Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: makattak on April 29, 2009, 10:05:01 AM
-
Law vs. Moral Values
Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
A civilized society's first line of defense is not the law, police and courts but customs, traditions and moral values. Behavioral norms, mostly transmitted by example, word of mouth and religious teachings, represent a body of wisdom distilled over the ages through experience and trial and error. They include important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat, but they also include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct. The failure to fully transmit values and traditions to subsequent generations represents one of the failings of the so-called greatest generation.
Behavior accepted as the norm today would have been seen as despicable yesteryear. There are television debt relief advertisements that promise to help debtors to pay back only half of what they owe. Foul language is spoken by children in front of and sometimes to teachers and other adults. When I was a youngster, it was unthinkable to use foul language to an adult; it would have meant a smack across the face. Back then, parents and teachers didn't have child-raising "experts" to tell them that "time out" is a means of discipline. Baby showers are held for unwed mothers. Yesteryear, such an acceptance of illegitimacy would have been unthinkable.
To see men sitting whilst a woman or elderly person was standing on a crowded bus or trolley car used to be unthinkable. It was common decency for a man to give up his seat. Today, in some cities there are ordinances requiring public conveyances to set aside seats posted "Senior Citizen Seating." Laws have replaced common decency. Years ago, a young lady who allowed a guy to have his hand in her rear pocket as they strolled down the street would have been seen as a slut. Children addressing adults by first names was unacceptable.
You might be tempted to charge, "Williams, you're a prude!" I'd ask you whether high rates of illegitimacy make a positive contribution to a civilized society. If not, how would you propose that illegitimacy be controlled? In years past, it was controlled through social sanctions like disgrace and shunning. Is foul language to or in the presence of teachers conducive to an atmosphere of discipline and respect necessary for effective education? If not, how would you propose it be controlled? Years ago, simply sassing a teacher would have meant a trip to the vice principal's office for an attitude adjustment administered with a paddle. Years ago, the lowest of lowdown men would not say the kind of things often said to or in front of women today. Gentlemanly behavior protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior.
During the 1940s, my family lived in North Philadelphia's Richard Allen housing project. Many families didn't lock doors until late at night, if ever. No one ever thought of installing bars on their windows. Hot, humid summer nights found many people sleeping outside on balconies or lawn chairs. Starting in the '60s and '70s, doing the same in some neighborhoods would have been tantamount to committing suicide. Keep in mind that the 1940s and '50s were a time of gross racial discrimination, high black poverty and few opportunities compared to today. The fact that black neighborhoods were far more civilized at that time should give pause to the excuses of today that blames today's pathology on poverty and discrimination.
Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we've become.
http://townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2009/04/29/law_vs_moral_values
He has clearly illustrated the problems we have. Our increasing rejection of customs, traditions, and morality is the "uncivilizing" of Western Civilization.
I'd be intersted to see a study on the effects of "uncivilized" behavior.
I'm thinking there is a similar relationship like the correlation found between minor crimes (like grafitti, litter, etc...) and major crimes. Rudi Guliani, as I recall used that relationship to clean up New York and lower the crime rate.
Unfortunately, I don't know how to reverse the trend other than to teach my children the correct way to act like a gentleman (or lady), treat a lady (or demand being treated like a lady), and respect authority.
I've contended for a long time that our problems are societal, not legal.
(Also, I'm quite glad this post was number 777, quite fitting)
-
You can't put your preferred structure in place without destroying the current one when the two are incompatible. That applies to societies to the same extent it applies to buildings.
Those who want a cultural revolution in the US have to destroy the culture that exists.
-
shhhhh don't mentioned the 'R' word.
That is something that comes along with the other type as well though, and really, it takes one to have the other as well.
-
The hippie scum did a pretty good job raping the culture in the 60's. I'd like to think we could shift it back, but the relentless stream of .gov indoctrination at the public school level makes me doubt enough of the populace could grasp why it's important or desirable.
-
“Our earth is degenerate in these latter days; there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book and the end of the world is evidently approaching.”
-
Did you have a point?
-
“Our earth is degenerate in these latter days; there are signs that the world is speedily coming to an end; bribery and corruption are common; children no longer obey their parents; every man wants to write a book and the end of the world is evidently approaching.”
I see what you did there.
-
Yes.
Here is my point, very briefly:
There have always been people complaining about the supposed moral degradation of society.
What does it mean "society needs to conform to certain standards" in order to be civilized?
Do we mean that the 'standard' is that murder and theft have to be unacceptable to the majority of citizens? Sure! If that disappears, no number of police will ever protect the public.
Do we mean that people need to be having less extramarital sex and wear longer skirts to retain civilization? Probably not.
As for the notion that single mothers are 'illegitimate' and need to be less 'accepted', I'm sorry, that's just plain despicable and ridiculous. As someone who was born two weeks after his parents' wedding, I find it deeply offensive.
Would you consider murder rates to be a valid measure of how civilized a society is? In 1940, the United States murder rate was 6.0 per 100,000. In 1950 it was 5.0. In 1960 it was 4.7, and rose to 5.1 by 1965, spiking to 1968 and reaching 8.0 by 1970. Doesn't seem to me like the 1940's were all that superior to today.
And as for individual liberty... Ha.
-
Individual liberty is not the issue here. And the fact that people have been complaining before doesn't invalidate the current premise.
I do agree about the single parent thing, to an extent. I'm not saying we need to shame them or hurt them, but it does need to be viewed as something sub-optimal, not as a normal alternative.
-
It's a given that there have always been problems and societies have degenerated. That doesn't in any way diminish the fact that there is a culture war going on in the US, with the goal of destroying elements of culture in order to replace them with others.
-
What's 'civilization'?
I for one view the 1940's as the most uncivilized part of the 20th century, at least if you include the fate of Western Civilization in general.
I also include the fate of individual liberty as part of my definition of civilization. The military draft is uncivilized. Internment camps are uncivilized. What the Europeans and Russians did at that time was downright barbaric - and they were people who loved traditional marriages and wore suits and ties.
It's a given that there have always been problems and societies have degenerated. T
No, this is not my point. I see no proof that current American (or, in fact, Western) society is getting worse in the long term. In many ways it's getting better.
-
No, this is not my point. I see no proof that current American (or, in fact, Western) society is getting worse in the long term. In many ways it's getting better.
And some people disagree with you. Different value systems and all.
-
And some people disagree with you. Different value systems and all.
...cool. And?
-
This seems appropriate:
"Question Authority"? To hell with that -- hang it up by its thumbs, cut off its toes, and let it drip dry!
-
...cool. And?
You're the one getting all pissy about the article man.
This seems appropriate:
Social forces != authority.
-
This seems appropriate:
Quote from: L.Neil Smith
"Question Authority"? To hell with that -- hang it up by its thumbs, cut off its toes, and let it drip dry!
Authority can be respected and yet questioned.
-
Social forces != authority.
I'm referring to Mak's post.
Authority can be respected and yet questioned.
Authority should only be respected if it deserves respect.
-
I'm referring to Mak's post.
Authority should only be respected if it deserves respect.
No, authority should be respected because of their position. A person should be respected only if they deserve respect.
Authority is weilded by individuals, but only because of their position. Those individuals may or may not deserve respect while their position does.
-
Whether a position of authority deserves respect is a function where that authority is derived from and how it is wielded, no?
-
Whether a position of authority deserves respect is a function where that authority is derived from and how it is wielded, no?
No. But Respect does not mean blind obedience and submission nor does it mean complete lack of questioning.
-
Yep, WW hits it on the head.
Folks have to control themselves or the polity will insist they be forced to meet a minimum standard of behavior. Makes for an interesting, counter-intuitive, truth:
The more self-controlled and self disciplined a population, the more liberty from gov't interference.
I recognize the Assyrian quote. Its significance is not what you think. It is testimony to immutable human nature and the tendency of humans to painfully build a civilization over generations and then see it all fall due to internal corruption in a matter of a generation or two. Maybe for your next quote, you can dredge up a bronze-age mother's worry for her child's health to dismiss contemporary parental concerns.
Personally, I think it of the utmost importance to re-instate social opprobrium for out of wedlock births. It is not practical to make them illegal, so social forces are what is left to us.
No, this is not my point. I see no proof that current American (or, in fact, Western) society is getting worse in the long term. In many ways it's getting better.
Many folks on the ground disagree.
-
The more self-controlled and self disciplined a population, the more liberty from gov't interference.[/qute]
We observe in this vein the wonders of freedom enjoyed by Imperial Japan, Ming Dinasty China, the Antebellum South and Victorian England.
It is testimony to immutable human nature and the tendency of humans to painfully build a civilization over generations and then see it all fall due to internal corruption in a matter of a generation or two.
Many folks on the ground disagree.
"On the ground"? Are you implying I'm not a part of Western Civilization?
I recognize the Assyrian quote.
Assuming the quote is genuine (many people doubt it), it is a Babylonian quote. It is dated apptox. 2800 BC, i.e. long before Assyria came to be as a civilization. Babylon moved on to become the greatest civilization in the world after the quote was written, reaching a peak of greatness 1100 years after the quote was worded. That's how miserably, painfully, blindingly wrong the author was about Babylonian civilization ending. Assuming the Greek definition of 25 years as a span of a civilization, that's 44 generations - hardly "a generation or two".
-
Williams is right, though it isn't a particularly brilliant or insightful point. People have known this for centuries. Wasn't it Adams who said our form of government was only acceptable for a moral people? The old Age of Reason guys made a distinction between a man alone in nature being free to do anything he wants vs. men in society with other free men doing anything they want.
Put simply, people must moderate their own behaviors. If they don't, civil society breaks down. Before that happens, though, government will try impose civil behavior by force. Williams is right, if necessary laws will fill the void left be declining morals.
If we don't want all of these laws, then we all need to behave in a way that doesn't make the laws necessary. Freedom only works if people are willing to restrain themselves.
I see no proof that current American (or, in fact, Western) society is getting worse in the long term. In many ways it's getting better.
It depends what you mean by "better". We are certainly freer today to make a mess of ourselves, our communities, and society at large than we ever have been in the past. And we certainly aren't shy about exercising this new freedom.
-
It depends what you mean by "better".
Gun rights? Taxes? Civil rights? Less Federal employees per capita than at any point since 1934? Less murders (per capita) than in the 1940's? I'd call less people being murdered a wonderful thing.
-
Gun rights? Taxes? Civil rights? Less Federal employees per capita than at any point since 1934? Less murders (per capita) than in the 1940's? I'd call less people being murdered a wonderful thing.
And that one stat means it's better in every single way, right?
But as long as we view the acceptance of deviant practices as bad, and you think it's great this little chat is pointless.
-
And that one stat means it's better in every single way, right?
Is any one thing better than another thing in every single way? Of course not.
In what way is society today demonstrably worse off than society in 1946 that outweighs the issues I pointed out?
-
But as long as we view the acceptance of deviant practices as bad, and you think it's great this little chat is pointless.
Observe my rationale:
If 'society' is outright condemning, say, furries (or Satanists), then 'society' will not mind when these people get their rights violated, just like people didn't care when the Branch Davidians got burned out because they were 'cultists' and just like people don't care when a person gets killed during a drug bust because drug dealers are (to many people out there) less than persons.
Also, what's the point of even the most awesome political freedom ever if the condition of retaining it is remaining straight-laced? What's the point of legalizing drugs if it's still not socially acceptable to throw awesome parties with them?
-
The wide spread acceptance (glorification, really) of sexual deviancy, broken homes, and general moral behaviour?
Also, why 1946?
-
Also, why 1946?
Because it'd be unfair to bring up evil things people did in 1945 or earlier. After all, there was the war and all. (Although technically, the war itself was outrbreak of barbarism on the part of the Germans. But still.)
The wide spread acceptance (glorification, really) of sexual deviancy, broken homes, and general moral behaviour?
Even if I agreed that 'sexual deviancy' is bad (which I don't), in the run-off between 'accepting sexual deviancy' and 'more murders', the sexual deviancy wins every single time.
Similarly, in the 'more people are being divorced' and 'Black people being forced to the back of the bus', divorces win every single time.
-
You are cherrypicking, and begging any number of questions. In any case, I think that's about all for me.
-
The hippie scum did a pretty good job raping the culture in the 60's. I'd like to think we could shift it back, but the relentless stream of .gov indoctrination at the public school level makes me doubt enough of the populace could grasp why it's important or desirable.
That's because those hippie scum are now the one's in charge. They're still raping.
-
Has there ever been a time and place when people didn't think their current society was in moral decline?
I do agree that civil behavior has greatly declined....and is largely do to the "Me" love fest, and the notion that everyone is "special".
-
The Victorians were very optimistic.
-
MB:
In the "sexual deviancy vs murder" cage match, it is not an "either/or," but a "yes, and" sort of thing.
To clarify: sexual deviancy--relative to the norm of the society(1)--is correlated to murder and other much more serious problems. As are popular atheism, agnosticism, loss of love of country, and other social pathologies that are signs of a civilization in decline.
SD is not a cause, but one of several symptoms, which usually start at the top and are adopted by the lower classes over time.
The literature is rife with examples. For instance, the transition of Rome from a Republic to an Empire is the (heh) classic case exhibiting signs of popular atheism, sexual deviancy, urban chaos, etc. Great Britain is another, more recent example.
I think that there can be revivals of civilizational will(2). But, even after several revivals, the end result is always the same: destruction and a revival of barbarism.
(1) Important modifier. Also, "norm" defined as the arangements in place when the civilization was ascending, not declining.
(2) Such is my hope for America in particular. I have much less hope for the rest of the West.
"On the ground"? Are you implying I'm not a part of Western Civilization?
Israel is an outpost of the West in a sea of savagery. Yes, you are part of Western Civ, but not having set foot in America makes it very difficult to argue that you are part of that bit of the West any more than I am part of Israeli culture.
Recall, your words were:
"No, this is not my point. I see no proof that current American (or, in fact, Western) society is getting worse in the long term. In many ways it's getting better."
-
To clarify: sexual deviancy--relative to the norm of the society(1)--is correlated to murder and other much more serious problems.
1. We currently have less murders than we had in the era that Williams bring up.
2. For us to establish when a civilization is on decline to discuss its cultural norms during- and post-decline, we need to first prove there is a decline. :)
For instance, the transition of Rome from a Republic to an Empire is the (heh) classic case exhibiting signs of popular atheism, sexual deviancy, urban chaos, et
Roman Civilization, though, had its glory days still ahead - the Peace of August, poets like Ovid and Horace doing their thing, the Roman legal system being created, the roman roads, and stretching of the Empire to cover the whole world.
The problem with your argument, IMO is that, unless the Barbarians are already in the streets, it's difficult to prove whether a civilization is falling, because, until such a time a decline is painfully obvious, people can always bring up evidence of both positive and negative items about their society. It's just like arguing about the nature of Man - unless your idea is somehow VERY silly, you're going to be able to pull historical evidence that man is inherently evil and that he's inherently good. You can have "Lord of the Flies" based around the first message and "Tunnel in the Sky" around the second, Hobbes and Nozick, etc. etc.
As are popular atheism, agnosticism, loss of love of country, and other social pathologies that are signs of a civilization in decline.
To the same vein, another reason why this cannot be conclusively proven at this stage is because we have different criteria for what 'civilizational rot' is. You view agnosticism as a form of rot, I view it as 'my belief system'. You view gay parades as disturbing, I view gay parades as awesome..
Yet it's not the problem I have with all this.
I think that advocates of the civilization-is-rotting, humanity-is-inherently-evil viewpoint are getting a bit ahead of themselves by going around and stating these things as if they were completely obvious axioms.
-
If "humanity is inherintly biased towards evil" isn't obvious and axiomatic nothing can be.
-
If "humanity is inherintly biased towards evil" isn't obvious and axiomatic nothing can be.
Mathematician on desert island with a lifetime's worth of canned goods, but no can opener, attacking his problem:
"First, assume I have a can opener..."
Adherent to utopian philosophy attacking the problem of societal arrangements:
"First, assume humanity is basically good..."
MB:
Roman civilization moved forward via inertia after becoming an Empire. It could no longer be held together by the will of the Romans, but only by a dictator and a military establishment with loyalty toward the emperor, not Rome.
Somehow, I doubt that if the USA slid into semi-hereditary dictatorship held together by Praetorian National Guard, but still made technological advances, you would be so sanguine. "But, we can still march down the streets in buttless chaps, so how bad can it be?"
-
Adherent to utopian philosophy attacking the problem of societal arrangements:
"First, assume humanity is basically good..."
The fact I don't have a can opener doesn't mean I cannot open the cans. I can open them with a knife, a sharp rock, or even the edge of another can if I'm really hungry and take an hour to do it. Some cans also don't require a can opener.
The fact humanity isn't a bunch of inherently evil shmucks that'll butcher each other at the basic opportunity doesn't mean we can't improve society, nor does it mean mankind is inherently good, at least not in the sense Mother Theresa is.
Somehow, I doubt that if the USA slid into semi-hereditary dictatorship held together by Praetorian National Guard, but still made technological advances, you would be so sanguine. "But, we can still march down the streets in buttless chaps, so how bad can it be?"
The USA is not about to become a semi-hereditary dictatorship, is it? Before you consider your reply, consider all the things that are better today than on the day I was born, in terms of individual liberty (which, I believe, is a key measure of civilization)
Consider this: The state operates through a modicum of armed force, or the threat thereof. THe more government there is, the more willing we are to seize money from each other's pocket, invade each other's bedrooms, and so forth. Naturally, if it's easier for people to exercise their freedoms, it means that we a a society are less keen to sic the police on them. It's arguable that people are more free today, politically and socially, than they were during the late 1940's or '50s. (Note that I said arguable. There are ways in which we lost freedoms. On one hand, Americans can no longer own new machineguns. On the other hand, the highest income tax bracket is 35% and Obama is going to raise it to 38% - not 70% as would be acceptable at that oh-so-civilized time. You can also carry weapons for your protection in 39 states of the Union, including at least 15 where you can do so without a license (at least in some parts of the state). The Fairness Doctrine is no more. People are no longer allowed to come to your home and arrest you on inane charges for having sex in the wrong position (yes, they rarely did that in the '40's too. The fact SCOTUS threw these laws out is STILL positive). We have Lopez, Morrison,, and Heller.
Now, I will be the first one to admit bad things are happening and the world isn't perfect, but enough good things are happening for us to be able to legitimately disagree with your notion.
-
>You can also carry weapons for your protection in 39 states of the Union, including at least 15 where you can do so without a license (at least in some parts of the state).<
Ummm... actually, it's 48 states. Minor nitpick...
-
The fact I don't have a can opener doesn't mean I cannot open the cans. I can open them with a knife, a sharp rock, or even the edge of another can if I'm really hungry and take an hour to do it. Some cans also don't require a can opener.
The fact humanity isn't a bunch of inherently evil shmucks that'll butcher each other at the basic opportunity doesn't mean we can't improve society, nor does it mean mankind is inherently good, at least not in the sense Mother Theresa is.
The USA is not about to become a semi-hereditary dictatorship, is it? Before you consider your reply, consider all the things that are better today than on the day I was born, in terms of individual liberty (which, I believe, is a key measure of civilization)
Consider this: The state operates through a modicum of armed force, or the threat thereof. THe more government there is, the more willing we are to seize money from each other's pocket, invade each other's bedrooms, and so forth. Naturally, if it's easier for people to exercise their freedoms, it means that we a a society are less keen to sic the police on them. It's arguable that people are more free today, politically and socially, than they were during the late 1940's or '50s. (Note that I said arguable. There are ways in which we lost freedoms. On one hand, Americans can no longer own new machineguns. On the other hand, the highest income tax bracket is 35% and Obama is going to raise it to 38% - not 70% as would be acceptable at that oh-so-civilized time. You can also carry weapons for your protection in 39 states of the Union, including at least 15 where you can do so without a license (at least in some parts of the state). The Fairness Doctrine is no more. People are no longer allowed to come to your home and arrest you on inane charges for having sex in the wrong position (yes, they rarely did that in the '40's too. The fact SCOTUS threw these laws out is STILL positive). We have Lopez, Morrison,, and Heller.
Now, I will be the first one to admit bad things are happening and the world isn't perfect, but enough good things are happening for us to be able to legitimately disagree with your notion.
I will note for you, Micro:
You point out improvements in the last century.
How about we compare to the PREVIOUS century.
110 years ago, there was no federal income tax. Not "only 35%", none.
110 years ago, you could carry EVERYWHERE in the country. (Englad as well).
110 years ago, the idea of the government controlling a major manufacturing company was preposterous.
If not for the technological improvements, I dare say we would be far worse off. (I would, in fact, suggest that the state of Western Civilization 110 years ago is the reason we have had these technological improvements.)
-
But but but, 1946?!?! :)
-
You point out improvements in the last century.
Because the author of the original article that started this thread brought up the 1940's as a period of good and proper.
First off, you're falling into the mistake of thinking that just because I'm claiming civilization is not collapsing and is in good shape in many ways, I'm claiming 'all is good in this best of all words'.
I am claiming that civilization is not dying.
110 years ago, there was no federal income tax. Not "only 35%", none.
Cherry-picking, you are. A Federal Income Tax was enacted in 1894 and repealed in 1895. The Federal government relied on high tariffs and "sin taxes" on alcohol, tobacco, amd chewing gum.
110 years ago, you could carry EVERYWHERE in the country. (Englad as well).
Only if you were white. (http://www.lizmichael.com/racistro.htm)
110 years ago, the idea of the government controlling a major manufacturing company was preposterous.
On the other hand, government was already in control of the rail system. Twenty years later FedGov nationalized all rail.
Also, about half the population was not allowed to vote (except in four states) - surely that counts? Should the fact suffragists were regularly jailed count? Should the fact that the Federal government explicitly violated the Constitution by selectively disenfranchising women in Utah count (because they were voting for stuff the Feds disapproved of)?
Imagine today they disenfranchised the men of Texas for voting for gun rights.
-
Also, about half the population was not allowed to vote (except in four states) - surely that counts? Should the fact suffragists were regularly jailed count? Should the fact that the Federal government explicitly violated the Constitution by selectively disenfranchising women in Utah count (because they were voting for stuff the Feds disapproved of)?
Imagine today they disenfranchised the men of Texas for voting for gun rights.
I expected this one.
I am unconvinced that universal suffrage is a victory for liberty. It is a victory for democracy, but I am suspicious of the ability of a democracy to maintain liberty.
How are people more free because they can vote? Voting is not an "inalienable right".
-
Do you think it is within the proper role of the Federal government to say "The people of Utah are voting for local laws we don't like, let's go in and disenfranchise parts of the population because THEY'RE NOT VOTING RIGHT?"
Interfering with local legislatures is one of the crimes that the colonists accused the King of.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
How are people more free because they can vote? Voting is not an "inalienable right".
Voting specifically isn't. Be able to control the government and to establish a different one if the current one becomes oppressive, however, is.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-
Do you think it is within the proper role of the Federal government to say "The people of Utah are voting for local laws we don't like, let's go in and disenfranchise parts of the population because THEY'RE NOT VOTING RIGHT?"
Interfering with local legislatures is one of the crimes that the colonists accused the King of.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
Voting specifically isn't. Be able to control the government and to establish a different one if the current one becomes oppressive, however, is.
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The first example you used is a problem of federalism, not franchise. I'm all for federalism.
Federalism would also deal with the second problem. Don't like what your town/state is doing? Move to one that is more in line with your views.
-
I'm talking specifically about how Utah's women were deliberately disenfranchised because when they were allowed to vote, they voted to preserve polygamy.
As for franchise, see above.