Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State
Voting has from the beginning been a means of the government fooling us into thinking that we have power over them. It is past time for people to face the reality of what voting really is, an endorsement of the evils that governments commit. by Darren Wolfe
(libertarian)
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Labor day has come and gone, and there is an election this November. The campaign season is on. The airwaves, the internet, and what's left of the print media are saturated with political ads. All of this leads many Americans to wonder who they're going to vote for. Quite a few realize that the choice is essentially limited to the Democratic scoundrel or the Republican scoundrel. Regardless, to too many people voting is seen as a patriotic, almost sacred duty. Cliches abound about how our forefathers gave their lives so we can have the right to vote today. A lot of people see voting as a way to control the government and preserve our liberties. "If you don't vote don't complain", they say. In this article, however, I will explain why none of these positive things attributed to voting are true. In fact the very opposite is usually the case.
What should have been clear for generations is made ridiculously obvious after a year and a half of the Obama administration, namely that elections have failed as a means of controlling or changing the government. The almost seamless continuity of policy from the Bush administration to Obama's presidency is undeniable and represents only the victory of the special interests in thwarting the people's will.
Dupes --- a large class, no doubt --- each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a "free man," a "sovereign"; that this is "a free government"; "a government of equal rights," "the best government on earth," and such like absurdities.
Unfortunately, that is the perception, that voting equates to freedom. The reality is that nothing could be further from the truth. The fact that we are allowed to choose our dictators doesn't make us any freer. It merely gives voters the feeling of power and the illusion of control. All the while they are being manipulated into supporting a government that implements policies detrimental to their well being.
What better way is there to get people to follow the law and pay taxes than to convince them that these things are their will? What better way is there to get people to tolerate the government's evils than by convincing them that the situation is temporary and that they can change the government at the next election? What better way is there to get people to respect elected officials than to convince them that they, the people, chose these scoundrels to represent them? (A mandate, it's called.) None of these things are true, but the fraud works. Democracy is held to be the best form of government yet devised. The question is best for whom? Certainly not the people.
It does work best for the ruling elites who can hide their evil plans behind a smiling democratic facade. The formula is to give people just enough freedom to feel free but not so much that the government loses control of them. To assure that the people will put up with their laws, antics, and taxes the ruling class must keep the citizens involved. Most will take the easy route and go along, especially when the economy is doing well and they feel prosperous. Thomas Paine warned of this over two centuries ago:
the portion of liberty enjoyed in England is just enough to enslave a country more productively than by despotism, and that as the real object of all despotism is revenue, a government so formed obtains more than it could do either by direct despotism, or in a full state of freedom
Does all this sound far fetched to you? According to a Georgetown University professor of history Carroll Quigley:
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies.
Unfortunately, he thought this is how the system should work. Dr. Quigley was not some fringe radical either. He was one of President Bill Clinton's professors and was cited by him as a major influence.
It is past time for people to face the reality of what voting really is, an endorsement of the evils that governments commit. I call on you not to take part in this fraud any more. Withhold your consent! Have the courage to join us in principled nonvoting and commit not to vote ever again. Remember, if you vote don't complain!
The views expressed
in this article are those of Darren Wolfe only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Darren Wolfe is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: September 17, 2010 09:55:18 AM
Those who (think) they are too smart or too principled to participate in their own governance are punished by being governed by those who are dumber and less principled. Great plan. NOT!
If you don't care, apathy is a perfectly good choice. However, once that choice is made, there is no reason why anyone would or should care what you think about anything. Self-marginalization is the Achilles Heal of the libertarian movement.
Posted By: Darren Wolfe
Date: September 19, 2010 07:41:50 AM
Those who (think) they are too smart or too principled to participate in their own governance are punished by being governed by those who are dumber and less principled. Great plan. NOT!
If you don't care, apathy is a perfectly good choice. However, once that choice is made, there is no reason why anyone would or should care what you think about anything. Self-marginalization is the Achilles Heal of the libertarian movement.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Is that the best you can do? Smear by falsely crying "apathy". Please.
As the title of my article makes clear nonvoting is just the beginning & certainly not the only component of the disengagement from the state. I was deliberately vague about what comes next because 1) I hope people all over the world will join the effort & they will all be dealing with different govts reacting differently to their campaigns. This segues nicely into 2) since we don't know how govts will react so we don't know what the next step will be.
In the US, lets say voter participation goes down to 10% or less. Opposition to the govt is loudly proclaimed by many & non compliance of various sorts rises. How will the govt react? They may crack down or they may yield some to try to diffuse the situation. There's no way of knowing now what they'll do so there's no way to know what we'll do next.
To repeat, principled nonvoting is only the first step in a process & apathy has nothing to do with it. You should not be out there repeating the govt's propaganda to keep us voting & under control.
Posted By: Mike Blevins
Date: September 20, 2010 11:50:08 PM
Mr. Wolfe, I'm certain you're sincere in your belief that non-voting and disengagement from the state is an effective strategy, but I'm equally certain that the idea is a hopeless non-starter. If those of us who believe in freedom and personal responsibility turn our backs on the political process, there will be no one left to press for needed reforms. You seem to believe that we are where we are today because free and democratic elections don't work and cannot bring about meaningful change. You are wrong. The right kind of voters CAN bring about change. The trouble is, for the most part, the American voter has been complicit with the power elite in bringing down the constitutional system.
Most American voters today are completely ignorant of what the US Constitution actually authorizes and what it proscribes. They could not care less how the actions of our elected leaders compare with constitutional limits. The only thing that matters to most is what the actions of the government can do for them. What government largess can be funneled in their direction. Most care not what powers are turned over to government control--just so long as they get their share of what's looted from the productive. (my apologies to Ayn Rand) The American voter has become completely sold out to big government and the problem has been growing bigger and deeper like a cancer for the past several decades.
The simple truth is that the American voter is now intent on pointing the finger at Washington for the nation's ills, but three fingers are still pointing back at the voter. Until the American voter learns that big government doesn't work and learns to love liberty and self-reliance, then they will keep on rewarding the looters for their looting. They will keep sending sons of hell back to Washington to do more and more damage to the Constitution and the Republic.
You want to see the democratic process start to work? Press for a different kind of voter. Only then can we begin to reverse the damage we have all participated in together.
Incidentally, in case I haven't made it clear, I'm one of the ones who believes this CAN and WILL happen. It will take a couple of generations to begin to turn this big ship of over overgrown state around, but I'm not out of hope yet.
Posted By: creator
Date: October 8, 2010 12:59:52 PM
Darren, your article is remarkably clear and compelling. Your quotations from two classic thinkers (Spooner and Paine) and one modern "thinker" (Quigley) really ought to have been more than adequate to convince your skeptical readers of your very well-stated thesis. The only weakness in your article, if any, is the lack of good alternative suggestions.
Having said that, I will likely continue to vote - just not for the "mainstream" "republicrat" or "democan" candidates, but rather for men of character who do not condone or endorse the evils of the present government. Quite paradoxically, I do consider voting to be largely futile, but for different reasons - you might search for my series of Nolan Chart articles on vote fraud and corrupt voting machines.
Finally, I would like to suggest that the best immediate alternative solutions have to do with us as individuals, families, businesses, communities, and voluntary associations, simply removing as much of our support and approval from "the state" as we know how, and continually learning how better to do that. That is to say, leave the rotten governments at all levels to hoist themselves by their own petard.
How to do this? I suggest that you google the term "agorism" as a good start. We need to develop our own private and independent economic mechanisms that do not revolve around Federal Reserve Notes (falsely called "dollars.") You may also want to investigate a growing set of such resources by reading "Digital Gold Currency," a remarkable magazine published on-line.
