Who Should Be Allowed To Vote?

     Victory Girls’ Nina Bookout has a good piece on the Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding Arizona’s new anti-fraud statute and the Democrats’ reactions:

     Democrats are really good at gaslighting temper tantrums. Some great ones have been taking place since SCOTUS announced their decision on the Arizona voting rights case.

     In a nutshell this case, Brnovich vs Democrat National Committee, was about ensuring illegal ballot harvesting and out-of-precinct voting couldn’t take place. The Democrats wanted anyone to be able to trot into some person’s home and “help” them fill out their ballot. Arizona wanted to, rightly so, limit those people to a family member or a caregiver. Furthermore, Democrats wanted a voter, who is found to be at the wrong precinct, be able to cast their vote anyway. Because, according to the Democrats, if this isn’t allowed to happen it is racist voter suppression!!

     The article is worth reading in its entirety. For me, it’s raised afresh the question of who should possess the so-called right to vote. If you need to be told, my answer is no one.

     Surprised? You shouldn’t be. There is no right to vote, and the briefest acquaintance with the laws that govern the franchise should make that clear.

     A right is something that’s yours by virtue of being what you are: i.e., a human being. You have a right to life, a right to your personal liberty, and a right to whatever property you can acquire through honest means. No government “created” those rights. You would have those rights even on a deserted island, or in a monarchy. Yes, they can be violated. Even so, they are moral-ethical norms rather than the dictates of a government.

     In these United States, the franchise is conferred upon:

  • Citizens, whether natural-born or naturalized;
  • Who are over the age of eighteen;
  • And have satisfied the residency requirements of their state and legislative-representation districts;
  • But who have not had the franchise taken from them because of a felony conviction.

     That’s quite a different thing from a “right” to vote. Besides, a “right to vote” for whom? Do Frenchmen have a “right to vote” in American elections? Do Californians have a “right to vote” on New York’s governor or state or federal legislators? Five seconds’ consideration ought to blast a huge hole in the notion that the franchise is a “right.”

     The greatest of tragedies lies in this: by relentlessly pounding the “right to vote,” the Democrats have nearly succeeded in destroying our real rights to life, liberty, and honestly acquired property. Wholly in thrall to the “the government can do anything it likes” notions of such as Nancy Pelosi, the Democrat Party has campaigned relentlessly for absolutely unlimited “democracy,” meaning mob rule in which 50% plus one can override anyone’s rights. Then it’s gone on to corrupt our election systems so that it will always win, regardless of the tally of legitimate votes. See what they did there?

     If this doesn’t infuriate you, check your pulse: you may have died and not noticed.


     “But we need elections!” I hear you cry. For what? What has any elected official ever done for you personally? Don’t you dare tell me about an exception to some regulation your Congressman got for you; the regulation probably shouldn’t have existed in the first place. As for initiatives and referenda, I have yet to learn of one that actually protects our real rights, or strengthens the protections for them. So why do we need elections? So that aspiring tyrants and parasites can fight over who will get to shove his hand into your pocket?

     Hearken to the great Frederic Bastiat:

     I wish merely to observe here that this controversy over universal suffrage (as well as most other political questions) which agitates, excites, and overthrows nations, would lose nearly all of its importance if the law had always been what it ought to be. In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual’s right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder — is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?

     Under these circumstances, is it likely that the extent of the right to vote would endanger that supreme good, the public peace? Is it likely that the excluded classes would refuse to peaceably await the coming of their right to vote? Is it likely that those who had the right to vote would jealously defend their privilege? If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone’s interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote?



     There are two categories of vermin persons who “need” elections:

  1. People who aspire to ruling over you;
  2. The media types that make their livings chattering about politics and elections.

     If you’re not one of these, you’d be better off were there no elections whatsoever. That would deprive those would-be rulers of any illusion of “the consent of the governed,” and their media cheerleaders of any pretense that what they do has objective value to the public. (If you are an aspiring ruler or media type, stay well away from me and keep your hands where I can see them. No sudden moves; I’m heavily armed, very nervous, and suspicious of your sort.)

     But there will always be people who want “a say in things.” So I have a proposal for a rationalized election scheme. Perhaps it will be tried in some forward-looking, reasonably compact district. Let’s call that district Voteland:

  1. The Voteland taxing authorities repeal and renounce all compulsory taxation for the upcoming executive / legislative / judicial term.
  2. Voteland’s legislators then formulate a “budget,” according to their notions of “public needs.”
  3. They divide the total amount they hope to spend by the number of legitimate voters known to reside in Voteland. Let’s say, just to have some numbers at hand, that the “budget” comes to $100 million, and there are 1 million legitimate voters in Voteland. Thus, the quotient would be $100 per voter.
  4. Voteland’s election authorities then have 1 million “enfranchisement swipe cards” made up – “one user one time only” must be built into the design – and issue an announcement:

    We’ve just received this year’s tally of legitimate Voteland voters, and there are 1 million of them! So we have exactly 1 million votes to auction off. The bidding will start at $100 per vote. The auction will be held on September 1, and the elections on November 2. Don’t forget to bid for a vote – or maybe two or three!

  5. The vote auction is held. Whatever amount it takes in for the votes purchased, that’s the amount the legislators will get to spend over the upcoming executive / legislative / judicial term – and not a dollar more.
  6. Any swipe card purchased at the auction may be legitimately used by whoever holds it. Any that were not purchased must be destroyed.

     Give it some thought – and do have a nice day.

1 comment

    • Milton on July 3, 2021 at 10:05 AM

    Of course there is no point in voting.  The consent of the *governed* is the only natural usefulness of your vote.  Tyrants need this consent to show that there is some acceptability to their tyrantcy.

    When the tyrant gene has been eliminated from the human genome pool, then voting will make sense again.  Until then, remember the age old wisdom of Death to Tyrants.  And please don’t feed the bears.

Comments have been disabled.