See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: I Didn't Vote!
Source:
Lew Rockwell
URL Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/bardallis/bardallis12.html
Published: Nov 5, 2008
Author: David Bardallis
Post Date: 2008-11-05 06:27:11 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 263
Comments: 14
Being a principled nonvoter on Election Day is a little like being a turd in the punchbowl. At least that's how all the people running around yesterday blissfully participating in the American civic religion of statism viewed it: I'm some sort of a downer, a crank, a loonie, a jerk. Voting Is Evil It's not that I view voting as pointless. Even some active voters admit as much, but they still go through the motions because, "You can't just do nothing." (I don't think not voting is equivalent to doing nothing, but we'll come back to that.) No, I don't vote because I believe voting – and here I am talking particularly about national elections – is a positive evil, a fact that by now should be completely clear but for whatever reason does not seem to be. Oh, it is possible to get many voters to recognize certain uncomfortable facts about the nature of national politics, such as the often indistinguishable nature of candidates from the major parties (and that there are "major parties"). Some voters seem to understand that large vested interests (Goldman Sachs, for example) play both sides of the fence with political donations, hoping for their state-enabled exploitation to continue uninterrupted, if not to expand. Some voters even get that it's always the same small club of elites who just swap plum administrative jobs every couple of years, regardless of who wins any particular election. Still others are aware of the stories of vote fraud surrounding the increasingly common Diebold electronic voting gizmos. To top it all off, everyone at least knows something about the illegal and/or immoral activities of the U.S. government, from systematic kidnapping and torture and unprovoked wars that have slaughtered more than a million people abroad to the establishment of a police state here at home that spies on everyone, suppresses free speech, criminalizes dissent, restricts travel, and bullies and plunders us with abandon. But even as the proverbial horse is presented directly with the trough, he still usually refuses to drink. In other words, despite knowing all that he knows about the voting process and the nature of what he is supporting, the average voter will not take the next logical step and decline to participate in a game that is not only rigged but that is actively harmful to himself and his fellow human beings. Why? Voting Is an Exercise in Self-Indulgence and Denial It's an interesting question. I can't read people's minds nor understand their motives and I don't pretend to, but one clue is found in the common responses one receives when one insults or impugns the civic religion (sometimes even simply by saying "I don't vote"): * "Well, why don't you go live somewhere else then?" * "I guess you'd rather we had a dictatorship!" * "It's because of people like you that this country is in the mess it is in." * "How can you just not care?" * "Think of all the soldiers who died for your right to vote!" A careful reading of each of these responses reveals that, whatever its other merits, none has any logical connection to my decision not to vote. This suggests that for many, voting is experienced as an emotional act more than anything else. Their egos are involved at a fundamentally nonrational level. If you mock the civic religion, you are therefore (so he perceives) mocking the voter as a person. For whatever reason, he invests a lot of his own identity in his chosen party or candidate (hence the importance attached to voting for a "winner" and the immediate dismissal of anyone who "doesn't have a chance"). But more than that, the emotionally comfortable experience of voting rests on the willful denial of what the U.S. government is and does. Now, it is true there have been and are some governments that are even more hostile to their subjects' lives and properties than ours is, at present. But this doesn't change the fact that ours is bad and getting worse, nor that ours presumes to murderously lord it over the entire planet instead of confining itself to one particular region of tyranny. Many voters will simply consider criticisms of the U.S. government as hyperbole, or as criticisms of the country itself. This is because believing that one can say one is against war, torture, and plunder while voting for all three is much more psychologically reassuring than admitting the inescapable truth, namely, that one's voluntary assent to a system that promotes institutionalized violence as the way to organizing human affairs is simply shameful. So I confess to being short with people who presumptuously ask "Did you vote?" or who literally wear their voterdom ("I voted!") around like a badge of moral superiority. I have trouble hiding my disdain when otherwise intelligent people flaunt their absurd belief that, despite all evidence to the contrary, they have some say in what a government that employs some four million people, 536 of whom are elected every 2-6 years, does. Is Nonvoting a Form of Surrender? Some minority of voters are sympathetic to the argument for principled nonvoting, but nevertheless see it as a form of surrender. To answer them, let's review the (admittedly oversimplified) case for not voting: Premise 1: The U.S. empire represents a threat to the peace, freedom, security, prosperity, and lives of Americans and of the peoples of the world. (See, e.g.: Iraq War, Afghanistan war, Pakistan war, Democrat and Republican national conventions, Department of Homeland Security, IRS, EPA, FDA, the War on Drugs, etc., etc.) Premise 2: The people who run the U.S. empire are mainly all the same and have rigged the political game so as to keep their real priorities and policies perpetually out of the hands of voters. (See, e.g.: Wall Street bailout, telecom retroactive immunity to lawsuits, etc.) Premise 3: Voting not only will not change Premise 1, regardless of who you vote for, but it furnishes the same evil government officials with the legitimacy they need to continue committing their crimes. (See, e.g., such pernicious concepts as "the will of the people," "the majority," "popular mandate," "vox populi, vox Dei," etc.) Conclusion: Voting makes you an active accomplice to serious crimes and enables the commission of yet more crimes. With the argument framed thus, my question is: Is refusing to participate in the violence of the state a form of surrender – or an act of conscience? Even Nonvoters Can't Sleep Entirely Soundly at Night I must note nonvoting is only one step toward obeying the dictates of conscience. I'm not, for example, courageous enough to stop filing my taxes. (At any rate, civil disobedience in the face of state violence is the subject of an entirely different discussion.) Not voting, however, is as of now a perfectly legal and easy way to dissociate oneself from the crimes of the U.S. government. Why would anyone choose otherwise? Something often said when looking back on how relatively peaceful and open societies collapsed into murderous and repressive dictatorships is, "Why didn't anyone speak up?" That's what I'm doing when I don't vote and when I strongly (if not always patiently and politely) discourage others from doing so. Voting for evil, supposedly lesser or not, is evil. Don't ever do it.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Ada (#0)
Apparently Mr. Mental Midget, the author of this piece, doesn't realize he can perform a write-in vote. A write-in vote means he can vote for himself, if he really wants to choose the ultimate of dumb and evil, and not just the lesser of evils. Yet another Lew Rockwell nincompooper!
Not only that but man has a sin nature and we all have some evil in us. So no matter what you are always voting for the lesser evil. Even if we had Ron Paul on the ballot it would be voting the lesser evil. I'll give you one example. Ron Paul doesn't support constitutional amendment banning child killing.
A persons morality defines what he considers good and evil. When you vote, you are making a choice to control and regulate evil. Nobody is a more perfect match for your philosophy of morality, your definition of evil, than yourself. If you don't vote for yourself, or for someone that has a morality similar to yours, you cannot legitimately claim you are doing anything legal and peaceful to fight evil. If your morality can't win at the ballot box, and you can't tolerate other peoples evil, you will become an outlaw. As an outlaw, you will die or end up in jail. Are you prepared for this likely scenario?
I am already an outlaw.
As an outlaw, you will die or end up in jail. Are you prepared for this likely scenario? Excellent comments. I agree with them and am an outlaw.
Where's your birth certificate Barack ? Where's your Granny ??? Are Americans expected to subject themselves to an unapologetic communist ??? Ya just gotta be shittin me !!!
Extremely well written. Good points throughout. Participation in evil is evil. Hard to deny that simple fact. But it is not the only fact; the governments of the world are OF THE WORLD. James 4:4 Adulteresses, do YOU not know that the friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whoever, therefore, wants to be a friend of the world is constituting himself an enemy of God. Oh, yes, that is what I want to be; an enemy of God. And if a few people would simply take a little time to look around them at what is happening to America, why, they might even figure out what happens to enemies of God. In the book of Matthew in the Bible there is a famous discourse by Jesus Christ called the Sermon on the Mount. This discourse is Chapters 5 through 7 of Matthew. Very interesting, and worth reading, several times. Matthew 7:13 “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it." In love with the garbage of the world. Rushing around trying to vote and convince everyone to vote JUST LIKE YOU DO! Participating in evil, accepting responsibility for that evil because of your support of the 'system -of-your- masters,' just like all of the other lemmings of the world, and you can not see what you are doing? (Do any of you actually believe that the robots that you send to Washington, DC, make any real, meaningful decisions?) What part of this do you not understand; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; What part of this do you not understand; “Go in through the narrow gate; ... whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it." And people can not understand why I am with the Jehovah's Witnesses; because they are the only ones I have found who are nuetral in ALL of the non-sense of man. There is more in this sermon; Matthew 6:24 “No one can slave for two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will stick to the one and despise the other. YOU cannot slave for God and for Riches." Do any of you really believe that your gold and silver is going to save you from what is coming? Do any of you even believe in Almighty God? I made a statement to someone just a day or so ago, and it went right over his/her head; freewill is simply chosing to obey God, or not. That is the only choice that we have as free moral agents. What does that mean? It means that either we obey God, or, we are an enemy of God. That is the entire message of the Bible in a nutshell; obey, or not, because most of the lessons in the Bible is about what happens to those who do not chose to obey. Pretty stiff lessons. The Great Flood being a perfect example. It is, as free moral agents, your choice, of course. Chose wisely, please.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Really? If you have "free moral agency", you are not restricted to 1 simple choice. "Free" means without restriction. But since you might claim that is my definition, I got it from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/free 5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted. If you have free will, or "free moral agency", let me be the first to congratulate you on your promotion to godhood. "That is the only choice that we have as free moral agents. " You contradicted yourself in 1 sentence. Amazing. Usually the contradiction is in the following sentences, not in the same sentence. And you said that is "over my head"???
I think that what he said was that a Federal level ban on abortion is as unconstitutional as Roe v. Wade's Federal authorization. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. are not federal issues and don't belong in the constitution. Think about it. There's nothing in the Constitution outlawing armed robbery or murder either. Why? Because these are laws and issues that don't apply at the Federal level.
Think about it. There's nothing in the Constitution outlawing armed robbery or murder either. Why? Because these are laws and issues that don't apply at the Federal level. When evil circumvents our constitution. For example baby killing with a nice word called abortion to numb what it is. It is the duty of its citizens to amend the constitution to correct the mistakes and perversions that have taken place. It should be obvious that baby killing should be illegal. But we have some freaks in our society, such as Obama who try to justify it. Following the amendment process and changing our constitution for that purpose would be a good thing.
Who was the first loser/asshole that ever thought that was a viable option, anyway ?! ?
"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.”—Samuel Adams
The law-making power to define civil rights, in the general sense, is a power reserved to the people. People are local governments, distinct from state and central governments. Assuming that protection from murder is a civil right, the definition of murder is a power reserved by the people.
The constitution would be amended. There are no limits on amending the constitution.
Thats the problem. Ever since the 16th amendment was approved, it's been downhill ever since. You sure you want to open that can of worms? You should realize by now that popular elections wil never get you where you want to go....you are completely out-voted by the people who call themselves Diversity.
Yes, my friend, I understand. After all, if Almighty God is equal parts evil and good, then you must have the right to pick and chose. After all, He may request/order something of you which is evil. This, of course, being the same vision of God that all religions adhere to, just as all religions, from the Buddist, Hindu, Islam and all pagan religion hold to a fiery hell and eternal torment of 'souls' by their god after they die. Obviously, such a god is at least part evil, or he could not do such things. This is also why all such religions adhere to a part of man living on after death, the immortal soul part. Again, without that, the eternal torment in hell is not possible. Of course, only the Bible is different, but you will not accept the Biblical proofs that I posted to you, claiming that you will not, and obviously do not, read such. I have to reinvent the wheel each time, and redo the research just to satisfy you. Sorry, not going to happen. I really do understand. And I also understand that as long as you adhere to such beliefs, that god is evil (to create evil he has to be at least a part evil), then you will not change. But before you ride off into the sunset, perhaps there are a couple of verses from the Bible that you should consider. “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step.”—Jeremiah 10:23. That is pretty clear, but obviouly rejected by you and most all of mankind, which puts you in scary company. At least, to me it is scary. I do not wish to be in such company. Matthew 7:21 “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will. That is pretty clear to me also. Just as this is; Matthew 7:13 “Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through it; 14 whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into life, and few are the ones finding it. If you wish to hold to the same beliefs as the vast majority of the world, there is nothing I can do about it. But you should be aware of a couple of things before you chose to ignore what the Bible truly says. Are you aware that there are limits to what God can do? Titus 1:2 upon the basis of a hope of the everlasting life which God, who cannot lie, promised before times long lasting, Amazing. Almighty God can not lie, and, He can not violate your free will, which He created. Of course, if He were to be evil as well as good, He could lie, just as He could torment 'souls' forever, and, He could violate your free will. Amazing what the world believes, contrary to what the Bible teaches. Your beliefs system is amazingly close to that of the world, and that does not raise a red flag to you? Look around you at the world, then consider this; Matthew 7:16 By their fruits YOU will recognize them. Never do people gather grapes from thorns or figs from thistles, do they? 17 Likewise every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; 18 a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit. 19 Every tree not producing fine fruit gets cut down and thrown into the fire. 20 Really, then, by their fruits YOU will recognize those [men]. Your choice; you have that much free will, to chose to obey Almighty God, or not. Chose wisely.
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest.
Voting for evil, supposedly lesser or not, is evil. Don't ever do it.
#2. To: Googolplex (#1)
A write-in vote means he can vote for himself, if he really wants to choose the ultimate of dumb and evil, and not just the lesser of evils.
#3. To: Old Friend (#2)
#4. To: Googolplex (#3)
#5. To: Googolplex (#3)
If your morality can't win at the ballot box, and you can't tolerate other peoples evil, you will become an outlaw.
#6. To: Ada, *Big Pharma*, *9-11*, *Old Wives Tales*, *Bible facts*, *Agriculture-Environment*, *CAFR* (#0)
I don't vote because I believe voting – and here I am talking particularly about national elections – is a positive evil
#7. To: richard9151 (#6)
(Edited)
I made a statement to someone just a day or so ago, and it went right over his/her head; freewill is simply chosing to obey God, or not. That is the only choice that we have as free moral agents.
#8. To: Old Friend (#2)
(Edited)
I'll give you one example. Ron Paul doesn't support constitutional amendment banning child killing
#9. To: Rupert_Pupkin (#8)
I think that what he said was that a Federal level ban on abortion is as unconstitutional as Roe v. Wade's Federal authorization. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, etc. are not federal issues and don't belong in the constitution.
#10. To: Old Friend (#9)
baby killing with a nice word called abortion to numb what it is.
#11. To: Old Friend (#2)
I'll give you one example. Ron Paul doesn't support constitutional amendment banning child killing
#12. To: Googolplex (#11)
#13. To: Old Friend (#12)
#14. To: PSUSA (#7)
Really? If you have "free moral agency", you are not restricted to 1 simple choice.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest