To Vote Or Not To Vote, That is the Question

This is a follow up to my post, Why I Don't Vote, and specifically responds to some of the comments left at that post.

Greenbean950 writes:

Would you vote against a referendum for higher taxes or other such proposed increase in state power? Not for a person who is promising anything, just the "issue" itself that are often up for a vote?

RW response:

This is a perfect example of how one can get caught up in the idea that voting can help. A vote against a tax is a con.

Some readers will recall the 1978 California Proposition 13 that decreased property taxes by assessing values at their 1976 value and restricted annual increases of assessed value to an inflation factor, not to exceed 2% per year. It passed.

It was a big hullabaloo at the time. It was a magnificent halt to exploding taxes in California.

Don't make me laugh.

Income taxes and sales taxes were raised instead. People flee the state now more than ever.

The huge pro Propsition 13 rallies and vote turnout was a waste of time.

If there ever was a tax that lowered taxes and spending at the same time and prevented any other taxes from being raised, I would, of course, vote for it. But that is not going to happen anytime soon.

Governments almost always advance under democracy. Even the US Constitution was an advance in governmental power over the Articles of Confederation.

Donxon writes:

The victims of state criminality who are locked up for non-violent behavior will only be released or retained based on voting. American forces deployed overseas on crazy missions will come home or remain deployed based on the outcome of elections. Taxes and regulations will increase or decrease depending on the outcome of elections. Should we just send our condolences to the Ross Ulbrich's and starving Yemeni children of the world? Not voting may marginally disentangle you from the state's crimes, but so long as you pay taxes, your paycheck has blood on it same as the rest of us.

I see voting as an act of sabotage...

For whatever reason, the lunatics who weild power over us have these wierd little rituals. If we see an opportunity jam up the works we should take it.

Non-voters win many, maybe most, elections in America, and the state just keeps on rolling. Not voting is a non-strategy masquerading as serious-minded, unsentimental realism. Next time a cop stops you, just yell him you don't vote and go about your business.

RW response:

"The victims of state criminality who are locked up for non-violent behavior   will only be released or retained based on voting."

Do you realize that those locked up under with harsh prison terms were locked up because it polled well?

You need to change minds and the actions will follow. There are zillions of laws on the books that are not enforced. For example:

MICHIGAN: A statute on the books since 1931 makes adultery a felony in this state.

MISSISSIPPI: In 2010, profanity in public could land a person in jail for up to 30 days.

Call up a cop in one of these states and report these lawbreakers. See what happens.

Bad or silly laws go away when people recognize they are bad or silly. No vote necessary. 

"Should we just send our condolences to the Ross Ulbrich's and starving Yemeni children of the world?"

What vote are you casting that is going to change this?

I repeat, you need to change minds and the actions will follow.

"Not voting may marginally disentangle you from the state's crimes, but so long as you pay taxes, your paycheck has blood on it same as the rest of us."

My paycheck has blood on it?

"For whatever reason, the lunatics who weild power over us have these wierd little rituals. If we see an opportunity jam up the works we should take it."

I have never objected to jamming up the works, it is just my view that voting almost never gets this done and that it also promotes the idea that we need a central power to rule over us.

"Non-voters win many, maybe most, elections in America, and the state just keeps on rolling."

Where did you get the idea that just because someone doesn't vote, they object to the state? It is a fallacy to claim non-voting means objection to the state. Those who object to the state, may or may not vote, likewise a non-voter does not necessarily mean a person who objects to the state. Indeed, the problem is that the overwhelming majority of people, including non-voters, do not reject the state.

" Next time a cop stops you, just yell him you don't vote and go about your business."

I have no idea what the point is here. Never did I say that non-voting is going to give me a pass with the government?  Do you get a pass because you vote?

Scot O comments:

[W]hat about secession, how about voting on that? Bob, would you vote for your political region to secede from a larger, more oppressive political entity? Or is that an endorsement of "mob rule"? If so, isn't that a position Rothbard would call "sectarian"? Shouldn't we welcome all partial moves toward liberty, including, for example, constitutional amendments that reduce state power?

RW response:

Again the concept of voting is held up as such a wonderful ideal. Who the hell says you need to vote to secede?

The American revolutionists, you may recall, simply declared independence from the King of England.

And if there is a vote and secession loses 51% to 49%, you will honor this because there was a vote? 

"Sectarian" is not a Rothbardian concept. It is a Leninist concept adopted by Rothbard. And it means one who is unwilling to form alliances. Where the hell have I ever said I am unwilling to form alliances to advance the cause of liberty? I have said that voting is usually not a productive way to promote liberty because it has at its foundation the necessity of a central power but I do state in my essay that there are times when even voting can be used as a tool that is as non-sectarian as it gets.

My view is simply that it is extremely rare when it can be used as a tool and the idea of voting should be exposed for what it is at a fundamental level: mob rule.

"Shouldn't we welcome all partial moves toward liberty, including, for example, constitutional amendments that reduce state power?"

What constitutional amendments to reduce state power? What does this have to do with elections by the people?

" At this point in time shouldn't we vote for them given that our failure to vote will make the 'live and let live' point to no one?"

This is just an obvious incorrect point. Why can't I make the 'live and let live' point every day, everywhere I go and never vote?

And once again, bad or silly laws go away when people recognize they are bad or silly. No vote necessary. 

-RW