In Issue 17, a short piece titled “Living Slavery and All That,” written by Alan P. Koontz discusses Murray Rothbard’s “slavery analogy” and whether or not this analogy is useful to determine the morality of voting.
Here is an excerpt from Rothbard’s book The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 24, (The Moral Status of Relations to the State) which helps explain Rothbard’s view:
“Many anarchist libertarians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action–the argument being that by participating in this way in State activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the State apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision, and the State has placed individuals in society in an unfree environment, in a general matrix of coercion. The State—unfortunately—exists, and people must necessarily begin with this matrix to try to remedy their condition. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent.3 Indeed, if the State allows us a periodic choice of rulers, limited though that choice may be, it surely cannot be considered immoral to make use of that limited choice to try to reduce or get rid of State power.4”
Koontz disagrees with Rothbard and gives several compelling reasons why this analogy is insufficient. One I find particularly interesting is the idea that voting does not just affect the individual voter, voting also affects others.
However, I’m not too concerned about convincing people of the morality of voting or not voting based on the idea of whether or not it is affecting (and thereby possibly harming) others, I’m more about non-voting as an individual act of defiance.
Not voting is the easiest way to start withdrawing your consent and removing yourself from state control. Oh sure, your individual refusal to vote will not do anything to change how the state treats you. They won’t suddenly leave you alone because you do not consent by voting.
But there is one major positive result when not voting is done as a conscious, principled act of defiance against the state: you begin to free your mind.
This is where all change begins. A free mind thinks more creatively. A free mind is open to investigating and critically examining ideas which can lead to fresh alternatives. A free mind is more at peace and naturally compassionate towards others.
So why continue to do what the master wants you to do? Free your mind. Don’t vote, and do it as a conscious, principled act of defiance to the state.
10 comments:
The campaign signs are popping up all over town for a mayoral race in a few weeks. The ratty trailers have signs in the yard supporting one candidate; the hispanics have signs supporting another candidate; and the well-off people in nice houses who have lived here for decades have signs supporting the incumbent.
Sure, that's a generalization, but it is almost without exception.
Me, I'm making a sign that looks like a campaign sign but says "Elect No One- liberty is not subject to a vote!" I'll post a picture of it on my blog in a day or two.
So, here's my "Don't Vote" sign- link
(Even the word verification here seems unhappy with me since the word is "prick"!)
I have to disagree though. I've considered the arguments for and against voting and have come to the opposite conclusion based on the contradictory arguments of consent.
On the one hand, government goons and codependents say that if you do vote you give consent to the outcome based on your participation in the process.
But on the other hand, government goons and codependents say that if you do not vote you give consent to the outcome based on you not caring enough to influence the outcome.
Yes, their rationales to manufacture consent are a contradiction. And contradiction always serves the state, never the individual. Therefore I find that voting is acceptable provided one only votes for good and never for a "least evil".
"...government goons and codependents say that if you do not vote you give consent to the outcome based on you not caring enough to influence the outcome."
That's why principled non-voters often make sure we speak up and demonstrate that we actually care too much to fall into the trap of voting. It's hard to claim a person doesn't care when they are passionate.
Kent, I like your sign. :)
Ayn, I'm unclear on how one votes for good and never a "least evil." But I'm assuming you think government is evil.
I've never heard pro-state people argue that not voting means that a person consents to the outcome. Maybe they do argue that, but it makes no sense.
Does refusing to choose which person will be your slave master mean that you consent to being a slave? I don't think so.
On the other hand, if you play the game, you are expected to honor the results. That's why they want people to play their game.
Pro-statists realize that, if nobody (except the candidates, I assume) voted, the state's thin veil of faux legitimacy would be revealed and the politicians could claim no mandate based solely on the handful of votes received from their friends and relatives.
The candidate who happens to win an election will claim a mandate and then, more or less, proceed to do whatever he or she wants to do. A vote is a kind of endorsement. Even if one votes for the lesser of two evils, one has endorsed evil.
This is why we see all of those ads desperately urging us to vote. They go so far as to say that it doesn't matter which candidates we vote for, just so long as we vote. Well, if it doesn't matter who we vote for...
Clearly, it is the act of voting, more than who we vote for, that matters to statists because they rely on the votes -- or, more accurately, the turnout -- to provide their cover.
"My family and I elected me to be your representative" just wouldn't cut it.
So, we get establishment candidate A and establishment candidate B (Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber) and, even though they are very similar, they campaign as if they are quite different and the future of the world depends on you choosing correctly! Gasp! This creates a sense of desperation among the voters to choose A to stop B or vice versa, which, in turn, creates the voter turnout and then, regardless of who wins, we get more of the same.
Voting to send a message doesn't work, either. The message that gets sent is a message that informs the establishment which lies its candidates have to tell the next time around to maintain the status quo, as exemplified by Barack "change" Obama and George W. "no nation building/a humble foreign policy" Bush or George H.W. "no new taxes" Bush.
Plus, when you vote for presidential candidates, you're really voting for their electors who, however unlikely, might not vote for the person you intended them to vote for. Electors are like a box of chocolates... :)
In places where voters have the option to choose "None of the above" there is still an implication that they are really saying, "Go get someone else for me to vote for besides these crooks." After all, if you didn't want to vote, why are you there in the voting booth?
The only way to not endorse the state and to really convey "none of the above" is not to vote at all.
Then there is "voting in self defense" (but NOT for a condidate -oops, that was a typo, but one I like!) I think it still lends an air of legitimacy to an illegitimate "system", though.
Scott, lots of excellent points! I particularly liked this:
"This is why we see all of those ads desperately urging us to vote. They go so far as to say that it doesn't matter which candidates we vote for, just so long as we vote. Well, if it doesn't matter who we vote for...
Clearly, it is the act of voting, more than who we vote for, that matters to statists because they rely on the votes -- or, more accurately, the turnout -- to provide their cover."
Debbie, just make sure you vote not to use any services provided by the state while you're at it.
AssMan- Why shouldn't Debbie use things she is forced at gun-point to pay for?
Post a Comment