I get mail. Email and snail mail. Garish junk mail and frantic email in ALL CAPS and tastefully crafted letters on beige faux linen stationery with ornate letterhead in scented envelopes. Mail from Democrats. Mail from Republicans. Mail from Libertarians. Lots and lots and lots of mail.
The message doesn’t vary as widely as the quality of presentation. It does vary, mind you, but only in the little things. The Democrats want to stop the Republicans from taking control of Congress. The Republicans trumpet that allegedly watershed event (it’s been four whole years!) as their most cherished goal. The Libertarians are running a sweepstakes. The prize? A free country!
The big message, the message all these parties and candidates have in common, is that they all require our assistance to make these things happen. Send money! Plant yard signs! Attend rallies! And most important, above and beyond all other things, vote!
It all sounds pretty exciting, doesn’t it? But I have a better idea. How about instead of working ourselves into a righteous snit for the next month, culminating with the self-exorcism of our personal demons in the voting booth, we … don’t?
Let us now pause for a brief musical interlude: Civics Teachers’ Heads Exploding in B Minor. There, wasn’t that nice? Back to business:
If democracy is a religion (and it is — “the worship of jackals by jackasses,” as Mencken so indelicately phrased it), elections are its principal sacrament. Voting is communion, complete with miraculous Transubstantiation of the Most, in which a plurality or majority of ballots cast are magically transformed into the “consent of the governed.”
Upon this rock the entire church of state is built. Every nuance of the perpetual Black Mass we call “government” — every act of theft, extortion, brutality, murder, war read in solemn tone from the Liturgy of Realpolitik — justifies itself on the basis of this alleged “consent,” in turn symbolized by the stickers handed out across America to those leaving the polling place: “I Voted!”
And I concede this much: The political priesthood has a point. If you enter the church, if you kneel before the altar, if you swear your eternal fealty to Leviathan, if you accept the sacred ballot, make your mark upon it and place it in the magic box, how can you possibly not be bound up in and beholden to the miracle of counting the priests then perform?
All religions require a devil, though, and as always he’s in the details.
As of the most recent national election, the population of the United States stood at about 305 million. Of those 305 million souls, 131,257,328 — only 43% — cast ballots for president. Of those who voted, 69,456,897 — only 22.8% of the total population — voted for the “winner,” Barack Obama.
It’s plausible to argue that the 43% who cast ballots voluntarily bound themselves to the outcome, i.e. “consented to be governed” by the winner whether that winner was “their” candidate or some other. It’s not, however, plausible to argue the same of the 57% who either chose not to vote or were forbidden to do so. “The consent of the governed” is clearly a superstition, no matter how many electoral victories the priesthood yanks out of its magic boxes.
So, this November, I plan to join that 57% and sleep in on Sunday … er, Tuesday. If I feel the need to take up a religion, I’ll choose one that gets up to harmless activities like chanting at airports or handing out magazines door-to-door or doing good works for the poor, not a death cult like “government.”
Earlier today, I have the Conservative candidate for the local by election stop by.
I was in no mood to give her the "How do you feel knowing you wish to be a part of an institution of violence?" routine, and in a hurry to shut the door, I said "I don't really vote".
"I don't want to either, but you have to", came her reply.
No. I don't. Get off my porch.
You logic is suspect. A person assumes the responsibility to help selected elected office holders by accepting American citizenship. Therefore, the 56% of the population who can vote but do not vote have not opted out of the system. They are expressing indifference to the election process and thereby consenting to be ruled by either candidate.
Ethicalego,
My logic may be suspect, but your formulation is equally suspect.
What is involved in "accepting" American citizenship? Does choosing not to flee the country on one's 18th birthday constitute "acceptance," or is some overt act required? If the former, how so? If the latter, what act?
As far as the 56.x% non-voting figure is concerned, that includes not only those who choose not to vote, but who are barred from doing so (due to age restrictions, sanctions for felony criminal convictions, etc.). How can those who are forbidden to vote rightfully be claimed to either "accept," or be be bound by, the process or its outcome?
Joe,
Is there some particular reason why those under 14 (or 18) should be excluded?
In most matters of law, it's exactly the opposite — "minors" are presumed to be unable to consent to sex, to contract, etc.
Why should they be presumed not only to be able to consent, but to actually have consented, to be governed, especially when they're not even allowed to participate in the process of choosing the governors?
@Thomas L. Knapp – "Is there some particular reason why those under 14 (or 18) should be excluded?" uh oh…now I'm flashing back (as it were) to the movie: "Wild in the Streets"
!
Seriously, it is hard to explain to people why I am choosing not to vote. I've been using the old saw "It just encourages them!", but trying to make them understand, without their eyes glazing over, why I no longer believe in the state.
I swear, there needs to be a "coming out" support group for recent anarchists! (Except who would run it?)
The line I use that always stops people in mid argument is "the lesser of two evils is still evil".
And as for Mr. (?) Ethicalego, when were you or I presented with an opportunity to "accept" citizenship? Were we given a chance to opt-out? How is withholding your victim's sanction the same as giving consent? Using your logic, if I say I want neither a big-mac nor a whopper, I must accept either.
This is easy: Taxes are compulsory, no one freely consents to governments. That’s the end of the consent discussion.
Not that it matters much, but about 20% of the population is between ages 0 to 14, so the voting population is about 244 million or less, so approximately 54% voted for president, and 46 abstained.
It is my right to vote, or to abstain from voting, Ethicolego. But there is no duty to vote, no compulsion, yet. Inevitably democratic systems tend toward centralism, authoritarianism, and mass theft, in essence if not in name. See Tom’s argument – 22% of the eligible voters voted for Obama. Some smaller number voted for the other Wall Street candidate, McCain. The rest of us cast protest votes, either by voting 3rd party, writing in Ron Paul, or staying home. We had no acceptable choice. See George Carlin’s take on this (NB, BAD LANGUAGE); http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acLW1vFO-2Q&feature=related
I have seen this composition, Civics Teachers Heads Exploding, though I’m not confident the arrangement was in B. Performed by the Boom Town Rats many decades ago.
George Carlin once said that he didn’t sleep in. He just did with his hand what the voters were doing with a ballot. And he’d have a little something to show for it. lol
A friend of mine has stickers that say “I farted” made to look just like the “I voted” stickers. Very droll.
@ Ayn
"you might as well vote for the best that is there"
Why?
Couldn't you be doing something with that time and energy (no matter how small it is) that is more helpful to you and/or other people?
If you decide to vote, what mental state are you perpetuating for yourself once you label yourself a "voter"? Once you do that, you are tasked with determining which is "the best that's there." You then either spend plenty of time researching to make that determination… or you make it haphazardly.
There is REAL social and economic activity… and there is political activity.
What if you (and maybe a lot of other people too) just spent 5 extra minutes per month creating real social or economic activity? Creating or promoting a good product or service to people who could benefit from it. Taking something you've done that was beneficial to you and teaching or assisting others to do it for themselves too.
What would happen?
hahaha yes
let's get that voting abstention rate to 100%
There was an instance, and I cannot remember the town, where nobody voted in their city council race. They had 0% turnout. Even the candidates didn't bother to vote. So the candidates reappointed themselves.
Jeff, I explained why. In the reset of my comment I explained why. They manufacture consent whether you vote or not. The only way they might hear any dissent is by your vote, especially since they've convinced themselves that your vote belongs to them.
In the reset of my comment? Huh?
In the REST of my comment…
I hate typos.
I must disagree.
Those who are part of the organization called “government” seek the illusion of consent, true. But they claim to have it whether you vote or not. If you do vote, they get it from your participation. But if you do not vote, they get it from your expressing that you do not care about the outcome. It is a contradiction, true, but it is a contradiction they employ in their favor. You cannot express that you do not consent in any way other than becoming a criminal or leaving the country according to the rules they have set up.
Therefore, since they have the illusion of your consent either way, you might as well vote for the best that is there. Not “lesser of two evils” but for the few candidates that, even though they will lose, are actually good enough to earn your vote.
Then there’s the ballot propositions, which do have a good side and a bad side.
http://aynrkey.blogspot.com/2010/06/on-voting.html
Tom, I only picked the 0-14 age bracket because that's what I found on Wikipedia on U.S. demographics. My point was that some percentage of the overall population is below what most would concede is the "age of reason." A 9-year old or even a 7-year old could perhaps be mature enough to "vote," i.e., give consent to being "governed" (and of course it depends greatly on the individual), but at some point it doesn't make sense to argue that they could consent because they haven't the faintest idea of what "consent" or "governing". And note that I'm also not arguing for anyone to draw that age "line" or to provide a test that reflect sufficient understanding.
On the other side of the spectrum, it can be argued that a large percentage of the "adult" population, both voting and non-voting don't really understand what "governing" or "being governed" is all about because they're deluded by the state propaganda, instilled from that very early age, even in putative "private" schools or by well-meaning parents.
Joe,
You write:
"A 9-year old or even a 7-year old could perhaps be mature enough to 'vote,' i.e., give consent to being 'governed' (and of course it depends greatly on the individual), but at some point it doesn’t make sense to argue that they could consent"
I agree 100% with your logic, but reach a very different conclusion from that logic.
My conclusion is that if they can't consent then they obviously haven't consented.
The state's claim to legitimacy/authority is "the consent of the governed." If you cannot consent and therefore have not consented, yet the state claims legitimacy/authority in governing you that claim is obviously false.
Imagine an election and no one came or they refused to play "the game"…. Those who did vote cast write-ins for "none of the above" or "abolish the office", rather than the "least of the worst"… What a message that would be to those who seek to rule! And then if all made the reasons known publicly – writing all the mainstream media and the politicos too.
The reason? The Democrats and Republican political parties are mostly indistinguishable – each trying to outdo each other in enacting laws/directives/regulations that are "in the interests of the country" or "for the general welfare". And the newer political party variations are no better in actuality. Concepts that do not exist have been and continue to be utilized in the written/spoken promises from politicians of all stripes. A "country" does not have interests nor is there "general welfare". Only individual humans have values and make decisions based on them, while governments, no matter the political party in power, interfere in the voluntary mutually beneficial interactions of individuals.
I once again plan not to vote…. only did so once in past 12 years and that was to cast a "NO" on a tax increase referendum. And I do let my actions and reasons be known publicly whenever I get the opportunity
Ayn,
You write:
“You cannot express that you do not consent in any way other than becoming a criminal or leaving the country according to the rules they have set up.”
True … but why operate according to the rules they have set up?
If the game is rigged — if the rules are written such that heads they win, tails we lose — then we need to get our own game, write our own rules.
The current rules treat voting as explicit consent and non-voting as implicit consent.
In addition to persuading people toward explicit non-consent, we should propagandize for the notion of non-voting as implicit non-consent.
The last time I voted was back in 1997.
From 1992-1997, I generally voted Libertarian party, with write-ins if there was no Libertarian party candidates.
My write-ins were either myself, fictional characters, and people like Timothy Leary and Robert A Wilson.
But then I gave up on voting for the reason that you had stated above…. I no longer wised to give my consent to be governed.
If there should be a candidate in the future who represents my idea 100% perfectly, and I was reasonably certain that he would actually *do* what he said, then I might vote for him.
But he'd probably get assassinated, though.
Until then, The United States in my country, but the USSA government is not my government, and I give them the respect that they deserve. None.
Tom, great article.
Hi Kitty, great comment.
All please also read:
Principled Nonvoting: The Beginning of Disengaging From the State
http://theinternationallibertarian.blogspot.com/2…
Tom, yes, I agree that children have not consented, but as implied by the preface to my original comment, what difference does it make whether you count them or not? The chimps in cages in the zoo or in labs also haven't consented.
If it were possible to conduct a referendum among those that have the mental capacity to consent, some would gladly do so because they they understand the nature of the state and want to be part of it or want to enjoy the goodies it delivers. Others, both voting and non-voting, would probably acquiesce to being governed because they think that "order" –which may have differing interpretations according to the individual– is needed in society and believe only the state can provide such "order." OTOH, there are those who understand the state's nature and want no part of it. Like it or not, I think the middle ground is the vast majority of the population.
I am convinced that voter registration is the 'hook' that ties us into this crappy govt.
What do you think of the study below. Suggestions and criticisms are welcome.
play this while reading …
Muse The Resistance – Uprising
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog&ob…
——————————————————————————–
There is much talk of the Constitution. http://www.uaff.info/theconstitution.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Consti…
Most are taught that it protects us, that it restates, in writing, our God given unalienable rights.
But, be aware, that is also states that Congress shall
1) have the power to make laws (argh)
2) have the power to lay and collect taxes (Article 1, Section 8)
Is Congress' power to make laws and to TAX, legally binding on us, the people ?
Magic Ink and Altered Morality (it is ok to rob you … I put it in writing)
http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/900.html
The Constitution of the United States was written in secret by the Founding Fathers and
was never presented to the Colonists for a vote. http://www.stevequayle.com/News.alert/09_Global/0…
Some scholars assert that the Constitution is binding because it was adopted by States' legislatures
[ The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People". ]
and that the people of the state are then bound to it by "social contract".
I found an excellent video explanation of social contract at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jNj0VhK19QU
The speaker is Stefan Molyneux from Freedomain radio http://www.freedomainradio.com/
I agree with Stefan, of course, that this social contract argument is baseless.
Stefan explains further on page 41 of his free book titled "Everyday Anarchy".
http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_4_P…
Possibly one is part of that social contract when one signs a voter "registration".
I have repudiated mine without any incident or argument.
Thus, IMHO, it boils down to Civil or Criminal, and thus … contract or injured party.
If some agent of the Police or City or County or State confronts you …. ask
Is your complaint Civil or Criminal ?
Civil ? Show me the contract !
Criminal ? Show me the affidavit from the "injured party"
You have neither ? Then I suggest you leave me alone !
Every freeman/woman must make sure he/she is not part of any contract, hidden, implied or otherwise and that one conducts one's self with honor befitting a sovereign and does no Harm to anyone else.
That being said and done, one may travel, as a Freeman.
Don Quixote
http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1000003388…
——————————————————————————–
That which is not just, is not Law; and that which is not Law ought not to be obeyed
http://constitution.org/as/dcg_311.htm
No Man comes to command many, unless by Consent or by FORCE.
http://constitution.org/as/dcg_111.htm
Lysander Spooner asserted, it was a principle of the Common Law, as it is of the law of nature, and of common sense, that no man can be taxed without his personal consent.
http://usa-the-republic.com/items%20of%20interest…
Executive Orders, "states of emergency" and martial law in Florida
http://www.ecclesia.org/forum/uploads/bondservant…