Elections, Part 6

If you didn't take a political philosophy course in college, you missed out. Good old PHIL 332 last year exposed me to some important literature. The most important were Hobbes' Leviathan, Locke's Second Treatise on Government, and Rousseau's On the Social Contract. For a synopsis, Hobbes argues for a totalitarian monarchy as the only way to create and preserve civil society. His state of nature (anarchy) is a war of all against all. There is never an end to the fighting and doing the wrong thing is always in one's best interest. His views on anarchy resemble The Prisoners' Dilemma. Hobbes believes the only way to solve these problems is for everybody to cede all rights to the sovereign, who will enforce punishment so harsh that it is always in one's best interest not to engage in criminal activity (remember my discussion on crime). Unfortunately in this system, no one may challenge the singular authority of the sovereign.
Locke believed in civil society also. But he preferred anarchy to a monarch, because the actions of lone or small bands of criminals are not nearly so devastating as those of someone in whom is vested all power and resources. The problem Locke saw with the SN is that there would be no impartial justice system, and that the common enforcer or vigilante could become capricious or lose impartiality. Locke saw the purpose of civil society as the preservation of the rights of men, which we know are life, liberty, and property. Anything that a government did beyond these bounds was viewed as illegitimate by Locke, and failure to protect rights was grounds for dissolution. Locke realized that people gave up a few rights to protect their liberty, and that they could not give away anyone else's liberty to a legislative body. You cannot cede what is not yours. You are not allowed to vote yourself or anybody else into tyranny. HA! But you did anyways.
Rousseau believed in pure democracy, that everybody should vote, and that the majority was always right, no matter what. Simply put, he was an idiot. Rousseau's form of government leads directly to socialism and communism, because there is no guarantee of individual rights at any time. Any property you have that enough other people want is no longer yours. Certain unpopular dissenting ideas? Banned. Why? Because most people choose to be rulers over other people and that's what motivates most voting. Most people do not respect the freedom of others. This is where Rousseau differs from Locke in a huge way. In Locke's government, a small amount of freedom is relinquished for the government to protect your natural rights. In Rousseau's social contract, the government, aka everybody else, grants you your rights. This country was founded on Locke's ideas, that all men are endowed with certain rights by their Creator, and not by men. My right to life, liberty and property is granted to me by God and cannot be taken away by you or anyone you empowered. Democracy is not freedom, unless freedom is slavery. And democracy is slavery to the whims of your fellow citizens.
Try this. We are all responsible for our actions, and in some circumstances, we are responsible for the behavior of guests. We are also responsible for the behavior of animals and all our other property. You vote to have people "represent you." So what happens when these officials molest children, order innocent people to be killed, or embezzle money and take bribes? They do it in your name. They are acting as an agent for you. When you knowingly elect criminals, you are an accessory to the crime. Residents in a certain congressional district of Massachusetts are responsible for Barney Frank's perversion, and millions of Americans have the blood of tens of thousands of Iraqis on their heads. Secret ballots are a bad idea. If you're going to vote for someone and vest in them virtually limitless power and resources, be a man and have the balls to take responsibility for your actions. If you're an accessory to crime, you should be tracked down and prosecuted as such. This is just one of the ways in which a lack of individual responsibility is bringing this country down. It is an incentive in most other areas of life not to make poor choices, because you often will reap the negative consequences. This motivates us to make better, more conscientious decisions. Voting would drastically improve if the same incentive applied.
Anyways, the elections are tomorrow, and I strongly encourage you not to vote if you are unsure, lazy, ignorant, principled, or you just don't want to. There's plenty of better things to do. You're not responsible for how others vote, and if you don't vote for the criminals, you won't be responsible for them, and you also have been granted the right to complain about the government. Besides, your vote only makes the difference if your state decides the election and if the state totals are tied. So what if everyone else thought that way? Less people would vote for the criminals, and the crooks would have less support. We would have at least a slightly less terrible government. But if you do vote tomorrow, don't vote for a criminal. Don't vote for an incumbent except for Ron Paul, and please try not to vote for Republicans or Democrats. However, if you do, don't complain about the terrible, corrupt government which you are responsible for selecting and empowering.