Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is it moral, and/or should it be legal to buy votes?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Here the subject line says it all.

 

On the surface I would imagine that anybody should have the right to sell their vote, and anybody should have a right to buy it.

 

Now, clearly there are some votes that would invalidate the entire notion of Rights, and in that case such a transaction would clearly be immoral.

 

However, in the context of "judgement call" sorts of votes ("should we go to war with country xyz") one may rationally value some immediate cash more than their own judgement (i.e. they judge other people's judgement to be better than theirs on a particular topic).

 

As a corollary, should there be laws against this practice?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here the subject line says it all.

 

On the surface I would imagine that anybody should have the right to sell their vote, and anybody should have a right to buy it.

 

Now, clearly there are some votes that would invalidate the entire notion of Rights, and in that case such a transaction would clearly be immoral.

 

However, in the context of "judgement call" sorts of votes ("should we go to war with country xyz") one may rationally value some immediate cash more than their own judgement (i.e. they judge other people's judgement to be better than theirs on a particular topic).

 

As a corollary, should there be laws against this practice?

 

Obviously you should not be able to, nor should you.  Just because it looks like a market transaction doesn't mean that it's morally legitimate, any more than accepting a bribe would be for a policeman.  The purpose of a democratic system is to give each citizen an equal say in the collective decisions that necessarily impact everyone.  If you choose not to participate in that system, that's your prerogative; just stay home and don't vote.  However, it's certainly immoral to participate only to subvert the purpose of the system by selling your vote.

 

As I'm thinking about it now, purchasing other people's votes might be the clearest possible case of asking others to subvert their own judgment and defer to another's.  Throughout her writings, Rand was crystal clear on why this is a bad idea for both parties involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously you should not be able to, nor should you.  Just because it looks like a market transaction doesn't mean that it's morally legitimate, any more than accepting a bribe would be for a policeman.  The purpose of a democratic system is to give each citizen an equal say in the collective decisions that necessarily impact everyone.  If you choose not to participate in that system, that's your prerogative; just stay home and don't vote.  However, it's certainly immoral to participate only to subvert the purpose of the system by selling your vote.

 

As I'm thinking about it now, purchasing other people's votes might be the clearest possible case of asking others to subvert their own judgment and defer to another's.  Throughout her writings, Rand was crystal clear on why this is a bad idea for both parties involved.

 

I'm not sure any of that explains it, but I think this does:

 

The act of voting is an implied promise that this is your opinion about the proper course of action or best person for the job. In a sense, the ballot is asking the question, "which box best represents your best judgement about what is right for the country (state, town, etc.)". In that context, bribery would inherently dishonest as you would not be answering the question the ballot asks.

 

All that said, I don't feel very good about this explanation. Our ballots don't have such verbiage nor does anybody think of them that way. This is where I get depressed at just how far we are away from any chance at a free society. We need people to go into a ballot box and vote for their long term best interest, not their short-term / dishonest best interest. We need them to vote for the proper system of individual rights, not vote themselves a pay raise on the backs of others. Certainly in today's context direct bribery is illegal, but indirect bribery is not only legal, but pervasive and even decisive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure any of that explains it, but I think this does:

 

The act of voting is an implied promise that this is your opinion about the proper course of action or best person for the job. In a sense, the ballot is asking the question, "which box best represents your best judgement about what is right for the country (state, town, etc.)". In that context, bribery would inherently dishonest as you would not be answering the question the ballot asks.

 

All that said, I don't feel very good about this explanation. Our ballots don't have such verbiage nor does anybody think of them that way. This is where I get depressed at just how far we are away from any chance at a free society. We need people to go into a ballot box and vote for their long term best interest, not their short-term / dishonest best interest. We need them to vote for the proper system of individual rights, not vote themselves a pay raise on the backs of others. Certainly in today's context direct bribery is illegal, but indirect bribery is not only legal, but pervasive and even decisive.

I assume the "indirect bribery" you're referring to is wealth redistribution in exchange for political power (be it through democratic processes or more forceful means, in the case of dictators). Commonly known as "socialism". (at least I can't think of a single instance of the other possible "indirect bribery": a politician using their own money to indirectly bribe voters - not in the US anyway, it does happen in third world countries on occasion, but on a small scale)

And yeah, it should be illegal (not by mandating people's thoughts, or political campaigns, or speech of any kind, but by limiting government power). Frankly, it already sort of is, in the US. Most illegitimate government spending and economic meddling is very clearly unconstitutional. It's just that no one can enforce a Constitution supported by less than 5% of the population. That's not a flaw with the Constitution itself though.

The Constitution, for the most part, is already very good. If the population ever decides to do support it, the legal mechanisms to stop the "bribery" you are describing are already in place, ready to be enforced. There's need for some small clarifications on the spending/regulatory side, and one big one on the other end of the scheme: making forced taxation illegal, by making property an inalienable right more explicitly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I assume the "indirect bribery" you're referring to is wealth redistribution in exchange for political power...

 

I meant typical politics as usual these days. Money ("campaign donations" etc.) drives a big chunk of US politics. That speaks to the effects of the anti-conceptual culture. Pols must cater to special interests to get the money to buy the ads which will get them elected, more or less. It's an indirect (albeit imperfect) form of bribery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...