Is Voting a Right?

Posted by khalling 11 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
58 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

There are natural rights and then there are procedural rules designed to protect those rights. Voting is not a natural right.
If your natural rights are being protected/respected, then how is NOT being able to vote an infringement on one's freedoms?
In our country's founding, there were lots of restrictions on who could vote.
As a matter of fact, over two century's we have voted away most of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution.
On a different front: Often I find myself reminding people who are younger than myself that many freedoms I have lost over my lifetime and the lifetime of my parents, are acutely felt because you had them and took them for granted or the opposite cherished them and they have been taken away. IF you are raised without them, you have no idea what has been lost.


All Comments

  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 8 months ago
    Buying a voting share would be proof of citizenship; and it would nullify the status of "illegal alien." It is a tradition that immigrants prove their desire to become citizens by serving in the Armed Forces. I had an uncle born in Italy who served in the US Army in World War II. See my post about Baghat Singh Sindh. In my family, my grandparents occasionally told of a man they knew who was turned away at the polls for lack of citizenship and he produced a Purple Heart in reply. Today, the US military has many Filipinos who seek to become US citizens. The same theory applies here: you buy in, you buy citizenship. And it applies to children. When Herbert Spencer was really a liberal in the 1830s, he advocated for voting rights for children: they work; they pay taxes; they should vote. QED.

    Robbie53024 wrote: "It would have to be limited to those that reach the age of majority and legal citizens, otherwise it would encourage lots of babies and illegals."

    Moreover, shares (citizenship) could be bought and sold repeatedly. The price of a vote would rise close to elections and fall in the off season. People could change "citizenship" i.e., voting rights often, repeatedly, and for a profit (buy low, sell high). In point of fact voting for President of the USA is pointless but voting in the Mayoral Primary is highly important. So, the shrewd citizen should sell their vote before the one and buy it back before the other.

    Robbie53024 wrote: "What would work might be to issue everyone one share and they could sell their share on the open market. Those that value their vote would only sell it for a lot, if at all. Those that didn't would get rid of it at a low price and quickly and live with the consequence."

    But it would not be a PERMANENT consequence. Why is citizenship different from any other service or commodity?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 11 years, 8 months ago
    No, it's not a right. It's a regulated activity. Rights are ours by existence, unalienable - if regulated it becomes alienable.

    I disagree with the statement that we've voted away most of the freedoms enumerated in the Constitution. Rather, we've failed to exercise our right to enforce the protection of our natural rights. We've been cowards and we've been lazy and we've been fools. Anyone that imagines that a vote means anything or serves to protect freedom is living in a fool's paradise. A vote is merely your acceptance of the slavery imposed on you by the power mongers, the manipulators, the user's, and the looters of our society.

    The ONLY way you maintain the ability to exercise your rights is to exercise all of them, particularly that right to hold accountable anyone that acts in such a way as to diminish those rights. That accountability is not a simple vote to replace them in office. It must be proportional to the right they tried to diminish or take away as well as any personal or property gains they received or gained from those activities.

    But until we learn and accept that our rights exist outside of and despite of governance and that whether or not we voted, we do not owe respect and fealty to any government or representative of such, we have no freedom. Respect is to be earned. Fealty is slavery. The power of your vote is illusion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    While I could accept the welfare/Medicaid restriction, would you extend that to military disablement? I am a disabled veteran and eliminating my franchise due to a loss suffered in service to my country would seem counter-productive.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, I'm kind of mixed about it. The other person running is a retired gentleman. From what I can find out about him, he's no raging liberal, but he's been on the local town board (not mine, but the one just east of here) and in 4 years, the paper has only mentioned him twice. So, doesn't seem to do much, which for government, I'm all in favor.

    For me, it is a sacrifice. Since I have to travel (mostly) for work, telling my boss that I will need to be home one week a month should I win, is going to be a challenge. He's a pretty good sort, and I'm sure won't have a problem, but it will mean that instead of my willingness to travel at the drop of a hat, I will need to have some times blocked out.

    Besides just ensuring that county government doesn't veer out of control, I'm also enraged that we own an elder care facility and 2 golf courses. Yes, the county government is in direct competition with private industry. That's not government's role and I want to move to get rid of them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I wouldn't be in favor of that, as it would overly advantage the currently rich. What would work might be to issue everyone one share and they could sell their share on the open market. Those that value their vote would only sell it for a lot, if at all. Those that didn't would get rid of it at a low price and quickly and live with the consequence. It would have to be limited to those that reach the age of majority and legal citizens, otherwise it would encourage lots of babies and illegals.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    We could certainly use some of those restrictions now. A vested interest in the nation would be a nice requirement - citizenship, home/business/land ownership. If you collect welfare or live off public assistance you cannot vote.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 8 months ago
    Not sure how I missed this. NO, voting is not a natural right. It should be an earned privilege. Nothing acquired without cost is valued.

    You are very correct that at the founding of the US there were many restrictions on voting. It was not covered in the Constitution as the Constitution laid that responsibility on the states. Some of those states allowed women to vote, some allowed free blacks to vote, some restricted voting to land-owners.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: Robbie53024,

    Congratulations on your efforts. Please keep in mind teh statement by that great philosopher Groucho Marx. "I will never join any organization that would have me as a member." Where are you running for office?

    Fred
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Nonsense! Nothing prevents people in a democracy from voting away the rights of others. For proof, look around you. I am saying that the "right" to vote is contractual, a social contract, and you buy the right. In your example, you buy the right by paying for bonds, one share is one vote. In "Starship Troopers" Heinlein posited that only veterans could vote. (When you vote, you call upon the full power of the state to do your bidding. Only someone who understands that should wield that power.) Perhaps only people who pay taxes (positive taxes: no rebates) should vote. You have not stated what your standard is. You toss this out as a half-baked idea. I can put it in the oven, on a grill, in a pan with butter... but the bottom line is that voting is not a natural right. On that, we agree.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The government would sell bonds. Right now, T-bills are denominated in $1000, so $1000 would buy you one vote and George Soros would have more than one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    There are consequences to inaction. One of them should be loss of ability to complain. Which is only theoretical, as there's no way to enforce - but it should be self-enforced.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by airfredd22 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Re: Robbie53024,
    Perhaps you need to look upon seeking elective office for the purpose originally intended, to protect the Constitution and the citizens that live in this nation under that protection.

    I do agree that most elected politicians seem to think that passing laws limiting the lives of citizens should be their purpose. No one could be more wrong than those politicians.. Every law or rule needed was indeed covered by the founding fathers, that's why we used to think of them as being the brightest men that this nation ever produced.

    Lets return to their principles and return this nation to its former glory and leadership in the world. I am an immigrant and have seen the changes brought on by these mice of politicians today, and these changes have not been for the better.

    Fred Speckmann
    commonsenseforamericans@yahoo.com
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    you can assume duties but there is no duty to act in a free society.
    There are many ways of advancing one's life without voting. To lose the right of complaint because you chose not to exercise a procedural right is wrong. There may be other important opportunities that supersede voting or there may not be a candidate you would choose to vote for. This should not invalidate one's right to complain.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They haven't been patiently waiting. It has been an unrelenting pounding of their collectivist agenda. Unfortunately, they believe in controlling their fellow man, so they seek out those types of roles and positions. Those who truly value liberty tend not to seek those types of positions as it is anti-thetical to core beliefs. Why would I seek elective office when I don't believe in controlling other people?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 8 months ago in reply to this comment.
    So long as you retain the right to leave the jurisdiction that you object to, then you are not in slavery. You might not want to leave, but that's too bad. Otherwise the only choice you have is anarchy.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo