|
Are laws requiring individuals to show proof of citizenship at polling places proper in a free society?
showing 2 of 7
show all
|
|
Yes, so long as it is implemented properly along with the rest of a proper electoral system rather than this 'yes' being used as an excuse for some particular voter-ID plan presently held in mind that rational men would not judge proper. And it should definitely NOT be allowed to become a defacto National ID system. I also agree with DW, in basic idea but not in whole detail. Citizenship should be earned by demonstrating non-criminality, a basic knowledge of man's rights, and a basic understanding of how the relevant system of government works. Then, additional to that, those citizens who also want to vote should pay poll-fees. No pay no say. The size of them should not be large enough to fund government by themselves (up to about half should be fine) but large enough to make people want to think about the expense and to keep on valuing voting after they've incurred it by having made a psychological investment. By my reckoning an appropriate ball-park is about $1-2000pa for Local+State and $2-3000pa for National, payable in advance for the number of years that an office-holder's term lasts, ie 2-4 years as appropriate. Whatever they actually are, they should be identical for everyone for each relevant election, because nobody who has those basics can claim to have a greater right to a say than another, and since that is the case it is improper for anyone to have to pay more or less than any other. Equal say and hence equal pay. Then a proper ID system would be that and only that which evidences having passed tests of citizenship and having paid poll-fees before and for the election at hand, plus appropriate technical details (eg inking thumbs or electoral-equivalents of back-of-hand night-club stamps) to assist in preventing electoral fraud. And appropos of this, a census should be strictly about spreading workloads evenly among legislative representatives, electoral-college blocs, and so on, not the nonsense "better to inform policy with" as we have to put up with today. What is $2-3000pa? By the way, this system would never work. Among numerous other problems, I for one would just find someone who wanted to vote opposite of me, and then make an agreement that neither of votes. We save $4-6000pa, and lose nothing - our votes would have cancelled out anyway. $2k-$3k is my rough estimate of the value of one ounce of gold in today's terms under a commodity-money system, and also works out to be roughly half of what a proper national government would cost (I estimate about 4-5% of GDP as presently understood). Paying one gold coin per year is simultaneously a respectable amount monetarily and a significant symbol psychologically. Change my present-dollar-estimate to your own, as you judge fit. The local and state amounts were similarly calculated, but using silver instead of gold. It is your idea that is fraught with both technical problems and moral difficulties. Enforcement? You presume only two major parties, as well as crude first-past-the-post vote counting. Also, others in a laissez-faire system are free to discriminate against non-voters in whatever ways they judge fit (eg only voters may be hired as senior staff) - don't sever politics from daily life. The heart is morality, especially independence and pride. If citizenship and voting mean something to you then you pay up, make your own judgement, and vote accordingly. You don't degenerate into mere pragmatism. Enforcement would be the same as enforcement of any other contract. Sure, employers can discriminate against non-voters. They'd also be free to discriminate against voters. Anyone dumb enough to pay $2k-3k (what's the "pa"?) for a single vote in a national election, where the laws are all compatible with Objectivism anyway, especially when they can just as easily make a deal to trade their non-vote with someone else, probably isn't a great employee anyway. By the way I'd like to point out that you've halved the numbers since I made my earlier comment. They're still absurd though.
showing 2 of 5
show all
|
I'd rather show a paid taxes receipt with the weight of the vote proportional to the amount of taxes paid.
Proof of citizenship? I thought the issue was showing proof of being who you say you are, as listed on voter registration rolls, with proof of citizenship and residency being required for registration.
If the power of the vote is proportional to the amount of taxes paid, than only the super rich would have the most power. What about the people who work equally hard, but make much less than a person as wealthy as, say, Donald Trump. People like him could afford to change the rules in their favor. I understand what you're trying to say, but in theory, it'll just make a wealthy corporation the new government. They'll have total control after they grow over time, and individual citizens won't be able to do anything because it's the private sector.
Collin's comment seems to assume a pure democracy in which anything goes if a majority votes for it. Objectivism opposes democracy of that kind. Objectivism advocates a system that upholds individual rights, which requires a philosophical base accepted by the society as a whole and embodied in a constitution that strictly limits the powers of government. The constitution could not be changed merely by popular vote, and there wouldn't be enough votes to do it anyway in a rational society that accepts the philosophical principles underlying individual rights and the proper, limited functions of government. (I take no position on tying the number of votes to taxes paid, and I'm not aware of anything in Objectivism that takes a position on that, either, other than opposing pure democracy of any kind. There is some precedent for unequal votes in certain situations, such as voting to incorporate as a city, wherein the number of votes per person might be based on the value of the land they own. In a rational society, democratic voting would be strictly limited to certain issues, such as selection of personnel to run the government in compliance with constitutional provisions. The actual power of elected officials would be strictly limited in such a system, thereby removing much of the incentive for various groups to try to get their favorite candidate elected.)
And who enforces the Constitution?
If we assume the Constitution is going to be upheld, then it doesn't really matter who votes. I believe this is unrealistic.
I'm not sure where it is that I read this, but I once read that the value of democracy is that it avoids the need for bloody civil wars when the population disagrees with the government. I've found that to be quite enlightening.
If the majority of the population in a geographic location holds Objectivist values, an Objectivist government is easy. If it's only a tiny minority of very rich people, change via voting is not feasible.
I use the term "democracy" above in its modern sense.
Apparently Rand and Peikoff didn't agree with that definition, and perhaps they were right. So feel free to substitute "constitutional republic" for "democracy". I'd probably do it myself were it not for the character limit.
The Objectivist view of democracy is well stated in the topic of "Democracy" in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. One excerpt does, indeed, state very explicitly that "The American system is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic." As for what protects the constitution from erosion over time, there is only one ultimate protection: a supportive underlying philosophy, thoroughly understood and continually reaffirmed by the society's leading intellectuals, and generally accepted throughout the society in response. That is precisely what today's leading Objectivist intellectuals are attempting to bring about. There are no shortcuts. And the most productive members of a free society are likely to be among the most ardent supporters of a free society.