DISQUS

Don Jason,

You point out my most fundamental disagreement with your view. Let's examine it.

The very nature of a right is that it may be exercised in controversial or socially harmful ways. Hence, we have debates on the limits of rights - whether it be pornography, rap music, negligent parenting, etc. Generally, those who accept the notion that free speech is a right will accept that the right should be freely exercised, unless there is a concrete and severe harm. So, in the end, the right is limited by fairly exigent examples. Broader arguments against free speech - such as the argument that there is some statistical connection between pornography and rape or even sexism - are inherently dangerous, and when they are made, they are essentially covert attacks on the right itself. Again, because acceptance of the notion of a right is an acceptance of the inherent legitimacy of self-determination, not the acceptance of the choices made through that self-determination.

Hence, it is commonplace and unexceptional to comment that we all wish that others would make different choices, or that some people make bad choices in the area of rights. I have no problem saying that it would be better if people would refrain from making violent porn or rap music, or if they would read books on child development. It makes sense to make information and education available to people on all topics, so they can live their lives, and exercise their rights, in ways that benefit all. The odd thing about voting, unlike rap music or bad parenting - we can't even define clearly who the bad voters are, or what their influence is. So, it's a little odd to even discuss them.

So, this isn't a question of rights. Instead, you make it a question of morality, and quite a useless one, because you note that it is one that to have any effect requires self-policing. But, as a matter of morality, it is exceedingly odd to single out a right. You say it is morally wrong to participate in a neo-Nazi rally. But that really is just a tiny slice of the moral question at issue. It is morally wrong to be an anti-semite - in the privacy of one's thoughts, at the dinner table, or at a rally. You are issuing an odd injunction: not, "forsake racism" but "don't exercise the franchise in a racist manner." But the practical reality is, as long as racism exists in society, there will be racists voting. Instead of - as anyone who's main concern was morality would be - opposing racism, laziness, and prejudice, you choose to condemn only one action: voting. But, again, voting isn't the moral issue: the underlying attitude is - voting being one manifestion of an actual problem.

Which, frankly, is troubling in a world with a history of movements to prevent the "wrong" people from voting. Given this history, and given that "bad" voting is undefinable, I find your focus troubling.

And, even more to the point, the value of democracy (at least from my perspective) is that racists and ignorant people can and do express their preferences, for several reasons. The government imposes force on the government, and democracy is a way to philosophically legitimize that force. It may be my preference to have no jews in the government. Bigot though I am, I get my say over how I am governed: this is self-determination. If stupid people choose a stupid government, that is an expression of their will, and government gains legitimacy from their will.and nothing else: not the will of a few, or the best, as all are equally subjects. There is no higher value involved. Additionally, I would rather have immoral influences worked out through the electoral process than left to fester in dark corners. The value of democracy thus has nothing to do with the ultimate policy choices.

Now, perhaps I just missed this, but it seems to me that you paid lip service to the value of democracy and rights by merely saying that it would be wrong to force people not to vote or participate in neo-Nazi rallies. I differ. I want people with neo-Nazi attitudes to participate in the political process (the problem with neo-Nazis as a party being not that they are bigots that they ultimately will want to replace democracy and self-determination with force - this is a problem that I will explain a bit below). Only though the open struggle between "bad" and "good" ideas do we progress, and it is a human right to be heard by those who legitimize force over you, however, stupid the exercise.

The neo-Nazi question comes down to whether a political party (not a voter) should be able to advocate for the overthrow of liberal democracy (that is, respect for personal automony and democratic process). This seems to me a different question, more along the lines of limits on free speech at the extreme edges. One can be an anti-semite or racist, and vote against candidates because of race or religion, and not violate the fundamental tenets of liberal democracy. This may not lead to good policy choices, but that isn't the object.

Perhaps you addressed this. If so, I'm sorry I didn't understand.

webgrrl Ok, perhaps voters don't care at all about policies, Jason. Let me think about that.

If all voters are thus "bad," and Hansonian signaling is inherent in democracy, then there will never be any "good" voters, will there? Or at least there will never be enough. And therefore aren't you, Jason, basically castigating sparrows for being unable to do calculus?

If useful or meaningful democracy is thus impossible, why bother to defend universal suffrage at all? Why not just call it empty, expensive theater and abandon it?

So you would in fact be better off holding a salon in your living room,scrapbooking, joining the bowling league, or drinking wine in your garden while Rome burns in the distance, yes?