Anarcho-Lobbyist: You Have No Right To Vote
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 3 months ago to Government
So is voting a Right that every citizen should have. This comment has an interesting look at the question and offers some good reasons.
From the article:
"Voting is not a right. I understand the desire, and even the perceived necessity to treat it that way, since all of us are affected by government, but it’s still a not a “right”. I don’t much like the concept of rights to begin with, but that’s a story for another post. Whether or not rights exist, the idea that anyone is morally or even pragmatically correct in choosing those who will violently rule over others is insane. If you have no proper authority to violently rule over others, it is impossible for you to delegate that authority to someone else.
Government is an unjust imposition on all of our lives, and voting is a privilege granted by that institution. This is self evident, in that it requires registration to be invoked, and that it can be revoked at any time. Not only that, but it is perhaps the most abused privilege since taxation, and I don’t personally feel like making it more readily available to people is going to help improve the world any. There’s a reason liberals always accuse conservatives of voter suppression, and that’s because fewer voters is generally a good thing for keeping government small.
Most people are not exceedingly intelligent or well educated, particularly when it comes to history and economics. Thus, when politicians tell them to choose between a candidate who says “We’ll keep you safe and healthy and give you free stuff” vs. a candidate who says “You are responsible for your own life” most of them will unfortunately support the former. Free stuff and safety are universally appealing options, and so anyone who makes those promises, however false they may be, will be favored over someone who gives the hard truth of “life sucks, get a fuckin helmet”."
and
"It is exceedingly rare that I stand for the State to be more restrictive on anything, but voting and getting free stuff is where I draw the line. I support drug testing for welfare recipients, and I support restrictions on voting for the same reason.
Making voting more widely available is the same thing as making welfare more widely available. You give people better access to the machinery of the State, and we should not act surprised when it gets used more frequently. Voting is serious business, a person who deems themselves fit to choose who will violently rule over a society had better have some skin in the game, and know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, the people pushing hardest for freer elections are often those who have the least education, intelligence, and skin in the game."
Do any Gulchers think there's a chance in Hell that we can aver get back to a Republic after being democratized?
From the article:
"Voting is not a right. I understand the desire, and even the perceived necessity to treat it that way, since all of us are affected by government, but it’s still a not a “right”. I don’t much like the concept of rights to begin with, but that’s a story for another post. Whether or not rights exist, the idea that anyone is morally or even pragmatically correct in choosing those who will violently rule over others is insane. If you have no proper authority to violently rule over others, it is impossible for you to delegate that authority to someone else.
Government is an unjust imposition on all of our lives, and voting is a privilege granted by that institution. This is self evident, in that it requires registration to be invoked, and that it can be revoked at any time. Not only that, but it is perhaps the most abused privilege since taxation, and I don’t personally feel like making it more readily available to people is going to help improve the world any. There’s a reason liberals always accuse conservatives of voter suppression, and that’s because fewer voters is generally a good thing for keeping government small.
Most people are not exceedingly intelligent or well educated, particularly when it comes to history and economics. Thus, when politicians tell them to choose between a candidate who says “We’ll keep you safe and healthy and give you free stuff” vs. a candidate who says “You are responsible for your own life” most of them will unfortunately support the former. Free stuff and safety are universally appealing options, and so anyone who makes those promises, however false they may be, will be favored over someone who gives the hard truth of “life sucks, get a fuckin helmet”."
and
"It is exceedingly rare that I stand for the State to be more restrictive on anything, but voting and getting free stuff is where I draw the line. I support drug testing for welfare recipients, and I support restrictions on voting for the same reason.
Making voting more widely available is the same thing as making welfare more widely available. You give people better access to the machinery of the State, and we should not act surprised when it gets used more frequently. Voting is serious business, a person who deems themselves fit to choose who will violently rule over a society had better have some skin in the game, and know what they are talking about. Unfortunately, the people pushing hardest for freer elections are often those who have the least education, intelligence, and skin in the game."
Do any Gulchers think there's a chance in Hell that we can aver get back to a Republic after being democratized?
