[EM] Individual freedom and voting methods

[Michael Allan]

Russ Paielli wrote:
> The main problem with our political system today is that far too few
> people understand what freedom and individual rights mean. The Bill
> of Rights is just the start of it. Property rights are essential to
> any real notion of freedom, and they are also essential to
> prosperity. When half the population thinks the gov't should take
> from those who have "too much" and give to others who "don't have
> enough," we are in trouble. Yet that's exactly where we are. The
> greatest election methods in the world cannot save us from those
> kind of voters.

In support of your argument, Kant says there is only one essential
right: [1]

  _Freedom_ (independence from being constrained by another's choice),
  insofar as it can coexist with the freedom of every other in
  accordance with a universal law, is the only original right
  belonging to every man by virtue of his humanity.

This is the right to enjoy one's property in private, to speak freely
in public, and to pursue other non-rival freedoms.  Yet this right
which each of us has in principle can only be safeguarded in practice
by our participation in politics.  The 18th century economy gave
wealth to the middle classes, while its technology (printing press,
letter post) gave them information of public affairs and the ability
to communicate widely.  Modern democracy was born of the efforts of
shop owners, professionals and other bourgeoisie to secure and
exercise these new freedoms. [2]

Kristofer Munsterhjelm wrote:
> If people want redistribution, then giving them more democracy will
> lead to more redistribution. If that is a problem with the people,
> then it is a problem with democracy, and as such, a more accurate
> democracy would have a greater problem with it.

We must trust people to make sensible decisions, as Juho puts it.  If
the voters in one state manage to alienate their entrepreneurs and
derail their economy, then hopefully the voters (and entrepreneurs)
elsewhere will heed the lesson and work together to avoid a similar
fate.

Juho Laatu wrote:
> If we go back to the EM topics, good methods need good and simple
> and credible models and philosophies to allow regular people
> (voters) to make sensible decisions on which routes to take. One
> does not work well without the other.

The two topics might be related.  If individual freedoms are as
important as Russ says (and Kant), then would it make sense to
evaluate our voting methods in terms of which affords the greatest
freedom to the voter?  Or might the voter be systematically
constrained by the voting method, and yet still show a deference to
the freedom of others in his/her decisions?


 [1] Immanuel Kant.  1797.  The Metaphysics of Morals.  Edited by Mary
     Gregor.  Cambridge Universtity Press. 1996.
     http://books.google.com/books?id=MJcrTG6tJsAC&pg=PA30#f=true

 [2] Habermas, Jürgen.  1962.  The structural transformation of the
     public sphere: an inquiry into a category of bourgeois society.
     Translated by Thomas Burger, 1989.  MIT Press, Cambridge,
     Massachusetts.  http://books.google.ca/books?id=e799caakIWoC

-- 
Michael Allan

Toronto, +1 416-699-9528
http://zelea.com/