30 thoughts on “The Dutch Slave Owners”

    1. Actually, yes. There is nothing wrong with literacy tests, per se. The problem with them as implemented was that it was done in such a way as to be blatantly and grossly discriminatory.

      Of course, requiring literacy to vote would be the death of the Democrats.

      1. So you’re going to give government bureaucrats the authority to decide who is and who isn’t smart enough to vote?

        The problem with them as implemented was that it was done in such a way as to be blatantly and grossly discriminatory.

        No kidding. And what exactly would keep that from being the case again?

        1. So you’re going to give government bureaucrats the authority to decide who is and who isn’t smart enough to vote?

          Everyone would have access to sample tests. You don’t seem to have a problem with government bureaucrats deciding who is and isn’t smart enough to get promoted in school, or to graduate.

          And what exactly would keep that from being the case again?

          The same thing that happens now, enforcement of the law. Well, at least once Eric Holder is removed from office.

          1. Well, at least once Eric Holder is removed from office.

            Voting will determine who enforces the law, and law enforcement will determine who gets to vote. Don’t you see the problem here?

            Efforts to limit voting to the “right” kind of voters are an invitation to corruption. Elections should reflect the preferences of all the electorate, including the ignorant and the lazy. Their lives are affected by government just as much as anyone else’s.

          2. But why should we have them electing Pat Buchanan all the time just because they’re too dumb to mark a chad?

          3. The bureaucrats in question might try to devise tests to eliminate conservatives. They’ll start with the F-scale and then, when we reactionaries all turn out to be liberals on the F-scale, they’ll try other methods. They might end up with a system equivalent to using passwords that are only revealed to leftists and are changed frequently.

        2. So you’re going to give government bureaucrats the authority to decide who is and who isn’t smart enough to vote?

          You, who wants to give government bureaucrats the authority to decide who is and who isn’t worthy enough to receive health care, are worried about the effects of government corruption? It is to laugh!

    2. My wife is a naturalized US citizen. She had to take both a written and oral test to become a citizen and have the right to vote. It covered the branches of government, basic knowledge of the Constitution and a little US history.

      Is requiring people to pass such a simple test too much to ask?

      1. If your goal is a government that is more attuned to the interests of the subset of the population that could pass such a test, then making it a requirement for voting would move you towards that goal. But why should that be the goal?

        Shouldn’t the goal be a government that reflects the will of all the people?

        1. Since the government is so heavily involved in education, shouldn’t educating people so they could pass such a test a more pressing matter? Sure, they might have to skip a few classes about putting condoms on bananas and other such priorities, but we’d be a better nation if everyone knew this stuff. My wife came to this country as an adult and was able to pass the test with only a few hours of study.

          1. shouldn’t educating people so they could pass such a test a more pressing matter?

            Put me down as in favor of more spending on civics education.

          2. Education spending in real dollar terms is way up and results are declining. If there is a correlation between education spending and outcomes, it’s a negative one.

            What’s needed are better priorities on what is taught and how.

        3. “Shouldn’t the goal be a government that reflects the will of all the people?”

          Absolutely. It should include everyone, from the well-educated all the way to you…

        4. Of course it should reflect the will of all the people, that have a clue of the subject and at least attempt to pull their own weight.

          I have a real problem with the lazy, evil, and stupid voting the distribution of my efforts. I could live with voting rules being so tough that I couldn’t pass them without more serious effort than I have ever applied.

        5. If your goal is a government that is more attuned to the interests of the subset of the population that could pass such a test

          How small a subset are you assuming it to be? And what interests are served when people who couldn’t pass a simple, standard literacy test are “assisted” to vote by people affiliated with ACORN and the like?

          1. A few years ago, there was a story about an elderly woman who went to vote.

            She didn’t know who to vote for, until a kindly union worker at her nursing home told her to “vote for Brown.”

            At the polling place, she misunderstood what she had been told. So, instead of voting for Mr. Brown, she voted for the candidate was name was printed in brown — which happened to be Mr. Brown’s opponent.

            But, heh, she voted, so Jim is happy. That’s the important thing, right? 🙂

        6. Shouldn’t the goal be a government that reflects the will of all the people?

          Voting won’t supply that. At best, it will produce a government that reflects the will of the majority.

        7. Actually, no, I don’t want a government that reflects the will of all the people. I want a government that reflects the will of those constituents with the highest future-time orientation and the greatest personal investment in the country continuing to exist as a going concern. This is why the Founders initially restricted suffrage to landowners.

          Literacy isn’t a perfect correlate to future-time orientation, but illiteracy almost certainly is highly-correlated to its absence.

        8. The goal should be a government that reflects the “will” of the Constitution, first and foremost. The “will of the people” must not be allowed to commit the government to perform acts in violation of said Constitution; surely you agree with this, given your taste for emanations and penumbras?

          The magic part that makes this actually work is the provision within the Constitution for changing any part of the text without replacing the whole via revolution and overthrow. Thus, the “will of the people” can alter the “will” of the Constitution… but, it’s not easy. It was never *supposed* to be easy–government was supposed to change slowly, deliberately, with the generations, not completely alter its relationship to the People at the whim of 51% on any given subject, any given day…

  3. Whoah, I agree with Jim. Rand might want everyone to have basic knowledge of civics but I shudder to think what a Democrat in charge of writing the test would require.

    1. Here’s a practice test that aspiring US citizens have to take as part of their naturalization process. Why shouldn’t everyone be required to have at least that level of basic civics/US history knowledge before being allowed to vote? Use the same test. It might actually get schools to start teaching civics and US history (instead of grievance studies) again.

      1. Larry, that’s not a bad test; I took it once, and I actually had to think about a couple of the answers.

        But it’s still a terrible test. Just ask Jim. 🙂 Hold a second, let me save you the time with the answer: shut UP, you racist!!!

  4. “I wouldn’t recommend that anyone go on the show,” Pelosi said in 2006. “I would think that it would be OK to go on if you were live-to-tape, but don’t subject yourself to a comic’s edit unless you want to be made a fool of.”

    Sounds like this woman needs no assistance in that department…

  7. Truth has no home with the (D)’s, here’s yet another instance where they just make an accusation that can’t be fought.

Comments are closed.