The Shotgun Blog
« Dion's Delusions | Main | This is obviously just a joke, right? »
Thursday, August 14, 2008
How much is your right to vote worth to you?
Fact Check and I are having an interesting debate in the comments to this post. My position, basically, is that governments have a moral reason to allow citizens to renegotiate the terms of their relationship with the state. I'm not going to restate Fact Check's response, as I'd probably just get it wrong, but he seems to disagree with me.
We know that the state protects our rights, but it also imposes responsibilities on us that include paying taxes, obeying stupid laws, and sometimes even military service. It's helpful to think of the relationship between citizen and state as a kind of contract, with the state doing X for us in exchange for us doing Y for it.
I think that, at least in the ideal world, people should be able to renegotiate their relationship with the state, giving up certain rights in exchange for being released from at least some of the obligations the state imposes on us. At the extreme, I envisage multi-tier citizenship. Full citizens get a full slate of rights -- including the right to vote and to hold public office -- but also a full slate of responsibilities, perhaps up to and including the responsibility to serve in the military. On lower tiers, citizens give up certain rights (like the right to vote) but also face fewer obligations. For example, by giving up the right to vote, you might get a lower tax rate than those who are full citizens and who retain that right.
Obviously, the state has no incentive to renegotiate the contract with its citizens in this way. However, morally speaking, that doesn't let the state off the hook. Presumably, in liberal societies, free choice is highly valued. However, most of us have not actively consented to our current arrangement with the government. We stay because the option of leaving is unattractive, or simply because we haven't given the matter much thought. By giving people other options, the state could increase the role of actual consent and also increase the degree of connection people feel toward the government.
The idea is that the less you feel like your relationship with the government has been forced on you, and the more you feel it was the product of free and informed choice, the more likely it is that you will feel committed to the state. And, indeed, if a person's relationship with the state really is the product of genuine consent, then he has a greater obligation to fulfill the terms of that relationship than he might otherwise.
Hence, the title of this post: How much is your right to vote worth to you? For myself, the answer is: not very much. If it meant I could be permanently released from having to pay the GST, or any other federal sales tax, I would gladly forfeit my right to vote. If I could get exemptions from certain federal laws, I would also give up that right.
I would not give up the right to free expression, freedom of association, or any other basic, non-political rights, of course. But there are certain rights we hold as citizens of Canada/the U.S./etc (and not simply as human beings) that are pretty much worthless to me. These are the rights I would be willing to jettison if it meant I could keep a greater portion of my income.
How about you? How much is your right to vote worth? What other rights would you be willing to give up in exchange for other benefits?
Posted by Terrence Watson on August 14, 2008 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e554019c5f8834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference How much is your right to vote worth to you?:
Comments
If you give up your right to vote, where's the incentive for the state to honour any of your other rights?
I always thought we renegotiate at election time. Problem lately is that nobody has any new ideas, so we have no clear choices. Political candidates seem to be hobbled by their fear of offending special interest groups.
Posted by: dp | 2008-08-14 6:01:36 PM
Dp,
Well, hopefully, the state's incentive to honor human rights is not just grounded in our ability to vote politicians out of office in exchange for other politicians. Lots of states with poor records on human rights hold elections. Even ideally, democracy in itself is a poor way to guarantee human rights, since majorities also have an incentive to suppress the rights of minorities.
At bottom, the state should uphold our rights because it fears what will happen if it does not. That fear can be grounded in ways other than a particular politician's anxiety over losing his job. An armed citizenry helps a lot.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-14 6:09:37 PM
Heh, maybe I've just been in the United States too long... :-)
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-14 6:24:25 PM
A nice philosophical discussion which is impossible. You assume that the state (read parties, politicians) would willingly relinquish what power it has obtained through various means to date. That, for me, is the same as assuming that a bureaucracy created to accomplish a particular goal would willingly dismantle once the goal is achieved.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-08-14 6:47:51 PM
"A nice philosophical discussion which is impossible. You assume that the state (read parties, politicians) would willingly relinquish what power it has obtained through various means to date. That, for me, is the same as assuming that a bureaucracy created to accomplish a particular goal would willingly dismantle once the goal is achieved."
True enough, although I never assumed that my idea has any chance of becoming reality. It really is a pure philosophical debate, concerning what the state should do rather than what it will do.
I agree with you completely about politicians and bureaucrats not having any incentive to reduce their power over us.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-14 6:55:31 PM
I voted for a lot of years. Eventually I learned that my vote was simply the endorsement of a criminal conspiracy. So I stopped. My principals and conscience simply don't allow me to participate anymore.
And dp...the state only honors whichever of your rights are convenient to the state...on voting day.
Posted by: JC | 2008-08-14 8:00:22 PM
Hi Terrence, been rereading Starship Troopers?
Posted by: DML | 2008-08-14 10:32:25 PM
DML,
Haha, perhaps. The inspiration this time came from a certain philosopher, John Simmons, who does advocate multi-tier citizenship in a way I'm sure Heinlein would appreciate.
But yeah, I was sure someone would make the connection eventually :-)
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-08-15 3:40:20 AM
>"Heh, maybe I've just been in the United States too long... :-)"
Terrence Watson | 14-Aug-08 6:24:25 PM
Maybe you've been reading a little too much Robert A. Heinlein.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-08-15 6:55:32 AM
No such thing as too much Heinlein!
I like the idea of sticking to the concept of no taxation without representation by tying votes proportionately to taxes eg. one vote per $1000. of federal taxes paid. Public servants would, of course have no vote. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Would the productive sector electorate shrink the state and risk vote dilution and or maintain power through disproportionate tax rates? Flatten tax rates and privatize like crazy and expand the electorate?
Lets give it a shot and see - note to PMSH.....
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-08-15 10:02:37 AM
I would gladly give up my right to read this blog.
Posted by: Canadian Observer | 2008-08-15 9:15:02 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.