My Views on Non-Voting
Here are some excerpts from an oldie but goodie I wrote for LewRockwell.com five years ago:
…However, the one thing that really bothered me about this guy’s talk was that he actually told them: “Now kids, the most important thing you can do to turn around this great nation of ours is to vote. Does anyone here know what percentage of the eligible voters participated in the last presidential election?”
Now this is a very typical view, especially coming on Memorial Day weekend. Yet I think it is just plain dumb. Bear with me as I try to explain my (literally!) politically incorrect views on voting.
The people who lament the state of our nation obviously don’t like the politicians we’ve been electing, right? So at first blush, shouldn’t they be blaming the people who voted for them? Let’s go back to the speaker at my brother-in-law’s graduation. He didn’t come right out and say it, but I’d be willing to bet my pocket Constitution that this guy was a strong supporter of George Bush over John Kerry and Al Gore. So what would have happened if more people had turned out to the polls? Either the same outcome would’ve occurred, or we’d have John Kerry leading us in the fight against Islamic terrorism. So why was this guy complaining?
Really folks, let’s think this through. The people who complain about the lack of voting seem to imply that if only people were more interested,then there would be great candidates from which to choose. No, actually the causality is the other way around. In our great system — at least for the last several decades — the voters have really been presented with only two possibilities. One candidate pledges to moderately invade economic liberties and strongly invade civil ones, while the other candidate pledges the reverse. The voters slowly come to see that there really isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the parties. (Did you know that the “conservative” George W. Bush has increased federal spending at the highest rate since Lyndon Johnson, and that even if you exclude defense spending, he’s increased spending more than the “liberal” Clinton? What about the “right winger” Richard Nixon, who imposed wage and price controls and took the US off the gold standard? And how about those compassionate Democrats who care about children, like Janet Reno?)
Now in this environment, what the heck is the concerned citizen supposed to do? Keep mindlessly pulling the lever for the politician who will merely slow (not reverse) the erosion of the Constitution? No, I submit that, in his or her capacity as a voter in the general election, the best thing the voter can do (if the choices really are abysmal) is either vote for a third party candidate or abstain altogether. The worst thing in the world to do would be to cast a vote for an admittedly awful candidate and thus grant legitimacy to his rule.
Just to distinguish my cynical views on government in general, from my specific objections to the “You’re right to vote” crowd: It would have made sense if the commencement speaker had advised the kids to go into politics, or to become very active in the primaries of the party that best represented the particular student’s views. I personally would’ve disagreed with that advice, since I agree with H.L. Mencken that elections are just advance auctions on stolen goods. But at least that advice would’ve made sense.
In contrast, if you are as disgusted as most people are with the clowns running for office, then think before you repeat the mantra that it’s everyone’s duty to go vote. Maybe if the clowns starting getting only 10 or 15 percent turnout, more responsible people would go back into politics.
I don’t vote in politics because I am against hiring a thug to steal from my peaceful neighbor.
I don’t care if he votes to steal my wealth. My wealth would be stolen whether he votes or not.
Huh? You don’t want to hire a thug, but don’t care if your neighbor hires a thug? How about this extension: you don’t steal, but don’t care if your neighbor steals from you? I care. I’d bop him in the nose. Similarly, how dare my neighbor openly talk to me about going to vote. I’ll give him an earful about his engaging in proxy thuggery just short of a nose bopping!
You don’t want to hire a thug, but don’t care if your neighbor hires a thug?
No, I said I would not hire a thug even if my neighbor hires a thug. I didn’t say “I don’t care.”
I will not hire a thug because the only thugs available are ones that harm innocent people, as opposed to protecting people against thugs.
Is it justified to harm Peter to protect yourself from Paul?
How about this extension: you don’t steal, but don’t care if your neighbor steals from you? I care. I’d bop him in the nose.
No you wouldn’t. You would only be miffed he voted for the “wrong” political candidate, I mean thug, you know, the thug you don’t approve of. You’re not going to bop him in the nose. You’ll sit on your a$$ and take it, because if you did bop him in the nose, you would be arrested by the thug hired by the majority of your neighbors.
Incidentally, today, many of your neighbors are going to vote for the leader thug of thugs. They are going to hire this thug (you call it voting), your neighbors are going to pay him money (you call it taxes), and that thug is going to take 35% of your income, and if you don’t, then that thug is going to throw you into a cage.
You still think you are the type of person who bops the noses of the people who hire thugs to steal from you?
Similarly, how dare my neighbor openly talk to me about going to vote. I’ll give him an earful about his engaging in proxy thuggery just short of a nose bopping!
Your neighbors have been hiring thugs to rob from you for your entire adult, income earning life. Where are your earfulls? Where are your bopping of your neighbor’s noses?
Oh I get it now! Of course! It all makes sense. It’s obvious! You were using the magic words, whereas I was using plain English! I use the word thug, and you use the magic word “politician”. I use the words hired thug, and you use the magic words elected politician. I use the word steal, you use the magic word taxation.
These magic words, not religion, are the real opiate of the masses.
Thug Hiring Day aka Voting Day. I’m with you.
For the record, I did say I would bop my neighbor on the nose for stealing from me…and merely give him an earful SHORT of a nose bopping when he’s on his way to the thug-for-hire voting booth.
Not sure what you meant by me using magic words…but cheers all the same MF, a toast to avoiding thugs when we can!
The people who lament the state of our nation obviously don’t like the politicians we’ve been electing, right? So at first blush, shouldn’t they be blaming the people who voted for them?
Yes, absolutely. To a large extent politicians reflect the views of the public at large (not always, mind you). If politicians have bad views, it’s probably because most people agree with them.
In contrast, if you are as disgusted as most people are with the clowns running for office, then think before you repeat the mantra that it’s everyone’s duty to go vote. Maybe if the clowns starting getting only 10 or 15 percent turnout, more responsible people would go back into politics.
Here is the part I disagree with. Most local races, for example, get around 10 to 15 percent turnout (sometimes lower). As far as I can tell, this neither effects the perceived legitimacy of government nor inspires responsible people to get into government. Voting may or may not be a good thing, but the idea that if people don’t vote this will somehow undermine the system is, I think, flawed.
Overall, though, a good article.
If there is only 10-15% voter turnout, can it really be called “majority rule” anymore? Not talking about what is possible, rather what is taking place.
Technically, all rule is by the majority, in the sense that the majority accepts it.
Accepts it how? Absence of armed insurrection? Absence of civil war?
So an abused wife who is scared for her life, is “accepting” of the abuse she is being victimized with, because she isn’t powerful enough to stop it?
I think, if I can be frank, that you are butchering the meaning of “acceptance”. Acceptance does not mean what physically happens. Acceptance is a cognitive concept, where it can contradict what physically happens to someone’s body.
The majority accepts it, in that they accept the idea of the democratic system of government, even if “their guy” loses. This amounts to about 50-60% of the adult population, as demonstrated by any given Presidential election turnout. I should have been more clear.
There is an apathetic plurality (probably around another 30-35%), then a smaller minority that just “takes it” (as a beaten wife does in your analogy), and then an even smaller minority (~1-2%, in my estimation) that seeks to avoid and eliminate the state (you, me, Murphy, and so on).
The majority accepts it, in that they accept the idea of the democratic system of government, even if “their guy” loses. This amounts to about 50-60% of the adult population, as demonstrated by any given Presidential election turnout. I should have been more clear.
Ah, that makes sense.
If those 10-15% are a non-biased sample one could argue that the voting distribution is the same as that of the entire population’s. Whether that’s true, I dunno.
By definition, they are in a unique class of individuals. Even if we assume that it is possible to get an unbiased sample of human beings, which I personally doubt.
Wouldn’t the other 85-90% have to actually vote before you can start talking about any voting distribution in said sample?
Voting isn’t like hair color, or height. Voting is an action.
Demonstrated preference?
“To a large extent politicians reflect the views of the public at large (not always, mind you). If politicians have bad views, it’s probably because most people agree with them. ”
Actually, it is always true that the majority of the people assent to the views of the politicians – if not as good ideas, at least as use of power they should have and as something they can do. It is only the anarchist or civilly disobedient that reject the power of the politicians and their views as fundamentally illegitimate.
If, for instance, one is (speaking historically) against slavery, but assents to the laws imposing and enforcing it, they are accepting it in their (in)action. It is those doing something about it that alone reject the power of the state in that regard.
If the majority were to dissent through action, and not just words, enforcement would be impossible. Hence, the state rulers are always careful enough to go only so far as is acceptable by the majority – while working as hard as possible to extend the limits of that acceptability. The strongest bulwark of the politician’s exercise of power in public opinion is the idea that “we’ve always done it that way” so it should not change.
Actually, it is always true that the majority of the people assent to the views of the politicians – if not as good ideas, at least as use of power they should have and as something they can do.
This is what they call changing the subject.
Is it? Did I not discuss the import of voting? Is that not the purpose of Murphy’s post?
If a politician imposes price controls, and this is enforced, then it must be that people believe that price controls are a thing that government can do. They might not agree with this particular price control (maybe it should be more or less, or on some other good), but they certainly agree with the possibility of price controls in general.
The difference in our statements is only the scope of analysis.
If a politician imposes price controls, and this is enforced, then it must be that people believe that price controls are a thing that government can do.
Right, and the Jews killed themselves by believing in the Nazi government.
If the Jews believed that it was within the just power of the Nazi government to kill Jews. I don’t remember claiming that.
But if we go back to price controls, we can see that the majority either believes that government can justly set controls on prices, or just doesn’t care if they do or not (which amounts to the same thing). And it isn’t like I’m saying something new here: http://mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf
“The fundamental political question is why do people obey a government. The answer is that they tend to enslave themselves, to let themselves be governed by tyrants. Freedom from servitude comes not from violent action, but from the refusal to serve.”
Is this a new line of reasoning to you? Or am I just not clear enough in my statement of it?
Blackadder said:
“Here is the part I disagree with. Most local races, for example, get around 10 to 15 percent turnout (sometimes lower). As far as I can tell, this neither effects the perceived legitimacy of government nor inspires responsible people to get into government. Voting may or may not be a good thing, but the idea that if people don’t vote this will somehow undermine the system is, I think, flawed.”
I think there is important difference between local elections and what Bob is talking about. Local races get low turnout because people don’t care. However, what Bob is suggesting is that if most people who *do* care about national elections decided to not vote as a way of making a political statement, it *would* matter. Because other less-crappy candidates would realize what was going on and seize the opportunity.
Bob says “responsible people would go back into politics”
Implications?…
1. Responsible people (pre-Nixon?) were in US politics.
2. Politics is good if “responsible people” return.
3. Voting used to be a good idea and hopefully will once more.
Isn’t that kind of like saying, “If only we had a responsible Fed chairman, the Federal Reserve would be a great US institution.”? Say it ain’t so. I would hope that you would be calling for a Rothbardian private property world where voting was a foggy memory of the past and kids didn’t know what you meant when you used the word “politics”.
It cracks me up when people lecture Dr. Murphy about anarcho-capitalism.
One wasn’t allowed to ask Ayn Rand questions either, so I hear.
You didn’t really ask a question so much as take “X would be better than Y” as an advocacy for X as a perfect system with no issues.
Exactly.
My favorite line was this, “I would hope that you would be calling for a Rothbardian private property world…”
I mean, the guy teaches classes on this very subject. What planet has Arthur been on?
Probably one with Asperger flavored water.
Arthur Krolman, I am simply trying to critique the widespread view that “it’s your duty to vote” and that the present state of our bad politics is due to low voter turnout. I explicitly distinguished my anti-government views from the immanent critique I was making here, that even on this guy’s own terms, higher voter turnout would only have made things worse (since this guy presumably liked Bush more than Kerry).
OK. I think I get it now. His logic that higher voter turn out would help was 180 degrees incorrect.
I’m afraid I partly agree with you Bob. I raise eybrows telling people that high turnout is not a desirable goal. People seemed stunned, it’s such a shibboleth.
Matt,
1. Yes. I did a question. A few I think. One was: does Bob believe there were at one time responsible people in politics?
2. I did not say that he is advocating that responsible people getting back into politics is a perfect system with no issues.
3. What I am questioning, in the main, is why Bob would conclude an essay entitled Non-Voting, after all, with a call for a reduction in voter turnout (to 10-15%)…followed by responsible people getting back into politics…followed by (presumably) a resumption of higher voter turnout percentages. My question: why not conclude a self-described “goodie” essay published on anti-state LewRockwell.com entitled Non-Voting by saying something like: “let’s hope voter turnout goes down to 10% followed by a further downturn to 0%.”?
1. Re-reading your statement, you asked nothing of the sort. You claimed it was implied, which it only is if this is the only thing you have ever read by Murphy, and you read it out of context.
2. He is not advocating for it at all – only claiming this would be better than what now exists. It would be like saying 1% milk is better than 2%, but really preferring skim if you can have it.
3. Because he intends to have a somewhat wider audience with it that might convince minarchists and constitutionalists to abstain as well. Or didn’t intend to write about the particular aspects of government existence so as to justify literally zero voting in that particular essay.
1. I followed the word “implications” with an interrogation mark. Perhaps a sloppy way to ask a question for a following group of statements, I admit.
2. OK. Good.
3. A-hah. Kind of like Lincoln abolishing slavery in the south but not the north during the civil war…so he would get a wider audience approval from his side?
I feel so out of it as a Murphy supporter. I didn’t know about the Trojan horse and the secret plan to recruit constitutionalists then spring full Rothbard on them later. Silly me.
3. Lincoln’s action was a war tactic. Freeing the slaves meant the slaves would not be producing things for the Southern war effort.
But Murphy’s critique, like he points out above, was intended to point out the flaw in the “Rock the Vote” idea even for a supporter of the system as an ideal.
“I didn’t know about the Trojan horse and the secret plan to recruit constitutionalists then spring full Rothbard on them later.”
Have you not read Ron Paul? Or Tom Woods? The whole bit is a critique about Big Government and its take on certain issues that are against the Constitution and the libertarian stance. Take “The Revolution”: it discusses Constitutional government, then springs out a “reading list” that includes Rothbard on economics. If one actually reads these things, it is not a far leap for them to start reading Rothbard on other things (as I personally did). Similarly, End the Fed has references to Rothbard, Mises, and even Murphy. Liberty Defined has references to Rothbard’s tract on education, Hoppe’s work on democracy, and directs readers to LRC and Mises.org. Wood’s book Rollback cites Murphy’s Chaos Theory, which is a thoroughly anti-state, private property market system of defense pair of essays.
Yes. I recognize the “path to Rothbard” that each one of us probably followed didn’t start at “For a New Liberty”. But it’s frustrating for me, a non-politician, to go along with the subtle herding of other would-be Rothbardians. With Walter Block, for example, I never feel he’s holding back to appeal to a wider audience. I guess I’m paranoid too that Paul, Woods, Murphy and others might have a 50 year plan for libertarianism instead of a shiny libertarian structure in place for people to turn to after the collapse — that might be here sooner than you think. Tactics discussion I guess.
I don’t think it is necessarily “holding back” – just an emphasis on different arguments. Walter Block does the same thing, by the way. Unless you think his recent book “Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty” was an endorsement of the state, and not the idea of starting with Ron Paul and pushing toward more “radical” ideas than the strict Constitutionalism that Paul advocates publicly.
Yes, I fear you are right about Block too. I understand why parents lie to their children to lead them to sensible results with the least fuss. But I feel a tantrum coming on to hear that as an adult I must also be secretly lead by libertarian thinkers I admire to someplace they are quite sure I will clap my hands happily about when I’m there but can’t be told about beforehand. Who gets to be on the “inside” loop versus the “public” loop about what these great thinkers specifically envision as our radical happy future? How can I be a good foot soldier for libertarianism arguing the merits with my friends and family when I must say, “Block, Paul, Murphy et al? Oh yes they’ve got detailed secret plans for the future that only a few know about. But have faith! They are very wise men!” What if I were to explain global warming science to them the same way? “Oh it’s true all right. Al Gore knows all the facts and arguments. He just can’t come straight out and tell us. It would be too shocking for a wider audience.” I suppose, naively, I am attracted to economic thinking which can be laid out in the open in its ideal radical form for all to poke at, refine and test arguments against…and find that it has no holes! And then watch the converts snap out of their it’s-my-duty-to-vote stupor and pour in!!
Secret plan? Just because they don’t talk about anarchism at every turn doesn’t mean they are lying to people or keeping their plans secret. You’re knocking down a strawman.
Let’s say they knew the steps to cure cancer. But instead of talking about this “at every turn”, instead chose to speak less radically (lie?) about how a lower percentage of cancer researchers doing research might help get closer to a cure. No kidding! If zero researchers showed up we’d be at a cure ’cause you guys already know the radical answer but don’t want to shock moderates!
Or maybe radical libertarianism isn’t a cure for the economic woes of mankind after all?
Or maybe I’m hijacking Bob’s blog with my tangent here? I feel like the kid in class who’s talking too much. Not sure of the protocol, sorry.
I could literally post thousands of articles, books, videos, etc. just from Dr. Block and Dr. Murphy speaking about anarcho-capitalism. If you think they are keeping their views a secret, then I don’t know what to tell you.
I’ll tell you what, go find me something from either these two guys that says the State is the solution to any problem.
The difference being that the steps to cure cancer are not going to be rejected prima facie by the public at large.
Radical libertarianism requires people to accept it to work, and it will not gain much traction if the only argument that anyone ever sees is the full-on “abolish the state” one, and not the just-as-principled “end the Fed” or “more voters doesn’t make sense” (although the argument that people are implying, but not making out loud, is actually #rockthevoteundersomecircumstances. See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7l5Q6aehF4&feature=plcp)
What is voting? Expression.
What is not voting? Expression.
The Statist insists you vote because they win regardless of outcome, Dems arrive at serfdom station a little sooner than Repubs but they both get there. The only way a statist loses if there is no longer consent. A low voter turnout is exactly that, withdrawal of consent.
No worries about not voting, because it just doesn’t matter anymore. It is not a political problem but it is already a mathematical one.
In 2010 the CBO projected that in 15 years it was possible that mandatory spending + interest payments on debt will be higher than tax revenue. Guess what, it happened already in fiscal year 2011:
http://www.sovereignman.com/expat/i-apologize-for-what-youre-about-to-read-9397/
This reminds me of some XLS spread sheet I saw some time ago…
Hyperinflation is usually proximately triggered by financing skyrocketing deficits with inflation.
This is going to be ugly.
Come on, the US is exceptional, it can never happen there!
For the libertarian voting is an act of self-defense
With an accompanying act of aggression.
I guess you never pay taxes
Bob, its your not you’re for your right to vote. GOTCHA SUCKA!
You’re joking I hope. They do that to be clever.
Your joking proves you’re joking.
If only you’re powers could be used for good.
Or vote for a new, better, party. That is what I did in Canada when the supposedly small government party (tories) delivered bupkis. And eventually that third party broke and swallowed the tories. The result was a small but noticeable shift.
The gop might not notice that their social conservatism has cost them a boatload of senate and house seats recently. If however they could see a nice block of small govt Libertarian votes in the sums, and realize why they lost a lot of them, that might improve things.
I agree, but you should really only vote if it is for a party that really to a significant extent represents your views, else don’t vote at all. Do not vote merely for the lesser of two evils, or a third party as a „protest vote”. Else no one will ever know that there is actually an untapped “vote market” for a yet not existing party. Not voting says first of all that there is no one who is even remotely representing you. And that is how a nonvoter should be understood in the first place. There is nothing to condemn in abstaining from voting.
Although I am not so sure if the inherent dynamic in this voting system really can be overcome:
The problems with first past the post voting systems:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
(Check out his other videos on voting etc, great videos)
Well, it has to represent my views on a few key issues. There are only a few issues that I care much about, based on the current political landscape. So a free speech, free trade, no drug war, school choice, strong defence party for instance. I don’t care enough about lowering the drinking age or permitting open carry to let that matter to me.
Reform was the party in Canad btw. But they were not ‘no drug war’! Far from it, way too socially conservative, but better on a few key issues.
That is fine for me. I just don’t want to do “strategic” voting anymore. It just doesn’t make anything better, especially not over the long run…
Yeah. I’m usually a ‘lessr of evils’ guy, but I don’t think any principled vote is ‘wasted’. Actually I am starting to think they are the least wasted if they came in large enough bunches.