Voting Re-examined
Anyone who has heard anything about democracy has been told that voting is an essential right, and that electoral politics is the height of civilized society. What if that isn't true, though? What does it really mean to cast a ballot in a political process?
"Voting is anything but the peaceful alternative to violence: it is premised on the coercive machinery of the state being employed on your behalf should you prevail in amassing a greater number of people on your side than do others." - Butler Shaffer
This sentiment is doubtless seen as outright heresy by most readers, since we have all been taught in school and reminded in the media how important it is to vote so our voices can be heard, and our government can represent our interests. Didn't the American colonists declare their independence from Great Britain in 1776, and cite the lack of representative government as a primary cause of this revolution? Didn't our founding fathers create a Constitution to ensure an elected government? Didn't women and minorities fight for the right to vote in order to guarantee equality?
The idea of a democratic government as an alternative to monarchy isn't very old in the grand scheme of things, but after less than 250 years, it is old enough to be re-examined with a critical eye. Disagreement with democracy should not be construed as support for monarchy or any other form of despotism, however. Democracy was thought to be a means to liberty, and a republican form of government was thought to be a barrier to tyranny. It is fair to examine both of these premises based on the principles of individual rights through the lens of history, philosophy, and current events.
We have seen throughout US history that political power has always been a prize to be won in order to exert the personal ambitions of the men in politics. It has always been seen as a means to impose the views of the would-be government upon the masses, and whether these aims are the result of some benevolent despotism or rapacious greed is skewed by partisan alignment rather than reasoned examination. Yet the premise of electoral politics is transparent. The voter seeks to impose his preferred political circumstances upon his neighbor whether that neighbor consents or not. His means is a secret ballot, which is his guarantee of anonymity as he commits this crime. The politician claims his right to govern based on this secret ballot, yet the representative cannot name a single principal for whom he acts as an agent. representative democracy loses all claim to legitimacy on this point alone, no matter who votes.
If a politician cannot even claim to represent those who voted for him, how can he claim to represent those who voted against him, did not vote, or could not vote? We have all heard the argument that, "If you don't vote, you can't complain,"but those who abstain from this charade are the ones with the moral high ground. They did not conspire in secret to impose an unwanted ruler upon their neighbors, so whether the vote is abandoned through apathy or principle, the non-voter is the only one with virtue on his side. And if the non-voters are counted alongside the losing votes in an election, the victor in any election has no shred of a claim to real popular support.
We are taught that people delegate to government the authority they hold so government can more efficiently and effectively exercise that authority on our behalf. Let us set aside for a moment the debate over the vote itself, though, and examine the authority the vote is presumed to confer. I do not have the authority to tax my neighbor, because that would be robbery or extortion if I demanded a portion of his earnings, a payment for the privilege of owning his property, or a fee every time he buys or sells something. I do not have the authority to demand that he purchase a license to engage in any voluntary exchange or any activity on his own property. I cannot forbid him from traveling. I cannot threaten to harm him for consuming substances I dislike. Use the measure of the golden rule, and do unto others what you would have them do unto you. yet politics is about doing unto others before they do unto you. There is nothing peaceful or civilized about it.
What have we seen in recent years in politics? Rights have been trampled by governments that claim to protect rights. poeple are extorted, kidnapped, and murdered under color of law. the United States, the "land of the free and home of the brave," has the highest prison population in the world and a byzantine legal system that makes everyone a "criminal" if anyone should pry enough. And this is the result of a country that claims to operate as a representative democracy in a republic that secures our liberty.
Democracy is a Trojan horse for tyrants, not a wall to secure our freedom. Reject it. Don't vote, because such a system is unworthy of your participation. It is fraud, and you only sully yourself when you associate with it.
The two party system is a ruse. A very limited choice and they will have you thinking your the ones in control.
But political factionalism makes people feel like they are part of something bigger, and they love that illusion of control! It's like the rush of victory when "your team" wins the big game, but with taxes and police and shit!
Unfortunately, I don't know where I got that meme, so I can't offer attribution.
What is your alternative?
How do you get the basic day-to-day services you need? I assume it is by voluntary exchanges in the market process. There is nothing magical about the services government provides that makes monopoly suddenly cease to be abusive, wasteful, and corrupt. Politics is a parasite on society, not its foundation.
I do not have the authority to govern you, and vice-versa. How then could either of us delegate to some third party with a well-earned reputation for corruption and dishonesty an authority neither of us has in the first place?
Asking, "but what is your alternative" is like asking an abolitionist to explain how cotton could be harvested before the concept of slavery could be discussed. And in the case of government services, we have practical examples for everything from roads to electricity to security to education all capable of being provided better and cheaper without a monopoly of violence imposing the arbitrary dictates of usurping politicians.
The easiest thing in the world is to moan about something.
While it eases your thoughts, it does nothing to improve the situation,
For example, before Henry Ford, cars were made by one man doing all/most of the work on each car. Henry moaned, thought, and introduced the assembly line.
Whether that was a good thing is also open to discussion, but he did something.
What is YOUR fix for the existing government?/ system.
What's your fix for a cancerous tumor? You cut it out.
The fix for government is to reject its claims to authority, because they have no rational basis. then we start building a gray market economy without their permission, using tools like the internet and cryptocurrency. Face-to-face trade and precious metals are another option.
What do you think we still need the government to do? What is your excuse for perpetuating it?
How do you get on when the doctor that is going to remove that cancerous tumour for you refuses bitcoin?
Without some form of government, who says the doctor will even bother to get out of bed to do your surgery.
The black market only worked where there was a real market for them to undercut.
The black market only exists where an open market is politically restricted. Money is a market phenomenon that has been co-opted and monopolized by governments. People provide services because there is a mutually-beneficial exchange, not because of political mandates.
you are too far ahead of yourself.
First, you will need Everybody to accept the alternate currency [Bitcoin/Steem whatever].
At the moment Fiat is still king, I have yet to see anybody refuse it, whereas crypto, to most people, is just a word they may have heard, and means nothing to them.
The majority of people would not provide anything for something that they know nothing about.
Our battle on that front is twofold: Public information on alternatives, and challenging the legal monopoly on money held by governments. Fiat only holds sway because it is effectively mandatory to use it. It has no intrinsic value, just the legacy of past sound money long gone. None of the monetary systems in use now are very old. WW1 ended just a century ago, and just about every money in the world then has been wiped out or fundamentally altered. We can handle change. The moment fiat loses appeal in the market, it is done. And the more we explore alternatives, the sooner that will happen. It's just a matter of time now.
The fix is very simple. Take the money out of politics, and limit all government employee's to 8 years maximum. and i mean 8 years total at all levels if your Vice President for 4 years the you could on work 4 more years at VP, POTUS or even little town mayor. If we truly have some of the worlds smartest lets get them, not this crap system of how much money you can raise allows you to be considered for running. Only 2% of campaign funding comes from the general population, pre-primary. This means that major companies are really picking who gets to run for president. Owing these companies something for their money. Forgive me if i am wrong, but thats "sold out". Clinton Trump anybody knows if they dont sway favors that money well dries up. The interest is in the money stream , not the greater good. Even a lottery would be better off yielding talent and honor.
Interesting thought, what level would you take the 8 years down to?
Presidents? Mayors? Customs agents? Meter maids? Armed services?
In countries that have Government funded medical care, doctors?
Would you like to be operated on by a doctor with less than 8 years training and practice?
all, Except for private companies that get funding from the government. I know its a hard sell, but it would do more good then bad, waste and stealing or contracting associates for overly large amounts of money is our major enemy. More then 1/2 of all taxes are wasted or stolen all through or mostly through legal channels. These favors owed, cost our country a huge amount of funds over the years.
So, if I get you right, ALL government department personnel would only have an 8 year working life, including training. Taking an Architect, 5 years of training = 3 years productive life. Can you afford anything where the designer/planner has to get his life's income in 3 years?.
Not even Steemit, at full pressure, could cope, and this is only for your house, unless we are to revert to the homeless people.
The Hospital here, has Dentists, how would you feel sitting in the chair of an untrained person on the other end of that drill, untrained because the Government can't afford 5 years training for 3 years output.
If your country's laws need fixing, I do not belive that firing people evey 8 years is going to help.
Training does not count, and dentists are not generally government employee's. Whats more important is the government employee's who can make spending decisions, Law, enforce law etc etc. i would imagine there is not much corruption in low level health care, other then insurance fraud and drug abuse or mishandle of them. In my view no government employee should make more then 100,000 USD a year. Keep in mind that being a government employee does not mean you only get 8 years of income in your whole life, you just need to move to the private sector before or after. architects as you mentioned above would be a great example, the private sector could use them and pay them well.
I agree very much with what you say. Democracy is just a better disguised rule of a small elite.
Democracy also cannot be fought with democracy, there is no voting the correct candidate. Democracy is fought by claiming one owns freedom and rejecting to be governed.
"if you vote, you have no right to complain," is what I say. Voting is the only thing they don't seem to force you to do at gunpoint - yet. By voting voluntarily wether people realize it or not, they are consenting to this racket of a system in whatever country they happen to be standing in.
What if you mistake government for A Governmental Service Corporation and you mistake a Federation of States for a Country and self-governing for "democratic representative republic"? What could you address with such mistaken premise?
Posted using Partiko Android
Voting can be seen from any point of view.
The important thing is that through it we can reach the constitutional response that by right belongs to us, independently of the political party.
Voting can be seen from many points of view, but some of those points of view make a lot less sense than others. Do I have the right to govern you? No. Then how can I have a right to delegate that authority to someone else?