Et Tu, Libertarians, With the “Do As I Say, Not As I Do”?

Just out of curiosity, what set you off this morning?

In addition to what you say above, I argue often that voting is pointless. The choices you have are limited by design, and any votes that go against what the ruling classes want is either overturned or ignored. Here's some comments I wrote on this subject on Brad Spangler's blog:

I don’t know about how things are in Switzerland, but here in Washington State in the USA, the government has a habit of ignoring and overturning referendums and initatives. I worked on an campaign to defeat the measure financing Safeco Field in Seattle. We won, but the stadium was built anyway under an “emergency” declaration. We voted to limit car tab licence fees to $30 TWICE, and the voters were sued by the government and the initative was overturned by the courts!

In addition, the initative process has been corrupted by powerful business interests. No independent group has any chance to out-propogandize the corporate machine. We simply do not have the money.

In short, voting in the USA against having your head cut off would be pointless. If the government wanted to do so, it would find a way regardless of the outcome.

and

Two more examples of votes being overturned:

1. Washington had a blanket primary allowing voters to vote for any candidate in the primary without having to declare a party preference. You could vote for a Democrat in one office, Republican in another, Libertarian in another, etc. This measure was passed in 1935 as Initative 2. This was in effect until 2003, when the 9th circuit court threw out the blanket primary.

In 2004, Washington voters passed Initative 872 by a 60% margin, creating a “Top Two” primary to comply with the 9th circuit decision and the US Supreme court decision throwing out the California blanket primary. In this system, the top two vote getters in the primary, regardless of party, went on to the general election ballot. The parties sued, and in July of 2005 US District Judge Thomas Zilly threw out initative 872. Appeals continue to languish in the courts so far as I know.

2. In 1993, Washington voters passed Initative 601, limiting tax increases to the rate of inflation. Any tax increase beyond that limit, required a 60% supermajority in the legislature to pass. The state legislature passed an “emergency” measure, Senate Bill 6078 in 2005, overriding the will of the voters and restoring the simple majority requirement. This emergency provision blocks any voter challenge to the bill. When the Washingtom Farm Bureau tried to file an referendum petition to overturn the bill, Secretary of State Sam Reed refused to accept the filing, due to the Legislature’s “emergency” provision.

The Farm Bureau sued, and on July 14, 2005, the state Supreme Court essentially said that the legislature can essentially declare anything an emergency. Justice Charles Johnson wrote in the decision that “The Washington State Constitution and our jurisprudence dictate that the Legislature may suspend the right of the people to order a referendum on a bill where the bill is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or in support of state government and its existing public institutions.”

In his dissent, Justice Richard B. Sanders stated, “The majority betrays the sacred trust the people of this state place in this court to preserve inviolate their constitutional right to veto unwanted legislation through referendum. A legislature determined to inoculate itself from referendum, a secretary of state determined to violate his statutory and constitutional duty to allow a referendum petition to at least circulate, combined with a supreme court openly hostile to the people’s check on the legislature, brews a potent poison to the people’s constitutional role in the legislative process.”

Essentially, in the two cases the state Supreme Court said that the people have no real rights. The voters do not rule, the parties and the politicans do. I have given up any hope for change through conventional politics. Regardless of whatever view that I might have had on any particular bill*, I thought that when the voters spoke, that was supposed to be the end of the issue. The government was supposed to respect “the will of the people” as expressed by the vote. The above shows why that is not so.

-Presto
————————-
*For instance, I wanted to throw out the primary election altogether. Why should taxpayers subsidize the parties’ nominating process?

In short, voting IS an agression, but it is also a waste of time.

I've seen those very same posts and they leave me scratching my head in wonderment. I certainly have no plans to head out and cast a ballot anytime soon. What's the point? As Presto shows, all it takes is some statist in a robe to undo your vote. Add in the collectivist aspect and....well, I don't need to tell you.

I most certainly have no intentions of casting my support to a Ron Paul candidacy. While he is less distasteful than the other Republicans, he holds no special place for me. I must admit that I like Steve Kubby, but I'm not going out to vote for him. It's just not in me to encourage that type of behaviour any longer.

"Judas settled for four-thousand nine-hundred and seventy dollars less."
"They didn't have no dollars in them days."

That's from my favorite Western.

I guess I'll try to be brief...

Voting as a means of self defense is at least morally defensible. Whether or not it's practically effective is a question of strategy. Aside that meta-point, I think the most cogent, intelligent and downright clever column on this subject is one by an anonymous writer using the alias Szechuan Death;

http://www.strike-the-root.com/71/death/death1.html

As he says, at best he'll accomplish nothing or next to nothing, and at worst he'll be the one holding the bag when the socialist schemes of yesteryear start falling apart around our ears. Then 'free market' policies will be blamed for things socialism and extensive regulation caused (I think now of Scott Bieser, who is also an anti-voter, who penned a cartoon to that effect) and the cause of liberty will endure an incredibly harsh setback.

As I see it, in this particular instance, it would be best if Paul didn't win, but did make a huge splash of profile in the media. They'd know who, and what, they ignored, and what it cost them. At least, if I were a hopeful optimist I'd think so. Chances are he'll be ignored and that will be that. The free market and libertarianism will, of course, be blamed. George W. Bush will be the one billed as the cause, and the Cato Institute, which cozied up to this administration and its retarded/psychotic policies, will be more than happy to assist.

I can't really defend the practice of vying for electoral office on the practical level. It's a waste of (very expensive) time. If one is opposed to it on a principle level, one has no cause to it...The whole thing is a mess. The best I could see one doing is monkeywrenching; throwing weight behind a hopeful candidate (as in, one who gets one of the Republican/Democrat party nominations) that would actually cause the whole chain of bad news to crash into the station that much faster, and let everyone know what a virtuous, altruistic social democrat he was! And how much he cared about family values, too!

I absolutely agree with your sentiments, Sunni.

What is also interesting to me is that I just happened to visit the website of one of the Canadian "libertarian/anarchists" that I have a great deal of respect for - Pierre Lemieux. If you are not familiar with him, I'd encourage you to visit his website, http://pierrelemieux.org/ wnen you have time and read what he's written over the years.

I had the pleasure of first meeting Pierre about four years ago, and then two years ago, was honoured with his invitation to me to meet with some folk at a semi-formal luncheon he had organized to discuss freedom and strategies for accomplishing more freedom.

Meeting him in person drove home my own realization that one's projections upon the words authored by a person can be and probably are totally false - what I envisioned Pierre to be like in person after reading many of his works was totally different than what was reality.

Which is interesting and a side point to my comment - I've often found that after reading some Libertarians' and Anarchists' writings, I "expect" to find grizzled, hard, and unfeeling sorts of folk - but what I end up discovering are people not much unlike myself.. lol.. that smile as much as possible! :)

There are two people I have met after reading their work that surprised me in ways I can't describe after meeting them in person: Jay Jardine and Pierre Lemieux.

I wonder if Billy Beck might offer the same surprise!

In person, Jay Jardine is the most wonderful person one could ever want to meet! Well, maybe second to Pierre. Pierre is probably one of the most charming persons that I have ever known or met! His accent, "tainted" with his French speaking is cute, and his eyes twinkle. When you look at him, you'd never even think that this is a man that fights for freedom, fights authority, detests authority, or has any kind of anger towards anything that would claim authority over him.

Soft spoken, but very precise in his meanings and words he uses. And an awesome thinker.

So, it was a bit of a surprise for me to visit his his site today, and see on the front page:

"June 5, 2007 – Is there one politician in the world for whom an individual concerned with our liberties (or what's left of them) would want to vote? Perhaps there is. If you live in the U.S., vote for Ron Paul in the upcoming presidential election. Check also this video."

Perhaps he just means if "you're inclined to vote, then here is a person to vote for." I don't know. I myself know that there have been times where I've had discussions with folks about voting, and I've said, "Ok, well, I won't be voting, but if you really want to think you have made a difference, somehow, and think of voting as a method of expressing your own individual thoughts, then.. well.. here's who I'd recommend - the person that seems to offer the least as far as control, and the most for your liberty."

But I'm with you on this. I won't vote, I refuse to participate in such a stupid excercise, that today, by it's very nature only goes to supporting majority mob rule over the minority and generally, has nothing to do with inherent rights.

On the other hand... knowing my own "progression," I would have liked to have voted for someone like Ron Paul in my own "riding," (as we call it here in Canada).

Some folk still find the "need" to vote. For whatever reason that is. I don't encourage it, but from my own experience, I recognize that at one point, I felt that same "need" as well.

For those who have said for years, that they will not participate in some silly "democratic" process, I agree - it's stupid and idiotic for them to suddenly do so.

On the other hand, if I'm talking with somone who, regardless of being able to grasp the silliness of it yet, and want my advice for something they are going to do anyway, I'll tell them that I won't do it - but if they think it will make a difference, to vote for the local candidate that is the most libertarian or "anti-establishment" (as opposed to claims of 'pro-freedom').

I guess, if I were an American, I'd be saying, "If you really must vote, then I'd prefer you vote for Ron Paul than a George Bush or an Al Gore or a Clinton. If you really must vote, and wonder what my thoughts are based on your feelings of need to vote."

I guess it's kind of like...

"If you really feel the need to do drugs, then I'd suggest you try to stick with pot.. or nicotine.. or naturally occuring yeast that makes wine and other wonderful liquids than go out and do acid."

False analogy, I know.

Pragmatically speaking, without having the ability to tell the future, I _think_ if it came down to it, I'd prefer a Ron Paul in the Whitehouse than a George Bush or a Clinton. That's not to say I'd APPROVE of a Ron Paul either, though.

It's also not to say that should that ever occur, that Ron Paul would have my personal rating or "choice" - but for folk who are interested in voting, and the person that might end up being there after a vote is one that will make my job easier as far as my freedom ventures go - I can't exactly say I'd oppose that absolutely. It would be like "a small baby step" for others on their way to realizing greater freedom and understanding of what freedom is.

It's not even like I would be wanting to put my own support behind someone. It's more like, if councilling someone, and saying, "Look, if you MUST do this... and that's your choice to do something or other, and you want my advice on this, then I'd suggest sipping 80 proof instead of 150 proof. I myself don't want 80 proof government and won't do anything at all to try to bring it about; I've gone beyond that now. But you.. if you are still addicted.. well.. here's an option for you."

But of course, at the same time, I'd still say: "Even 80 or 40 proof or 20 proof or 10 proof statism is not freedom."

And I'll tell them why I refuse to participate in silly so called "democractic" excercises.

Student Of All, Disciple Of None
http://ianism.com

I've been on the entire roller coaster of this, and it took me many years to come to my present position. Who knows what the future holds...

From roughly 1960 to 1980 I was involved in Libertarian politics and watched it deteriorate from principle to pragmatism. In 1990, I came to the conclusion that I didn't want a Libertarian running my life any more than I wanted a Democrat or Republican to do so. I quit voting FOR any person, and began to realize that the whole political process is outright aggression.

I'm still struggling with some of it, however. I "register" to vote as an independent and write in "None of The Above" for each and every candidate. I vote AGAINST everything else - though would vote for something like a real tax cut or to repeal some "law." I've never had the opportunity, of course since we voted for "proposition 13" in California.

Some of my friends want to circulate petitions for ballot measures to do some of those things, but it seems too much like asking the lion to only bite off part of your arms and legs instead of all of them. I'd rather not get into the cage with the lion at all and believe there are much more productive ways to fight for liberty and justice.

Is there a perfect answer? I don't know. Utopia is not an option. We all just have to put one foot in front of another and get along the best we can.

Spooner's contention that voting could be an act of self-defense really ties into the thesis of "No Treason No. VI, the Constitution of No Authority" and its objections. Basically, that you live in the US doesn't mean you consent to be governed. That the Constitution exists and is enforced by a body described within it is not proof of consent. That an individual votes does not grant consent. It's a powerful objection. It is directly analogous to another objection; if a woman does as the rapist tells her, is she giving consent? I know some who say that such a woman would be giving consent. I have to admit, I don't trust what I can only call a Kempian thesis.