It seems a lot of people these days are very concerned about a supposed "right" to v*te. They either freak out in fear that this "right" is being withheld from some people, or they fear that if too many other people do it, it diminishes the value of their "legitimate" v*te.
I don't believe any such thing as a "right to v*te" exists, but even if it does, it's going to have very firm limits that most of its advocates aren't going to like.
If there is any such thing as a "right to v*te" it can't include a right to violate the life, liberty, or property of anyone else by a majority.
That means you have no right to encourage politicians to tax anyone, to ban the ownership or carrying of any sort of weapons, to take someone's land and put a sports complex on it, to force people to place their children in a kinderprison, to criminalize the manufacture, sale, or use of any substance-- to do anything in any way that violates natural human rights to life, liberty, or property.
And in today's world, that's about all any election-- a statist mob ritual-- is about. V*ting is the foundation of democracy, and democracy is mob rule; might (through superior numbers) makes "right".
The rights of the masses do not outweigh the rights of the individual. Not even if it's a trillion to one.
You have no "right" to gang up to violate rights you don't care about or that you don't like.
Voting is speech.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that some people use the aggregate of that speech as a justification for initiating force doesn't change what it is.
I can see the argument for that.
DeleteThere is speech you have a right to and speech you have no right to. You have the right to speak, but that right doesn't include a right to make a credible threat to violate anyone. The question comes down to what you are "speaking".
Voting with your friends to decide which movie to watch seems fundamentally different than v*ting in a political election. For the election to even happen there has to be a political structure that is aggression and theft from the ground up-- v*ting in that instance is either a credible threat or an act of defense, depending on the specifics. You have a right to speak, but not to make credible threats to violate life, liberty, or property. You have a right to defend yourself, whether it is shooting an archator or v*ting in self-defense, but you have no right to archate, whether it is v*ting for a politician or to "limit" someone's life, liberty, or property. You have the responsibility to know the difference. V*ting is not an automatic good thing and any right to do so is limited by responsibility-- as are all other rights.
Encouraging people to v*te seems just like encouraging them to shoot people, without explaining that how you do it makes the difference between it being defense or aggression.
Delete"You have the right to speak, but that right doesn't include a right to make a credible threat to violate anyone."
ReplyDeleteTrue. And in nearly all cases, voting is no more of a credible threat to violate anyone than driving to the grocery store is. The last time a statewide election was decided by one vote was in 1839. The last time a congressional election was decided by one vote was in 1910.
Furthermore, in most cases, voting is the equivalent of being told by a mugger "I'm taking your wallet at gunpoint whether you like it or not -- but I'll let you express your opinion as to whether I should spend it on a bottle of cheap wine or throw it in the Salvation Army's Christmas kettle, and I'll go with whichever option more of my victims choose."
The only thing 99.999x% of votes do is "send a message" as to your opinion, and you have an absolute right to express any opinion you damn well please.
Noted, although I strongly disagree with "in nearly all cases".
Delete