Is voting a fundamental human right. If people have to fight their country’s wars and get killed as a result of their country’s military adventures (or misadventures), should they not also rightfully deserve to select their representation? If people are to have their taxes spent, should it not be by those that the majority voted for? (As in an elected government being the solution to taxation without representation.)
It’s beginning to look a lot like it is that way to me. I cannot see much moral justification for a government that is not representative of the will of the people. Fascist states, dictatorships, unconstitutional (or unenlightened) monarchies and communism all seem to violate this basic concept and are beginning to lose credibility with me rather quickly.
I believe that ending terrorism may also require representative government (in some cases with its voting monitored by world organizations) in many of the countries sponsoring this parasite upon humanity. People will be less likely to elect a government who will place them in harm’s way. While this will not stop the occasional Germany or Japan from trying some lunatic stunts, it will reduce the problems involved with arrogation of power.
I see few other ways for much of the world’s population to secure a grasp on their own destiny. I realize that this may come across as hugely sociocentric, with me being an American. But I see few alternatives to democratic elections when it comes to eliminating much of the opportunity for terrorism to take root in unstable political soil.
In the U.S, voting is supposedly a fundamental human right. But look at the last election. First of all, 50% of the people did not vote. And amog those who did vote, what was the outcome? Smack 50-50. So, who is this government representing?
As for other countries, historically speaking, the superpowers have consistently opposed the development of representative governments in places such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.
After all, if people in “those sorts” of countries start running their own affairs … who knows. Next they’ll want to do something silly like taking possession of their own oil industry or other resources too … and would that sort of thing be in the national interest of the 1st world countries?
Isn’t it in our own interest to make sure those 3rd world countries continue building more mosques and temples, and remain ignorant … busy forever with their tribal wars, while we turn them into sweat shops at 50 cents per hour and buy their natural resources at a “fair” price?
Look at Iraq. People vote there. Didn’t Saddam Hussein get over 90% of the votes during the last election? And, in the U.S., didn’t the Capitalist party get over 90% of the votes during the last election?
The US people should have followed the example of the Liberian electorate in 1927. President Charles King (1875-1961) was elected with an official majority of 234,000, following a record turnout of over 16 times the number of people eligible to vote.
I’m not certain that voting itself is a fundamental human right, but I believe that the ability of people to alter the form of their government through deliberative process (as opposed to revolution) is. Whether this takes the form of democratic voting or some other mechanism, is less clear to me.
Voting is a civil right. If it were a human right, then felons and people under the age of 18 would be allowed to vote, as well as women in the 19th century.
Actually, you’re wrong. First, one has to establish the difference between “civil rights” versus “fundamental human rights.” The distinction is made by the society. It seems that our society defines “fundamental human rights” as rights that are not limited for any reason (age, sex, race, etc), while civil rights can and do have limitations.
As such, voting is not a “fundamental human right” in the US. If it were, babies would be eligible to vote. As it is, it is a citizens right to vote, but only after they meet the qualifications. Babies do enjoy the fundamental human rights that we recognize, such as the right to life (not to be confused with the Right-to-Life anti-abortion people), etc.
Aside: KellyM, would you disagree? This is not so much cultural relativism, but more a form of (appropriate) age-discrimination. Fundamental human rights extend to all humans, but the rights of citizens do not necessarily extend to every single member of the society, children being an example.
Err…I fail to see the relevance of your “50% didn’t vote” statistic. The fact that they didn’t vote indicates that they feel they’ll be well-represented by candidate elected, whomever that may be. The right to vote includes the right not to vote. The outcome was that Bush won, as is evidenced by the fact that he was sworn in as president. The government is representing the American people. How is this pertinent to the discussion at hand?
Cite please? This sounds like a good ole-fashioned conspiracy theory.
Say what? While “we” do what? Since you’re using the inclusive pronoun there, I have to ask, what are you doing that turns said countries into said sweat shops? And what does your involvement in these activities have to do with voting as a human right?
I don’t know so much about Iraq, but last I checked, the Capitalist party didn’t get too many votes at all in the states. The vast (vast) majority of the votes were for either a Republican or Democrat. Regardless, I fail to see what “which party got more votes” has to do with voting as a human right.
All in all, your post does not put forth any argument that really debates the topic at hand (“Is voting a fundamental human right?”). Instead, you say “Yes, it is!” and then proceed to rant about how Da Man is holding everyone down.
Zenster, this is my pet theory:
I think we’d all agree that there is no divine mandate that gives one person or group the right to command the nation. The idea of equality has taken firm root in our minds. However, we’re a species of followers, who want to be led. I draw this conclusion based on the popularity of sports-icons, fashion models, and other “stars”. “What’s Jennifer Aniston doing with her hair?? I’ve GOT TO TRY THAT!!”, “Wear Nike because Michael Jordan does!”, and so on. The idea of a monarchy is prevalent throughout our history, from kings to emperors to pharoahs, etc. The idea of a popularly elected representative government based on the ideal of equality of citizens is relatively rare throughout our history.
I’d say that citizens have the right to elect their government, but it is not natural for us to do so. We are comfortable being led, almost regardless of who is doing the leading, which is evidenced by the low percentages of voter turn-out.
I’m from Canada, but there’s plenty of fundamental similarities in our political, legal, and philosophical thoughts.
I agree with you that voting is not a natural right. To go a bit further, the right to vote is an enshrinement most likely dicted within a sovereign state’s constitution (or a Bill of Rights). What’s a sovereign? To put it simply, a state becomes sovereign through: 1) Voting (this creates a paradox); 2) Succession; 3) War (the clear winner that is). In addition, the sovereign must be recognized by an international body (e.g. the United Nations, other sovereign states). It’s somewhat messed up, but perhaps someone with a clearer understanding of politics and law can elaborate a bit furthers. In anycase, the right to vote is not inherently a natural right (or a freedom for that matter).
In regards to low voters turnout, it is ashame that some citizens are not exercising their right (or care about for that matter); however, there are many factors as to why voters don’t vote (e.g. “it doesn’t matter”; “they’re all the same”, “I’m too busy working”, and so forth). Also, caution should be brought about the ‘majority is right fallacy’ or ‘obeying to the majority’s wishes’ - I think there are plenty of classic philosophers such as Locke who’ll argue against this point.
On a side, ever read Robert Heinlein’s Starship Trooper; in a way, it’s somewhat scary about their voting system (only citizens can have certain rights, such as the right to vote).
If those ethicists could demonstrate the existence of even one of those universal moral absolutes they are afraid of losing then cultural relativism wouldn’t exist ( or at least wouldn’t be any more viable than creationism ). Perhaps as much as half the traffic in this forum would disappear along with it.
For an argument for rights as social constructs see Liberalism Resurgent which summarizes it’s position this way:
I believe that The People have the ability to change their government either through democratic voting or in some other manner including armed revolution. The US is founded upon this “natural right” ( see the Declaration of Independence ).
Beelzebubba,
Sorry but the fact that half of adult Americans didn’t vote only indicates that they didn’t vote. Lacking any other information we have no insight as to why they failed to do so. Plenty of people think that there is no point because nothing will come of it. Many see no real difference between the 2 major parties, which I believe was One Cell’s point by referring to them both as a “Capitalist Party”. Also it is a bit incongrous to discuss the right to vote in relation to the Presidency since only 538 of us were allowed to cast a vote for one candidate or the other ( and one refused to do so ). So basically we have the right not to vote for our leader without any right to do so.
Just my 2sense Truth: Every government is dependent on the failure of the people to overthrow it; this is usually achieved by gaining passive assent. - Pjen
1- Regarding the relevance of 50% non-voters in the US. The OP theorized that elevating democratic elections to the same level as basic human rights may help resolve the problem of terrorism. The OP is implying that if the “civilized” countries demand and oversee democratic elections in “not-so-civilized” countries, then maybe we can eliminate terrorism where it takes root. But what if you take the horse to the water but he does not drink. Some of those feudal countries are not too fond of democracy. Truly democratic countries like Denmark, Norway and Netherlands are made of educated and globally aware citizens. In short, they are civilized and somewhat intelligent, not ignorant. Consequently, they are neither a breeding ground for terrorists nor a target of terrorism. 2sense also provided a good explanation for the existence of non-voters.
2- Regarding the historical opposition of superpowers to development of democracy in the 3rd world, you asked for a cite. Simply go to Google search and type: US intervention. You’ll find over 26,000 cites. Also read any Noam Chumsky books. If you think I am into conspiracy theory, then you must be into coincidence theory, or in shear darkness. As horrible as the WTC tragedy was, one hopes it woke up people like you as to what the big 8 (especially the U.S.) have done, and are continuing to do to the rest of the world. Can’t you see the relationship between these activities and basic human rights?
3- Re. Your question: What are we doing that turns the 3rd world countries into sweat shops. I suggest you start a thread on this, and you’ll be amazed how many good answers and cites you get. Also look around in your closets and kitchen wares. How many of them say “Made in China”, “Made in Malaysia”, “Made in India”. Now, look at the minimum wage laws in those countries, if any. Why do you think multinational corporations such as Union Carbide set their manufacturing plants in the 3rd world countries? Simple. Sweat shop wages with no labor laws. By the way, the US corporations not only have turned the 3rd world blue collar workers into sweat shops, they have done similar thing in the U.S. itself. I suggest you read the recent book: White-Collar Sweatshops by Jill Andreskey Fraser
4- As for the overwhelming votes in the US for the Capitalist party, I am sorry that you do not see the Republican and Democratic parties as merely two wings of the same party – namely The Capitalist Party. For too long, the US political scene has been similar to the old Soviet Union (over 9% voting for Communist Party), like Hitler’s Germany (over 90% voting for Nazis), and like Iraq (over 90% voting for Baath Party, i.e. Saddam Hossein). The US political scene may not need the presence of failed systems such as Communist party nor even Socialist party, but it sure can do with emergence of new parties that would offer improvements over the failures of the Capitalist Party that has led to the current state of human rights.
I am not ranting about “Da Man”, no more than 80% of the world population is ranting about the other 20%. Although the Capitalist system and the free market forces are supposed to take care of inequalities in the long run, somehow the 20% continue to hold on to power and to most of the wealth on this planet at the expense, poverty and helplessness of the other 80%. If you think about it, there is a direct relationship between the current state of human rights and the policies of “Da Man”.
Someones already mentioned this, but this sounds to me like Heinlein’s “Starship Troopers”. You serve in the military, you get to vote (simplified). Should we do it like that?
Hmmmmm…kids are subject to “taxation without representation”. Ditto immigrants. Should they not be taxed?