Addendum to "Political Reform and Compulsory Voting"

If you haven't read "Political Reform and Compulsory Voting", please go back and read that post before continuing. I'll be using that post, to present a hypothetical situation, that just sort of came to me. I'm not sure if it's a good plan or not, I just came up with it about three minutes ago, so we can work through this situation together. It will be a bonding experience.

Political Reform and Compulsory Voting

Once upon a time in an Introduction to U.S. Politics class, my Professor was making an argument that may or may not be familiar to many people: he was arguing that voting should be compulsory. He argued that democracy only works when everyone is involved, and therefore everyone should have to vote on penalty of a fine. At the time, I was very much opposed to this idea for a variety of reasons, and truth be told I'm still very leery of the idea of making voting compulsory.

Let's face it, the current Democrat incumbent's drone policy has set new lows for dehumanizing brown people, Republicans are the gun-toting "patriotic" types who love the military beyond all reason (as Bill Maher once said "They're the religious party, worship is in their DNA"), and voting third party is about as useful as voting for Mickey Mouse. If you're seriously anti-war - or even just think that maybe wholesale slaughtering people should be a last resort and not the immediate "go to" plan every time the U.S. has a problem - you really don't have a good option when it comes time for an election. I personally refuse to cast a vote for president because I know that I have no option that does not result in the election of a war-monger, and I refuse to take any action that could be seen as an endorsement of a war-monger rising to a position of power. That said, I think that - with a couple of modifications - this whole "compulsory voting" idea could be a pretty good idea. First let's look at what's wrong, and then we'll look at how to fix it.

Sunday Sermon: But What About HITLER?!?

Perhaps my favorite rebuttal offered by Christians or other theists is the Reductio ad Hitlerum in which the Christian attempts to discredit atheism and evolution by claiming "But Hitler was an atheist! And so were Stalin and Mao! Therefore atheism and evolution leads to wanton murder and genocide!"

If these claims are accurate, they clearly paint a very bleak picture of atheism. After all, Hitler is responsible for the deaths of 20,946,000 people, Stalin for 51,755,000 deaths, and Mao for 56,218,000 deaths. That said, these allegations, are problematic on a couple of levels.

Schrödinger's Freedom of Speech

There is a fairly well-known thought experiment known as Schrödinger's Cat. The basic idea of the thought experiment is that, if one were to accept a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics, it would follow that a cat placed into a box, would at some point be simultaneously alive and dead. I'm not a physicist (although I try to stay somewhat informed as a layperson), so if you want to know more about Schrödinger's and his cat, pray to Google, for she is a wise and benevolent deity.

Anyways, I didn't start this post to talk about physicists and their hypothetical cats, but to talk about freedom of speech. It occurred to me last night during a conversation with a friend, that I simultaneously do, and do not, agree with the concept of free speech (hence the title of this post). Allow me to explain.