“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.“ (U.S. Declaration of Independence)
The founding of the United States of America is probably the greatest example in modern times trying to establish a country whose primary objective is to secure the freedom and liberty of its people. The pursuit of happiness is one of the unalienable rights specifically listed in the Declaration of Independence. The pursuit, or method by which happiness can be obtained is not defined but is protected. Why is it not defined? Perhaps because each person is free to pursue happiness as they see it and not be forced to have another define it for them. As long as that pursuit does not interfere with the pursuit of happiness for someone else, everyone is free to pursue happiness according to whatever method or means they see fit.
While the wording states the “pursuit of happiness”, it might also be understood as the pursuit of truth. A free country allows its people to pursue the truth according to any method a person may see fit, no matter how unpopular, peculiar or ridiculous a method may appear to someone else. One might seek truth through religious means. Another might pursue a scientific methodology. Another may use a combination or some completely different path all together. Freedom allows the pursuit of truth without defining or limiting the pursuit to any particular course or combination of methods. As long as the course does not interfere or dictate what course another can pursue, a person is free to continue in it. When a course requires the destruction of another’s freedom, then there is a problem. But if anyone believes they have found a path to enlightenment, they are free to pursue that path. They are not free to force others to comply with their path. A spiritualist is not to force a scientist to comply with their views or methods. Nor is a scientist allowed to force his views and methods upon a spiritualist. Nor is any other method to be denied. Any may be freely pursued but not forced upon others. The bar to be tested is whether the course allows or interferes with the freedom of others to pursue whatever course of truth they may choose.
The role of government in a free society is to protect this freedom, which is common to all people, not favoring one group or method or view above another. But all are to be protected in whatever path to happiness they may choose to pursue. It is the responsibility of the people to ensure that the government is fulfilling its obligation to protect the freedom of all and not to favor their own course. Pursuing such a course is setting up a system for tyranny. Supporting tyranny is rebelling against freedom.
Voting can be a method by which the will of the people can be expressed in judging how well the government is protecting freedom. The views of the public are to be genuinely represented within government to keep the government accountable to the people for protecting the freedom of all. When voting turns from a method for protecting freedom, into a way to enforce or uphold one method or view above another, it has been corrupted. Voting is not supposed to be an opportunity for one group of people to gang up and suppress another group of people. That is simply another form of tyranny. Tyranny, even if it is upheld by popular vote, is not freedom.
When tyranny is enforced by voting, those whose course is favored or upheld, may believe that they are a free people because their course is not being trammeled. But if the popular vote swings against them, they may fear the tyranny of another course that they disapprove of. Using voting as a mechanism to enforce some preferred course to the enslavement of others, is corrupting voting and destroying freedom.
The true intent of voting is to genuinely understand from the people’s perspective, how well the government is protecting the freedom of the people and what might be done to improve the protection of their freedom.
While voting can play an important role in protecting the freedom of the people, it can also be used by a tyrannical government to deceive the people into thinking they are free. Simply allowing people to vote does not mean they are free. If a vote is to decide whether to enslave one group of people or another, is that vote really a sign of freedom? If a vote is taken to decide who is to be the dictator of a people, are the people free simply because they had some say in the matter by choosing which dictator would rule over them? If people are allowed to choose among various tyrannical methods and rulers, are the people truly free?
Voting can be used for good but it can also be used for evil. When voting is used to genuinely understand the will of the people and to support the freedom of all, it can be a mechanism for good. If voting is used to tear down freedom by imposing or supporting some popular form of tyranny, it can be a mechanism for evil. Voting in itself does not mean that the people are free.
Those who laid down their lives to establish and secure a free country, did so for far more than merely allowing the people to vote. True freedom is much more than merely voting. If a tyrant allows his subjects to vote and decide which of his fellow dictators will fill various seats in his government, he is still a tyrant and the people are not free. Voting for people and on issues that do not threaten tyrannical rule is not a sign of freedom. For a vote to really matter, it must have the power to uphold freedom and tear down tyranny. A vote that really counts is one that can do just that.