Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Objection to Voting  (Read 5348 times)

HRE

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Objection to Voting
« on: January 08, 2007, 05:31:23 pm »

I am a conscientious objector to democracy.  I don’t vote.  Not out of laziness, not out of apathy, not out of ignorance – rather the opposite of all three.  I don’t vote because I am an activist, because I care passionately and deeply about my nation, and because I know more about our system and those that embody it than 99% of voters.

Because I’ve kept track of the unfulfilled political promises – I don’t vote.

Because I’ve watched the hate ads and dissected the rhetoric and checked the facts – I don’t vote.

Because I’ve observed the pork-barreling and special interests and lobbying – I don’t vote.

Because I’ve spoken to congressmen and listened to their arrogance and lies – I don’t vote.

We have been trained from the first time we laid eyes on a flag that it is our duty to vote – not to vote is unpatriotic, loathsome, irresponsible – but we have never really asked why.  I’ll tell you why they say it is our duty to vote.

Voting is an endorsement.  It is a mandate, a blank check.  The candidate is irrelevant; the vote is an endorsement not of an individual, but of a system.  Voting gives the government legitimacy – it is the ‘yes’ answer that politicians need and crave.  It is their sanction, their justification for being. They NEED it.  Voting says that you believe that the collective can tyrannize individuals.  Voting says you believe the majority has the right to pick the pocket of every man, women, and child in the nation.  Voting says that you believe that the whole of the collective is greater than the sum of its parts – the individuals – and thereby has more power.  That is why they say we must vote.

They tell us that if we don’t vote, then we have no right to complain about the results.  Dead wrong.  The man who does not vote has not endorsed the system that intends to strip him of his liberty and property.  He has not participated – he has disdained and voiced his dissent.  He has not agreed to the rules, and he refuses to play the game. He has every right to complain – and complain he must.

They tell us that we must vote and endorse some choice, lest the unthinkable be allowed to happen because good men stood idly by.  And I say in outrage: Pick the lesser of two evils? Choose between varying degrees of corruption and immorality, and welcome it with open arms? Accept the farce of the political status quo because it’s easier than the hard fight of changing the system?

I say no.

I say: the greatest political activism is conscientious electoral objection.

Not voting -- not out of apathy or laziness or ignorance, but the conscious and decided choice to examine the system and veto it in its entirety -- is the strongest political statement a man can make in a free country. It is political martyrdom.

Not voting is recognizing disillusionment. Not voting is recognizing disenfranchisement. Not voting is rejecting blind faith in the system. Not voting is the greatest boycott available to man.

Conscientious objection to voting is the first step to a complete revolution of the status quo. The first step to withdrawal; the first step to real, necessary activism. It is a breaking of routine, a shedding of shackles, a step into the light. It is only when you don't vote that you simultaneously have the freedom and the moral burden to halt the offenses that you would otherwise endorse.

Mencken said: “[a radical is] one who loves his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched.  He is… a good citizen driven to despair.”

I am a good citizen driven to despair, and I say:
To abstain from voting is the single most rational thing a moral man can do.

********************************************

Note: with the presentation of good candidates advocating truly limited government, the entire reason for objecting to voting dissipates.  Hence, I would happily vote for the sort of representation the FSP seeks.
Logged

FreeBoB

  • Guest
Re: Objection to Voting
« Reply #1 on: January 08, 2007, 06:47:56 pm »

Welcome!  ;D  You'll find some like-minded folks here in the FSP.  Are you going to join us in New Hampshire?

Brian
Logged

HRE

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
Re: Objection to Voting
« Reply #2 on: January 08, 2007, 07:59:24 pm »

That's the game plan.
Logged

greap

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1009
  • What we have here is a failure to communicate
Re: Objection to Voting
« Reply #3 on: January 08, 2007, 08:17:10 pm »

I, for one, reject the idea of the majority of people having a say about my life :)
Logged
_____________________________________________________________

eques

  • Guest
Re: Objection to Voting
« Reply #4 on: January 09, 2007, 01:02:30 am »

Just be careful that, if you do decide to vote, not to impregnate any chads.  ;)
Logged

KayB

  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
Re: Objection to Voting
« Reply #5 on: January 09, 2007, 01:44:52 am »

So, that's why I have not been able to bring myself to vote for the last several years!
Logged

Dreepa

  • First 1000
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5124
Re: Objection to Voting
« Reply #6 on: January 09, 2007, 09:39:47 pm »

What about town meetings?  (There are lots of these in NH).

(Not trying to antagonize... .just wondering)
Logged

Dawn

  • FSP Participant
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 318
Re: Objection to Voting
« Reply #7 on: January 09, 2007, 10:43:28 pm »

When there are candidates that you agree with on most of the issues, say 90%+, how can you not vote for them?? Not voting for a strong candidate who will represent your values, at least the vast majority of the times, is well worth voting for. Or there's always the option of writing in a candidate that you know will vote the way you would vote - a trusted friend, neighbor or yourself!

I do not believe in voting for the "lesser of two evils" or negative voting (voting for X solely so Y won't get in regardless of what Y stands for).

You don't have to vote for all the issues or candidates all the time. You can pick and choose and help make a difference.
Logged

greap

  • First 1000
  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1009
  • What we have here is a failure to communicate
Re: Objection to Voting
« Reply #8 on: January 10, 2007, 12:44:43 pm »

When there are candidates that you agree with on most of the issues, say 90%+, how can you not vote for them?? Not voting for a strong candidate who will represent your values, at least the vast majority of the times, is well worth voting for. Or there's always the option of writing in a candidate that you know will vote the way you would vote - a trusted friend, neighbor or yourself!

I do not believe in voting for the "lesser of two evils" or negative voting (voting for X solely so Y won't get in regardless of what Y stands for).

You don't have to vote for all the issues or candidates all the time. You can pick and choose and help make a difference.

I believe that democracy is simply a dictatorship by many instead of one. By participating in that process I would be endorsing it so even if a candidate supported all of my values I still would not vote. There is plenty of activism that can be done without participating directly in democracy.

Democracy is not freedom, it is just enslavement to the morals of the majority.
Logged
_____________________________________________________________

jeanius

  • Guest
Re: Objection to Voting
« Reply #9 on: January 11, 2007, 10:24:56 am »

I appreciate the sentiment.  By voting you legitimize a system that lets the group make decisions that affect your life.  I understand.  The problem is, that will continue to be the case whether I vote or not.  I choose to vote in specific ways, often votes that have no impact (i.e. wrote in Jesse Venture in 2004), because it is *something*.  And, as much as I might like it to not be so, groups have been setting rules for groups for millenia.  Whether by vote, royal decree, social pressure ... it's a system that's not going anywhere.  The trick is to limit it, keep it in check so that the mass mind isn't deciding what I eat for breakfast or what color my socks must be.  There are lots of ways to work on that.  Voting is one small way.  But using the vote in a way that matters is important.  Here is something I wrote in reaction to last years Republican "overthrow".  It's not exactly on target, but it is a cry for more people to use their votes outside of the either/or mentality.

http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle400-20070107-06.html
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
 

anything