The basic reasoning behind HR1 seems to be: If you have a right to vote, the government can’t make you prove anything before you can exercise that right.
The basic reasoning of opponents of the bill seems to be: We require proof in order to exercise all kinds of other rights — to buy or carry a gun, to enter into a contract, to travel on public roads, to marry and start a family, to keep money you’ve earned, and so on. So it makes perfect sense to put voting on an equal footing with all these.
But suppose we look at it a little differently. Suppose we think of some right. We’re not going to say yet what it is. But without knowing, we can still ask: What should you have to prove to the government in order to exercise this right?
The most reasonable answer is: Not a damn thing.
So suppose we amend HR1 to say: Okay, no one has to prove anything in order to vote. But similarly, no one has to prove anything in order to buy or sell or own or carry a gun; no one has to prove anything to enter into a contract; no one has to prove anything in order to drive on public roads; no one has to prove how much money they’ve made, or how much they have, or how they got it; or exercise any other right.
Note that in a country where that is true, voting wouldn’t matter all that much, because progressive, redistributive taxes wouldn’t be possible, and therefore voters wouldn’t be able to use ‘the right to vote’ as a way of moving money from other people’s pockets into their own. Taxes would have to be uniform, as originally intended — everyone gets the same tax bill, which places a natural limit on the size of such a bill, which in turn places pretty severe limits on government revenues.¹
As Bastiat noted long ago, when government is used to plunder some in order to enrich others, the desire to increase the franchise is driven primarily by the desire to share in the loot. Separate voting from looting, and who really cares about the right to vote?
The government would also be unable to enforce minimum wage laws, give special legal status to unions, interfere with the ability of parents to raise their children as they think best, force people to be vaccinated, or do a million other things that require it to stick its nose where it doesn’t belong.
In other words, a country like that would be a free country.
Now, some people might say: The right to vote is special, and in fact, more special than other rights. But actually, the opposite is true.
The right to vote is a civil right. The right to keep and bear arms, or to enter into a contract, and so on, are fundamental rights. The difference is pretty simple: A civil right doesn’t exist until after a particular form of government is put into place.
We could, for example, use sortition to select representatives, instead of electing them — in which case, the ‘right to vote’ doesn’t even make sense.
But — if you believe the Declaration of Independence — no matter what form of government we have, you have the right keep and bear arms to defend yourself, your family, and your property. And the right to enter into contracts. And the right to marry. And so on.
Also — if you believe the Declaration of Independence — the purpose of a civil right is to help protect fundamental rights. So fundamental rights are entitled to more protection than civil rights, rather than less.
So I say: Let’s amend HR1 to return all rights to their proper status — which is to say, let’s not require anyone to prove anything to government in order to exercise them. What could be more fair than that?
¹ Yes, there’s always borrowing. But you can only borrow from people who believe in your ability to pay back what you’ve borrowed. In the case of government, this translates into its ability to use taxes to steal more from people who happen to have more. Take away progressive taxation, and you eliminate excessive borrowing.
