Tuesday, July 20, 2010

remember not to vote!

yes, i've written on this subject before. i felt like i should be more clear and concise on the argument i make against voting. looking back at those earlier posts, there was something left to be desired.

1. voting sanctions violence. government is a group of people who have declared themselves to be your ruler - with or without your consent. every rule they make, every regulation they implement is backed up by the threat that they will use force in order to gain your compliance. when you vote, you actively help someone get into a position to use that violence against others. you become, in essence, an accessory to crime.

2. voting legitimizes government. the more votes a candidate receives, the greater his "mandate". everything he does can be whitewashed as "the will of the people". a vote helps to obscure the criminal nature of government by giving people the illusion that they are involved in the process, when, of course, they aren't.

3. you never know what you're voting for. politicians are liars. that's a known quantity. all one has to go on when electing a candidate are his words. we know that words can't be trusted. so, when you vote and that candidate does something awful that he said he wouldn't do, like invade a country and murder hundreds of thousands of its citizens, are you going to be willing to accompany him to the hague to answer to war crimes? let's be honest, you helped it all happen.

4. voting will never change the nature of government. regardless of your vote, government will remain, by definition, an institution based on violence against others. if you want to be involved in assisting a machine of evil, then voting is an easy way to do it.

the alternative, of course, is to stay at home, away from such things and enjoy your clear conscience (or, you can do this instead). after all, if you vote, you have no right to complain.

2 comments:

TheRiverFinn said...

What about the Libertarian running for office?

zrated said...

he's no different in this context. he's a "Libertarian", but he's not a "libertarian". tom mullen details that in this article:

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/apr/12/gary-johnson-not-libertarian/

beyond that, all of the same problems apply to all those seeking office. the state is designed, from top to bottom as a machine to transfer wealth from the legitimate class to the political class. too many people make too much money and gain too much power from that system to ever allow it to fall into the hands of one who is opposed to it. just look at the egregious railroading of ron paul's campaign at the convention in tampa.

outside of that, the only thing that can be accomplished by voting for johnson is to add to the vote tallies at the end of the election. those votes, no matter who they were cast for, will be conglomerated into the the mass of votes that the winner will use to whitewash his inevitably evil agenda as "the will of the people". "look, i won the election, and 90% of people voted. therefore, i am 'the people's' choice." voting only serves to legitimize the current regime. that's why the taliban threaten and kill people on the way to the polls in afghanistan; to discourage voting and, therefore, delegitimize the elected regime.

furthermore, why risk it on a moral level? politicians are liars, by and large. what if your candidate gets elected and then does all of the terrible things that he promised he wouldn't do in his campaign? of course, that's likely to happen. so, if johnson is elected and he doesn't end the war on drugs an he continues foreign intervention and lots of innocent people continue to die, then you have that on your shoulders. is it worth it to help to endanger the lives of others?

google "drone attack victims" and see then if you think voting is worth it, even if it's johnson.

good question. thanks for asking. it's one that always needs to be answered.