Voting doesn't make me happy. It gives me no sense of accomplishment or satisfaction. Yes, I realize that is probably because I value liberty and "the majority" of voters do not. And election results have always reflected that truth whether I was voting or not.
I refuse to ask The State for permission to have liberty. If I debase myself enough to ask for it, I don't deserve it. Every person will probably always have some jerk in his or her life who will try to control them. Yes, that will still be the case even if you vote away The State and eat every politician and bureaucrat at a world-wide barbecue. Some people are just authoritarian thugs and nothing will ever change that. You might as well deal with them the best you can and live as free as you can in spite of them. Now!
I suppose if voting makes you happy, and keeps you thinking about, and hungry for, liberty, it might be useful for you. Just as using "drugs" makes some people happy, so it is with voting. As long as you only vote to eliminate or reduce government power, and never vote for "the lesser (or greater) of two evils", then I suppose your voting is fairly harmless.
If a person has to go through the "voting stage" before they are ready to go deeper into advocating liberty, then that might be a good thing too. Once they reach that stage, if they still get joy out of casting a vote, as in the example above, then that is their choice.
But, you should recognize that the "system" is rigged. Totally and completely. You can't "vote yourself (or the country) free". It can't happen. As they say, if voting could change anything, it would be illegal. Voting lends an undeserved air of legitimacy to an illegitimate system, and gives the illusion of consent.
I suppose if for some reason the thought of voting made me happy again someday, I'd probably do it again (within the bounds I laid out above). I won't say it couldn't happen, but I think it's unlikely. But that is why I don't get too critical of those who want to vote, as long as they don't get too critical of my choice.
I still think it better to run for office to siphon off some voters from the bad guys, than to actually vote.
Added: What about "voting in self-defense"?
Surely we can vote freedom into office! It is atrocious that so many people call themselves anarchists, yet support the inherently immoral violence of the State as long as Ron Paul is inflicting the violence. They need to learn that deliberately inflicting any taxation is an immoral means to eradicate taxation, just as it would be immoral to make some people slaves as a means of eventually freeing all slaves.
ReplyDeleteI don't vote because it makes me feel ill. If that weren't true, I'd probably still not vote because I've been thinking it constitutes consent to be ruled by the 'law' of your country.
ReplyDeleteBut I just realized that voting does in fact legitimize the state. Australia has mandatory voting laws, does it not? I dunno, it seems obvious to me that it is because they were scared that if too few voted, the government would start seeming illegitimate. A democracy where nobody votes is a what? So how about one person? Two people? There's gotta be some lower bound...
"then I suppose your voting is fairly harmless."
If I'm right, voting is harmless if there's ever a candidate that de-legitimizes the state more than your vote legitimizes it.
"I still think it better to run for office to siphon off some voters from the bad guys, than to actually vote."
It would be hilarious to see this being carried out. One man, one vote? Ha! Hey guys, watch me play kingmaker!
Problem is, one of the existing candidates will still win. Even if it is Ron Paul, the winning candidate is going to be someone who thinks that the political process is legitimate.
"just as it would be immoral to make some people slaves as a means of eventually freeing all slaves."
This is contingent rather than absolute.
The ends can justify the means. If you could know for certain that enslaving one person would free all future people from being slaves, you'd be all but obligated to carry it out.
It's just that morality doesn't work that way. Doing a corrupt thing almost always leads to more corruption, not less.
Witness tax-funded science. Scientists were good. Then they got tax money. Now they're not. Unions were fine. Until they got tax money. Environmentalism was a great idea but tripped over tax revenue.
So I'm happy to finally prove that voting is corrupt. This alone suggests that the only way to have a good politician is to make sure nobody votes for them.
"Even if it is Ron Paul, the winning candidate is going to be someone who thinks that the political process is legitimate."
ReplyDeleteYou're not familiar with my presidential campaign, I see. ;)
"If you could know for certain that enslaving one person would free all future people from being slaves, you'd be all but obligated to carry it out."
I don't think so. This would be a "for the common good" argument, and since there is no such thing, I couldn't support it. Now, if you had a volunteer who consented... Still, it's not realistic anyway, since it could never happen for real that way.
I assume you pass my test for good politician? ;)
ReplyDeleteThe reality of voting is, it is disguised coercion, plain and simple. That is political voting, however some areas of activity, non, political voting can be a moral, acceptable action.With-out exception,political voting is an attempt to place some-one in power over ones neighbor and others to take their property by a gun or threat of a gun, hence secretive disguised coercion and immoral. Anne Cleveland
ReplyDeleteNot very "disguised". At least, not to people who are paying attention.
ReplyDelete