Practical, political, and moral reasons not to vote

Wendy McElroy presents some food for thought on principled non-voting in a recent speech.   I think her ideas are worth considering, but Bill Bradford’s rebuttal (not to this speech, but to an article of McElroy’s) is also worth reading for an opposing perspective.  Here are some excerpts:

But what if the ballot is just one more government form to be filled out and filed. What if the process itself is nothing more than a ritual designed to give you a feeling of control over your life, and elections are what they give you instead of real change? …

Tonight I’m addressing the specific act of voting that involves giving your personal sanction – usually by pulling a lever or marking a ballot. I’m talking about giving your personal sanction to a candidate in order to assist that candidate into a position of power over the lives of others – a position like senator or president. …

Politically speaking, I believe your consent and the right to withhold it is the most important thing that an individual can possess. Quite apart from the voting issue, as a larger statement, your consent is the most politically powerful thing you own. …

I want to pause … to look at a common pro-voting argument that makes no sense to me. And, by the way, it would make no sense even if I believed in voting.

This particular argument derides non-voters – as most of the arguments do – but it also is vaguely threatening. It is: “if you don’t care enough to vote, then you have no right to criticize the outcome.” In other words, if you don’t vote, you lose your voice – or at least you lose the right to voice specific criticism of the government that emerges.

I think the opposite is true. Those who vote, those who play the election game, have implicitly agreed to the rules and they are the ones who have no right to complain about an outcome they don’t like. It is non-voters who say “no” to the game and reject the rules who have a moral right to complain about outcomes.

Imagine a comparable situation: you are urged to play Russian roulette – a form in which a 2nd person controls the gun. You say “hell, yes!” At that point, with the act of saying “yes”, you have the lost moral right to complain about whatever happens when the trigger is pulled. Why? Because you agreed to the rules, you said “yes” to the rules. If you say “no” at the outset, however, then when the gun is fired, you have a right to scream bloody murder. …

Circumcision, “taste memory”

Been reading about circumcision lately. Wendy McElroy wrote a good article about it, and National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (“N.O.C.I.R.C.”, and no bias, of course!) has some good literature on it. Yesterday in a used bookstore I got a bit light headed reading a book about it. I think Kramer (Seinfeld) is right, it’s a “barbaric ritual.” Just to be fair, here’s a pro-con (two articles) on the matter here.

On another topic, some people have “taste memory.” A first started thinking about this at a wine tasting. So most of us have a “mind’s eye” and a “mind’s ear” where we can generate the site or sound of something in our head without the presence of the object of perception. But does this work for smell, taste, or touch? Not for me.I scratch my arm, and then try to generate that feeling. Nope. How about the taste of root beer? Nope. Certainly philosophers have written about this, but really, this is out of their league. This is a matter of psychology and neuroscience.