Topic: Libertarianism
Vote Selling Protected By Natural Rights Why Max Sanders should not be prosecuted for trying to sell his vote for president.by Steven M. Paquin
(libertarian)
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Max Sanders faces prosecution for attempting to auction his vote for president on eBay. However, the government is the true villain because it is violating Sanders' natural right to property.
Selling one's vote is indeed vicious because it is an irrational basis to select a politician. Government officials must be incredibly rational because to function properly and virtuously, the government requires superior reason. Therefore, as one of Sanders' persecutors said, "...elections should be a contest of ideas and not of pocketbooks." However, selling one's vote does not initiate force; therefore, the government has no business in halting this vice.
Sanders' oppressor also said, "There are people that have died for this country for our right to vote...." This tyrant is absolutely correct. People have fought and died so Americans could elect government officials. However, before people can elect politicians they first need a vote.
One does not have a natural right to a vote. One only comes to have a vote because the government is required to annually give citizens — legal residents who are 18 years of age or older — one vote for every election in which they may participate. A vote is a piece of property given by the government. Therefore, when the government gives someone a vote, it may not control how that someone uses his vote, for the government no longer owns the vote. A charity may not give a man free soup and then forcibly prohibit him from pouring it down the drain, for the charity has transferred ownership of the soup to the man. What a man does with property he receives whether it is soup or votes is protected by his natural right to property. One may use his vote in any way he chooses, including for sale.
Unfortunately, the government incorrectly believes one does not own his vote. The government believes it retains ownership of the vote. If this is true, one does not have the right to vote. One could only use votes in ways the government allowed because the vote would be the government's property. In this case votes exist for the government's sake, not the people's. Consequently, the government would not be a democracy.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Steven M. Paquin only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Steven M. Paquin is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
