this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
35 points (100.0% liked)

AskBeehaw

2002 readers
1 users here now

An open-ended community for asking and answering various questions! Permissive of asks, AMAs, and OOTLs (out-of-the-loop) alike.

In the absence of flairs, questions requesting more thought-out answers can be marked by putting [SERIOUS] in the title.


Subcommunity of Chat


This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

good idea/bad idea, necessary democratic reform or authoritarian imposition? are there better or worse ways to do it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 month ago

why are you judging peoples countries based on your view that governments shouldn’t force people to do things?

Because that's what this thread is for, sharing thoughts on compulsory voting.

in fact you’re judging peoples’ lived experience and opinions based entirely on your own narrow views of government

Rather I'm saying that just because people approve of something doesn't mean it's good. If you think governments forcing people to do things is something to be embraced in general, and your lived experience with it is positive, that's your opinion, which is fine, but it doesn't mean that opinion is right.

yknow what else is good? taxes, fire services, disaster response, and dare i say - public healthcare and ambulances… all things im mandated to pay for along with everyone around me in case we ever need them

Agreed, but I think you're papering over some important nuance in the position I'm expressing here. I see this sort of compulsory taxation and what it buys as an example of something where the need outweighs the harm. It is ok because of how important these services are, and despite the lesser harm of making people slightly less free. If all taxes rather went to building golden statues of the president, they would be bad.

My argument against compulsory voting is premised on the idea that reduced freedom is a harm, and must be justified by some good that sufficiently outweighs it. I haven't made an argument supporting that premise, but I think it's a sufficiently intuitive and popular sentiment that I shouldn't have to. If you disagree with that premise, I think that just means we have very different values.