I still think ownership of property is the answer to voting. Property owners have more motive for educating themselves. It doesn’t matter if the schools are good if the people being educated don’t see it in their self-interest to know what’s going on. They are in the consumer mind set when they don’t own a business or home.

As far as the threat if aristocracy, I think in the beginning everyone had a chance to own property just by settling on it. If enough people own property, which is possible if government doesn’t overstep its bounds, there won’t be aristocracy. You can educate all you want, but it won’t sink in or seem applicable if people don’t own property. Isn’t the reason to make an amendment for blacks and women to vote is because they previously did not own property?

If the voting process were only about truth and objectivity, there would be a definite answer to every societal problem and every individual would have the ability to determine conclusively the correct way to vote. This, I believe, would remove a large level of our agency - kind of like giving the answers to a test just before administering the test. I’m glad I have the chance to vote, see the results of my decision, then vote again later. “… and allow all men the same privilege …”

Other than those types of experiences, I think you’re right about the invisible hand.

Could it be that the invisible hand strikes again and is what will allow the individual to determine, consciously or not, if their enlightenment is sufficient enough to vote?

What do you think?

Should the government be involved in determining the level of enlightenment that is involved? That had nothing necessarily to do with the message I was presenting in this essay, but it certainly creates an interesting conundrum. If only an enlightened people should vote, who decides what enlightenment is? And does a group of seeming elites get to make that decision. It also seems to me that those with knowledge (not necessarily enlightenment which I view as knowledge and wisdom combined) generally have a tendency to take any sort of civic power away from those who are not learned. So, in a way, this process already takes place even though “the government” appears to have guaranteed the right to vote to all citizens over the age of 18.

Unfortunately, I view it as an intellectual cop-out to simply say such level of enlightenment should [could] only be determined by the individual for himself. This seems to ignore any sense of objectivity and truth. Any subjectivity to the definition of enlightenment tends to destroy the concept of enlightenment and we get what we’ve got now. Yet, I do believe it not within the realm of government to fully make that decision for people. Hence, the conundrum.

And hence, my action items were targeted for the individual to improve his level of enlightenment.

Thanks, Joel, good points.

In creating some kind of enlightenment test - even if the only test was involved with the ownership of some form of property, it would be far too easy to assume that someone else is not enlightened enough if they don’t agree with my position. Is anyone objective enough to create such a test that would be fair to everyone? Even those with the best of intentions sometimes lack enlightenment enough to allow someone else to make a free decision.

I think the determination of whether an individual is enlightened enough to vote should only be determined by the individual for the individual.

I also think it would by mystical to not support the constitution just because one doesn’t understand the reasoning behind it, which is, I think, a major force driving people in attempting to change it so much today.

I think the proper approach when we don’t understand something is to first seek for more understanding, similar to what you’ve done with your question on the 17th amendment and the principles behind the senate representing states rather than people.

I think to really do justice to the questions you finished your comments with, it really requires some time. I’ve written over 500 words as a preliminary response, but I want to spend more time on it. Partially because it is an area that I don’t fully understand, as is evidenced by my current inability to succinctly explain my ideas. I will work on it and get back to you. What does everyone else think?

Jason

I generally am of the opinion that the 17th Amendment weakened our republic, but that is more because people I respect have expressed that opinion, and not because I have thought out the rationalle behind that opinion.

Let me play devil’s advocate for a bit, to expand my own, and hopefully others’ understanding of the principles involved in this issue.

The state is a collective, as is the state legislaure. How does an individual represent the interest of a collective, since that interest doesn’t exist separate from the interest of the individuals who comprise that collective? Why is it important that the Senators be elected by the state legistlature, who are themselves representatives? How are individual interests served better when the individuals’ elected representatives elect a representative for them, rather than electing all representatives themselves? Is it not collectivism to say that a collective, like a state, requires representation of it’s interest?

Though I currently live in an apartment, I can see a connection between the stewardship of land ownership and that of suffrage. I guess my only beef with the idea would be that the likes of Paris Hilton would be voting while I was watching.

You obviously reference the concepts of creating statesman through proper study of the classics, as laid forth in A Thomas Jefferson Education. Such a great book and learning system. I love how it shows that most people know what to think rather than how to think. (BOC)

What would the vote be like if the only ones able to vote were ones who had somehow shown the proficiency to think for themselves? We would be choosing between entirely different issues and candidates, soundbyte politics would not exist, and most of the problems that congress spends its time trying to solve wouldn’t have been created in the first place. I say we all head off to Galt’s Gulch and set up our own voting system. :0)