Voluntary Society - Action - Stop Voting
Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the
Backup for http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2010/09/principled-nonvoting-beginning-of.html
Posted by Darren Wolfe September 15, 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. 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.
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.":
--- 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.
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.
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.
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
…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:
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
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!
Home | Action | Stop Voting |