Voting Rights?

I had AM radio on as I drove home from work this evening. Michael Savage was on. He said something that to a supporter of freedom sounded outrageous at first, but then, after considering the statement and accompanying argument, it was difficult to dismiss it as insane "right-wing" paranoia.

He said that people on government welfare should suspend their right to vote while receiving the assistance, that instead of "one man/one vote" it should be "one working man/one vote".

Taking away the right of a US citizen to vote? This sounds fascist...communist...

When considering his point, that a welfare population that votes actually leads to a fascist state, a socialistic state, it was intriguing.

Listen to the rhetoric coming from today's politicians, today's presidential candidates. It has become a contest of who can give out the most "goodies". Who is going to raise the minimum wage? Who will be the greatest Robin Hood by taxing the rich and redistributing wealth to "the poor" via social programs. How many of today's voters look to the government to provide for them. Rather than seeing a hardworking, risk-taking entrepreneur such as Bill Gates as someone who has earned what he has, how many Americans see him as a "lucky" aristocrat that has the ability to "suck up all the money" and keep the serfs working on the Manor? Instead of striving to be like him, they want to take from him.

These ideas run parallel to those espoused by Karl Marx. It was and is this type of thinking to which those that live in countries such as China and Cuba subscribe. These ideas have allowed the elite to control their populations by convincing them that the elimination of freedoms is necessary to facilitate a "fair" environment in which everyone gets their "fair share".

So am I saying that we shouldn't take care of those in need? By no means. It is a "slippery slope", however, to designate the government to do the job.

I would challenge anyone to find one place in scripture where Jesus or any of the apostles (i.e., Paul) even suggested that it was the job of the Roman Government to assist the poor, the widows, the children. No, they were constantly assigning this responsibility to "believers", those who follow Christ.

"But what if the Church doesn't do its job?", so many people say. Fine, have the government do it, but also remember the trade off. Consider all the helpless government dependents today. Do they always vote for what is best for the country? Do they make logical, informed and judicial decisions as to who gets their votes? Sadly, the answer is often "no." They selfishly and egocentrically cast their support to whoever will continue to provide for them, even when those who make the promises promote agendas that contradict the pursuit of liberty and freedom. It is only natural, a human instinct to survive.

What should be done then? My distrust for those in government's abuse of powers will not allow me to agree with Michael Savage, that voting rights should be taken away from those who don't work. People must know, however, that freedom comes at a cost. Karl Marx sold his communist ideas by promising a utopia where those who can, take care of those who can't. Reality says that there is another form of existence: those who can, but don't.

Ultimately, the price of freedom is the acceptance that "bad" things will happen. The charity may not extend far enough to help every starving child, every person who truly can't provide for his or herself. We can't have it both ways though. We cannot promote Thomas Jefferson as a hero when he said "...life, liberty, and happiness" while trying to juggle the teachings of Karl Marx that said "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This effort inevitably results in a electorate that slowly surrenders freedom after freedom, slowly creeps from a free nation to the "boiled frog" that wakes up one day under a compassionate tyranny.