Voting: Helping or hurting the cause of liberty

Quoting from Lysander Spooner’s No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority [the work that made me an Anarchist]:

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self- defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot — which is a mere substitute for a bullet — because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

"Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.

“Therefore, a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, EVEN FOR THE TIME BEING. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to be disturbed or injured by others.”

Judging from this Lysander Spooner quotation, is the voting system a positive or negative force in achieving libertarian goals?

Neutral.

I’m a big fan of the saying, “If voting changed anything it would illegal.”

This week I voted against all the propositions on the California ballot. If I hadn’t voted would the outcome have changed? No, they didn’t fail by a single vote.

But, none the less, Californias are better off that they did fail.

Of course, I find silly the arugment that because I voted against changing how the state spends its budget that I implicitly approve of it stealing the money in the first place.

If I could do it over again, I would never have registered to vote.

If your goal is minarchism, that is to become the master so you can emancipate yourself, then voting is valid.

If your goal is anarchy, then voting is counter-productive because it validates the state as a means to an end.

Clearly, the voting system is a negative force in achieving a free society.

Can liberty be achieved through the voting process? I highly doubt that. As of yet, I still haven’t seen an option on a ballot paper that reads “there should be no government”, or “none of the above”!

I think Neveda does a ‘none of the above’ on their ballot. However, it doesn’t really mean anything.

I don’t see how the state can be the means to achieve the result of ending the state.

If I drive to DC and say, “Obama, end the state” should he comply and dismantle the federal government, am I guilty of using the state? Of course not. I have engaged only in, and advocated for, social behavior.

Voting is inefficient because it is fundamentally reformist, and non-voting helps delegitimize democracy.

Voting does not legitimize the democracy, so I don’t see how the reverse can be true.

I would be more concerned by my cause than the cause of liberty. People putting an ideal over what is practicle can get dangerous. Yes I would steal from someone if my family was starving. I would vote for a shitty politician if, all other things being equal, my taxes went down 2%. If you end up starving to death for liberty, how does liberty thank you? The same way the government thanks you when you starve for it’s cause.

In a sense it does if a majority does not vote.

Then its obvious that voters are happy with the status quo, they trust politicians to decide for them.

Sorry, you are correct. I mean that it reinforces the faux notion that voting can end the state.

Apathy does not instantly infer that one is happy with the status quo. If one chooses not to vote it could be for any subjective reason.

Exactly, the reason why turn out is low is open to interpretation, and I gave the reason we’re most likely to hear repeated the most.

Well, it definitely seems like participating in an activity legitimizes it. Isn’t this also true of voting and democracy? Why do they say that the health of democracy is measured by voter turnout?

Perhaps, but non-voting at least gives you a conversation starter: if someone mentions anything about the election, I can say “I don’t believe in democracy.” And then they go “WHAAATT!?!?” and their brain short-circuits. If someone calls you apathetic, you have a platform to argue for the real reason you didn’t vote, i.e. anarchism.

It depends on the person.

Ron Paul, yes. Vote to support Liberty Candidates. Bob Barr? F*$(k no.

Against voting for the lesser of two evils. For it is still evil. And no - Ron Paul isn’t evil.

There is NOTHING wrong with him RUNNING for President. He spreads the message of Liberty. MILLIONS of people world wide are now following the true message of Liberty. 10’s of thousands, hundred’s of thousands are now looking into the Austrian School of Economics.

They then become anarcho-capitalists. Ron Paul filters them into the movement through his honesty, trust and credibility, his principles and voting record.

I cannot comprehend the people who denounce him… or voting just once to support him. If you never want to see Liberty in this life time, you’ll attack Ron Paul.

If you don’t vote, most people will interpret your actions as apathetic.

If you do vote, most people will interpret your actions as legitimizing democracy.

Which scenario is better? I would go with non-voting, because it’s nontraditional and uncommon, whereas voting is customary and commonplace. So non-voting will get you more attention for your ideas.

There’s no question Ron Paul brought new people into the movement.

The problem is that his strategy is fundamentally reformist. For electoral politics to work, you need to convert half the population to your position. Good luck converting 150 million people to libertarianism. This is just impractical.

On the other hand, if you pursue a radical strategy like secession or seasteading, you need only convert a relatively small number of people. For example, converting a village of 100 people and seceding is a lot easier than taking over the government through electoral politics. Of course, the actual secession is the hard part, but I think radical strategies are much more feasible than reformist ones.

Libertarians need to realize that, on the whole, politics is only useful for education.

Umm… and who says that is his strategy? Have I ever proposed the ones you apply to me? Noo… I know about the remnant. The small vocal, active minority lead the way, not the masses.

Ron Paul has talked about Secession. He talks as radical as he can get away with. End the Fed anyone? The man has blazed a path, where before it was NEVER acceptable to even utter such phrases. That has all changed. Peter Schiff and some others have helped too.

And where I am, voting is compulsory…

BOOM - the whole “no vote” strategy just failed. Thanks, try again. [8-)]

Spoil your ballot.

Refuse.

Resist.