A reply to Isa Ryan's comment, "I have long entertained the notion that it was not originally feminism, but rather industrialization, that broke apart the family unit and paved the way for feminism."
So true! The fundamental concept here is this: What is the most basic "unit" - the individual or the family? I contend that it is the family, and that should be the case across the board. If it were my decision to make, voting would be done as one vote per family. That vote would be cast by the husband as representative of the family over which he has been assigned the leadership role - just as our elected representatives are supposed to cast their votes to represent us. The family would be defined in the traditional sense of the word - a man and a woman, united in marriage. It is the family that has the incentive to look long term, and that is the key to it. As long as we are voting in a democracy (another topic for another time, but I am no fan of democracy, preferring, instead, some form of monarchy) we must have voters who have a very real, tangible stake in the future. Single? Sorry, you don't get to vote. I'll point out here that this was my position long before I was married.
We speak the same language, sir! I agree 100% that the family should be the basic, essential element of society – and as a single gentleman (albeit not entirely by choice...), I would sacrifice my right to vote in favor of that unit which, as you say, has the incentive to look long-term, and consider present issues in light of future generations.
So true! The fundamental concept here is this: What is the most basic "unit" - the individual or the family? I contend that it is the family, and that should be the case across the board. If it were my decision to make, voting would be done as one vote per family. That vote would be cast by the husband as representative of the family over which he has been assigned the leadership role - just as our elected representatives are supposed to cast their votes to represent us. The family would be defined in the traditional sense of the word - a man and a woman, united in marriage. It is the family that has the incentive to look long term, and that is the key to it. As long as we are voting in a democracy (another topic for another time, but I am no fan of democracy, preferring, instead, some form of monarchy) we must have voters who have a very real, tangible stake in the future. Single? Sorry, you don't get to vote. I'll point out here that this was my position long before I was married.
We speak the same language, sir! I agree 100% that the family should be the basic, essential element of society – and as a single gentleman (albeit not entirely by choice...), I would sacrifice my right to vote in favor of that unit which, as you say, has the incentive to look long-term, and consider present issues in light of future generations.