Hong Wu wrote:Good post
Hong Wu wrote:the right to vote is not actual a vital part of most people's well-being. Statistically, the vote of any individual (or even a small collection of individuals' votes, like a family's votes) are not significant in deciding elections.
Yes, that is indeed a statistical fact. This is not a case of extreme pseudo-force, however in a choice between having no say in who rules over you and having some small degree of influence, any truly rational person would find it outrageous to pick the first option. It is a simple cost vs benefit equation. Thus there is a small degree of pseudo-force involved, equivalent to the choice between being punched in the stomach or given 5 dollars.
(It could possibly be argued that the property of significance of a single vote is dramatically increased when part of a larger set, perhaps the significance of a set leads to the significance of its members (votes). However this sounds dubious so don't take it too seriously.)
Hong Wu wrote:So the coercive factor here would be how it offends people's senses of shame and pride. No actual harm would be done
Even if we accept that the only harm done is to shame and pride, then couldn't this be considered real harm as well? Surely we aren't just talking in a physical sense, the emotional harm done to a racial or religious minority through segregation or the embarrassment which results from being stripped naked and hung from a tree is surely of some significance. Taking away someone's vote is taking away a sense of self worth, a feeling that you have a say in the governance of the country. This is a clear example of emotional harm, and would thus constitute some form of pseudo-force.
Furthermore, stripping a citizen of the right to vote (regardless of whether or not they will actually consider voting) could potentially lead to unrest. The right to vote serves to pacify the populace, by giving the impression that it is the populace who is ruling the country.
Hong Wu wrote:On the contrary, when people have an incentive to try and make things work, the mind often finds ways to make it work.
Interesting point, but I am unsure about this. This seems like an assertion. However even if your claim about the mind is accepted is there any way that an artificial compromise which "makes things work" could compare to 'the real deal' of genuine emotions? In terms of there being "an incentive to make things work" how would you measure whether or not a family was "cohesive" besides someone leaving?
On another note, how would you define what a family is if you do so purely on the basis of blood then aren't you ignoring the significance of friendships or bonds which are not biological?
"Auntie did you feel no pain, falling from the apple tree? Would you do it please again? Cos my friend here didn't see." Harry Graham