Mark Twain once
wrote: "If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it,"
and I think, by and large, this is true, but not always. There is no doubt that
in western societies the demographic is skewed towards the old, and since it is
the old that vote the argument is they exert undue weight on government policy.
Funny, I thought that was how democracy worked.
It is in this
context that some argue there should be a maximum age, beyond which you should
not vote. In short, disenfranchise the old. One argument goes that just as you
have a minimum voting age on the basis that children do not have the mental
capacity to understand complex political arguments and might vote for the
candidate offering free icecream, so to might the elderly, entering the second
childhood, fail to understand the consequences of their vote. Mark Twain might
have had something to say about that, too.
Others argue that
this demographic enjoys considerable wealth, and are a drain in terms of
pensions and welfare provision; this is at the expense of the young who face
student debt, pressure to save for their own pensions, and the unliklihood of
ever getting onto the housing market.
This is a
compelling argument --- as all arguments whose ultimate aim is to divide and
rule---must be. Capitalist societies, and I suspect pre capitalist societies,
have always employed this weapon. Redirect anger from ruling elites to another
section of society.
It may be the
ground is being prepared for redistributing the wealth of the old to the young.
I have only one problem with that.
I want to
redistribute my little wealth to my children not society's children. The
problem with the latter is that other people and paid bureaucracies decide how the money is best
spent. And by 'other people' I mean the exclusive elites, who 'know' what is
good for us, and demand iniquitous salaries as a God-given right.
Their other
God-given right is tax avoidance. Lesser families might have their 'wealth' redistributed, but not
them.
There are parents
who scrimp and save, and strive to avoid the exorbitantly priced nursing home,
for they know this may be the only way their children will inherit enough to
buy a moderately priced flat. And then there are the extremely rich who will
strive to avoid taxes to perpetuate dynasties. The unfairness there is transparent. The Establishment's more
opaque.
It will be
interesting to see whether a maximum voting age ever gains traction. Personally
I think it is a divide and rule distraction rather than - for the moment -
anything more serious. It would be a bit like Turkeys voting for Christmas.
6 comments:
Turkeys voting for Christmas. This made me chuckle. It would be interesting to see whether this is introduced. If I were a pensioner, I'd probably be the one voting for the side offering Tea brewed in a proper tea pot and biscuits. And not just any biscuit. Custard creams. They're the ultimate dunking biscuit.
...oops...I think I've just made an example of that point :)
The Custard Cream Party. It has to be some kind of improvement. They'd have to work up their policy on Dunking, though. Would those under the age of eighteen be allowed to dunk in public?
I find it interesting that any governing party feels that they are entitled to redistribute wealth that doesn't belong to them in the first place.
I've heard enough horror stories from people in 2nd world nations to fear for my own. Greed knows no borders.
Redistribution has a place, Maria, providing you can trust those doing the redistributing. Tough call.
When my mum-in-law - who had lived through Germany's invasion of Polish and multiple refugee camps after the war - was dying, she told my husband to dig into all the cushions and other areas in her home after she was gone. We found much of her life saving stashed in the furniture. She hadn't trusted banks or the government to take care of her or her money.
History has a way of repeating itself, Linda. You just don't know when or where
Post a Comment