Voting blank for the Rotterdam Stadsinitiatief
The Rotterdam Statdsinitatief (city initiative) is a project in which the citizens of Rotterdam are invited to vote for one of a group of curated projects intended to improve the city of Rotterdam. The winning proposal will be realised using a combination of private and state funding.
I'd be happy to see some of the proposals for the Rotterdam Stadsinitiatief made real. Nevertheless, I've cast a blank vote today. I'd like to explain why.
Since the Stadsinitiatief is partly funded by tax money, we already know that it involves funds being taken from peaceful people, under the ultimate threat of deadly force. I think it's also relevant to notice that because we know that people's tastes and preferences are different, it's a certainty that some proportion of the people the funds were expropriated from would not have voluntarily contributed to the winning project.
So the Stadsinitiatief depends of threats of violence against peaceful people, and for many it directs those funds to projects they would not have voluntarily supported. This is why I consider the initiative morally unacceptable.
A facebook comment suggested that the direct cost of the Stadsinitatief to the average Rotterdam taxpayer is about five euros. Not much. But even if the cost was only ten cents, the reasons to oppose the scheme would carry no less weight.
I'd like to preemptively answer one objection that I'm expecting: "The project overcomes the problem of collective action, and will ultimately benefit the city and everyone in it, much more than five euros per person would!"
The trouble is that no one can know this. I'm going to insist that if we're going to use threats of violence against peaceful people as part of a utilitarian attempt to increase overall wellbeing (and i think we shouldn't, because doing so is morally repugnant), that's an extremely serious decision to make. At the very least we should demand extremely compelling evidence or reasoning that convinces us that the threats will ultimately result in a net increase in wellbeing before we even consider employing them. I submit that the city council of Rotterdam is not able to provide such evidence or reasoning (and doesn't even try).
I'm not suggesting, by the way, that people shouldn't vote for a project they like, or that they should vote blank like i did. Victims of institutionalised state agression should decide for themselves what to do with the hand they've been dealt. A vote for the Urban Hotspring for instance, does not signal consent to the expropriation that funds the project. All it signals is that a person, confronted with the reality of the Rotterdam Stadsinitiatief, is trying to shape their world in accordance to their preferences.
Even so, to my mind, a blank vote accompanied by this explanation seems like the most appropriate way for me to respond. Partly because it seems like the option that's least likely to be mistakenly interpreted as tacit consent.
There's one Statdsinitiatief project that I would vote for. One in which a stall was set up somewhere in the city, to which each Rotterdam citizen was invited. There, they would be issued with a five Euro note.
