposal would probably be advocates of children's rights. They would perceive this attempt to give children a vote as a veiled return to the supremacy of parents over children. As the Moose once said to a friend of mine: "Obedience is the root of all evil."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Mesodiplosis? (Repeating the same word in the middle of several sentences.) It's often hard for me to pick the figure you intend because, well, you use a lot of them-- intentionally or not I don't know.
Although it does seems the middle two paragraphs seem to be victims of pleonasmus...Semantically incorrect or overuse of repetition. I do this a lot when I'm consciously using a figure to practice it.
I'd like to hear what you have to say about how people (very) often use the figures in everyday speech without understanding them or even without knowing what a figure is. Certainly, some figures by their very nature are memorable or catchy, and become idiomatic gems that people often use because they just seem to 'fit'...
I own the domain, "OneChildOneVote.com", and have been laguidly contemplating the many just arguments for such an adjustment to our republic.
For me it is the full circle completion of the suffrage movement.
Should not the future that Children have to inherit be given some weight in the election process?
Who has a longer vision for the future of a nation than a woman who's children must inherit the stupidity of today?
Post a Comment