The True Opiate of the Masses


I've stopped voting. I believe some people need rulers. Usually, those same people love to feel that they also rule. So they vote. Those who enjoy the thought of and the pursuit of individual liberty, along with people who simply don't care, make up those who don't vote.


It is that simple, and that's the conclusion I've come to. I ask people all the time when I tell them that I no longer will vote, "What would happen if they held an election, and nobody showed up?" I think it directly asks the inquisitor, and gets them to start to thinking, why do I need to be ruled? Once the question is asked, all sorts of nefarious endeavors of the state can be exposed to the evil that voting truly is. The great classical liberal writer and philosopher Lysander Spooner said in effect a man is no less a slave, in that he can choose his master for a period of years. Yes indeed, voting and not religion is the "true opiate of the masses."  I guess it can also be said, then, that a man is no less a thief just because he chooses to steal with his vote instead of a gun.

I live in California, the most liberal state on the planet. Here, democracy does indeed rule, and nothing at all representing the remnants of any republican form of governance exists. We can, (and have for years now), go to the polls and steal and plunder directly from our neighbors, friends and co-workers. All that separates, and is required from the yes's and no's winning, is a majority . . . a majority of the minority of registered voters who actually do the voting. Rarely nowadays do we ever see an election where a true majority (more than 50.1%) of registered voters votes. Even the much ballyhooed and fabulous Hollywood election, known as the California Recall, did not see a true majority of registered voters. 

In and of itself, this is not the sole reason not to vote. There are, I believe, less "earthly" reasons to vote and more divine reasons not to vote. Take a sales tax hike for a new downtown baseball stadium, for example, or pick any other high-minded reason you can think of.  Aside from the obvious arguments, is it right, just and moral for someone who does not watch or directly pay to see a baseball contest to have to pay more for goods and services so that someone who does enjoy those things can? Why then is it considered normal where the minority routinely usurps the power of the majority? If more people don’t vote than do, are they not making a statement? Are they not to be heard? If non-voters are the "true majority," why are election results considered at all? Why is "none of the above" not listed with the 'other candidates'? If people can choose to pick leaders to "speak" for themselves, are they not just as free to choose not to be spoken for?

I submit that an act of not submitting to be ruled should count for something and that a "true majority" of those not wishing to be ruled or to mark a ballot in any way render an election null and void, no matter the type of election. Voting in the affirmative or to in any other way seek the possessions or fruits of labor of other is wrong. Selecting people at the ballot box who would do the nefarious business of the state "for the people" is equally wrong and unjust. Whether done on an individual basis or as a group or even a society, stealing is wrong. The "apathetic majority" are indeed the true majority. If you choose not to choose, you still have made a choice. Is that not true?

But voting is not the only way we unwittingly aggress on our neighbors, friends and co-workers. We also do so through ignorance of history, not just in the formation of the united States of America , but with respect to the history of Common Law, Equity Law and Maritime Law--the three types of law guaranteed in the Constitution. And why is this so important to note? Because to have a firm grasp of the history of the many, many usurpations of power by the state and its many administrations is to see that we have, in fact, lost our Constitution completely. 

One has to ask himself some deep questions, such as why we as a people are ruled not by the aforementioned types of laws, but instead by the Uniform Code and the "blending" of laws. One must ask himself, what significance he places on the fact that, since 1933, all laws are "colorable" laws and what the specific impact of those laws is on people. If you think for a moment that“this Constitution for the United States of America” is indeed the law for the rule of the people, think again. It is the Constitution “for,” not the Constitution “of” the United States of America . This means it pertains to the rule of the federal government and how it is to behave, not you and me. The only thing the Constitution is supposed to do for “the people” is to preserve our rights as restated by the amendments to the Constitution, better known as the Bill of Rights. Contrary to popular myth, this Constitution of ours is not a living, breathing document up for interpretation, but rather a very clear and concise document that directly spells out the power of the federal government, its limitations and the rules it must follow, not rules that you and I must follow. Our actions with one another as individuals are ruled by the Common Law and the Law of Commerce. The Common Law is rooted in the Law of Commerce, and the Law of Commerce is rooted in Biblical Law. They go hand in hand quite nicely. It is very telling that government, through public school indoctrination, misinformation, fear and intimidation of prosecution and jail, and other veiled or even real threats, keeps you completely unaware of this. It would not benefit the state if it did, for that is its secret of power and its secret for control. This type of history and information is simply not mentioned in the schools. Therefore, you must seek the truth on your own and take appropriate action. Since the state has proven it will not help protect your individuality, it's up to you to do so. No one can secure your liberty but you.

Your rating: None
David C. Moorman's picture
Columns on STR: 9

David C. Moorman is a struggling professional landscape designer who recently went into business for himself on account no one can stand working with the guy. To help make ends meet and to keep his old lady off his back, he is a part-time corporate liaison for a large conglomerate specializing in the logistics of specialty (Italian-American) food distribution. As previously mentioned, he is married to a Puerto Rican version of Attila the Hun, but he still feels love much the way a dog that is relentlessly kicked by his master does. The writer has two wonderful children, although their names escape him at the moment. The writer has no hobbies or anything else in life that he enjoys, sans for one thing . . . The Oakland Raiders