"The most common characteristic of all police states is intimidation by surveillance. Citizens know they are being watched and overheard. Their mail is being examined. Their homes can be invaded." ~ Vance Packard

Non-voting

In his On The Duty of Civil Disobedience (1849), Henry David Thoreau asked:

How does it become a man to behave toward this American government to-day? I answer that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it . . . . What I have to do is to see, at any rate, that I do not lend myself to the wrong which I condemn.

Readers of Strike The Root recognize that there are two principal demands that their governments make upon them: pay your taxes and vote. (Of course, there are many other "demands," such as military service, send your children to school, have a drivers license, etc., but many of these are ancillary to the primary means of government survival, which is the collection of taxes.)

Now, of these two principal demands,taxation carries criminal sanctions: Pay your money or we imprison your body and/or confiscate your property. However, as yet in most nations of the world, failure to vote in government elections carries no penalty.

Governments, like all other hierarchical institutions, depend upon the cooperation and, at least, the tacit consent of those over whom they exercise power. In other words, government soldiers and police can force people to do things they don't want to do, but in the long run--in the face of adamant opposition--such coercion is either too expensive or too futile to accomplish its goals of subjugating entire populations. It is far simpler to motivate people to do what you want them to do, rather than forcing them to do it by pointing guns at them all the time. As Boris Yeltsin supposedly said, "You can build a throne with bayonets, but you can't sit on it long."

Educating generations of parents and children in government schools and teaching them to be patriotic and support their government in political elections is one of the fundamental ways governments garner public support. Citizens are taught that it is both their right and duty to vote. But all this is done with an ulterior motive in mind. As Theodore Lowi, in his book INCOMPLETE CONQUEST: GOVERNING AMERICA pointed out:

Participation is an instrument of [government] conquest because it encourages people to give their consent to being governed . . . . Deeply embedded in people's sense of fair play is the principle that those who play the game must accept the outcome. Those who participate in politics are similarly committed, even if they are consistently on the losing side. Why do politicians plead with everyone to get out and vote? Because voting is the simplest and easiest form of participation [of supporting the state] by masses of people. Even though it is minimal participation, it is sufficient to commit all voters to being governed, regardless of who wins.

Not voting in government elections is one way of refusing to participate; of refusing to consent to government rule over your life. Non-voting may be seen as an act of personal secession, of exposing the myth behind "government by consent." There are many reasons, both moral and practical, for choosing "not to vote," and they have been discussed in my anthology, DISSENTING ELECTORATE. To briefly summarize:

Truth does not depend upon a majority vote. Two plus two equals four regardless of how many people vote that it equals five.

Individuals have rights which do not depend on the outcome of elections. Majorities of voters cannot vote away the rights of a single individual or groups of individuals.

Voting is implicitly a coercive act because it lends support to a compulsory government.

Voting reinforces the legitimacy of the state because the participation of the voters makes it appear that they approve of their government.

There are ways of opposing the state, other than by voting "against" the incumbents. (And remember, even if the opposition politicians are the lesser of two evils, they are still evil.) Such non-political methods as civil disobedience, non-violent resistance, home schooling, bettering one's self, and improving one's own understanding of voluntaryism all go far in robbing the government of its much sought after legitimacy.

As Thoreau pointed out, "All voting is a sort of gaming, like chequers or backgammon . . . . Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it." So whatever you do, don't play the government's game. Don't vote. Dosomethingfor the right.

Original article"State legitimacy will only be destroyed when sufficient numbers of people come to view government actions in the same moral light as that of the individual. If this moral leveling is not brought about, if this delegitimization is not accomplished, then violent revolution must inevitably fail, even if it were successful in battle. The destruction of State legitimacy must precede the advent of violent revolution, and when that has occurred, violent revolution will be unnecessary."...

Original article"Libertarians should oppose the vote in principle - they should oppose the mechanism by which political sanctification occurs. Political power is legitimized through the electoral process. The present voting system is based on the premise that fundamental rights can be gained or surrendered depending on the vote total. Libertarians must oppose this unconscionable process. We must oppose the political process itself--the mechanism whereby some persons gain unjust (but legitimized) power...

Original article"Women are human beings, and consequently have all the natural rights that any human beings can have. They have just as good a right to make laws as men have, and no better; AND THAT IS JUST NO RIGHT AT ALL." Classic essay by Lysander Spooner.

Original article"Even in these circumstances, however, I would still refuse to vote against Hitler. Why? Because the essential problem is not Hitler, but the institutional framework that allows a Hitler to grasp a monopoly on power. Without the state to back him up and an election to give him legitimized power, Hitler would have been--at most--the leader of some ragged thugs who mugged people in back alleys. Voting for or against Hitler would only strengthen the institutional framework that produced him--...

Original article"When we place voting into the framework of politics, however, a major change occurs. When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power. Political voting is nothing more than the assumption that might makes right. There is a presumption that any decision wanted by the majority of those expressing a preference must be desirable, and the...

Original article"Instead of voting on Tuesday, why not talk to someone you know about Liberty, Peace, and Justice? Why not discuss some honorable alternatives with a niece or nephew who is in danger of joining the military or the civilian bureaucracy? Why not spend an hour or two trying to come up with ways to avoid, elude, or undermine leviathan, or cast it into disrepute?" This powerful column by Nicholas Strakon is a MUST-READ.

Original article"From the standpoint of the individual, voting is not effective for sanctioning one or another candidate and his future actions, as I've shown; but it is effective for sanctioning the whole apparatus of permanent rule and one's own permanent role as one of the ruled. Habitual voters like to tell conscientious non-voters that if they don't vote, they have no business complaining about what happens later. If anything, the reverse is...

Exclusive to STR
"It is the continuing decline in faith in the politicization of society that has, for well over a year, made the 2008 presidential race the preoccupation of the mainstream media. The media must continue to advertise the products and services of the establishment owners, just as it does for the sellers of prescription drugs and other nostrums. Still, the outcome of the 2008 election will confirm the truth of the proposition that it really doesn't matter for whom you vote....

It is classic Americana--for weeks and months, the pols and pol wanna-be's running all over--from chicken BBQ's to black-tie fundraisers and everything in between--trying to persuade total strangers that they, the pols and pwb's, know what is best for everyone. It sounds good--how they wish to 'serve' us and our interests, and make life even better for us all.
I used to love it--there was a heady rush in following my candidates, and cheering for our side, and just knowing that God in Heaven...

It's that time of year again. How do I know? My sample ballot and voter information pamphlet just arrived in the mail. As soon as it entered my apartment I threw it into the garbage pail where it will remain until it's taken out to the curb with the trash. A most fitting final resting place, don't you think?
As the pundits pontificate and the talking heads blabber, the State is again doing what it always does: attempting to light a fire under a decidedly unenthusiastic and largely non-voting...

Popular sentiment tells you that voting is a good thing. It supposedly punches your duty ticket as a citizen, makes you a decision maker, and gives you some sort of claim on your future'to be decided later by elected (or appointed) officials whom you trust implicitly with your property, liberty, and life'based on patriotic concepts of an omniscient and benevolent government. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Voting only results in more of the status quo: more empty promises, more taxes...

Hi. My name is Joe. I’m a . . . a voter.
I didn’t start right out voting. You know how it goes, you start on the soft stuff for a little buzz and it leads you on, and pretty soon you’re hooked on the hard stuff, the real high.
My sophomore year in high school was when it started. My buddies were getting older guys to buy them beer. They were sneaking booze into the punch at parties. They were trying to feel...