Your Obligation to Not Vote
Posted by Alex R. Knight III on Sep 9, 2009 in Commentary • 22 commentsThe recent death of Ted Kennedy and assorted other reasons have resulted in an upcoming crop of U.S. Senate “special elections” and related blather. It’s amazing to me, even after all this time as an anarchist, how people speak of the “right” to vote – said “right” being nothing more or less than a legal claim on something. Of course, government laws are nothing more than the opinions of bureaucrats backed up by the lethal violence of guns in the first place, but in the case of voting it gets even worse.
No one has any “right,” under ordinary everyday circumstances, to use violence or the threat thereof to control another’s life or property. In fact, each of us has a very serious moral obligation to not engage our fellow human beings in such a manner. Yet, cloak a cop or a tax collector or a politician in the magical, quantum-physics defying aura of government, and suddenly this becomes not only acceptable, but even commendable and necessary. Such is the intrinsic nature of the State.
Thus, by voting in political elections, a voter implicitly endorses this kind of immoral and intellectually indefensible behavior by proxy. No, Mr. or Ms. Voter, it’s not you specifically who holds the gun to the taxpayer’s head, throws the marijuana smoker into the jail cell, imprisons the peaceful owner of a certain type of weapon for life – and it may not even be the series of politicians you voted for – but in essence, by voting, by casting that ballot for the continuation of government, you are hiring hit men (and women) to do those things for you. You are endorsing the inherent violence and thievery of government.
The good news is that the majority of people don’t vote – either because they don’t want to, or because they don’t satisfy governmental criteria for being able to do so. As a result, there are a minority of individuals to whom this message must be carried. It would also not do any harm to bring these points to the attention of non-voters, who although they are already doing good by politically abstaining, consistently show in survey after survey that they fundamentally share the same political views as those of voters. One does well by working to change that. Yet, even then, think of the typical reasons most non-voters give for not showing up at the polls: “There’s no one running who I like.” “I don’t watch the news or pay attention to politics.” “The system is rigged.” “I’m too busy, I have bills to pay.” In each and every instance, what is implied is a.) a mistrust of and disdain for government, and; b.) that the life, career, family, and recreational time of the non-voter is more important than what bureaucrats and politicians are doing and are all about. That alone is still healthy.
Saying you have a “right” to vote only empowers government, not you or anyone else. Again, it’s like saying you have a right to hire assasins and thieves to give you what you want at someone else’s expense. This is never justifiable. Each of us has an obligation to not kill, to not steal, to deal with each other as co-equals in a open, honest, and peaceful manner. Even getting your name put on a voter registration list contravenes these essential principles of a free and prosperous society. If that’s you, consider not only ceasing and desisting from voting, but getting your name removed from the registration rolls. It’s not difficult; I know people who’ve done it with very little effort. Even that’s not the point, though.
You have an obligation to not vote. Own up to it.
Says who? This assumes that the government is a legitimate proxy. I thought the whole anarchist position was that it isn’t; that the endorsement has no merit; that the *behavior*, not the made up ritual of voting, is where the error lies. In condemning voting, aren’t we attributing to the ritual precisely the legitimacy we claim it lacks?
I’ve never seen an anarchist make anything but a symbolically significant case for non-voting. Neither voting nor abstaining matters, because they’re nothing but modern attempts at divination and ritual. I’d prefer anarchists address the behavior of government’s agents directly, instead of addressing the behavior of the victims – who are, in many cases, only participating in civil society, however entangled it may be with state rituals.
I own up to it. And when it comes to the realm of action, I know that I’ll find myself on Jeremy’s and Alex’s side of the barricades already, so I don’t care much about the rest.
Jeremy Weiland, by voting you make a statement to others, which in the way they read it means you endorse the outcome whether or not it lines up with the way you voted. Unless you make it clear that you are not endorsing but just trying to mitigate stuff, they are going to get that message. It is not your inner position that counts, nor the correct understanding of people who know where you are coming from, but how it affects the rest who are being manipulated by the process.
Here is a historical case. Precisely in order not to send that message and provide support to the Irish Free State, de Valera refused to participate in its proceedings – until he had got the message out that he was swearing oaths of allegiance and so on as mere forms, so as not to be excluded and marginalised. He then took over and undercut the institution, without risking charges of hypocrisy and so on. But he had to get his own message out first, or his mere participating would have undercut the political strength he drew on that was aligned with ending that institution.
I should mention, here in Australia not only is it illegal not to vote (though it is impractical to enforce not spoiling an anonymous ballot) but also it is illegal to encourage people not to vote. The anarchist Albert Langer was jailed for this (google him). That actually means that simply by posting this piece Alex R. Knight III has broken Australian law, since it reaches Australians. If he ever visited or wanted to, the powers that be could use it against him. In practice, that would be likely if he wanted to visit and be activist in this area. Maybe they would deny him a visa, or maybe even give him the Albert Langer treatment.
If we want a society without a state, we must fight the state – in all its instances. Voting is one of those instances of the state. Just as I refuse to participate in social security or the military, so I refuse to participate in voting.
You can not fight the state by voting, since the voting is bound up inside the state. That would be like fighting the state by taking a government job.
I’m with Mike G of course. I’d like to put aside these topics of discussion that go nowhere but at the same time it is rather difficult since I see good people wasting their lives promoting the latest messiah candidate(s) of the right.
There is some merit in non-voting anarchists trying to persuade non-voting non-anarchists that they did so because of an intuitive awareness of the lack of justification for government. Finding a common bond and pursuing it might convert some.
But anarchists (and anarchist legislators) who vote only to repeal laws and cut taxes are not giving their sanction to the government to aggress. That is statist social contract theory and, if we accept its logic, we must stop complaining about all government aggression against all voters, including those who vote AGAINST all aggression. Do any of us think government officials have the right to aggress against voters?
As for the argument from strategy, it depends on context: election boycotts and non-voting advocacy certainly can be good moves at the right times and for certain temperaments. But most voters think non-voters are apathetic, not principled. Tell them you haven’t voted and they’ll tell you (everyone all together now) “then you have no right to complain.” Voting anarchists have a common bond with voting non-anarchists that can also be pursued to convert some. And there are plenty of local officials chosen in elections with turnout under 10%: I’ve rarely seen such local governments disappear.
We’re each trying to do our part, in different arenas. Neither voting nor non-voting will bring about a free society: it is the change in ideas that will be the catalyst, while the formal method cannot be known in advance. Chattel slavery was abolished by voters in the British Empire and by other means in America. The former was a lot less painful for everyone, including the slaves.
Now excuse me while I authorize US intervention in Afghanistan by sending a birthday card to a friend through the government post office.
I agree with Mike G. – this isn’t the best issue to choose to line up on when it comes to anarchist solidarity. However, I think there is a debate to be had about what it means to be an anarchist in our present order, and more specifically what strategies are most effective in challenging authority and changing our fellow humans’ minds.
“Jeremy Weiland, by voting you make a statement to others, which in the way they read it means you endorse the outcome whether or not it lines up with the way you voted.”
I agree with this – it is possible to make a statement to others through your actions, and refusing to vote – and making your refusal public – is a statement one can make.
However, the point of the article was not that refusing to vote makes a statement; it’s that voting endorses a state’s actions. I take exception to that, because it misidentifies where blame should lie for the state’s violence. If I choose to vote because, for example, I am participating in a deliberative social construct with my neighbors, I am not guilty of what government bureaucrats do as a result of that. And to say that people who pull levers are just as responsible for innocent people in Pakistan being bombed as, say, the guys pushing buttons in Joint Command HQ in my opinion SEVERELY obfuscates our central case: that individuals must be responsible for their actions regardless of the bureaucratic / governmental / command hierarchical circumstances.
Either state violence is legitimate, or it’s not. Whether or not I sanction it is rather immaterial, except insofar as it motivates me to take actions in pursuit of justice. If people want to abstain from voting as an expression of this pursuit, fine – but that action is not a required action, and other actions are possible as well.
“It is not your inner position that counts, nor the correct understanding of people who know where you are coming from, but how it affects the rest who are being manipulated by the process.”
Generally, I agree with this – and, in fact, I think anarchists would do well to realize that their inner convictions aren’t nearly as important as their actions. But I do object to the essayist’s characterization of what, exactly, the effects of voting are on these other people. To me, anarchists should no more be against voting than they would be against the lottery or the Superbowl. Both are games, immaterial rituals, that have effects only because a particular institution acts on them. However, it’s the institution that is the source of violence, not the ritual, and it’s important to make that clear.
“You can not fight the state by voting, since the voting is bound up inside the state.”
Well, the state runs the sidewalks, too… can I use those?
As anarchists, we should have a more nuanced position on the unfortunate entanglement of the state and civil society than “oppose it”, IMHO.
I’m in the odd position that while I’m not convinced by the antivoting arguments (for my reasons, see here and here, I like them — partly as an antidote to the absurdity of “it’s your duty to vote!” and “if you don’t vote you can’t complain!” and partly because I do think that electoral politics should be much less central to our strategy. So I’ve added this piece to my page of antivoting links.
Thank you, Roderick, for posting my piece to your non-voting page! In general, I must say that this commentary of mine has just thus far generated more comments in turn, and in a shorter period of time, than anything I’ve posted at C4SS heretofore. Some very thought provoking discussion from one and all!
Voting violates the zero aggression principle by advocating for the initiation of force by the voter’s preferred candidate against the rest of the people. Elected officials impose and consume taxes, which are stolen. Elected officials often advocate for other applications of force, such as war. So if you cannot initiate force on ethical grounds, you can’t delegate its initiation either, and that’s one reason not to vote.
Others I have written about here: http://indomitus.net/madnessofvoting.html
@ Roderick
So I gather the best way to counter those who believe health care is a right is by encouraging arguments that health care ought to be prohibited. If Aristotle were alive today he’d be turning over in his grave.
That is not the same argument non-voting advocates make. The USPS has a government-enforced monopoly on first-class mail. You have no reasonable choice but to use them to send your birthday card, if you want to send a paper one at a reasonable price.
Voting is participation in deciding who will hold the gun of government and/or at whom it will be pointed and how. It is entirely voluntary. You can live a full and unimpeded life without voting.
Monopolies the government has set up by aggression are not voluntary and have nothing to do with the pointing of the gun. They nationalized the roads and if you want to live a normal life, you have no choice but to use them.
If tomorrow they nationalize all food and means of producing food in the world, and you eat, are you endorsing the state? What a ridiculous idea.
The sidewalks are not “bound up inside the state”, i.e., they are not part of how the state is run and reified. They are something that has been stolen by the state.
Oh, Less:
“So I gather the best way to counter those who believe health care is a right is by encouraging arguments that health care ought to be prohibited. If Aristotle were alive today he’d be turning over in his grave.
”
You are demonstrating that a superficial understanding of human liberty and logic can lead to as many contradictions as any statist holds dear.
Universal health care cannot be a human right because to implement it you have to violate human rights. That’s all.
Would it be nice if everyone had it (if they indeed wanted it)? Perhaps. Would it be good if no one had it? Probably not. The same can be said for computers, cars, food, houses, etc.
Having a computer is not a human right just because proposing that no one should have a computer is the only other option. Computers, like health care and houses, are goods/services provided by other human beings and one must exchange something of value for them (unless the owner decides to donate his goods/services).
Human rights include the right to voluntarily exchange with other human beings.
George beat me to the punch on your post office comment, but “anarchists who vote” and “anarchist legislators” are oxymorons.
By definition, anarchists don’t vote and there is no such thing as an anarchist government legislator. A legislator who wants to repeal some laws and reduce some taxes is always to be hoped for, but the laws they do not repeal and the taxes they do not eliminate are in fact their sanction for government to aggress (just not as much as before). And who pays for their salary and office and ability to function within the government? How do they get that money, other than through taxation?
Please do not mix anarchy and statism. They are exclusive of each other, and they confuse your arguments.
(1) The best proof that something is possible is to show it exists. Roderick Long is an anarchist who votes. Pierre Proudhon was an anarchist legislator. An anarchist is someone who doesn’t treat other people as if they were his property. One who votes against aggression on every vote is a consistent anarchist who votes. If someone were to say the Center for a Stateless Society is an anarchist organization and hear the response, “Isn’t ‘anarchist organization’ an oxymoron?”, the superficiality of the challenger’s understanding of anarchy would be obvious. Yes, I’m an anarchist who votes. I don’t throw bombs, either: sorry for my inconsistency.
(2) Remembering that Roderick agrees with me on the moral neutrality of voting, I don’t agree with his suggestion that “voting is immoral” articles are a good antidote to “voting is obligatory” arguments, unless clearly tongue-in-cheek. The best antidote for a bad argument is a good one. The problem with arguments that go too far is that their refutation strengthens the other side. And it hurts credibility to confuse “voting is not an obligation” arguments with “voting is immoral” arguments. That, of course, was my point with the health care quip: my post wasn’t about health care, and The Fountainhead wasn’t a book about architecture.
(3) The argument that voting “sanctions” aggression is refuted by the fact that voting anarchists have made clear we don’t sanction aggression, both by our statements and by the fact that we vote AGAINST new laws and FOR the repeal of laws. Anyone who believes that Long, Knapp, Weiland, and I approve of government aggression because we vote is daft.
(4) The bottom line is that pro-government voters treat both anarchist voters and anarchist non-voters as sanctioning government. I learned YEARS ago how to handle the “voting as sanction” arguments. When asked if I vote in a context that clearly is intended to get my sanction, I generally respond, “Before I answer, which answer will cause you to concede that you have no authority over my life?” If they act dense, I’ll elaborate, “If I say I voted for the libertarian, you’re going to say I had my chance to choose and must accept the result. If I say I didn’t vote, you’ll tell me I don’t have a right to complain. So either way, you will claim the government has legitimate authority over me. Right?”
The problem with the “voting is sanction” argument is that it is a statist argument: it is social contract theory. The moment you claim voters have sanctioned aggression, regardless of how they vote, you have handed a major victory to pro-government forces, because you are saying government officials have the RIGHT to control the lives of everyone who has ever voted. If you believe that, then qualify all future anti-government arguments by pointing out that their actions are legitimate so long as they only aggress against voters.
And if you believe that voting IS aggression, then you should be demanding justice and restitution. How much do I owe you for having voted against aggression?
To clarify why I think anti-voting arguments are a good antidote to pro-voting arguments:
a) I think the consequentialist arguments (e.g. that voting tends to encourage people to seek liberation primarily through electoral means) are identifying a genuine negative feature of voting; I don’t weigh that feature as heavily as the antivoters do, but it does have some weight, and the provoters are giving it no weight at all, so I think provoters will benefit from reading those arguments.
b) I find the deontological arguments (e.g. that voting doesn’t just appear to endorse the state but actually does, impermissibly, endorse it) less persuasive, since I don’t buy the claim that voting constitutes endorsement; but since most provoters do seem to suppose that voting involves some sort of consent or legitimation, the deontological argument is useful as a reductio of their position — in other words, if voting really were what its defenders take it to be, it would be impermissible.
c) In general, antivoting arguments of either sort push provoters to look at the whole electoral system in a salutary new light.
Well, I don’t want to extend this debate indefinitely: Jeff Hummel and I participated in a series of live debates on the ethics of voting with George Smith and Wendy McElroy 30 years ago, in an environment of mutual respect. None of us changed our minds, and I suspect that will be the case again.
On the consequential side: last year, Mary Ruwart came within a couple of handfuls of votes of being the Libertarian Party presidential nominee instead of Bob Barr. I wish I had seen a few more of you in Denver. Having an anarchist as the LP nominee would have provided a major educational boost to the movement, if only by promoting her HEALING OUR WORLD IN AN AGE OF AGGRESSION book that many anti-party anarchists have recommended as the best book-length introduction to libertarianism. Instead, Bob Barr sullied the libertarian name and made our job of persuasion much harder. In other words, the consequential effects of turning people off to voting aren’t all positive.
Sadly, I suspect the responses will be “good riddance to the LP”, which will prove my point that anti-voting arguments don’t merely balance off extreme pro-voters, but are killing a part of the movement that has brought in a LOT of people, including people who no longer vote. Including some of you.
BTW, in my experience there are more agorists than partyarchs who declare theirs as the only path to liberty. For the record, I’m an ideologist, and think the only path to liberty is to persuade enough people of its desirability, then let the market decide how to effect the change.
So if I am a support of the right to life, do I remain one if I murder someone? Of course not. Words have meaning. Actions are what counts, not words. I can call myself a peacemaker but if I go around starting fights my actions belie my words – I am a liar, and no peacemaker.
Voting in a government context *is* aggression. You have blindly skipped over the context.
Red herring. Anarchy is about no-ruler, not no organizations. Voluntary organizations are not only compatible with but probably the lifeblood of anarchy.
The argument that I knifed him to death is refuted by the fact that I made it clear that this knife doesn’t kill. Hm …
See comment #4. Setting aside the question of whether you are right or wrong, it is not the only or even the best argument on the table.
I’ll settle for you to just stop, and at the very least to stop passing off voting as consistent with liberty/anarchy. I’m not vindictive, I just want forward movement. ;D
Having an anarchist run for president discredits anarchists.
Let’s run no-vote campaigns instead. Same campaigns (or better), same principles, just no candidates. You could even call it the anarchist party (tho I wouldn’t) and we would all have a good laugh together.
You can be pure or you can get something done. Not voting will certainly keep you pure as an anarchist, but it is a piss poor way to change things. It is far more practical to build anarchist electoral strength, which takes time. People staying at home don’t count on election day. The only way to counteract the power of the state is to use that power against them – unless you are promoting a trancendental anarchism. I find that to be an individual mind fuck.
The first election will not produce change – indeed, pure anarchism won’t ever win at the ballot box. “Transitional” anarchism designed to move pubic services into private hands as a prelude to ending coercion is electorally possible. Moving from school systems to parent run schools is a good start. Moving from social insurance systems to employee ownership and mutual insurance systems is another possible avenue – one which non-anarchists might also endorse.
If you abandon elections, you can’t make alliances with fellow travelers.
You can be pure or you can be effective. You can’t be both.
“If you abandon elections, you can’t make alliances with fellow travelers.
You can be pure or you can be effective. You can’t be both.”
Michael, I find this so ludicrous I simply had to point it out. Beyond that, I’m not wasting my time responding to you, as earlier stated. Think, if you can, deeply about the above quote. It is completely irrational and false. Period.
Michael, that’s a false dichotomy. It’s not about being pure or effective. It’s about doing what is morally correct, which is the same thing as doing what is practical. Elections are not effective or practical as government is aggression and you can never achieve liberty via its opposite, aggression.
I find it hilarious that people are taking pro-voting arguments from a statist in the employ of the state of Alabama seriously. Roderick Long works for government. Of course he loves its systems of oppression. He gets his pay from the state that takes it from the mouths of children.
It took a while, but this essay actually inspired me to write a counterpoint. Good discussion, and I appreciate Alex starting it.