freedom for me, but not for thee

I enjoy honest debate over contentious subjects; the dialectic sharpens most when it is roughest. For that reason I have decided to jump into a fractious discussion concerning women's suffrage, which, really, is a debate over the merits of democracy. In a short phrase, should we let everyone vote, even if their voting pattern seems inimical to the common good?

I will turn aside from the statistics concerning women's voting records, which are as muddled as can be, and focus on the larger question, letting Mr. Day frame the debate:

Your problem, Jim, is you have fetishized the concept of voting. There is no "right to vote" in Natural Law or the US Constitution, I'm not even sure if the UN, which is pretty free with the rights it creates, has listed it along with the rights to food and shelter.

Simply false. As I have already pointed out, the very first article of the Constitution guarantees that at least one house of the legislature is directly elected. As James Madison explains in The Federalist Papers #39,

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. It is SUFFICIENT for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments by either of the tenures just specified; otherwise every government in the United States, as well as every other popular government that has been or can be well organized or well executed, would be degraded from the republican character.

Again, contrary to Mr. Day's speculation, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights promotes a similar view of suffrage:

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Voting is essential to our republican experiment. Along with term limits, separation of powers, and a bill of rights, it is part of the foundation of freedom.

I'll let a different libertarian provide the final words.

The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen.