Lode 9-13

Two more columns this week. I'm undecided if I like linking to the Lode website or not. Today I'll just copy and paste for a bit of a change.

Much has been said of late, by the President and others, of the supposed intrinsic goodness of democracy as we are in the process of supplanting the principles of equality and self-rule upon the peoples of this earth, irrespective of their share in such principles. And while we live, technically speaking, not in a democracy but in a representative republic, it is the principles of the former that, at least ostensibly, guide the latter.

For myself, I am against it—democracy I mean. I do not deny that it was a noble conception, but its fruits have been substantially less so. Loyalty ought not lie to the republic, but to the principles for which it stands. The founding fathers were kind enough to delineate these in the preamble to the Constitution:

“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Thus, unless someone would suggest alternative first principles, democracy is good only insofar as it “establish[es] justice, insure[s] domestic tranquility...” and so on and so forth. To put it bluntly, “the blessings of liberty” are infinitely more important than the ability vote, and, in fact, the latter is only bestowed with worth if it does not mitigate the former.

No one should be so foolish as to suggest that unless a man is given the right to vote, he is a slave. That democracies have sometimes been adorned with freedom is undebatable; that all other forms of government, because they prohibit the suffrage, must prohibit all of the freedoms which the right to vote was meant to ensure is an absurdity. As G.K. Chesterton once observed, “...there have been any number of nations of tolerably contented peasants.” These peasants hadn’t the “right” to vote; nor did they seem to mind.

Whether the nation is comprised of peasants or proletarians, the words of George Bernard Shaw yet apply: “Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it.” In this lovely democracy of ours, only one senator, Russ Feingold, D-Wis., opposed the passage of the Patriot Act; and while secret courts are promised to save us from the terrorists, it is unlikely that they will do so, though they will have served to further erode the liberty for which the founders formed this republic.

Tangentially, it is important to note that the two are not always related, as the autocratic regimes of this past century gave neither liberty nor safety, and only the historically ignorant or the cowardly are so foolish to give up liberty in the expectation of security. Patrick Henry did not speak for the mass of men when he said, “Give me liberty or give me death.”

Moreover, the backlash for such an egregious erosion of civil liberties was slight, courtesy either of those who oppose Bush at every turn, though for no principled reason, or from irascible libertarian types, an almost pitiable minority. Shaw would be less than surprised.

Thus, so long as the majority of men dread responsibility, and hence freedom, they will vote for those who promise to buy safety by severing the head of lady liberty.

It is inimical, therefore, to the welfare of the republic to allow such, read: most, men to vote. Universal suffrage is a boon to liberty, and our insensible adoption of it will surely spell the eventual death of this republic. I find myself agreeing with Alexis de Tocqueville, a scholar upon the subject of democracy if there ever one was:

“For myself, when I feel the hand of power lie heavy on my brow, I care but little to know who oppresses me; and I am not the more disposed to pass beneath the yoke, because it is held out to me by the arms of a million of men.”

I think I need to start writing my own headlines, as my editor entitled the previous: "Liberty still rings true", sub-titled, "Don't trade it for security"; which is not what the article was about at all. Oh well. The next was about how marrying career women was "Not worth it". It's good he could understand that one at least.

“Guys: a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don’t marry a woman with a career.” Thus spake Forbes editor Mark Noer, who happens to be spot on.

For the purposes of this article, I’ll use the standard Forbes settled on: to be considered a “career woman,” a woman must: possess “a university-level (or higher) education,” work “more than 35 hours a week outside the home,” and make “more than $30,000 a year.” We now move to examine this mysterious career woman, and compare her to her traditional competitor. What follows is paraphrased from Noer’s article.

A career woman is more likely to divorce you; she is more likely to cheat on you; if she makes more money than you, she’ll be unhappy; she is less likely to have children; if she does have children, she’s likely to have fewer, and she’s more likely to be unhappy about them, whatever their number; if she quits her job to stay home with the children, she’s more likely to be unhappy about it; your house is likely to be dirtier; and, strangely, you’ll be more likely to fall ill.

No doubt career women have plenty of anecdotal evidence to discount these stubborn facts, but the case seems clear. Unhappy women are about as much fun as the bubonic plague, and, as our survey indicates, career women are far more likely to be unhappy about, well, everything.

When Forbes published the piece, the comments section was thrown into cacophony, as career women lambasted men for being so cowardly as to refuse to deal with them. Such behavior is tolerable in infants, downright disgusting in adults, and certainly not attractive in a potential mate. Men, listen to Noer and avoid such women. That way lies madness.

I can't believe they pay me for this sort of thing. It's marvelous.