20 Reasons Not to Vote
Written and Compiled by Robert Rorschach.
If one votes, one participates. If one participates, one condones and endorses the process, and subsequently, what those elected 'representatives' do and say in your name.
Electoral promises are meaningless because politicians are able to lie to gain the favour of the electorate, and then do exactly what they want once they have it. Then there is no accountability or recourse, other than waiting another 4 years or so to vote them out and replace them with someone else who will follow the established template and do the exact same thing.
The act of voting grants legitimacy to the idea that it's acceptable for the majority/collective to use the coercive arm of the state to impose their will on the minority/individual using force, or threat of force, and for that reason, it is immoral to vote. As such, the only way to truly de-legitimise the system is by not voting. When the people refuse to participate in droves the international community can no longer recognise the results of the election as legitimate. This perceived legitimacy is such a concern for politicians that in some countries it's now a legal requirement to vote (e.g., Australia).
A non-voter emerges from the electoral process with a clean conscience because they can legitimately proclaim that what the elected 'representatives' subsequently say and do after they have gained power is not done in their name, not with their permission, and not with their encouragement.
To not vote DOES NOT mean one relinquishes the right to then comment on, complain about, or protest the actions of the government, it is completely the other way round. When one votes one effectively makes a contractual agreement (the voter is officially recorded doing so), which hands over the right for someone else to speak and act in their name, and as such, assents to whatever the government does thereafter. A non-voter however, has not done so, and therefore retains the right to complain, object and protest all they want.
Participation in the system (i.e., voting) reinforces the idea that people can't live together without violent control.
Participation in the system (i.e., voting) implies that the majority knows what's best for everyone.
Participation in the system (i.e., voting) implies that the majority knows what's best for the individual.
Voting is effectively participating in mob rule, and the mob then enforces it's views on the rest of society with the threat of violence.
By voting, an individual literally advocates the use of force against peaceful people.
Voting reinforces the idea the 'people' have the power rather than the largely unaccountable bureaucrats who make the rules.
Voting is futile because invariably the better financed candidate wins.
Statistically, any one vote makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. Thinking that their vote counts tends to give the voter a mistakenly inflated sense of self-worth, and participation in a system creates a passive sense of accomplishment.
An individual's ability to make an informed choice is zero if the only information they reference is from the overtly bias main stream media, government news channels (propaganda), politicians and party manifestos (sales pitch), or from an 'enforced' state school education (indoctrination).
Voting sends a false signal to the elected politicians that the voter approves of all their policies. Voters therefore encourage them.
If an individual has not come to firm conclusion about the election, that individual will do more for their country/community by not voting, rather than making a mistake.
If the outcome of a vote is unknown, then voting is tantamount to gambling. If the outcome of a vote is known, then voting is futile.
No individual has the authority to make laws their neighbour, or anyone else, must obey. Then how is it morally acceptable for any individual to delegate authority they don't have to someone else, such as a politician?
Should people who know more about game shows, sports, reality TV and celebrities, rather than matters of any real importance (economics, political philosophy, history, logic, critical thinking, etc) be in a position to vote and influence the lives of others?
Supporting the lesser of two evils is still supporting evil.
The 20 reasons not to vote boil down to this:
If you are not a Voluntaryist, then by definition you are an Involuntaryist, and as such, personally advocate the initiation of force, or threat of force against people who haven't threatened or harmed anyone. Therefore, for every person in the world one of these statements is true:
- "I advocate a society whereby people are free to voluntarily interact with one another."
- "I advocate the use of force, or threat of force, against innocent people, in order to make them comply with my opinions and preferences."
If the first statement refers to you, then DON'T VOTE.
RSVP to the VACATE THE VOTE Event here.
(Sources unrecorded other than Larken Rose for the conclusion section)
Good to see NBG on Steemit!
I take it you probably don't like either candidate running for the Presidency.
Not just either of the two main parties... not any of them.
So you get all of the benefits of living in the United States but you feel morally in the clear because you've decided to participate in the process that gave rise to that country as little as the law allows you to, yet you get to live in a country with a strong central government which provides you property rights and the rule of law, unlike, to pick a shitty country at random, Syria. If you lived in Syria, figuring out a government structure might be a matter of life and death, but here because by international standards we live in a first world country it can remain theoretical.
TL;dr: If you don't like it move to Somalia.
Thanks for being original.
@laconicflow The basic difference we have is that you see society and state as the same thing and we view them as different and ultimately at odds. Participation in the state does not mean you are trying to improve society. It just means you are participating in the state and at some level empowering it. By not participating in the state, we just acknowledge that there are better ways to influence the society that don't involve supporting politicians and aggressive force by the state monopoly.
That's actually not my point. My point is that I find it paradoxical when people live in a society that enables them to say the society is an utter and total piece of shit, to the point where they'd prefer not to participate in its evolution even as they are surrounded by societies where the right to complain or bitch or criticize does not exist. I'm not saying the nation state will always be necisary, but while I think it is necisary I feel totally comfortable trying to change it for the better. I can only conclude that people who avoid participation think change within a state is impossible or entirely insignificant even as that change positively affects people around them. You might be glad not voting, but all the groups enfranchised since our nations founding generally see their enfranchisement as a positive, and I don't think this makes them zombies by default. I don't know about you, but I try and get into conversations with people I'm sure I'll disagree with, otherwise its a circlejerk.
What gave rise to this country is a violent, armed revolt against the previous rulers.
You don't need a government to protect your property. Not to mention Governments can't both claim to protect property and actively extort you for that property at the same time. No one consents to being taxed. Taxes are taken whether you agree or not.
Government provides rule of law. If you live in the U.S. and you believe this is true then it's probably a waste of time trying to convince you otherwise.
...if you live in Syria... you mean the place the U.S. has been actively encouraging war for the past few years... So fortunate we in our "first world country" can export death and destruction to the "third worlds" and then wonder why their society is in such chaos.
Of course the government provides law in the first world. I've never talked to an anarchist before, but if you can't admit that the state secures property and provides physical security through the threat of violence, while maintaining your argument, you have a shitty argument. If tomorrow there were absolutely no policemen in this country, we'd have chaos by lunchtime, and by chaos I mean increased murder, rape and looting. I tend to see the state and society as either the same thing or very closely related, in that if Eleven NorthKoreans were on one lifeboat and Eleven Brits or Americans were on a second lifeboat, I'd assume the second boat would be more likely to try democrassy to solve its disagreements.
@laconicflow: "If tomorrow there were absolutely no policemen in this country, we'd have chaos by lunchtime, and by chaos I mean increased murder, rape and looting."
Demonstrably false.
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/acapulco-police-strike-backfired/
@laconicflow What does too much government look like to someone like yourself who is pro-government?
You seem to be assuming that only government is capable of providing certain services (police, military, etc.). This is a very common assumption, but it only takes a little bit of pondering to realize that no proof or evidence exists to support this (others being banned from doing something does not equate to them being incapable of doing it).
A great place to start in understanding the fallacy in this line of reasoning is to accurately identify what exactly government is. IE: What characteristic differentiates 'government' from every other group of people?
I can't vote, so...
...so you are free to complain about the mess voters created that you have nothing to do with.