Political Theory

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

Jesse — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:31:46 GMT

If by more people voting the result is less coercion, then more people should vote. If by more people voting the result is more coercion, then more people shouldn't vote.

These two statements are absurd. They rest on two faulty philosophies: consequentialism, and empiricism. As Misesians, we know why they are false.

You don't want us to talk about voting itself as a threat to liberty, but that's what a principled, libertarian approach would require us to talk about. I don't know what else to say. It's like you're asking us to talk about how to regulate the federal reserve, without questioning the validity of its existence. There is no way to regulate it. It, like the voting system we have, should not exist.

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

Conza88 — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:58:40 GMT

Against Woman Suffrage by Lysander Spooner

.........

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

CrazyCoot — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:51:02 GMT

chrispy:

CrazyCoot:
Please focus on these two example rather than on the issue of whether voting itself is threatening to liberty.
I don't really think it's fair to put the question this way. I could ask "what's two plus two, given that the answer isn't four?" And the question would be equally nonsensical. But if you assume that government itself is legitimate, it seems clear to me that everyone who is expected to act according to the government's laws should have a say in what those laws are. In other words "No representation" is superior, but "no representation without representation" comes a close second.

This thread isn't about the validity of government. Just wondering if that if we are going to have a state then would restrictions on voting help liberty.

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

chrispy — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 07:35:37 GMT

CrazyCoot:
Please focus on these two example rather than on the issue of whether voting itself is threatening to liberty.

I don't really think it's fair to put the question this way. I could ask "what's two plus two, given that the answer isn't four?" And the question would be equally nonsensical. But if you assume that government itself is legitimate, it seems clear to me that everyone who is expected to act according to the government's laws should have a say in what those laws are. In other words "No representation" is superior, but "no representation without representation" comes a close second.

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

Stephen — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 04:38:40 GMT

@ CrazyCoot

I think you're on to something. The franchise, so long as we have one, should be as restricted as possible. In any natural hierarchy, males tend to occupy positions of authority, so the enfranchisement of women was egalitarian in nature. Also, before 1815, the franchise was restricted to only a small percentage of men by highly restrictive property requirements. Since then, we've seen what happens as the franchise is expanded.

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

Sieben — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:21:34 GMT

CrazyCoot:
1) Allowing women, in particular mothers, to vote is damaging to liberty because women are more likely to think in terms of 'the children' and therefore vote to maximize security, or at least the illusion of it, at the expense of liberty. If I'm not mistaken the Nazis got a lot of their support from scared young German mothers.

Scared people are easier to hoodwink than others. Reformulate this to say "scared people", rather than women. And then go back and say that anyone who isn't an anarcho capitalist shouldn't be allowed to vote, so the rest of us can vote the voting system out of existence.

CrazyCoot:
2) Giving people without property the right to vote results in the electorate voting for the wealth of others.

This may be a wise restriction in some circumstances. Not politically though. Privately, consider that it would be absurd to allow non-residents to vote in decisions for an apartment complex (if the owner wanted to resolve some conflict via voting).

Although I would say that giving group A the ability to attack group B and disallowing group B's self defense (democracy) will result in wealth transfer from B to A. Its pretty simple...

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

CrazyCoot — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:57:36 GMT

Well, if you're going to have a system of government then perhaps it would be better to have it ruled by natural elites such as myself rather than a bunch of smelly poor people.

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

Orthogonal — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:55:16 GMT

twistedbydsign99:

*puts on flamesuit*

But seriously, I think the way to avoid this problem is with a republic, a democracy that can't vote on everything. So for example you couldn't vote to actually take someone else property. That sidesteps the issue you see I believe.

So we substitute mob rule for oligarchic rule?

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

twistedbydsign99 — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:49:46 GMT

*puts on flamesuit*

But seriously, I think the way to avoid this problem is with a republic, a democracy that can't vote on everything. So for example you couldn't vote to actually take someone else property. That sidesteps the issue you see I believe.

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

CrazyCoot — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:11:31 GMT

ClaytonB:

The vote itself is the problem. That is, the problem is not who is or is not allowed to vote, the problem is that there exists this "coercion machine" called government in the first place. The moral problem of deciding which are better or worse ways to aim the coercion machine and who to victimize with it is trivial compared to the moral problem of the machine's existence.

Clayton -

Agreed.

But the focus of this thread is on the inane and trivial

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

Spideynw — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:09:23 GMT

CrazyCoot:
1) Allowing women, in particular mothers, to vote is damaging to liberty because women are more likely to think in terms of 'the children' and therefore vote to maximize security, or at least the illusion of it, at the expense of liberty. If I'm not mistaken the Nazis got a lot of their support from scared young German mothers.

And men are more likely to vote for war.

CrazyCoot:
2) Giving people without property the right to vote results in the electorate voting for the wealth of others.

Those with property seem to vote for the wealth of others as well. For example, TARP.

Sorry, but the claims seem pretty baseless to me.

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

CrazyCoot — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:08:58 GMT

bloomj31:

So what are you gonna do about it?

Would you repeal the 15th and 19th amendments?

No, although a repeal of the 17th would be good. My concern about women voting is really not about women in general, but mothers. And the imposition of the poll tax might not be a bad idea.

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

Marko — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:01:41 GMT

Define property.

I own a bunch of stock of a bailed out and heavily subsidised corporation. Am I a property owner or a non-property owner?

I own a house which I bought from my salary at Blackwater or alternatively the DEA. Am I a property owner or a non-property owner?

I own a bunch of slaves. Am I a property owner or a non-property owner?

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

The Late Andrew Ryan — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:05:02 GMT

xahrx:

The Late Andrew Ryan:
Yes. After a basic voting population adding more people to the voting pool simply adds to the expansion of the welfare state.

The voting pool is the welfare state.

That's my point. If we can shrink the number of peope who have a need the manipulate and expand the welfare system then we can keep the welfare state as small as possible, or have as few people on it as possible.

Re: Allowing women and people with no property to vote hurts liberty

Clayton — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 21:01:49 GMT

The vote itself is the problem. That is, the problem is not who is or is not allowed to vote, the problem is that there exists this "coercion machine" called government in the first place. The moral problem of deciding which are better or worse ways to aim the coercion machine and who to victimize with it is trivial compared to the moral problem of the machine's existence.

Clayton -