If You Vote, You Can’t Complain
We’re all familiar with the expression “If you don’t vote, you can’t complain.” I take issue with that. It’s 1984 double-speak to me. We, the peasants, are presented with this extremely infinitesimal chance to influence the choice from an extremely small selection of masters, the choices having essentially already been picked by the elite. We then play the game and we are permitted to complain about the results knowing full well the rules and the stakes beforehand. Excuse me? That sounds like very poor sportsmanship.
I don’t accept the rules or the stakes. I don’t want to be a slave under either McCain or Obama and I don’t appreciate others taking it upon themselves to pick who will be my master. Having an infinitesimal chance of influencing a choice of two masters does not make me feel the slightest bit free. Even if I had the only vote and could pick one of the two, that would not make me feel less a slave.
Start your search for Amazon products here and a portion of the proceeds will go to this site. This search box is also available in the AIYH Store. It’s a great easy way to support Anarchy In Your Head.
There are quite a lot of fair weather fans of our democratic republic. Complainers have been saying Bush wasn’t really elected ever since SCOTUS settled the controversial vote count in Florida. To those I ask if they’re losing faith in the checks and balances between the three branches of government that the founding fathers of the federal government of the U.S. put into place to keep tyranny in check. Are you? Good! Run with that. Maybe you’re onto something.
I understand the viewpoint of those who don’t approve of that process but they participate as a sort of defensive measure because they know the results are going to impact them regardless. I used to be in that camp as recently as the Ron Paul campaign. I have thoughts on that both from a moral point of view and from a practical point of view but I’m going to focus on the practical side of withdrawing from politics. I know those who continue to “vote defensively” are following their consciences and doing what they feel is best. I don’t feel it’s productive to continually harp on that subject, but I’ll address that in more detail another time. I want this to be a positive and inspirational message about what other things we can do.
Yesterday I participated with three other Keeniacs in a great voluntaryist outreach effort at a Howard Dean voter registration rally at Keene State. I’m kicking myself for not taking pictures or even video, especially since I had my camera on me, but some reporters did take pics and if you check back there may be some later. We had some great responses, along with a few not so friendly responses which is to be expected anytime you have something to say about a controversial subject. We were there to give an alternate viewpoint to the voter registration rally, and invite people to try other methods of effecting change in a peaceful way.
We’ll be having a similar effort on election day at some key voting locations around Keene, and hopefully in some other locations around New Hampshire if other NH residents are inspired by this. I’m hoping to encourage others to engage in similar outreach efforts around the country. That’s why I’m writing this now to give people some time to plan. I’ll be posting fliers that you can print out with summarized information about the violence inherent in politics.
Many people seem to think I don’t want to impact politics. That couldn’t be further from the truth. Like all “small-L” libertarians, I see politics as force backed by the the threat of violence, which is the opposite of freedom, and I absolutely want to see a substantial reduction in the impact of politics on our personal lives. However, to do this effectively, I must recognize politics as the enemy.
Recognize that an authoritarian government’s greatest weapon against us is not guns and violence. Their greatest weapons are their illusions. They’ve been fabricating illusions of authority ever since the days of the divine right of kings, where kings were considered to have the backing of God himself to justify their rule. With these illusions on their side, regular people turn aside as they commit acts that would be considered criminal by the hand of any “normal” person. The looters want us to play their political games. If you’ve read that horribly written novel with a fantastic premise, Atlas Shrugged, then you’ll recall all the attempts by the looters, as she refers to them, to get the victims to sanction their behavior. This is what the hamster wheel of politics is all about. Most of the looters believe in these illusions themselves, so I’m not claiming a conspiracy. It’s the nature of the beast. Anyone willing to use violence for personal gain can benefit from government and hence from these illusions, so it’s in their personal interest to maintain them. The more they truly convince themselves of the validity of these illusions, the less cognitive dissonance they feel when they engage in their violent enslavement of humanity. Politicians are themselves not even that high on the hierarchy of masters. Look to who contributes to their campaigns and otherwise invests in government force to see who commands the politicians and therefore also has an interest in maintaining the illusions.
When I choose not to vote, it’s just a small first step. I’m speaking out against the process itself and it seriously muddles my message if I engage in the process while speaking out against it. But I still have the potential to impact the process from outside of it. Anarchy or voluntaryism is not a binary all-or-nothing strategy. We can make progress toward liberty right now. Consider a viral message against the process itself and the positive impact that could have on political decisions.
Most people don’t like either candidate’s position, but are voting for the lesser evil as a sort of damage control. The candidate positions get more alike each election. There’s a reason that happens. With extremely few choices presented to us by the elite, the deciding votes are by swing voters. Those swing voters have more power than anyone. All a candidate has to do to keep their base is not be as horrible as the other candidate. Their base voters will fall into line with simple fear tactics. In the last presidential election, we were told Kerry was rated most liberal senator by some group. Notice that Obama is now the most liberal senator? Do you recall the “Anyone but Bush” campaign? Do you now see the “McSame- Same as Bush” signs? These tactics keep them from having to take strong, principled positions that would turn off swing voters, like pulling out of Iraq quickly or equalizing the dramatically graduated Marxist tax system or making some kind of substantial change to the social security system.
Imagine if people started proclaiming loudly that they’ve lost faith in the political system. Government needs our sanction for their illusions. Politicians need our votes to win elections. If that message starts to go viral, they have to fight that message. They have to start working to counter that message, and kudos if they do! If they start acting more principled to keep people believing in the system so they’ll vote, campaign, and contribute, then we’ve made progress. We’ve actually held politicians at least somewhat accountable without lifting a finger in violence, without ganging up with our buddies in an attempt to overpower those who disagree with us, but simply by being very vocally and loudly passive. We actually begin to lead a growing block of potential swing voters. A vote lost is as bad as a vote gained by the competitor, and maybe they will try to win some of those non-voters back. It won’t work on those like myself, but perhaps on some it may, if a politician starts to show a backbone.
What about third party candidates? They come and go, as do the parties themselves. The Libertarian party is in its death throes because it gave up its principles in an attempt to win the corrupt game of politics. Ideas are immortal. Our candidate sticks around and can gain momentum every election. Nobody for president, 2008!
So I say to you, don’t vote, but do complain. Complain very loudly and convince others to complain with you. Complain that the system itself is unacceptable and produces horrible candidates. Maybe you don’t share my anti-government sentiments, and that’s okay. Maybe you’ll agree with me later, but in the meantime, don’t vote for a lesser evil. Hold your votes and your contributions hostage until someone offers you a viable candidate with a spine. Make the candidates listen, not to apathetic couch surfers, but to principled and passionate non-voters.
I’ll be posting a flier here for outreaches soon so I suggest you check back unless you prefer to make your own fliers. I’ll also be posting a YouTube Vlog entry so check back in a day or two or just subscribe to my YouTube channel and you’ll be notified when that’s up. In the meantime, enjoy these comics on voting.
And take a look at the store for some good gear to wear at your outreach effort. Here are a few of the designs.
Excellent Dale!
A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years. — Lysander Spooner
This will be the first general election that I will not be participating in since I became eligible to vote. This wasn’t an easy decision for me to make as I still have lingering feelings that I’m being irresponsible for not voting. I found that I was searching for reasons to support certain candidates so that I could vote for them, so that I could avoid the guilt and shame in not voting. I could have deluded myself.
I believe that this is what most voters do. They feel it’s their civic duty to vote, and they don’t want to look bad for not voting, but they also don’t want to vote for evil. They’re looking for a reason to vote for one candidate over another, and if they’re desperate enough, they’ll find the reason, whether its really there or not.
Unfortunately, not even all anarchists are apolitical. There’s one I know that’s actually trying to get into public office. So that he can start sabotaging government from within… Government behaves like an organism in quite a number of ways. It notices when a foreign body enters into its ranks, and selects quite efficiently against any element that will reduce its real size. Because the backers who gain special benefit from government won’t back anyone who wants to reduce government. And even if someone somehow got into a position of power and tried to reduce government, there are occasional instances where somebody tried, people react like the leeches that government subsidy has turned them into. Businesses complain they’ll have to lay thousands off, teachers go on strikes and march in the streets, old people go on the news talking about how they don’t know how they’ll make it.. The reducers of government get labeled as anti-child, anti-industry, heartless about the helpless. And it actually sets us back, because for a generation people believe that we would be helpless even if government were made smaller.
If You Vote You Can’t Complain…
I agree with this, mostly. My only disagreement is that if you find a candidate who actually is for decreasing the size, scope, and authority of government, it is a defensive action and is useful. However, simply voting for the lesser of two evils is s…
“And even if someone somehow got into a position of power and tried to reduce government, there are occasional instances where somebody tried, people react like the leeches that government subsidy has turned them into.”
Exactly. I tell people that the moment they get their saboteur into government and (s)he starts effectively scaling back government, the sleeping dragon will wake up and defend itself. I saw it happen with Schwarzenegger in CA. The public employee unions went into debt and spent millions of dollars fighting his government size control initiatives, nearly the size of a national presidential campaign. I was thinking of that when I withdrew from the Ron Paul campaign.
Did you not take part in the democratic primary process? Would you have the same viewpoint had Ron Paul been nominated?
No, I didn’t participate in the last primary. I withdrew from politics, and the Ron Paul campaign, several months before the primary. My stance created quite a lot of heat from Paul supporters. Go look at some of my Ron Paul comics where I made fun of the political process during his campaign and look at the responses. Just click “ron paul” in the tag cloud. I believe the first one from way back was before I withdrew. The others are after I withdrew. The 2nd one, Ron Paul Christmas, is shortly after I withdrew from any direct political activity, which is why I point out that I did it as a favor for a friend in exchange for some help on my website.
My mistake!
My view is somewhat different. I’ll vote for one of two imperfection options if I think one of them is clearly better, which I do. If you’re equally disgusted with both options, I can see why you might choose not to vote, though.
On an unrelated note, Ayn Rand described anarchist thought as such:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html
I already have plans to discuss the fallacies in her arguments but just haven’t gotten around to it yet. Particularly odd to me is her argument for objective rules (made by fallible human beings) on the basis of need.
As dale concurred, though I wasn’t aware of that specific example, when you try to pare back government power in slow increments, it fights back. Try to challenge the teacher’s union monopoly, they march out, strike, and talk endlessly about how the candidate doesn’t care about the children. Yet one of the billboards I saw here in vegas didn’t even bother talking about being an advocate for the children. It was talking about one of the candidates being the advocate for education itself. The institution. The union.
Imagine if you simply got rid of the federal monopoly on the post office, and its attendant subsidy? The former USPS workers would go on strike, the federal government would cease being able to disburse things like welfare and social security checks, and again, the seniors would end up on the news talking about how close to ruination they were because the post office was no longer running. To say nothing about how they would react if we actually eliminated social security itself!
Any of the systems involving government have similar built in reinforcement mechanisms. Those dependent on them, or dependent for their station, or who believe they are either, rise up and do whatever they feel they need to in order to preserve the government titty they’re currently suckling at. Just look at Canada: http://www.filibustercartoons.com/index.php/2008/10/08/weening-the-artists/
Oh, and just for the record? My answer is if the premise is that government doesn’t really have any true special position, and we can live without government-as-such, we should just start treating government as if it’s already a business that’s used every sneaky trick in the book back when we didn’t know better to get a monopolist’s position. Start competing with it. Generate our own arbitration courts, start up “currencies” to compete with the dollar, start up security companies that compete with police and military for defense. Start selling an alternative, literally. If we anarcho-capitalists are right, we should be able to win our liberty just by making governance irrelevant. If our way is best, the most efficient utilization of resources to achieve any given end, we should be able to outcompete government-as-government hands down. Maybe the US isn’t the best market to start with, but there are good markets. But I’d be willing to try it even here if I could get the slightest bit of resources.
I’ll cut and paste the previous commenter first:
12. Agape
October 15th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
“Oh, and just for the record? My answer is if the premise is that government doesn’t really have any true special position, and we can live without government-as-such, we should just start treating government as if it’s already a business that’s used every sneaky trick in the book back when we didn’t know better to get a monopolist’s position. Start competing with it. Generate our own arbitration courts, start up “currencies” to compete with the dollar, start up security companies that compete with police and military for defense. Start selling an alternative, literally. If we anarcho-capitalists are right, we should be able to win our liberty just by making governance irrelevant. If our way is best, the most efficient utilization of resources to achieve any given end, we should be able to outcompete government-as-government hands down. Maybe the US isn’t the best market to start with, but there are good markets. But I’d be willing to try it even here if I could get the slightest bit of resources.”
***********
I hope I did that correctly but, if not, then the quote ends at the asterisks.
In reply to your post, the Freedom and Liberty Movement is making attempts at headway in replacing gunpoint government with peaceful voluntary mutually beneficial associations.
As Dale and others accurately relate, then the gunpoint government gathers up it’s minions and commits another Ruby Ridge, WACO, Plainfield, Liberty Dollar Raid, etc.(the list goes on and on forever to include all the millions of political prisoners everywhere)
Perhaps some have knowledge of the Donald Scott event. What about Brian and Ruth Christine. Indianapolis Baptist Temple anyone? Joann
McGuckin? Yori Kahl?
Recently we’ve seen plenty of Peter Schiff on the MSM. Ever wonder why he remains silent about his father Irwin who is a political prisoner of the gunpoint government.
Don’t expect the gunpoint government mobocracy looter minions to give up without utilizing the tactics, tools, and torture that they are so comfortable with. That is, as long as it’s being used on someone else, never on them.
Rand was correct in her hypothesis that the mobocracy looter minions will not just cease, desist, and quit. They won’t just drop their Oz/Alice in Wonderland/Matrix illusion and start “playing” “nicely”.
They just won’t. Not until they have consumed everything around them, then each other, and then themselves.
Sure this is a dire predicament. Why do you think Rand anguished endlessly over it and felt the necessity to write a fifteen hundred page tomb just to “enlighten” the masses.
How’s that working for ya.
Sincerely,
John and Dagny Galt
All I can say about your comments are – if you don’t like it, why not gtfo? I mean, don’t get me wrong – I can’t stand America or it’s political process either. But instead of bitching and saying “waaahh I’m a slave”, I’m saying “Fuck this – I’m just gonna bail”.
Also – anarchy? Cmon man. If you believe in Anarchy, shouldn’t you be against the concept of voting in the first place? You bitch about not having a choice but it seems like you shouldn’t want a choice. Don’t you want the destruction of authority and states?
I honestly can’t believe ANYONE thinks anarchy could work in any way. You MUST realize that eventually people would realize that we need eachother, we’d form bands and then tribes and then chiefdoms and eventually we’d have states again. The authoritative states themselves are not a bad thing – it’s when the people lose control of the state that the problems arise.
just wait til you get to high school Sarah
Agape
The problem is that the government monopoly has one thing that normal monopolies don’t. That is a monopoly on force. Look at what happened to the liberty dollar. The FBI came in and took all their Gold and other metals. This included gold that they where holding for their customers. Sure you can setup alternatives, but when push comes to shove the government will shut you down. And they have propaganda to make you out to be a terrorist. So are you going to start a war over your alternatives? Why not skip the middle step and go strait for a revolution?
The only problem I have with anarchy is what happens when you create a power vacuum? We definitely need to head in that direction, but I’m not sure how far we can go before the normal interpretation of “Anarchy” becomes reality.
I haven’t decided yet that I’m not going to vote, but it will not be for McCain or Obama if I do.
John and Dagny Galt, I wanted to make it clear, I’m relatively certain that initiation of force would render any such attempt *in the US* dead or under arrest if it started to succeed in its mission. I don’t consider the US, despite the supposed “tradition of liberty”, to be an ideal primary market. A great place to expand to once the different businesses together have enough ability to defend to make it suicidal for the US gov to try to destroy them. I’ve got my eye on the Phillippines. Or maybe, if sufficient capital can be found to operate almost indefinitely until the economy of Somalia recovers, Somalia. I’m open to other suggestions as well.
Sarah, wtf are you even doing here? Seriously. “Anarchy In Your Head” doesn’t mean “cutesy comic title”, it’s an anarchist comic. Anyway, on to address the elements of your post. First off, “love it or leave it”? What if we love it, but like a sister who’s being abused by her boyfriend we’d like to see the government stop ravaging it? Second off, because of this worldwide immigration control craze, for anybody without at least a Bachelor’s degree, there is almost no leave it. Unless you want to wade out in the ocean and tread water until your legs cramp and you drown, there’s not much of an option available. Third off, what is this all about? We’re saying that voting does nothing in all reality to attain or preserve liberty. Fourth off, you should really check out anarcho-capitalist theory sometime. And the history of societies that did not have any substantive governance. Fifth off, the minarchy that lasted the longest before it got an authoritarian government had a *limited free market* in governance. Otherwise, there is no “it’s only when the people lose control”, it’s how many minutes it takes before the leadership in a minarchy decide they have the power and they’re gonna use it. The US government, for instance, started engaging in imperialist activities and violating its boundaries within the term of Washington himself. We never had control. Control of government is actually impossible, except insofar as having alternatives to choose from with little or no opportunity-cost to choose them prevents any abuses by these ostensible governors. That means not just low barriers to immigration, that means not having to uproot and move to get the hell away from an oppressive regime. And the lesson from Iceland is that simply having a defined, sanctioned pool of choices is not enough.
Spike, why not all the way? If there’s anything government does that could be said to make society livable, why would government be the most efficient method of providing it? Everything else government does is inefficient, unproductive, problematic, and morally bankrupt. Why would those things government does that would be said to actually support civilization not be better done in a free market where effectively providing the service at the lowest possible cost for quality received is the only way to keep customers? As I said, I don’t advocate it (entirely) for initial market in the US, though detroit might work. The US governments (state and federal) have just too much in the way of resources to direct against a startup. And my estimate for how long it’ll be before startups become feasible here are roughly a decade out. The cost of revolution, though, would be something I would be willing to pay, if I had any expectation that it would purchase liberty. I’m certain all it would purchase is early mortality.
Agape
I don’t disagree with you on theory at all. I would love to live in a truly free society. I just don’t know how well it would work with our human natures. I think there will always be humans who would take power, and others that would give it. There are too few people strong enough to resist others taking power and resist taking it themselves.
Communism works in theory too. And in practice as long as it is voluntary (Amish) but it doesn’t work for large groups where participation is involuntary.
I’m not trying to argue against anarchy (or whatever PC term you want to use). I agree with the theory and the dream. However, for it to work it would have to be a very gradual change so society would adapt. That or something like the free state project where we can get enough like minded people together to make a difference.
The idea behind the possibility of it is that at this point in history, so long as a government doesn’t *start* with that monopolistic position, it seems to have become nearly impossible for it to achieve it. Any single person/association that tries in those places where centralized government is failing or has failed, steps on too many toes in the rise to power. Somalia, despite having not settled completely into anarchic patterns of self-order, is proving the difficulty in re-establishing government even with significant resources backing the TFG. The TFG, with Ethiopean support and various UN backings, sort of managed Mogadishu but is losing it. Somaliland and a couple others have minor regional control, but they haven’t managed much more than tolling some roads and running a failing public school system.
Governance smells its own end, in my opinion. It’s why, in my opinion, it is trying to exercise its existing position so completely now. Like the scorpion that needed to cross the river, though, it can’t resist its own nature. The more it tries to hold onto, the faster it’ll destroy itself.
I agree 100%! What is the point to saying “Don’t vote – Don’t Complain – Please Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wydE7qTEgyI
By voting or not voting you are still participating in this insurgent government, established via the 14th amendment. Join me in correcting your status. Read The Red Amendment for more specifics. http://www.redamendment.net
George, of the country of Massachusetts
for State Nationals
http://www.statenationals.net
Vote for Peace, no. The idea is if you vote for anybody or anything, you’re saying the system itself has legitimacy. You’re saying it *is* correct that they have the power over those issues, even if the vote to make them permit something succeeds, for the moment. They have no legitimacy ruling these things, therefore I shall not vote. And I will complain plenty, because it is a system wholely imposed on me from without completely without my consent as a non-voter.
George, *this* government isn’t illegitimate. Government, period, is illegitimate. There’s no point in tryint to “go back” to the gov before then. Because even if it was less onerous, it’ll just grow again and the level of control fedgov had was still too much. There is no legitimate government. That’s the point of the site, heh.
[...] for the election day voluntaryism outreach. I mentioned this in the October 14th entry called If You Vote, You Can’t Complain. It’s in a tri-fold format so it looks out of order on the page, but if you fold it like a [...]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM
[...] the comment thread on this post from Anarchy in Your Head, this: A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term [...]
[...] liberty | Tags: anarcho-capitalism, voting There are a lot of people in the Free State Project who don’t vote. They have a lot of reasons for this, some of which I agree with and some of which I do not. Then [...]
Anarchy is never permanent. It is a tool. This tool gets rid of what you dont like to replace it with what you do like.
Anarchy is simply a society without rulers, but more often political and organizational chaos.
Anarcy is shortly lived, since after the laws of the land are erased, theft, murder, rape and utter disrepsect of neighbor ensues(without correction). People will be restricted of movement(freedom) since they will have to guard their property and loved ones twenty four seven, since the society is practicing lawlessness.
Sooner or later the People will ask for help and for the chaos to stop. The people who will stop it will most likely be the very people who caused it and they will set up a government.
Government was implemented to set up laws. For Freedom doesnt mean ” to be lawless”. Anarchy implements lawlessness.
People have long believed in placing people incharge like a sheriff to guard the property of others so that they could go work in the feilds and so on.
Ultimatly we have two choices, an oligarchy(ruled by a few powerfull people) or a Republic(ruled by law) since Anarchy never lasts.
Out of Anarchy comes a Government then the Government becomes a problem then Anarchy again and up pops another Government then Anarchy then Government then Anarchy….
See a pattern?
With a Republic the people are ruled by law, if the Government gets too big the people must be vigilent since Liberty demands it. Not getting involved helps no one and is counter productive.
Restore the Republic,
You’re simply making a bunch of assertions without evidence and it’s just not a very compelling argument. Anarchy doesn’t mean no laws. Anarchists believe in natural law which must be applied universally and reciprocally to be valid but not artificial man-made laws that are arbitrary and apply to some individuals but not others, i.e. archons. Anarchy is not chaos. That’s just a tired stereotype purported by the state to keep people afraid and maintain their irrational faith in the state.
Here’s two definitions of anarchy
“Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.”
“Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere.”
The only way Anarchy will ever be successful is if the individual consents to reject the status quo (resulting in existentialist anarchy). So for anarchy to work, everyone will have to agree to a social contract while at the same time respecting each others rights and rejecting government itself.
David, rather than respond right now, I’m just going to suggest that you stay tuned for an upcoming blog post called “Anarchy is not the Answer”.
[...] Occasionally some new policy will be put into place or some law will be passed that raises the ire of one special interest group or another insisting that the government has no right to do it no matter what consensus they managed to achieve. The expressions “He’s not my president!” and so-and-so elected official “doesn’t represent me!” are tossed around frequently, but somehow it doesn’t lead many to question the actual system that installed these leaders or implemented these unacceptable policies. Whenever I hear such protests, I would love to back that person up and say you’re correct. “That person does’nt represent you. The government has no right to say what you can or can’t put in your body, or to tax your income, or to tell you who you can marry,” whichever particular issue pushed your button. But do you have faith in the system that selects our leaders? Do you vote hoping you can gather enough on your side to overpower your opponent? Do you start playing that violent game, knowing all the rules in advance, and then complain when you lose? [...]
An alternative way to look at it:
“In the words of some anarchist guy, ‘if you don’t vote laughing, don’t vote at all.
Mock the vote’” –AshillaBeige on YouTube.
Voting for “lessor of two evils” is STILL voting for evil.
Good quote/message by a friend of mine: “If you don’t vote, they just write it off as apathy and no message will be sent. Why not go to the polls and turn in a blank ballot instead? Could you imagine if all of the non-voters did that, what message it would send?”