One of the biggest idols in modern American democracy† is the “right to vote.” Both neoliberals and neo-conservatives/cuckservatives make a fetish out of making sure that as many American citizens as humanly possible “get out and vote.” One of the most pervasive arguments against common sense ways to safeguard the technical integrity of the franchise, such as voter ID laws, is that these “discourage people from voting.” Voting is more sacrosanct in modern America than are actual constitutional provisions such as the the right to keep and bear arms, or even such basic requirements as that the President must be a natural-born citizen.
Yet, is voting really a “right”?
The answer to that question is a qualified “yes,” but not in any sense in the way that we usually hear it to be asserted as such.
What needs to be understood from the start is that voting is a right that only stems from the possession of sovereignty. There is not such thing as a “natural right to vote,” because voting is a wholly artificial concept that can only exist within the context of some sort of decision-making body, i.e. a government. Without government, in the so-called “state of nature” which many Enlightenment political philosophers conceptualised, there is no place for voting. It can only exist when people come together in some form of government. And really, each of the three general types of government – monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy – involve “voting” in the sense of the exercise of sovereign power. In a monarchy, there is one voter. In an aristocracy, a small percentage of the total population gets a vote. In any system, there is somebody exercising sovereign power over the direction which the nation takes.
Governments are constituted from among the people of a nation, an ethnos sharing a common language, mores, customs, and traditions, rather than being artificially created by means of documents or abstract ideas, which are instead the product of the nation’s shared experiences. As a result, it stands to reason that only those who are part of a nation should have the ability to make sovereign decisions for that nation. This truth is affirmed in Scripture, which was shown earlier to be the source of those things which we can reasonable call “rights.”
“Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.” (Deuteronomy 17:15)
Here we see a particular ordinance for the nation of Israel, but one which also sets forth a general truth for any government of any nation, which is that those who are set in power over the nation should be OF that nation. No nation with any sense would set a foreigner over themselves to rule them. When that happens, it is nearly always the result of hostile conquest. Peoples do not normally do this to themselves voluntarily. In the few instances where they do, the foreigner is nearly always at least of a culture, religion, or society which is close in form and type to the one he will be leading.
Some might argue that Scripture made provision for non-Israelites to join the congregation of Israel. This is true. But the stipulation allowing this to take place was that the stranger assimilated to the religion and customs of Israel,
“One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD.” (Numbers 15:15)
For a foreigner to join Israel, they had to BECOME Israelite. They were not allowed to continue to worship their false gods or pursue their heathen customs. It was convert completely or else leave or be stoned. As such, the only ones who participated in Israelite worship and society (for the two were practically one and the same) were those who were bona fide members of the Israelite ethnos, nearly all home-born, with perhaps a few who joined themselves and assimilated completely.
Hence, both God’s Word and secular reasoning affirm that the rights of citizenship in a nation belong to those who are fully members of that nation. Within this concept, there is no room for the notion of “technical” citizenship based merely on the possession of a piece of paper or the fact that one’s mother managed to reach a particular geographical location before downloading you into this world.
However, there is a further stipulation to this ability to enjoy a portion of the rights and privileges of this citizenship. This is the obligation to positively contribute to the welfare of your nation’s society. In Israel, this was laid down in the law that required every Israelite, regardless of social status or wealth, to contribute the same to the upkeep of the worship at the tabernacle (and later, the temple), which was the very centerpiece of the nation’s welfare as it was the place where the nation met with its God.
“This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of the LORD. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto the LORD. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto the LORD, to make an atonement for your souls.” (Exodus 30:13-15)
Presumably, any Israelite who refused to contribute was essentially refusing to participate in the worship of Jehovah, and was therefore putting himself outside the congregation of the nation. He would essentially be renouncing his right to participate in the national life, in the decision-making for and worship by the nation as a whole.
So where am I going with all of this?
It is simply that within a nation such as the United States which is not a monarchy and which should not be a democracy, and for which the only option left is an aristocracy of some sort, there must be reasonable limits placed on the participation in sovereign decision-making by inhabitants of the geographical country (as distinct from the nation, the ethnos).
Those who are not members of the ethnos, either home born or through complete, verifiable assimilation to our culture and mores, should not be allowed to vote. This means that not only those who are resident aliens (i.e. still legal citizens of another nation or country) should not exercise the franchise, but neither should those who are of foreign extraction yet only technically “citizens” via birth or naturalisation, unless they can demonstrate that they can meet some stringent requirements showing that they have fully adopted American culture and ways, that they are mentally and socially Americans.
Further, those who do not contribute to our society should not exercise the right to share in the sovereign power over their fellows. This means, in the very least, that those who do not pay taxes “into the pot” and who do receive subsidisation from the government treasury should not be able to vote. Indeed, the great death spiral of the current American democratic system has revolved around this very issue – the ability of millions of non-contributory voters to award themselves ever-increasing transfer payments even as national debt corkscrews out of control. The wisest decision this nation could make would be to restore the contingency of voting rights with property qualifications, perhaps adding in the alternative of a net positive payment of taxes into the system as a nod to modern urbanisation and other social demographic trends. Perhaps included in this could be the guarantee of franchise for military service, provided the foreign mercenarisation of our military was ended, since this would also include the element of contribution and self-sacrifice for the nation.
The reason for all of this is because of the fact that only those who contribute really have an interest in the success and advancement of the nation. As we’ve seen, the large share of foreign citizens living in the United States are just here to make their coin and send it home (thus enriching their home society while impoverishing our own) or to carry whatever skills and knowledge they gain back home. We can also generally observe that the millions within the underclass who live off of the body politic through wealth transfer payments don’t care about the good of the nation – if the flow of free money stops, they’re more than happy to riot, loot, rampage, and murder.
When you build something, when you make real investment in the success of an enterprise, you have a reason to want to see its success perpetuate. When you have no stake in something, on the other hand, you don’t have that reason to want to see it succeed. You’re just an economic and social mercenary, moving on to whatever you think will benefit you personally, no matter what happens to the society you’re living in. This is why both Bernie Sanders style socialists and open-borders free-trader cuckservatives are really two sides of the same coin – they both reject a concern for the good of the nation as an organic entity, and replace it with the primacy of the individual’s welfare. The free-traders do so by encouraging “the free flow of labour” so that foreigners will come in and destroy the wage scale (as well as the culture) of their host nations, all for the benefit of a handful of capitalists while harming the rest of the nation. Socialists do so by encouraging people to vote for their own crass self-interest of taking money away from others and giving to themselves that for which they did not work to earn.
Last week, I made a case for oligarchic republicanism (a form of aristocracy) as a superior form of government, at least for the American nation given our circumstances, culture, and history. This form of government could be (re)achieved by simply returning back to the limitations on voting that I discussed above. That we should do so is manifestly evident to anyone who can observe the present state of America and understand that the vast majority of the pathologies afflicting our nation stem, in one way or another, from the democratisation which our government underwent for over 150 years. The poisoned fruit is the sort of foolish egalitarianism and ochlocracy we see now, full of people voting to enrich themselves at everyone’s expense, with no thought or concern for the perpetuation of American culture and society. Indeed, these people would be perfectly willing to burn it all down if they don’t get their EBT cards.
Voting should be made harder, not easier. Instead of expanding the base of voters in our system, we need to cull the herd, so to speak. We don’t need felons, 16 year olds, or illegal aliens voting. We also don’t need those with no skin in the game doing so either. Instead, we need to confine the exercise of sovereign authority in our nation to those whose enlightened self-interest in working for the prosperity and advancement of this nation as they work for themselves will naturally work toward the benefit of everyone, voter or non-voter alike. This is the aristocracy America ought to have.
† No, we’re not “really a republic.” The United States stopped being a republic around 1865, and they were already headed in that direction as early as the 1820s.