Voter Bribery on Arizona Ballot

I have mentioned here on past occasions my frustration with the wide currency of the misconception that what America has (and needs to export to the world) is "democracy". The fallacy of this notion is nowhere more evident than in "Palestine", whose benighted people recently elected into power terrorists, who not only seek endless war with Israel, but continue Yassir Arafat's other tradition: of running roughshod over the rights of the people they govern.

As Yaron Brook so ably pointed out some time ago:

Viewed in this context of dictatorial rule, the alleged right of Palestinians to "self-determination" is groundless. No group has a right to its own state if what it seeks is a dictatorship. Arafat's "Palestinian self-determination" really means more of Arafat's despotism--it means granting legitimacy to a state that is utterly hostile to its own citizens.

As Ayn Rand wrote, "the right of 'the self-determination of nations' applies only to free societies or to societies seeking to establish freedom; it does not apply to dictatorships." The only legitimate reason to found a new state is to escape tyranny and secure freedom. Thus, America's Founding Fathers rightly fought for independence from England's oppressive rule; the United States was founded on the recognition of individual rights. What Arafat desires, however, is the "right" to rule rightless serfs in a state run by a ruthless dictator. Nobody has a right to create and maintain such a state.

Just because large numbers of people go through the same physical motions as free people holding elections does not somehow magically transform what they have into the same thing that our Founding Fathers won by their own sweat and blood -- not to mention their not inconsiderable intellectual efforts.

In fact, what distinguishes our form of government is that it respects individual rights. The practice of voting to enact some legislation or to choose representatives is merely the mechanism by which the opinions of the governed are taken into consideration. As the famous warning went shortly after the revolution, "A republic -- if you can keep it." If men make enough foolish decisions, they can destroy their government and with it, their freedom. This happened in one election (which should never have occurred) in "Palestine" and it is happening slowly (but not irreversibly) here.

But there are those who, completely failing to appreciate the intellectual dimension of the government of a free society, seem hell-bent on making us lose our freedom by replacing the considered deliberation of the earnest voter with the ritual of voting copied endlessly by trained monkeys. For these champions of democracy, and they do in fact champion mob rule, it is quantity over quality. "If only we can get as many people as possible to punch ballots," they seem to think, "we will have good government."

Only someone who would rather a million imbeciles than thousands of intelligent and well-informed voters make important decisions would favor, as one John Vasconcellos of California did two years ago, lowering the voting age to 14. And the same (or worse) could be said of Arizona's Mark Osterloh, a busybody who has introduced a ballot initiative to "reward" voting with a chance at winning the lottery -- as if the chance to secure one's freedom by participating in the process of governing weren't its own reward.

It should come as little surprise that so much devotion to mere ritual -- and so little stock placed in reason -- would come from a Bible-thumper.

Osterloh said the concept of rewards is not so odd. He said it actually comes from the Bible -- that if you do the right thing, you get into heaven.

"If incentives are good enough for God, they're good enough for Arizona," he said.

Osterloh said he'd be willing to look at the punishment side of the equation -- don't act properly and wind up somewhere unpleasant. That actually is the system in Australia, where citizens can be fined $20 or more for failing to vote, a system that has resulted in a 95 percent turnout.

But that isn't an option here, Osterloh said, because of U.S. Supreme Court rulings.

"It's an issue of free speech," he said.

Even his apparent respect for freedom of speech is formulaic! For what difference does freedom of speech make -- in the form of political debates -- if we do everything we can to lure dolts who don't give a damn about these debates to the polls?

This is a foolish idea. Fortunately, it seems that the idea is not going over well with everyone out there, and there is some time for opponents to offer their counter-arguments. They will need it, though. If the measure is approved, it will be retroactive, meaning that exactly the kind of moron who will vote randomly simply to have a shot at the loot will probably show up in droves.

In other words, the bribery -- for one foolish vote and many more that are quite literally nothing more than getting one's ticket punched -- has already begun.

-- CAV