|
The Paradise Perspective: Commentary from a Free and Compassionate Alternate Reality Volume 1, Number 21 To Those Who Vote And Those Who Don't by Glen Allport Exclusive to STR June
4,
2007 "Democracy
is two wolves and a sheep, debating what to have for lunch." --
Attributed to Benjamin
Franklin, James
Bovard, and others -
- - - - Strike
The Root
has an official
position on voting: don't do it.
For those who have never encountered such a position before, As
a way to expand your mind (remember when "liberal"
actually meant being open-minded, at least in part?), and in
particular to help you consider the evils of using coercion
against others to get what you want ("they oughta pass a
law"), I commend these essays on non-voting to your attention. The
most important argument boils down to this: Voting, and
indeed the entire political system, is simply a way to legitimize
theft and coercion, mostly by the ruling class. -
- - - - Another
argument against voting is that your vote is a waste of time: the odds
that your vote will determine the outcome of the next presidential
election, for example, are far lower than the odds that you will win the
Powerball Lottery and retire rich. People actually do
win lotteries, but even city elections decided by a single vote are almost
unheard of. Your
specific vote will not do much good, then, and neither will it do much
harm. It won't do much of anything. Voting
is a secondary problem, in other words. The system
of coercive government itself is
the real problem. -
- - - - Democracy
is the modern version of "the divine right of kings": a scam
designed to keep the elite in power, and rich, by getting the rubes to
believe in the legitimacy of their own enslavement. Voting is the
sleight-of-hand that provides an illusion of fairness for an inherently
unfair system based on force and fraud. The
voting illusion hides an important truth: that using coercion against others is evil regardless of how many people may
have voted for it. Every
lynch mob has a majority over its victim; Aryan Nazis outnumbered the Jews
in Hitler's -
- - - - Even
with the government structured as a limited republic and with the Bill of
Rights added, things eventually got out of hand--to a horrifying extent. -
- - - - Voting
hides (at least, for those who do not look closely) a stunning fact: that
nearly everything a government does--even a democratic government--is done
without any vote by citizens.
Most government actions and policies are initiated by political and
bureaucratic decree. For example, the FDA has spent decades working
against your interests and mine by "protecting" us against our
will (or at least against mine) from perfectly safe products* while
approving competing products that are, in many cases, far less safe. Did
you get to vote on whether the herb stevia
could be used to sweeten your diet soda? No, of course not; the FDA banned
stevia by decree. Stevia is a natural sweetener with a 400-year safety
record, approved and widely used in The
basic principle here is that government power gets co-opted by special
interests (usually corporations), even when the power in question is
supposedly being used to protect
citizens from the corporations.
Think
the stevia/aspartame saga is unusual? Not at all. The FDA has recently
busied itself threatening
cherry growers who dare quote from government-funded studies about the
health benefits of cherries
(this simple act of honest free speech, says the FDA, somehow turns the
cherries into "unapproved drugs"). An example from another
agency: the
USDA actually prevents cattle
ranchers from testing their own cattle for Mad Cow Disease (see also here
and, for a story dated Even
funding scientific research with government money causes harm, as Dr.
Donald Miller describes in his recent The
Trouble With Government Grants. Government funding of research sounds
great, but it eventually causes serious, systemic, and long-term problems.
As always, government power corrupts and destroys. Back
to the FDA: Between approving drugs
that should never have been
marketed (Tambocor,
Vioxx,
Avandia,
etc.),
working to prevent consumer
knowledge of the benefits of healthy foods and supplements (as with
cherries), banning or reducing
availability of safe and effective alternatives to expensive and often
dangerous pharmaceuticals (stevia as a sweetener, tryptophan
as a sleeping aid, for examples), and by other methods, the FDA causes
great harm to Americans. William Falloon at the Life
Extension Foundation has called the FDA "the
number one cause of death in the United States," and he backs
that up compellingly. There
are plenty of honest, sincere, and competent people working at the FDA
(and one can say the same about people teaching at public schools or in
any other government organization), but the system
of coercion itself ensures
negative results, regardless. The best way to ruin the honest efforts
of sincere, well-qualified people is to hire them into a coercive
government agency. The coercion attracts and enables corruption, despite
efforts to the contrary by many employees. Furthermore,
government power encourages and
enables the worst corporate conduct generally. Imagine any
war-profiteering corporation (or war itself!) without government
contracts. Imagine Monsanto trying to ban the natural competition to
NutraSweet (aspartame) without an FDA. Imagine Halliburton without those concentration
camp contracts (oops, they're only "detention camps." I feel
so much better now). Without forcible government, all of these
corporations would either be doing something customers were willing to
voluntarily pay for, or they would be out of business. Whenever
government decides "do something"--including when it decides to
protect us from special interests--the situation is reliably made worse.
This is true whether citizens have voted for the new action or not. To say
it yet again: It is not so much voting
that is the problem but rather coercive
government itself; voting is merely one of the more theatrical
elements in perpetuating government coercion. -
- - - - That
you can vote for a politician who might or might not decide to install a
different FDA bureaucrat (or who might be one of hundreds in Congress who
might consider voting on a different bureaucrat), who in turn might or
might not be more likely to return some of your freedom to you, is beside
the point. Worse,
when you vote for a politician based on what he or she promises (as
opposed to voting on what they have actually and consistently done in the
past), you are almost certain to be disappointed (i.e., you have been lied
to). In campaigning for the 2000 election, Bush promised a humble foreign
policy, with no "nation building" and no attempt to police the
world. He made no mention of his plans,
already underway before the 2000 election, to invade Iraq. And that's
in addition to allegations of election
fraud, which may have already been arranged for 2008. Millions
voted for Democrats in the 2006 election, believing that Democrats would
stop the war/occupation in -
- - - - There
is one clearly-defined
situation in which voting is morally defensible and potentially useful in
the real world (despite the negatives discussed above and below). That
situation occurs whenever one is offered a chance to vote for a release
from tyranny, or to release others from tyranny, or to prevent
a new or expanded tyranny. By voting for either a specific
freedom-enhancing action or for a candidate with a long record
of pro-freedom action, you are turning the tables on the system; using the
vote to possibly reduce tyranny rather than increase it. Even a partial
release from tyranny (a lower tax rate, for example) or prevention of a
slight increase in tyranny is positive and worthwhile. Here
is an obvious and extreme example: You are a slave. There is unrest among
the slaves, and to calm things down, your masters, confident that most
slaves have been propagandized into fearing freedom, decide to hold a
vote. Please
vote for one of the following, or abstain:
Clearly,
by voting "release me from bondage," you are simply standing up
for your rights as a human being. Every person has the right to live free,
and saying so (even in a voting booth) is perfectly moral and natural. Yes,
it is bizarre and offensive that you would have to submit such a request
to your masters in the form of a vote, and that answering "yes,
release me" would have no effect unless a majority of other slaves
voted the same way. Yes, your single vote is unlikely to affect the
outcome. Yes, the odds for success are probably poor. Yes, the vote could
be rigged. Yes, all sorts of things. But none of that makes affirming
your desire for freedom (even from within a voting booth) immoral or
aggressive in any way. If your vote specifically seeks to reduce tyranny
or to prevent added tyranny, you have a right to that action. If
the example above is too far-fetched for you, imagine a slightly different
scenario: You are voter in the old American South and your state has a
proposition on the ballot to repeal slavery. What do you think: would
voting to free the slaves be a bad thing? The
point is simple:
Even
in the second instance, it is worth considering the "voting legitimizes tyranny" argument. As I pointed out earlier,
voting is the sleight-of-hand that makes the State appear legitimate. This
is a serious factor in keeping people under the thumb of the power elite,
and it is a factor worth pondering every time we think of heading for the
polls. Yet,
because your specific vote has almost no effect at all, this is a very
weak argument for not voting against
tyranny. The election will happen with you or without you; the
pseudo-legitimizing effect of voting will not disappear because you
refused to vote. At
the same time, there is a strong, natural, and healthy desire to express
opposition to tyranny. That isn't the same as saying your vote will be the
deciding factor; of course it won't. But your opposition to the current
war won't likely be a deciding factor, either. Individuals who opposed the
war in As
a group, however, things change dramatically. When enough individuals act
in defense of freedom, the effect becomes profound. Together, many individuals are powerful. When enough people stand up
for what is right, tyranny falls, as Marcos
fell in the Philippines, as the Czech Communist dictatorship fell
during the Velvet
Revolution, and as British rule over India fell to non-violent
resistance by millions of ordinary citizens. Each
individual in those three situations faced the same reality that we do
today, both in and out of the voting booth: one person is nothing, but
many people acting together are powerful, indeed. This
is a natural, built-in part of life. The differences between the
individual and the group underpin the human need for both
freedom and love: We are all separate individuals and yet we are all
brothers and sisters. We are each unique, yet we are all one. The
power of individuals acting as a
group can be seen very dramatically in the natural world. If you have
the time, consider watching this amazing short video (8 minutes 23
seconds) of lions
taking a young water buffalo, only to have the herd eventually
surround the lions and rescue the victim, who actually walks away. One
water buffalo even an adult is lion food. Many water buffalo acting
together become something else entirely. -
- - - - I
am a complete abolitionist regarding forcible government, yet I sometimes
vote, and the dynamic outlined above shows why. For
now, forcible government exists whether I like it or not. My personal
answer to the conundrum of voting is to limit voting to those exceptional
times when a clear and dramatic chance for reduction in tyranny (or
prevention of new tyranny) is on the ballot. The odds don't have to be
good; my vote will not make much difference at all; and I realize that to
some extent the act of voting legitimizes (or rather, is seen as
legitimizing) the tyranny I am seeking to reduce. But the chance to
support a dramatic and unambiguous reduction in tyranny is sometimes, to me
at least, stronger than the arguments against voting especially because it is sometimes effective, as with Is
that the same as "freedom from tyranny?" Of course not, although
it was certainly a reduction in
tyranny, at least for awhile. Anarchists
did not bring this about; voters
did. Here
is a similar example you have perhaps faced yourself: Your county or town
is considering a large increase in property taxes. This would cause
hardship for many residents and would almost surely cause some to lose
their homes. Even aside from that, it would involve using coercion
(threats of force, backed by police with guns). The official position is
that if politicians can get enough people to vote for the higher tax, then
those politicians have the "right" to impose the higher tax on
everyone including those who voted against it, those who did not vote,
and those who cannot afford to pay. This
is simply gangsterism in disguise, and not only would voting for the
higher tax be aggression against one's neighbors: not
voting against the tax increase
could be seen as, if not aggression, then at least as callous disregard
for the potential victims of the tax increase. An argument can be made
that the compassionate action would be to lend one's vote to the side of
non-aggression by voting against the tax increase. -
- - - - It
is worth repeating that anarchists and other anti-voters have yet to
succeed at freeing us from the State and creating a free society. Hundreds
of years have passed since Etienne de la Boetie published his Discourse
on Voluntary Servitude in 1548 (to pick an especially famous tract),
yet tyrants still rule the Earth. Anarchists
and other voluntaryists will never
succeed until far more people
understand the importance of love and freedom. Coercion is an affront
to both love and freedom, and only when enough people understand that will
we make real progress. This makes it not only moral and sensible, but
critically important to support educational campaigns that teach the benefits
of eliminating much or all of the coercion we now suffer from. How
to do that, for people who currently think the State could solve all our
problems if only it would do
more? Libertarian
political campaigns (no matter the actual party), especially in those rare
cases where they get substantial press coverage, are the by far the
largest and most effective such educational campaigns nothing else, including columns at STR or LRC or anywhere else, has
the breadth and impact of even a short interview on a national television
channel with a candidate who clearly speaks the truth. -
- - - - How
many people read columns at Strike The Root each day? It isn't possible to
say (so far as I know; Alexa and other rating services are hardly
precise), but while How
many of those STR visitors are already
pro-freedom believers or activists? "All
but a handful" would be my guess. 55%
of those participating in an STR poll said they were current or past
members of the Libertarian Party or were considering joining the LP. Of
the 45% remaining, I would be surprised if most weren't self-described
anarchists, voluntaryists, or other libertarians who simply avoid
political parties. The total number of votes: 334,
a not-atypical number for STR poll responses. In
contrast, how many people saw Ron Paul make Rudy Giuliani and the other
GOP candidates look like the war-mongering, pro-torture, would-be tyrants
that they are, in the two recent debates? (Here are links for clips of
Paul's responses at the MSNBC
and Fox
News debates). How many heard him say that most of the current
government is unconstitutional (i.e., illegal)? How many heard Paul talk
about abolishing most
cabinet-level agencies (including the Department of Energy, the Department
of Education, and the Department of Homeland Security, for starters),
along with the IRS? How many people saw a sitting The
answer is: "Millions."
And millions more saw post-debate analysis and discussion on the major
networks. Not
to mention Paul's 24.5 minute televised speech to the House [all links in
this paragraph are to video clips] on Dissent
in a Time of War (". . . the effort to overthrow State oppression
qualifies as true patriotism"), his interview
on CNN 5/20/07, his March 2007 appearance on Bill
Maher's show (where Paul explained why we would all be safer without
the How
many of Rosie's typical viewers would you suppose are anarchists or
libertarians? How many of those viewers are regular visitors to We
cannot deprogram people from a lifetime of pro-government propaganda
unless we find a way to at least talk to them. Ron Paul is doing exactly
that, and he is talking to millions
of people. His next scheduled major appearance is the New
Hampshire Republican Primary Debate, Tuesday,
June 5th. See your local listings for time. It
doesn't end with television, either. Clips of those debates, speeches, and
interviews are being viewed by millions more
people on the Internet, thanks to YouTube,
Google Video,
and other sites. Because
Paul is running as a Republican (instead of as a Libertarian, as he did in
1988), he is getting enough coverage to have a real effect. The power
elite is going crazy trying to figure out how to block
or neutralize
this coverage, because every time Paul opens his mouth on television, the
business-as-usual candidates and incumbents suddenly look even worse than
they did previously. Ron
Paul's candidacy is the most powerful force deligitimizing government
power in -
- - - - None
of this means Ron Paul is going to win the presidency or even get the GOP
nomination. On the other hand, Gambling911.com
recently dropped the odds for Paul from 200 to 1 to 15
to 1, calling Ron Paul (in a story featured on their home page)
"a serious contender whose grass roots campaign is growing
dramatically." Still,
I would consider it a miracle if Paul found himself in the White House
after the election. I'll need CPR if he even gets the GOP nomination. And
even a Ron Paul presidency would leave us a very long way from being a
free society. But wouldn't it be great to see movement in the right
direction for a change? We
have to start somewhere. Getting millions of Americans excited about their
heritage of freedom, and giving them a practical and growing focus for
that excitement, is an excellent place to start. Far better to see people
learning about libertarianism (even if it's the small-government,
non-abolitionist variety) than to see them sinking deeper into the
coercive-socialist, mainstream DemoPublican paradigm where the only
solution to any problem is more government. -
- - - - Conclusion The
reason for discussing this topic now is twofold: First,
to encourage Democrat and Republican readers (and other regular voters) to
consider the nature of voting and of forcible government itself. In
particular, I would like them to consider that:
When
voting for candidates in
particular, one must realize that nearly all candidates are gung-ho on the
use of force and assume that you are too, as long as government is (or
says it will be) using the force for something you
want. An obvious question is: Do you really want to participate in
initiating force against your fellow human beings? There are better ways
to get things done than by coercion. If
we want a more peaceful and loving world, we need to stop using force and
violence (and threats of force and violence) as the backbone of society. There
are other reasons to actively avoid voting in most situations, and I hope
you will consider those as well. If you insist on regular voting, please
at least apply the basic principle of nonaggression. That means never
voting for more government and whenever possible voting for less. It means
never voting for the lesser of two evils; any candidate without a long
record of consistent support
for freedom is a candidate to avoid which means worthy candidates
appear, in the major parties, very rarely. Support non-government methods
and groups for charity, product
safety and regulation, and other necessities. Second,
I want to encourage market-anarchists to consider whether there aren't
times when voting specifically to end
or to drastically reduce tyranny might be moral and useful. That is a
slippery slope, I realize, but as an argument against something, the
"slippery slope" idea is inane. Eating too much can lead to
obesity and all sorts of problems, and a single bite puts us on that
slippery slope. So what? Obesity is an argument in favor of choosing foods
wisely and limiting the amount we consume, not an argument against eating per
se. I
believe we are near a tipping point which will bring great evil into our
lives (see Destruction
by Paradigm, about the coming economic Armageddon [as Stephen Roach,
chief economist at investment bank Morgan Stanley, puts it] and An
Open Letter to the Red Cross, about those Halliburton-built detention
camps and other chilling signs of what Our Leaders may be planning). It is
this dark and fast-approaching sea change, combined with the good fortune
of having both a solid candidate in Ron Paul and a public finally fed up
enough to really listen to a message of sanity, which makes this moment in
time unique. One characteristic of tipping points, after all, is that they
can go either way. Limited
and carefully-chosen political action, including voting and, more
importantly, support for educational campaigns like that embodied in Ron
Paul's candidacy, may not help in fact, I expect that it will not help. I expect it to fail, dramatically. But I could be wrong,
and anything peaceful that has even the slightest chance of moving things
in the right direction is worth considering. -
- - - - The
Paradise Perspective
will return June 25. -
- - - - *
Stevia is only one example of a product whose use is banned or restricted
by the FDA despite a good safety profile and wide use around the world
without evidence of problems. Stevia appears far safer than any of the
artificial sweeteners, but only a fool thinks that anything even water
is completely without dangers. On the other hand, concerns about this
herb seem suspiciously overblown to me, especially given that very
much unlike aspartame there seem to be no reported problems with it at
all. Still, I encourage you to do your own research on potential dangers
of stevia (here's one
place to start). There is far more evidence for the dangers of aspartame;
see the long lists of studies and articles here
and here, for
example, or read Dr. Joseph Mercola's Governments
Continue Suppression and Coverup on Aspartame. (The opening sentence
begins: "In 1991, the National Institutes of Health listed 167
symptoms and reasons to avoid the use of aspartame . . ."). For
anyone who believes government is truly in the business of protecting
us, the story of aspartame is a good tool for starting the deprogramming
process. As
further deprogramming, consider watching Iraq
For Sale: The War Profiteers, which has the only 100%
rating I've seen at the Rotten Tomatoes site. (I don't visit the site
often, so I have probably missed other films with such a rating, but
still: the movie comes highly recommended). I promise you will be even more
livid about our policies in Glen Allport is the author of The Paradise Paradigm: On Creating A World of Compassion, Freedom, and Prosperity and maintains paradise-paradigm.net. This is one in a series of columns on the human condition.
|
