The Meaning of the Right to Vote
Every Election Day, politicians, intellectuals, and activists propagate a seemingly patriotic but utterly un-American idea: the notion that our most important right–and the source of America’s greatness–is the right to vote. According to former President Bill Clinton, the right to vote is “the most fundamental right of citizenshipâ€; it is “the heart and soul of our democracy,†says Senator John McCain.
Such statements are regarded as uncontroversial–but consider their implications. If voting is truly our most fundamental right, then all other rights–including free speech, property, even life–are contingent on and revocable by the whims of the voting public (or their elected officials). America, on this view, is a society based not on individual rights, but on unlimited majority rule–like ancient Athens, where the populace, exercising “the most fundamental right of citizenship,†elected to kill Socrates for voicing unpopular ideas–or modern-day Zimbabwe, where the democratically elected Robert Mugabe has seized the property of the nation’s white farmers and brought the nation to the verge of starvation–or Germany in 1932, when the people democratically elected the Nazi Party, including future Chancellor Adolph Hitler. Would anyone dare claim that America is thus fundamentally similar to these regimes, and that it is perfectly acceptable to kill controversial philosophers or to exterminate six million Jews, so long as it is done by popular vote?
Contrary to popular rhetoric, America was founded, not as a “democracy,†but as a constitutional republic–a political structure under which the government is bound by a written constitution to the task of protecting individual rights. “Democracy†does not mean a system that holds public elections for government officials; it means a system in which a majority vote rules everything and everyone, and in which the individual thus has no rights. In a democracy, observed James Madison in The Federalist Papers, “there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention [and] have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property.â€
The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an autonomous, rational being, who is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen.
What makes America unique is not that it has elections–even dictatorships hold elections–but that its elections take place in a country limited by the absolute principle of individual freedom. From our Declaration of Independence, which upholds the “unalienable rights†of every individual, among which are “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,†to our Constitution, whose Bill of Rights protects freedom of speech and the freedom of private property, respect for individual liberty is the essence of America–and the root of her greatness.
Unfortunately, with each passing Election Day, too many Americans view elections less as a means to protect freedom, and more as a means to win some government favor or handout at the expense of the liberty and property of other Americans. Our politicians promise, not to protect the basic rights spelled out in the Declaration and the Constitution, but to violate the rights of some people in order to benefit others. Today’s politicians want capital for failing banks–by forcing non-failing Americans to pay for them; subsidies for farmers–by forcing non-farmers to pay for them; prescription drugs for the elderly–by forcing the non-elderly to pay for them; housing for the homeless–by forcing the non-homeless to pay for it. The more “democratic†our government becomes, the more we cannibalize our liberty, ultimately to the detriment of all.
This Election Day, therefore, we should reject those who wish to reduce our republic to mob rule. Instead, we should vote for those, to whatever extent they can be found, who are defenders of the essence of America: individual freedom.
Alex Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. The Ayn Rand Center is a division of the Ayn Rand Institute and promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of “Atlas Shrugged†and “The Fountainhead.â€
| More from Alex Epstein
Stumble It!
November 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Constitutional Rights
How often have we heard: “this is not rightâ€, “this violates my constitutional rightsâ€, “if a man did thisâ€â€¦?
…we are all aware, I would suppose, that Father’s and children (posterity) have had their constitutional liberties abridged throughout the past forty years: I would further assert that there are more than a few of us who can cite what we believe to be the rights violated.
On January 16, 1788 James Madison wrote, in part:
“…we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people…â€
[The Federalist No. 39: MADISON signed Publius]
On November 10, 1787 John Jay wrote, in part:
“…nothing would tend more to secure us from them (dangers from abroad) than Union, strength, and good Government within ourselves. This subject is copious and cannot easily be exhausted. ..â€
[The Federalist No. 5: JAY signed Publius]
I assert that all of our Founding Fathers writing as Publius were expressing the concept of self governance, we, the Great Body of People, elect from our midst those who will assemble together to determine our public policy and administration.
Before seeking a redress of our grievances first in a Court of Law, may I humbly commend upon each of us: the thought that: it is each of us and us collectively who will choose, from our midst, those we wish to determine our public policy and administration.
As a single non custodial father of two awesome young sons aged twenty-four and eight years of age, the choices seem abundantly clear to me. A quick reiteration of some points might somehow clarify my positions to the reader.
Those who espouse a belief in Father’s and Children’s Rights should be familiar with Social Security Act Title IV-D, if we took time to read the Act we might even find Title IV-E and others all of which are non-retirement income expenditures: although understanding the various SSA Titles to produce the funding for misandristic incentives, have we realized that non retirement income expenditures diminish the promise the Social Security Trust offered before 1964, and then, understand why there may be those who wish to allow individuals to privately invest those savings to keep the saved money out of an un-trusted general account? We have all read the peer reviewed empirical evidence demonstrating the criticality of Fathers to their Children’s Development [or find the studies in the files section here: West Michigan DADS]
We have read about Joe Biden’s authorship of VAWA, we have participated in the calls for VAWA to address all domestic violence, we wrote to Hillary while John Murtari was incarcerated, we have read R.A.D.A.R.’s [http://www.mediaradar.org/] reports.
Some of us at least have read Obama’s Responsible Fatherhood Act that after three paragraphs of father involvement banalities paraphrased from the National Fatherhood Initiative [http://www.fatherhood.org/] and then reiterates child support sixty-five times.
We have ignored President Bushes Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives of 2005 which include Father access and involvement [http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/] et al and which directed the States in receipt of certain funds to become more Father Friendly We ignored the Federal Legislature passing on to Custodial Parents the “Child Support Collection Surcharge Fee†in the summer of 2008, announced by Republican Congressman Vern Ehlers and others. We should all be aware of Santorum’s efforts, we know of Hoogendyk’s, Steil’s, Green’s, Jansen’s, Sheen’s et al efforts to support Fathers, Families Children and Marriage. McCain has adopted the position of Father’s Rights is a State issue the same position he takes on abortion. We have some certainty that McCain prefers a reduction of non retirement income expenditures from the Social Security portion of the General Fund. We know that the Federal Department of Justice holds that Duluth is not an appropriate therapy for Domestic Violence. No, McCain has not taken a flashy position on Father’s Rights, or Children’s Rights or Family Rights.
We could simply ask which candidates are most likely to advance our position in public policy: Republicans, as individuals and as a party have demonstrated a solid track record on that. We could read McCain Is Right On Father’s Rights But Does He Know It? – Roger F. Gray [http://mensnewsdaily.com/2008/08/27/mccain-is-right-on-fathers-rights-but-does-he-know-it/]
We could note that not all women are the same, and, certainly that NOW does not stand for all American women: NOW President Kim Gandy attacked Sarah Palin as soon as her Vice Presidential Candidacy was announced. Most telling is Gandy’s recitation of Obama and Biden’s misandry in the NOW endorsement of their candidacy [Gandy's comments in NOW endorsement of Obama-Biden '08]
Maybe it is as simple as asking will you vote with NOW and VAWA or vote McCain-Palin for Father’s Rights?
I am voting for McCain-Palin as recommended by Dr. Grayson Walker Ph.D.
November 3rd, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Excellent comment Alex. Well said.
November 4th, 2008 at 5:57 am
I went to grade school in the mid-sixties starting kindergarten in 1963. In grades one through six, we started the morning with the pledge of allegiance and songs like God Bless America and The Star Spangled Banner. We learned about the Founding Fathers and there was never anything negative said about them.
During High School in the early seventies that changed. They went from national heroes to rich slave owners who didn’t want to pay their taxes.
I’ve heard things about the Founding Fathers, from relatively recent high school graduates in the workplace, that really make you wonder what kind of people are teaching school these days. I heard one young man say that the founders were a bunch of “drunks and kooky criminals†who would either be on medication or in prison today. He also claimed that Ben Franklin was a child molester. I asked him where he heard that and he said he learned it in school.
Is it any wonder where we’re headed as a nation when the Founding Fathers are viewed as criminals, and people like Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Barrack Obama, are seen as heroes?
That’s what’s being taught in our schools.
Everyone should know that we are a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. There’s only one problem, they don’t teach that in school anymore.