“See that man? He has the most discriminating tastes.”
“I’ll call the DIE police and have him arrested!”
Equality is the mind killer: nothing is more corrosive than egalitarianism. The belief in Equality, as I often say, led to the first sin. The first human sin. And ye shall be as gods. Eve desired Equality.
And why should we not be the equal of God! Think of the mighty disparity between him and us. I ask you: is that fair? This unbalanced power dynamic can only be because of discrimination.
What used to be a lovely useful, positive word has been transmogrified and blackened by Equality into its opposite. It is now ugly, poisonous and entirely negative. It is used as a weapon, to remind the hearer that the blessed state of Equity has not yet been reached, and that you should feel guilty about it. Once your awareness has been raised about a disparity, you are morally obligated to act to remove it.
Don’t think so? Then read this headline: “New Zealand [Supreme] court rules voting age of 18 is discriminatory.”
Why, and so it is. Older, soberer rulers discriminated against 16 and 17 year olds, reasoning that these teens should not be allowed to vote because, though there will surely be the rare exception, most would be too immature to know the consequences of their actions.
But that was the old use of discrimination. New Zealand’s top court used the new definition.
The case, which has been going through the courts since 2020, was bought by advocacy group Make It 16, which wants the age lowered to include 16 and 17 year olds.
The Supreme Court found that the current voting age of 18 was inconsistent with the country’s Bill of Rights, which gives people a right to be free from age discrimination when they have reached 16…
“This is history,” said Make It 16 co-director Caeden Tipler, adding: “The government and parliament cannot ignore such a clear legal and moral message. They must let us vote.”
It’s all there. Every error and bad argument and “moral message” that flows from Equality. The same arguments and errors were used here in the once United States to amend the very Constitution itself, more than once, in pursuit of Equality and the quashing of discrimination with regard to voting. The known experience with that in the USA did not deter New Zealand.
It must be obvious—or, it is to us, but perhaps not to supporters of 16 year olds voting—that this court’s finding discriminates against 15 year olds. It is a disparity. It is unfair. And shouldn’t all wrongs be righted, come what may?
When that awareness is raised to those who allowed 16 year olds to vote, they will realize they have no good arguments to bar 15 year olds. It is an arbitrary line.
In New Zealand, the 16 year olds were justified by a tenuous connection to the country’s other laws, which mentioned the 16 year mark. But that was clearly post hoc reasoning. They were looking for an excuse, any excuse.
The proof of that is easy, and is in this headline, obviously not from New Zealand, but from here: “Boston City Council moves to lower voting age for municipal elections“.
The City Council voted 9-4 Wednesday to lower the voting age for Boston elections.
The measure would allow 16 and 17-year-old residents to vote in municipal elections. It would not change any voting requirements at the state or federal level.
There is no special laws in Boston that mention 16 years as some sort of special marker. They are doing this because others are doing this. Because once a disparity is noticed by one set of elites under the spell of Equality, the other sets are quick to acknowledge it.
This isn’t new, this acknowledgement of a horrible discrimination. Experts years ago were saying, “The thing is, we don’t really have a good reason not to allow 16-year-olds to vote. In fact, the evidence suggests just the opposite—that enfranchising 16-year-olds would be good for them and good for our democracy.”
There is nothing special about that discriminatory number of 16: it is a fad, a number around which to coalesce. Because 16 is still discriminatory, an inescapable fact, the push to lower must come.
And already has: “…children are disenfranchised. Children’s rights are not adequately recognized and they have a reduced political voice in setting social priorities.”
Part of this is representational voting, allowing parents more votes because of kids, which makes a kind of sense.
But part is also this: Votes for children! Why we should lower the voting age to six.
And this, from the Washington Post: “Allow kids to vote? Some adults in Germany think it would be the right thing to do.”
Alas, six discriminates against 5 year olds.
Buy my new book and learn to argue against the regime: Everything You Believe Is Wrong.
Subscribe or donate to support this site and its wholly independent host using credit card click here. For Zelle, use my email: firstname.lastname@example.org, and please include yours so I know who to thank.