Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,541 posts)
12. And if they don't, what do you do?
Thu Jun 30, 2016, 01:03 PM
Jun 2016

If they can't, what do you do? Lop off their heads, or merely their hands? Perhaps just a finger, or impose a $500 fine?

Person: "I'm sorry, I was sick."

Government of the people, for the people: "Do you have a doctor's note?"

Person: "Did I say I was sick. Sorry, my religion teaches that I shouldn't vote."

Government: "Well, that's one religious doctrine that government will ban."

Person: "I was traveling."

Government: "We'll stop that freedom of movement for elections."

Person: "No, on reconsideration I was working."

Government: "We'll make sure companies are required to use their assets to give you a day off. With pay."

Person: "Will that include my landscaper I have come over some Tuesdays when I text him?"

Government: "Yes. And because we don't have a record of your paying FICA and Medicare for them, we're going to subpoena your records and invade your privacy. Hand over your phone, we'll unencrypt it for you."


The more obligations you impose, the more you're intruding into privacy and interfering with the pursuit of happiness. The more confiscatory the government, and the more authoritarian. The more you need to control people, the less important the vote is.

The general principle is that a right to do something presupposes the right not to do that same something. My right to free speech does not entail a government-imposed obligation to speak. The right to not incriminate myself does not mean I am not allowed to incriminate myself. A right to free religion does not impose an obligation to worship. A right to vote does not entail a legal obligation to vote.

Now, morally I may have an obligation to speak up, it may be foolish to incriminate myself, I may feel obliged to participate in the religious organization whose doctrines I agree with and I may feel a moral obligation to vote. But the government already ordains enough morality that privacy is often something reserved for special people.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

"via an unchecked process.". - It's not an "unchecked process", it's not even binding. n/t PoliticAverse Jun 2016 #1
Autocratic, oligarchic, and corporate rule can all be dangerous too, bemildred Jun 2016 #2
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #3
All democracies should make it mandatory to vote world wide wally Jun 2016 #4
I disagree. Anyone who has to be forced to vote is someone I don't want voting. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #6
They do it in Australia and it seems to work out fine world wide wally Jun 2016 #7
That's a horrible idea. Throd Jun 2016 #9
And if they don't, what do you do? Igel Jun 2016 #12
To what absolute and unequivocal end? LanternWaste Jun 2016 #13
Older, more conservative voters tend to vote more than younger, more liberal ones. In close pampango Jun 2016 #5
At least Cameron is done, stick a fork in him. Rex Jun 2016 #8
No one told the other 28% they couldn't vote. Takket Jun 2016 #10
Brexit is a horrible example of a majority of voters overall imposing their collective will BlueMTexpat Jun 2016 #18
Message auto-removed Name removed Jun 2016 #34
I wonder what the % be of people who vote in the general election will be? Katashi_itto Jun 2016 #11
Somewhere between 50 to 60 percent of eligible voters. Exilednight Jun 2016 #30
and hobbit709 Jun 2016 #14
So 30% decided that either way was ok Bad Thoughts Jun 2016 #15
NC amended its constitution in May 2012 to forbid gay marriage: struggle4progress Jun 2016 #16
This should be blamed on those who chose not to vote Bettie Jun 2016 #20
Our GOP legislature fixed the constitutional amendment vote for a primary struggle4progress Jun 2016 #22
That sucks and a vote like that should have been done in a "bigger" election Bettie Jun 2016 #28
when "your side loses" it is automatically not democratic lol nt msongs Jun 2016 #17
True. It was democratic. Sometimes conservatives win for all kinds of reasons. Liberals need to pampango Jun 2016 #21
So, what is the answer Bettie Jun 2016 #19
Another case of the majority of the minority making decisions for 100%. no_hypocrisy Jun 2016 #23
Those who didn't bother to vote can't really complain about the outcome Press Virginia Jun 2016 #27
The answer is quite simple Bettie Jun 2016 #29
You have an odd notion of democracy FBaggins Jun 2016 #24
Democracy sucks ripcord Jun 2016 #25
Isn't this the same ridiculous argument we heard about Bill Clinton's electoral wins? Press Virginia Jun 2016 #26
Electing a person does not change immigration or economic policy... True Earthling Jun 2016 #31
actually it kind of does Press Virginia Jun 2016 #33
The argument is govt by referendum vs. govt by elected officials True Earthling Jun 2016 #37
Was that a Monty Python skit? WDIM Jun 2016 #32
Democracies work best when ManiacJoe Jun 2016 #35
OFFS... ljm2002 Jun 2016 #36
Wow. Haven't read anything this elitist since Republicans tried to say Bill Clinton's victory wasn't WinkyDink Jun 2016 #38
I've always supported requiring a person to vote to receive tax deductions or welfare Sam_Fields Jun 2016 #39
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Democracy can be dangerou...»Reply #12