Why Does Everyone Get A Vote, And Why Does Everyone Have Rights?

[nimble]

A question that has been bothering me for sometime is, if Objectivism rejects egalitarianism, why is there so much equality in voting and rights.

It is obvious that all men are not equal in anything. They are not equal in size, shape, character, ability, and even physical genetics varies from person to person, so on what basis does everyone get equal political power? Political power is a value, yet we just arbitrarily hand it to anyone who happens to be born in a given geograpical region? Shouldn't political power, such as voting be based on merit, since it is a value, and values ought to be earned.

Secondly, the same objection applies to rights. If there is no natural law (God's decree or some form of Platonic idea of law), then on what basis does everyone deserve equal rights?

Please respond with an in depth answer. This is a genuine question, and I have read almost every Objectivist book, so try to keep vague Rand restatements out of your responses.

Edited December 8, 2005 by nimble

[Praxus]

Men are equal in the fact that they all have a capacity to reason. The ability to reason and chose among options are the essential characteristics of man. For reading "almost all" of Ayn Rand's books, I wonder how you could have missed it.

Secondly, the same objection applies to rights. If there is no natural law (God's decree or some form of Platonic idea of law), then on what basis does everyone deserve equal rights?

Natural Law is nothing more then the nature of things. The fact that man requires reason is because of our natural requirments for existence. Everyone man shares this requirement. Rights are derived from this, ergo we have equal rights.

Edited December 8, 2005 by Praxus

[khaight]

It is obvious that all men are not equal in anything. They are not equal in size, shape, character, ability, and even physical genetics varies from person to person, so on what basis does everyone get equal political power? Political power is a value, yet we just arbitrarily hand it to anyone who happens to be born in a given geograpical region? Shouldn't political power, such as voting be based on merit, since it is a value, and values ought to be earned.

Secondly, the same objection applies to rights. If there is no natural law (God's decree or some form of Platonic idea of law), then on what basis does everyone deserve equal rights?

I'll take these questions in reverse order.

How does Objectivism validate the principle of individual rights? Here's a *very* brief sketch. Start with the observation that, according to Objectivism, life is the standard of value and reason is man's means of survival. These facts are true of all men. The questions of rights arises only in a social context -- is there anything that can happen in society that blocks man's ability to survive and pursue values that cannot happen outside society? Yes. Men can choose to initiate force against each other. The principle of individual rights identifies the necessary conditions a society must meet to preserve the requirements of human survival -- the absence of the initiation of physical force. All men possess equal rights because all men have the same fundamental requirements for survival and flourishing -- the free and unfettered exercise of their minds.

Now, the distribution of political power. This is a much more derivative issue, and I have to dispute your premise. I don't think Objectivism dictates that political power be equally distributed. It isn't equally distributed in the United States today. Children have rights, but they don't get to vote. Felons don't get to vote outside of Chicago. And the weight of my vote differs depending on geographical region, e.g. compare the number of votes required to elect a Senator in California versus the number required to elect a Senator in Wyoming -- yet both Senators have equal voting weight in the Senate. Because I am from a high-population state, the amount of political power I wield (indirectly) in the Senate is far less than that wielded by a resident of a low-population state. Etc.

I think that fundamentally, political philosophy tells us that the government should protect individual rights. Political science tells us how best to go about crafting a government that will be stable and accomplish this end. Questions of governmental structure, such as who gets to vote, how votes are counted, etc., should be analyzed by reference to what best leads to a rights-respecting government over the long term.

There are some principles that limit the range of possibilities. I think that a governmental structure that allows people to vote should not grant franchise to some and deny it to others arbitrarily -- the distribution of voting authority must have a rational basis. So things like allowing white men to vote while blacks and women may not are still wrong, because there is no rational basis for distinguishing the groups in this context. But it may be valid to limit the franchise to property owners (assuming property ownership is open to everyone), or to adults, because there is a rational basis for drawing the distinction.

[JMeganSnow]

Voting and rights are not identical in scope. In fact, voting is not even absolutely necessary, although some sort of broad-based excercise of franchise probably is if protection of rights is your goal.

[Inspector]

Nimble,

Another fact you may be overlooking is that Objectivism advocates Laissez-Faire Capitalism, in which nobody may violate rights and therefore be said to have "political power." People have the right to vote and elect representatives, but by law those representatives do not have any political power. So your concern is, in that way, moot.

[nimble]

Men are equal in the fact that they all have a capacity to reason. The ability to reason and chose among options are the essential characteristics of man. For reading "almost all" of Ayn Rand's books, I wonder how you could have missed it.

Natural Law is nothing more then the nature of things. The fact that man requires reason is because of our natural requirments for existence. Everyone man shares this requirement. Rights are derived from this, ergo we have equal rights.

Not all humans have the capacity to reason, such as a child or a retard or a vegetable. Yet they are physically human.

And it is the official Objectivist stance that there is no such thing as natural law, but instead they replace it with something called Objective Law, which is just a positive law extention of Rand's ethics. Natural Law implies that there is some 'ought' that exists with or without governments. It is the Objectivist stance that there is no law without government.

I'll take these questions in reverse order.

How does Objectivism validate the principle of individual rights? Here's a *very* brief sketch. Start with the observation that, according to Objectivism, life is the standard of value and reason is man's means of survival. These facts are true of all men. The questions of rights arises only in a social context -- is there anything that can happen in society that blocks man's ability to survive and pursue values that cannot happen outside society? Yes. Men can choose to initiate force against each other. The principle of individual rights identifies the necessary conditions a society must meet to preserve the requirements of human survival -- the absence of the initiation of physical force. All men possess equal rights because all men have the same fundamental requirements for survival and flourishing -- the free and unfettered exercise of their minds.

Now, the distribution of political power. This is a much more derivative issue, and I have to dispute your premise. I don't think Objectivism dictates that political power be equally distributed. It isn't equally distributed in the United States today. Children have rights, but they don't get to vote. Felons don't get to vote outside of Chicago. And the weight of my vote differs depending on geographical region, e.g. compare the number of votes required to elect a Senator in California versus the number required to elect a Senator in Wyoming -- yet both Senators have equal voting weight in the Senate. Because I am from a high-population state, the amount of political power I wield (indirectly) in the Senate is far less than that wielded by a resident of a low-population state. Etc.

I think that fundamentally, political philosophy tells us that the government should protect individual rights. Political science tells us how best to go about crafting a government that will be stable and accomplish this end. Questions of governmental structure, such as who gets to vote, how votes are counted, etc., should be analyzed by reference to what best leads to a rights-respecting government over the long term.

There are some principles that limit the range of possibilities. I think that a governmental structure that allows people to vote should not grant franchise to some and deny it to others arbitrarily -- the distribution of voting authority must have a rational basis. So things like allowing white men to vote while blacks and women may not are still wrong, because there is no rational basis for distinguishing the groups in this context. But it may be valid to limit the franchise to property owners (assuming property ownership is open to everyone), or to adults, because there is a rational basis for drawing the distinction.

Thank you for this reply.

Voting and rights are not identical in scope. In fact, voting is not even absolutely necessary, although some sort of broad-based excercise of franchise probably is if protection of rights is your goal.

Well voting was in a sense just my way of representing political power. The existence or non-existence of voting in a society is really not an issue for me. But thank you for your response.

Nimble,

Another fact you may be overlooking is that Objectivism advocates Laissez-Faire Capitalism, in which nobody may violate rights and therefore be said to have "political power." People have the right to vote and elect representatives, but by law those representatives do not have any political power. So your concern is, in that way, moot.

What do you mean that the representatives don't have political power? If they have no power, then what is the point of their office and salary?

Edited December 8, 2005 by nimble

[Inspector]

What do you mean that the representatives don't have political power? If they have no power, then what is the point of their office and salary?

First, you need to define what "political power" is. The power to do what?

[khaight]

Not all humans have the capacity to reason, such as a child or a retard or a vegetable. Yet they are physically human.

I just want to point out that this doesn't impact the Objectivist argument for individual rights at all. Even children, retards and vegetables require the use of reason to survive. Their reason is impaired, either due to age, malfunction or damage, but nevertheless their natures require the exercise of that faculty. That's why children, retards and vegetables require care by mature, functioning adults.

You might also look up Don Watkins' essay on "broken units" for some further thoughts addressed to this kind of objection.

And it is the official Objectivist stance that there is no such thing as natural law, but instead they replace it with something called Objective Law, which is just a positive law extention of Rand's ethics. Natural Law implies that there is some 'ought' that exists with or without governments. It is the Objectivist stance that there is no law without government.

I think you're conflating concepts here. Objectivism certainly claims that there is an 'ought' that exists outside of and prior to government. The whole field of ethics is about what men 'ought' to do, and doesn't refer to government at all.

The field of political philosophy is built on top of ethics. In essence, it says "now that we know the moral code men should follow, how can we ensure that men can follow that code in a social context?" The fundamental answer to that question, as I tried to indicate in my earlier post, is the principle of individual rights. And then, given that a proper society should respect the principle of individual rights, we come to the question of how that is to be done. Only at this point does government enter the picture.

[DavidOdden]

Political power is a value, yet we just arbitrarily hand it to anyone who happens to be born in a given geograpical region? Shouldn't political power, such as voting be based on merit, since it is a value, and values ought to be earned.

The question about voting is much easier. Unlike rights, elections are not necessary to man's survival qua man, and your presumption that we should hand it out to "just anyone" is wrong. What we need is recognition and protection of man's rights, and we get that by having a government that enforces objectively-justified law. The concern ought to be primarily with establishing a framework for construction and interpretation of such law, not with which person authors such laws or interprets them. Often, the interpreters and enforcers of the law are not elected.

The only thing that is really required of the selection process is that it be followed fairly and objectively, and that it result in what is supposed to come about, namely having a government that protects rights. Most jurisdictions require that you have a certain level of maturity, that you be a citizen and thus have a personal interest in a good outsome, and that you not be a particular kind of morally reprehensible person (a felon). Residency requirements are, similarly, a good thing. Literacy tests were a good thing, IMO, though they were used for bad purposes in the old days; banning women and Indians from voting served no rational function and would fail the test "does this restriction serve the purpose of restrictions of voting".

The age restriction doesn't perfectly get at the proper reason for age restrictions (namely, minors are generally not capable of making a rational decision on who will write laws and chose interpreters and enforcers of law), but it's a good enough rule of thumb that it's a reaonable basis for preventing some people from voting. A "basic citizenship" test would be another reasonable qualification, again as long as it's designed to weed out people who don't grasp what government is supposed to do and might think of this as a way to get a personal advantage at someone else's expense.

[nimble]

I just want to point out that this doesn't impact the Objectivist argument for individual rights at all. Even children, retards and vegetables require the use of reason to survive. Their reason is impaired, either due to age, malfunction or damage, but nevertheless their natures require the exercise of that faculty. That's why children, retards and vegetables require care by mature, functioning adults.

You might also look up Don Watkins' essay on "broken units" for some further thoughts addressed to this kind of objection.

I think you're conflating concepts here. Objectivism certainly claims that there is an 'ought' that exists outside of and prior to government. The whole field of ethics is about what men 'ought' to do, and doesn't refer to government at all.

The field of political philosophy is built on top of ethics. In essence, it says "now that we know the moral code men should follow, how can we ensure that men can follow that code in a social context?" The fundamental answer to that question, as I tried to indicate in my earlier post, is the principle of individual rights. And then, given that a proper society should respect the principle of individual rights, we come to the question of how that is to be done. Only at this point does government enter the picture.

I agree with your top statement. That makes sense.

However, Objectivism does not make any claims to a natural law. I know this for a fact because I have personally spoken via email with Harry Binswanger. Objectivists reject natural law because natural law implies that there is an moral ought outside of any context. If you have ever noticed most natural lawists either refer to God as the source of the law, or use some Platonic sense of the word law. Basically, that's how you might notice that many libertarians skew Rand's politics (I know this because I was one). I thought she endorsed natural law. In natural law, they often preach about how initiating the use of force is a moral no-no, and it is so, not for any reasons with context to a specific situation, but in general it is just always wrong, simply because the universe is designed the way it is. That's why if I were a natural lawist, I would say that the war in Iraq is unjust, because we initiated force on them. Also, natural law makes the claim that it preceeds government, and if it claims that all initiations of force are bad, and that government gets its governing area, by forcing out competition for policing, then it can be said that government is bad.

Only when you make the claim that law can not be established without government, can you then make the claim that government does not initiate force. ***This was an argument used against me in the anarchy vs. govt debate, so I assume this won't be disputed***

So, since natural law is rationalist in nature, Objectivism came up with a more adequate "Objective Law" doctrine that a ton of laywers are pushing for right now.

The question about voting is much easier. Unlike rights, elections are not necessary to man's survival qua man, and your presumption that we should hand it out to "just anyone" is wrong. What we need is recognition and protection of man's rights, and we get that by having a government that enforces objectively-justified law. The concern ought to be primarily with establishing a framework for construction and interpretation of such law, not with which person authors such laws or interprets them. Often, the interpreters and enforcers of the law are not elected.

The only thing that is really required of the selection process is that it be followed fairly and objectively, and that it result in what is supposed to come about, namely having a government that protects rights. Most jurisdictions require that you have a certain level of maturity, that you be a citizen and thus have a personal interest in a good outsome, and that you not be a particular kind of morally reprehensible person (a felon). Residency requirements are, similarly, a good thing. Literacy tests were a good thing, IMO, though they were used for bad purposes in the old days; banning women and Indians from voting served no rational function and would fail the test "does this restriction serve the purpose of restrictions of voting".

The age restriction doesn't perfectly get at the proper reason for age restrictions (namely, minors are generally not capable of making a rational decision on who will write laws and chose interpreters and enforcers of law), but it's a good enough rule of thumb that it's a reaonable basis for preventing some people from voting. A "basic citizenship" test would be another reasonable qualification, again as long as it's designed to weed out people who don't grasp what government is supposed to do and might think of this as a way to get a personal advantage at someone else's expense.

Thanks. I think this marks the end of my voting question, so no one else, need reply to that. However, my questions have kind of shifted more toward how does Objectivism create laws, and if a moderator needs to make this a separate thread, I won't complain.

Edited December 8, 2005 by nimble

[Inspector]

Remember that "oughts" exist only within contexts.

Objectivist ethics take the pattern of "If you want.... then you must" and not the "You must..." approach of previous philosophies.

Edited December 8, 2005 by Inspector

[nimble]

First, you need to define what "political power" is. The power to do what?

The power to write laws and make decisions that affect other people. Let's say its merely the power to determine where the police stations go. The person in power, might put the station right next to their house, for protection. Now as a citizen, he didn't violate any of my rights, but I may feel a bit cheated that he did that with my donated money.

Remember that "oughts" exist only within contexts.

Objectivist ethics take the patter of "If you want.... then you must" and not the "You must..." approach of previous philosophies.

I'm not disagreeing with this. I am merely saying that for the reasons stated above, that's why they reject natural law, and have a thing called Objective Law.

[Inspector]

I'm not disagreeing with this. I am merely saying that for the reasons stated above, that's why they reject natural law, and have a thing called Objective Law.

In fact, you were asserting that.

Sorry if it looked like I was saying you disagreed.

[Inspector]

The power to write laws and make decisions that affect other people. Let's say its merely the power to determine where the police stations go. The person in power, might put the station right next to their house, for protection. Now as a citizen, he didn't violate any of my rights, but I may feel a bit cheated that he did that with my donated money.

Okay, then I can see why you are confused. I was thinking more of the definition used here:

Economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman's tool is values; the bureaucrat's tool is fear.

What I meant to say about LFC is that the elected officials are bound by law to use this power only in the defense of rights. They do not hold the same kind of power that is held in a statist social system. They can’t tax you or indict you for anti-trust. So the concern over the “power” that they have is necessarily far less.

[softwareNerd]

Nimble, Your concern seems to center around what one might term "residual corruption" or "residual non-objectivity" in a Capitalist system. When government is disallowed from doing all sorts of things it does today, there are still some areas where those who govern might not see an objective way to make a decision. Or, they may just be corrupt. The example you give is decisions about the location of government facilities: police stations, fire-stations, the mayor's office, etc.

Is that (i.e. the imperfection / residual-corruption) the focus of your question?

If it is, then -- for starters -- one has to be realistic: cheats exist and always will. They even know the rules and how to get around them. A reasonable legal-political system will continue to make the law more and more objective. Much of this can only come from experience. That is how the best law has been formed and codified over time.

Even so, there will probably be some residual corruption that is so small that voters simply deal with it by judging degree. For instance, the president of our sub-division is elected for an annual term. The landscaping on his street is subtly better than on mine. [For all I know, the landscaping contractor just takes extra care around the president's house.] The landscaping around the rest of the sub is pretty decent anyway. However, given the rest of the job this guy does, come next election I'll vote for him again.

Now, if this got really bad, one might have to change the "political system" of the sub-division. One might make a law that made the facts clear: number of plants and amount of money spent on each street, compared to street length. One might split the job by appointing street-level landscaping decision-makers and divide the landscaping budget among them, based on the number of houses, etc. One might have a law that the president cannot serve on the sub-division board for more than 2 years, in any capacity.

Basically, one can introduce checks and balances, and one can try to codify some things more explicitly and objectively.

Hopefully, I haven't started answering a question that you didn't ask in the first place.

[nimble]

Hopefully, I haven't started answering a question that you didn't ask in the first place.

No, you helped. Thank you.

[DavidV]

Secondly, the same objection applies to rights. If there is no natural law (God's decree or some form of Platonic idea of law), then on what basis does everyone deserve equal rights?

I think khaight makes a good reply. I just want to add that another way to say "everyone deserves equal rights" is to say "it is impractical to deal with rational men by force." The reason why this is so, and why we must regard it as a principle have already been explained.

The problem with the way you pose the question is the use of the word “deserve,” which implies that individuals “earn” rights as a recognition for virtue. In fact, we respect individual rights by default, not because of any virtue, but because it the practical thing to do – unless an individual does something to show otherwise.

Shouldn't political power, such as voting be based on merit, since it is a value, and values ought to be earned.

Yes. Unlike individual rights, political power IS a recognition of certain virtues, namely the wisdom to make decisions regarding the law of the land, and should only be granted if those virtues are deserved. When this principle is forgotten, the quality of the political decisions decays, and the society eventually collapses in an orgy of looting and self-destruction. This is why the Founding Fathers and most Objectivists oppose universal suffrage.

I think that the important thing is not how qualified voters are selected (whether it is land ownership, military service, or a vote tax) but that the vote is restricted to a natural aristocracy that has an interest in preserving the law of the land, and the experience to do so. The percentage of the population qualified to do will vary of course, but I think it should be well under five percent of the total.

Edited December 10, 2005 by GreedyCapitalist