Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State

"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."


Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State
Darren Wolfe

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. Clichés 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.

After more than two centuries of elections the system has become quite good at this. In 1870 Lysander Spooner wrote in "NO TREASON, No. VI., THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY.":

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!

http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/09/principled-nonvoting-beginning-of.html