I’m wrestling with this: Either I go to my polling station next Tuesday, sign in, and vote for no one; or I skip voting altogether.
No vote: This means that I will contribute to the undercount, which, if high enough, sends a powerful message. Politicians see a no vote as a vote of no confidence — no confidence in the candidate(s), voting systems, the political system, and government in general, you name it. If everyone in my precinct showed up and cast no vote, it would be big news.
No voting: Voting is a waste of time since my singular vote will never carry an election. And even if my selected candidate wins, the final results (the subsequent actions of government) are never in my favor. But if everyone in my precinct didn’t vote, that too would send a powerful message.
In general, politicians see nonvoting as a statement of the times — people are busy. A low turnout does not rock any boats. A high no vote, however, does. Trust me.
As a former minor political hack (local school board member), I know that folks look to see how many votes were cast out of the total number of voters showing up at the polls. It is a real sign of weakness when an unopposed candidate has a high no vote count. He or she will likely face competition at the next election. But do I really care about that?
Of course, my quandary is of no real significance since a singular vote never influences anything, even when voting for no one. But it still bothers me all the same.
Ok. So no vote or no voting? I have seven days to decide.
Notes:
Two points to consider:
1. I am a registered voter, so I am part of the system regardless of my action next week;
2. I will not be voting (casting a ballot for anyone or any issue).
The question is this: How do I best register my dissent?
Assume that there are 1200 resident in my precinct of voting age (based on census data obtained from willing participants in the census process), of which 1000 are registered voters. Here are the possible results come next Wednesday:
Outcome 1 “No Vote”
Precinct A
Registered = 1000;
Voters (the number of registered voters who signed in at the polling station) = 600;
Candidate A = 324;
Candidate B = 275.(I vote for no one, so the total number of votes cast is one less than the number of voters)
Outcome 2 “No Voting”
Precinct A
Registered = 1000;
Voters = 599;
Candidate A = 324;
Candidate B = 275.(I did not go to the polling station, so the number of voters is one less than in Outcome 1)
Either way, I am part of the voting process. The issue is where do I want to be counted.
So is it no vote or no voting?
{ 49 comments }
Voting is aggression.
It depends on whether you accept the concept of government or reject it. A person who rejects government should not vote because by participating in the process, he is sanctioning the concept of government which in itself is what sanctions elections.
A person who accepts the concept of government may or may not vote depending on whether he sees a realistic possibility of change of the kind he desires materialising as a result of the political process of which he becomes a part by voting. If he thinks the change is possible, he should vote. If not, he shouldn’t.
I hope that helps.
NEW BANNER: Some libertarians have recommended anti-voting activities during the 1972 election. Do you agree with this tactic?
ROTHBARD: I’m interested to talk about that. This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement – if five million people, let’s say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On the other hand, I don’t think voting is a real problem. I don’t think it’s immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people.
Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist’s position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you’re really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy – that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing.
I don’t think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited choice – there’s no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn’t try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can’t say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It’s not a fully voluntary situation. It’s a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can’t vote out of existence. For example, we can’t vote the Presidency out of existence – unfortunately, it would be great if we could – but since we can’t why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don’t see that it’s immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open – provided that you don’t think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! – which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote,
The second part of my answer is that I don’t think that voting is really the question. I really don’t care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say “I don’t want to sanction the state” and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they’ll elect. And it’s important, because I think that there is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn’t endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don’t agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn’t vote: he is also saying that we shouldn’t endorse anybody. Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins? I don’t see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us.
Voting, even voting “no” gives the state implicit consent for continued abuse.
I quit voting four years ago, and am glad I did.
beebs
anarchist
Bala wrote “It depends on whether you accept the concept of government or reject it. A person who rejects government should not vote because by participating in the process, he is sanctioning the concept of government which in itself is what sanctions elections.”
Here in Australia not only is not voting illegal, even advocating it can get you sent to jail like Albert Langer (though they got him on a different technicality). You have just broken Australian law.
You have nothing to gain by voting, and you will lose your precious time.
Then of course, there is the fact that voting just encourages them and sends mixed messages to the people who know you as an anti-statist.
when it comes to voting, there is a third way, if you can gather a significant constituency of likeminded voters with a loud campaign ahead of the election.
Spoil your paper. A tiny percentage of spoilt papers with no campaign suggests nothing more than ineptitude. But with a public campaign and a large chunk of the electorate then turning in spoilt papers sends a very strong message: It says ‘I care enough to go to the polling station, thus differentiating myself from th emerely apathetic. But I protest that none of the choices available meet with my support’. If even 15 or 20% of the electorate does that, youve got a serious groundswell that the media will just love to make a meal of.
” Here in Australia not only is not voting illegal, even advocating it can get you sent to jail like Albert Langer (though they got him on a different technicality). You have just broken Australian law. ”
Two points. Firstly, I am glad I am not in Australia. Out here in India, not voting is still an option. In fact, there is a very good probability that in case I do not vote, my vote is cast for me. We have very effective systems of stuffing ballot boxes out here.
Secondly, your post clearly identifies why Australia is not an outpost of Liberty. Thanks for warning me which part of the world I should not live in.
Voting doesn’t sanction the State. Implicit in this is the idea that the State (which isn’t a person as such and doesn’t have consciousness anyway; presumably “the State” serves here as a code for the elected politicians and their appointees) needs the encouragement of voting to continue carrying on their deeds. As a former political activist and legislative aide, I assure that “the State” and the political establishments need no encouragement: They’re all too pleased to take their State-sanctioned power, no matter how few cast ballots.
Now, if someone feels seriously bad about voting, then don’t vote. Your one vote is so apt to be inconsequential that you might as well take care of your emotional need by staying away from the whole thing.
But I take pleasure in voting. It may be emotional perversity on my part, but it’s certainly not sanctioning anything.
Here in California, there are usually lots of state and local ballot measures, and it’s nice to vote on them. En masse anyway, it definitely sends a message.
So far as candidate races go, sometimes I vote for nobody. More often I vote for a third party candidate, which not only sends a message about disliking what the major parties are up to, but may even suggest another direction they might head toward if they want to get more votes in the future.
Once in a while I vote for a major party candidate. For example, I voted for Ron Paul in the 2008 Republican primary election. If I’d lived in Paul Congressional district in Texas, I’d've voted to reelect him in 2008. I’d've voted to elect Tom McClintock to the Congressional seat in California he won in 2008.
Then again can Libertarians hinder people from voting? E.g.: make it hard for voters to get to booths such that they run of time before they could cast a vote, hack into a voting computer for it to spit out random or nonsense results, hold protests outside voting booths just like anti-abortionists do at abortion clinics, etc.?
I agree with Merv and beebs, and I am a “principled non-voter”.
Rothbard the radical!! Rothbard the non-aggressor!!
I admire Rothbard’s work tremendously, but his position on voting strikes me as inconsistent with his libertarian views. In response to Rothbard’s “I don’t see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us,” I would say, “A slave given a “choice” of masters should reject the opportunity to “vote”, but that doesn’t mean he fails to have a preference. His preference is freedom, not a new master! Freedom is his one and only goal!”
(1) I do not want or need anyone to run my life for me: no city councilman, no mayor, no governor, no senator, no representative, no president, no one! (Not even Ron Paul!)
(2) I choose to interact with my neighbors on a non-coercive basis. “Voting” is coercion, as the “results” of the “vote” are forced onto all.
(3) Non-voting is an easy way to begin to take back control of your life.
(4) As a non-voter, you will be walking the talk as you share the ideas of liberty with others.
Will you let us know what happens on Tuesday, Jim?
If state tries to jail you for whatever reason don’t you try to fight back with all the means possible: using (state) advocate, searching for exceptions in the law, using appeals system etc.? Does this mean you are supporting state, the oppressor? No. Slave who takes food from slave owner doesn’t support slavery. He maximises his utility in a given situation. He isn’t in a position of free choice (free society), so he shouldn’t be required to perform actions that would be appropriate in free society.
This applies to the argument that voting is not anarchistic, meaning your no/vote will be enforced upon others, and so it constitutes aggression. State voting system always includes aggression so it is irrelevant whether you vote or you don’t. Your act, together with acts of other people, will always be an aggression, no matter what.
So, I think ultimately voting is only a question of strategy. You are morally obliged to act in such a manner that will lead to an increase in the amount of freedom in a society. According to subjective valuations in various situations this may mean different acts altogether.
As for my personal preferences, I think you should vote only for radical (anarchist) party. If there is none – you should try to establish one, and meanwhile go voting and vote for none of the candidates indicating, that you are active, want change, but none of these moderate communists are worth being elected as your personal representatives.
All –
Two points to consider:
1. I am a registered voter, so I am part of the system regardless of my action next week;
2. I will not be voting (casting a ballot for anyone or any issue).
The question is this: How do I best register my dissent?
Assume that there are 1200 resident in my precinct of voting age (based census data obtained from willing participants in the census process), of which 1000 are registered voters. Here are the possible results come next Wednesday:
Outcome 1 “No Vote”
Outcome 2 “No Voting”
Either way, I am part of the voting process. The issue is where do I want to be counted.
So is it no vote or no voting?
I added the above comment in the Notes section of the post.
Deb Tiedemann – puhhh-leasssse!
If Libertarians complain that those who romanticise the Middle Ages presume they would have been the nobility then those who romanticise Anarchtopia presume they will have their own sovereign piece of land. If you were renting a place from a H.O.A. in Anarchtopia you be stuck with much the same rules and regulations except you would console yourself that it’s a private organisation just as you would still get in trouble for speeding on a private highway.
If you go to the polls – I wouldn’t, unless they’re very close by, just because it costs gas money and time to go – why not have some fun? Write Richard Nixon on the ballot. There’s a candidate every libertarian can get behind. If he’s elected, he’s guaranteed to do absolutely nothing. He’ll aggress against no one. He’ll be the most honest elected official in history. If bad things happen, you can take it to the bank that not a bit of it is his fault.
Jim, there’s little difference between No Vote and No Voting. Flip a coin you may.
As a self-proclaimed austrolibertarian, me personaly do practise the root human capability of taking an action, by casting the vote for the best available candidate.
Note it has nothing to do with granting legitimacy or anything. Even if “my” candidate wins, he’s to be held responsible for all his decisions. Saying that we voters in any way “sanctioned” his future actions is fallacious.
I simply choose an option, which promises future results better than any other available action.
The consideration includes the “no bothering with it” alternative, however the idea that “no vote = strong message” seems to fail in the real world test: the powers that be just don’t bother about that, their only concern is what support gets the next guy.
For more justice and for a change:
I strongly believe the amount of people not voting should be added to the results of each candidate, so when results read …
A gets 100 votes
B gets 200 votes
while out of deduction it is proved that
200 citizen
are potential voters who didn’t cast a valid ballot,
the final result should read
A : 300
B : 400.
Thus 47% against 53 %
and not today’s
33% against 66%
People would understand there’s no real “popular endorsement of a party”.
This way people would also understand what kind of consensus it really takes to change laws.
Anyways you cannot answer the question with principles: imagine Ron Paul was running for president. I doubt anyone would just prefer not to vote out of commitment to libertarian goals.
And if there’s really really no difference between the candidates to choose from, I’d suggest redirecting the efforts from “how not to vote” into “how to get some C4L activity going on” nearby.
Sometimes the available means cannot help in attaining desired goals, and we need to first work on creating the means, to be able to use them to get onto our goals later. Yeah it’s a long run. So what.
There’s only so much of a message that can be transmitted via non-voting, and it’s more of a non-message, than anything meaningful.
Well, as Ireland said, it’s all about my actions. Where do they lead us.
I am not sure how it is in other countries, but in my country, there is a simple rule in elections: The candidate with most votes wins and gets the office. Wherever I’m looking, I do not see any rule saying “If there are too many invalid votes elections are canceled” or “If the turnout is below 30% the office is removed completely.” I.e. there is absolutely no result out of not voting (regardless whether we call it ‘no vote’, ‘no voting’ or any other inexpensive message-sending posture). Likewise I cannot find any rule saying “By voting the candidate, you automatically endorse any action the candidate might take”. I.e. it is all just about seating somebody in the office. Nothing more, nothing less.
So at the end of the (election) day, I have only two choices:
1. Compare how my life could be with different candidates in the office and pick the alternative which I find the most attractive out of the given list. (Remember, I am not choosing the ideal world, I am just picking an alternative!)
2. Not to pick any alternative, close my eyes and ignore the world, because [fill in whatever excuse you like most]…
Either vote for the party which is the best alternative. Or start a party “the ultra liberals” which sole goal is to reduce government involvement in society and vote for that party.
Or stop whining.
Jim, I know this sounds callous, but I usually choose “Option 1″; but for a different reason…it looks good on your record, should you ever be hauled to court. It got my mother out of a DUI once (at least where I live).
Matt,
Any advice for those not in your Religion of Demos? No, you probably can’t imagine that.
How about you stop whining about “whiners”? Anybody holding you down, forcing you to read the non-believers?
with your final question, you are asking us to vote to influence your otherwise 100% authoritarian direction with yourself. i find it ironic that anyone who participates in your voting process does so to denounce participating in bigger voting processes. “why encourage the charade?” and so on. of course i am being a little sarcastic and a little facetious, but instead of taking your vote, i can tell you my story.
i can tell you that i am the kind of person who will strike a mark on a referendum question at the state level, but no higher. it must meet certain conditions. it must repeal government and replace it with nothing. first, do no harm.
so, every year i go to the polling station, just to make sure i see what is on the actual ballot. i do not listen to what people say will be on the actual ballot, because this is politics, and so they are lying. if i do not go at all, i might miss an opportunity to register dissent in some small way. if i listen to what is said will be on the ballot, i will only feel misled, and possibly err at the critical moment.
last year i had the chance to be counted among those who would have no income tax in massachusetts. none. and that change made up for by cutting spending, not by introducing new taxes. if the majority of voters had wanted it, so it would have been. what libetarian thinks this is a bad idea, but has looked into which states are the most free?
would you have considered moving here?
there is a form of purism which denies that one should do anything at all to bring about a society without aggressive, statist government. it fails to say why on principle, and avails to slandering the “other,” or to some non-sequitir, or what is apparently a new thought-stopping libertarian cliche instead. this looks entirely schizophrenic to me. i suggest you avoid it. so did hayek, actually.
like the opening of a gunfight, the state has already chosen the time and place, and it has brought all of its friends. it is for you to mount a successful defense without harming the innocents nearby. this means using the ballot box — reserved, defensive force — towards a future where your children’s children are better off, and only when you can otherwise do no harm.
obviously, unleashing even so much as a selectman on your neighbors is going to be harmful. referendum questions don’t draw a salary. however, those that waffle or confuse, blatantly increase government, or attempt to make a trade of some kind (read: entrap), are snake oil.
credit goes to tom woods, by the way, for recalling hayek’s call to radicalism at the mises circle earlier this year.
and credit goes to those who embrace and apply this radicalism for the last remaining pockets of freedom in this country in which the aggressively-do-nothing crowd can still find as pure a liberty as their psychosis can ever hope to see or experience. perhaps we’ll see more heavy lifting from the next generation. i have hope.
I voted (usually a blank ballot or occasionally a Big L) until I got two jury summons in a short time span. Then I canceled my voter registration. Just isn’t worth it.
Non-voting can only be rationalized on the basis that the time spent voting could be better spent working. I’ll buy that, but it means if you’re on your butt playing x-box instead of voting, you are a fool. Hold a protest, or distribute pamphlets, or SOMETHING!
All the people that believe voting is a sanction of the state are insane. It is literally a pacifist position, allowing oneself to be slaughtered just to make a point few will sympathize with. If you want respect, stand up for yourself. Either vote for liberty as best you can, or work much harder to explain your point. At this point, even the anarchists aren’t buying it.
I’m anarchist, and I vote.
I hadn’t voted for many years, but during the last Presidential election I held my nose and voted McCain – Palin, just to try to keep Obama out of office. McCain wasn’t exactly my first choice either, but still ahead of Obama in the “lesser of two evils” race.
Jim, I would not vote at all. A “no vote” is a huge waste of time. It doesn’t send a message that any politician really cares about. If you were voting for a third party candidate that had a chance of “breaking” another party’s candidacy, such as voting Conservative Party to send a middle-of-the-road Republican a message, that might be different.
Jim,
FWIW, I generally go with the “no vote” option. It’s an active position. You are making a clear statement that you do not support whomever/whatever is on the ballot. As you said, not voting can simply be attributed to apathy, lack of time, etc. Moreover, the percentage of eligible voters who show up on election day is generally so low that it would probably require something like 99% of them staying home for anyone to take notice. On the other hand, if even 10% of “voters” turned out but then submitted blank ballots that would probably get someone’s attention. Of course, election officials might not report such an outcome voluntarily but I’d think that if someone were to ask they’d have to disclose it.
For those who say voting is sanctioning the state, I’d say you are probably right in theory. But, if you are nonetheless paying taxes, registered for selective service (do they still call it that?), paying for state-mandated auto insurance, etc you are sanctioning the state in other ways. Obviously, the penalties for not paying taxes, etc are much more severe than for not voting. Nonetheless, the purely principled position would be to refuse to take part in any of the state’s machinations regardless of the consequences.
Jim, if you want to register your dissent, go do something productive during that time. Rescue a kitten from a tree, or help an old lady across the street. The statists hate when we help each other.
I don’t believe voting, or rather, the “no vote” option is immoral. If a armed robber points a gun at you and tells you to give him your money, are you ‘sanctioning’ armed robbery by giving him your money? Similarly, the electoral process is also part of the coercion of the state. Of course, if you deliberately vote for a big-government candidate or a tax increase or new, increased regulations, that I would consider to be wrong.
More importantly, though, voting or non-voting, either way, seems to make little difference or impact on government. There’s already a large percentage of people who are eligible to vote and don’t. At best, only about 25% of the eligible citizens actually turn out and vote, and all we get are the occasional political pundits complaining about voter apathy. What voting percentage would it take to really concern the politicians? 10%? 5% 1%? The fewer who vote, the more powerful the vote of those remaining voters, not to mention fewer people likely to vote against things like tax increases or big government candidates.
Alternately, there are other problems, like who or what is allowed on the ballot in the first place? Or, as in my state, voters aren’t allowed to write in candidates. Such restrictions make it even less worthwhile to bother to vote.
All-in-all, whether you vote or not, I wouldn’t count on it making much difference unless a significantly large number of people all vote or un-vote the same way–otherwise, the “message” sent will be meaningless or misinterpreted.
bob,
Let me add a twist. Issue 3 in Ohio adds (inter alia) a new layer of bureacracy with regard to livestock and food production. Some proponents claim the issue needs to pass as a block against pending legislation that is even more radical.
A yes robs property rights and reduces free exchange. But a no will likely lead to greater harm (as Ohio becomes the new California). Not voting (no matter the method) seems like the only ethical action – in this instance, anyway.
Also to consider: Your vote is never registered as a protest. A candidate who wins by even the smallest margin claims the will of the people. And most constituents fall in line with that line of reasoning. Since your vote will never carry the day, voting cannot challenge the system.
DixieFlatline,
Yes! Iritate them and prove them wrong at the sametime.
Last November, I voted a straight ticket here in MN: Porky Pig, Bugs Bunny, Elmer Fudd, etc…
Due to the contested Franken/Coleman senate race, my ballot was hand re-counted by a team of election judges. I get a little chuckle thinking about it.
At least you still have a choice.
@Jim (merely to clarify), the ag issue in Ohio is Issue 2. Issue 3 is the casino issue.
I suppose, that given the position Jim has laid out with respect to Issue 2 (the bad set against the worse), the moral thing to do is to not vote on the issue and then refuse to comply with whatever eventually happens.
There is a similar issue here in Cuyahoga County — Issues 5 and 6. However the vote comes out, the result will be larger and more expensive government.
“To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election?”
That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the State is conceived as an entity in which all property, all people, all responsibility, is considered to be a vast commons in which management decisions are to be made collectively. Except for extremely rare situations (practically NEVER), all of the candidates in every election will share this communistic view of society and their only purpose for running is to manage the collective entity and reinforce its power. If you show up to vote you are consenting to be subject to whatever collectivist policies are conceived and enforced by the winner of the election.
Suppose you come home from a day at work and you find that your roommates are in the middle of a card game. They announce that all of the contents of your shared house are now either explicitly owned collectively, or are to be taxed by the collective, or else you will maintain nominal ownership of your property, however the collective will now determine what property you can own and how you can dispose of your property. Your TV, cell phone, what university courses you take, where you shop for food, who you invite into your room, all of these are fair game for collective management according to the “Constitution” which the more indolent roommates have drawn up while the rest were away at work. The winner of the card game will be named House Leader.
Observing the card game they are playing you quickly realize that the unemployed loafers are far more adept at the game, since of course they invented the game, wrote the rules, and practiced all day while you were working. None of the leading players think that there is anything wrong with turning the house into a commune, and from the table talk that is going on it’s clear that the outsiders, the ones who really work for a living and who reject the communist ideas, have no chance of winning.
Do you sit down and play the rigged card game anyways, crossing your fingers and hoping that either you or one of the “less bad” players will eventually win the pot and assume control of the collective? Or do you tell them to screw off and shove their crooked game and the whole whacked set of ideas which led to it?
If you decline to play in the game they may gang up on you and force you to submit to them anyways, but in this case they cannot pretend they are anything but thieves and they can claim no moral high ground. If you play the game then your property is fair game (in their minds) because you have tacitly consented to the communistic ideas which are behind the entire household structure (as they conceive it).
I think there is a greater chance that a critical mass of non-players will eventually get behind you and help to remove the power of the indolent clique by rejecting its legitimacy and ignoring its commands, than that the non-indolent, the worker bees, will ever be able to win the crooked game and then dismantle the commune from within its power structure.
Some of you may be familiar with this, but for those who aren’t:
George H. Smith wrote a very good book which addressed this subject called “Neither Bullets nor Ballots”. An interesting section (called “party dialogue”) is reproduced by The Voluntaryist here:
http://www.voluntaryist.com/nbnb/party_dialogue.php
I think it makes some good points which, while they were summarized in the original article, are very interesting and I find them hard to get around.
Further more, I feel your time would be better spent educating people, and doing real work for Liberty. An example would be writing letters to the editor of your local newspaper, or taking a statist friend out for coffee to discuss why you aren’t voting.
My employer is very cool about people coming to work late or leaving early to go vote. I take off early to go read whichever economics book I’m currently on (which happens to be Radicals for Capitalism by Brian Doherty right now)
Jim,
*Shorter Answer*
Without more detail about the particular candidates involved no one would know the answer to your question better than you. While I do continue to participate and vote, I am fast getting to the point where I see it as a useless tool. For every vote we might cast for real and meaningful freedom, the jailers seem to have at least ten potty trained idiots’ casting votes for their own enslavement.
However, as long as you believe that you are acting in a rational way that will not harm yourself or others, and you consider a vote, or a no vote a productive tool that might result in the removal of barriers to freedom, then you are, at the very least, acting in a natural, morally consistence way – regardless of the end result.
*Longer Winded Answer*
Whether an individual is naturally imprisoned within a cave or artificially imprisoned within a political system, a rational individual would choose to use whatever object they deem a valuable tool as a means of escape from that environment.
If trapped in a cave an individual would use whatever objects they could find as tools to dig, hammer, pry, lift and otherwise remove whatever is blocking their path and to act in any other manner would be irrational, immoral and ultimately suicidal.
If a vote, or a gun, or other devices are the most practical and rational tools to use for the removal of the objects blocking ones way to freedom then it is, by definition, a natural law moral right and rational action to use such tools — even when seen as irrational force within a normally free and peaceful society. In such an environment the only immoral actions possible to an individual would be to consciously give up and or sanction or participate in ones own imprisonment or the imprisonment and harm of other innocent individuals.
However, the main point here is to remain rational in your actions and properly use the available tools that will work best work to achieve ones purpose (freedom). Sane individuals do not hunt flees with elephant guns, they would not go on Gandhi type food strikes against stone walls or use fifty pounds of dynamite within a forty square foot room to blow their way out of a cave or jail cell, and if you act in a similarly irrational manner to try and free yourself from a corrupt political system you will only succeed in destroying yourself or, at best, get yourself and other innocent people further shackled down or buried.
Voting is aggression.
Not if you are voting in self defense.
Consider a vote to end slavery:
I absolutely would support that issue. But what of my vote.
If I voted, would I be voting to make my view known? That would be pointless. We have Australian ballots and I could never prove which way I voted.
Would I be voting to make a solely personal statement? This would be valid since my psychic profit in casting the vote cannot depend on the reaction of others as my choice could never be revealed. So my ex ante expectation of profit would hold ex post.
Would I be voting to add to the vote count in order to show that a mandate to end slavery exists? Maybe. But my vote would be lost in the sea of votes (one additional vote would not change the impression of the those viewing the results.).
Would I be voting to influence the final result? Pointless. In the end, my singular vote wouldn’t carry the issue.
I think the key is that voting has little consequence.
Slavery ended in England when ideas changed hearts and minds. The vote in Parliament was simply confirmation of that change.
Only ideas have the power to change our situation. And when ideas change, there will be little need for a vote.
So I agree that the effort spent voting should be directed at spreading the word, so to speak.
It’s ideas that have consequences.
Don’t get stuck in any caves Jim, I fear you might try to talk or vote your way out of it.
Mikie C. –
Non sequitur!
If I am stuck in a cave, do I require a majority vote to look for a way out?
I think your analogy is this:
I am at the bottom of a pit with five other folks. At the top of the cave stand 1,000,000 men with one communal rope, under the control of the majority. The majority likes watching us struggle below, while the small minority wants to see us rescued.
Each hour, there is a vote to see if we are to be freed.
Do I waste my time on the vote? Or do I try to convince folks to see that holding us captive is unethical and unmoral?
If you hold out hope on your vote counting, you might as well call it quits.
If a man is stuck in a hopeless environment then all he has left is his sanity. why bother taking polls or would you describe hopelessness as the cure?
Mike C.,
You say, “a rational individual would choose to use whatever object they deem a valuable tool as a means of escape from that environment.” First I have to question what you mean by “rational?” I thought we were talking about the morality of voting, not the rationality. A rational man would realize that he could live very comfortably as a politician, and being even more rational would run as a major party supporting whatever is popular without regard to natural rights or economics.
Again, the main issue under point here is the moral legitimacy of voting in the first place, not what one man would rationally do to increase their personal utility from the world.
What if my most “valuable tool” for escaping the cave is to kill the other innocent people trapped in the cave and make a rope of their tendons?
You’re arguments do not hold up to scrutiny.
My argument holds like a fine and study rope… I qualified all my statements with exclusions to innocents and if an irrational crosses that line it is his/her own contribution to insanity… not mine.
Try reading “Seeing” by Jose Saramago. Lots of non-confidence voting in that one. And murderous government response.
Mike wrote, “I voted (usually a blank ballot or occasionally a Big L) until I got two jury summons in a short time span. Then I canceled my voter registration. Just isn’t worth it.”
Are you saying you don’t want to serve on a jury? I see a jury as one of the last places where an individual can make a significant difference (just remember the first rule of jury nullifcation: don’t talk about jury nullification when you’re summoned). I’ve been summoned twice in the past 15 years or so, but never made it past the second selection step. I had never voted until last year, either. Or maybe that’s your point, that you’re unlikely to ever get on a jury, due to being too aware of things as compared to the average person.
Mike C.
“If a man is stuck in a hopeless environment then all he has left is his sanity. why bother taking polls or would you describe hopelessness as the cure?”
I am hopeful. I would be hopeless if all I had was a belief that my vote would change things.
Comments on this entry are closed.