retch sweeny wrote:kellory wrote:You would end up with syndicates and tyranny. Just like from Obama's speeches" from those according to their abilities, too those according to their needs." It leaves no protection for the weaker side, just the power of numbers. Deals would be struck, clubs formed, and power blocks running the show by decree. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Clubs would buy acres to increase power, any scrub tract that would qualify. Individuals would lose control of hunting on their own lands, as the rules would be set by the deepest pockets. Deep pockets are destroying hunting for the little guys now on farms as companies buy up leases and force out any other hunting as perks for visitors, or company rewards. Why should a farmer allow hunting for the asking, or small fee, or work, when they can get several thousand dollars for the same rights from one source, and they may not even show up? It is money in the bank, and all they need do for it is reserve the right to hunt from anyone else? No. Deep Pockets have too much control of hunting now. It sounds good on the surface, but look beyond the surface to the likely, and the unlikely, then view the possible. Never settle for the possible, that is where loopholes, exclusions, exemptions, and mandates come from. Don't open that door.
OK braveheart, you can calm down now. What the hell was that? Too funny.
Ostermann wrote:Retch - What is your position on the DNR or affiliation? Just wondering......
kellory wrote: Sorry retch, I was speaking to Bullwinkle. i will stop by the troll-bridge and ring the bell if I need you, honest! I was referring to the problem with allowing the buying if any kind of vote with property. One of our founding fathers put it this way when referring to the problem of who to let vote. The founding fathers wrestled with these questions. . James Madison described the problem this way:
"The right of suffrage is a fundamental Article in Republican Constitutions. The regulation of it is, at the same time, a task of peculiar delicacy. Allow the right exclusively to property , and the rights of persons may be oppressed... . Extend it equally to all, and the rights of property ...may be overruled by a majority without property...." They knew that a balance must be maintained in rights and in protections, for both large land owners and unlanded persons. It does not matter what the election is about. If you can buy votes with money(aka: buying acres& acres = votes) you can buy elections. Deep Pockets rule, little guys screwed. No recourse, game over. This country is founded on the concept of one man, one vote.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests