Yes, Voting IS Consent to be Governed

Dylan Anders | @realdylananders

Many libertarians seem to find an exception in voting as a means to achieve a free society. It evens appears that even anarchists are willing to use the state as a method to eventually abolish the state. This hypocrisy is not only disingenuous, but it clearly cannot happen. Any libertarian must understand that the system that they have grown such a deep distaste for will not fix itself, or even allow itself to be fixed. Such authority is too precious to those with it. Any sensible libertarian would recognize that the men that run this nation would stop at nothing to ensure that the power complex is secure.

George Orwell, in his famous novel 1984, says it well: “no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it.” Simply put, the system will not willingly vote itself away.

When you vote, you legitimize the power of the system to subject their will onto the people. By casting a vote, you have followed the route that the government has established and as a result, you have shown that such a system is valuable. Quite literally, a voter admits that the governmental practice of voting is valuable, though a minority group (usually the individual) is often harmed by it.

Hypocrisy of the Voting Libertarian

A system of voting is inherently an antithesis to self-ownership and liberty, by way of democracy.

Voting admits to those who believe in the state that we must use state to bargain for our liberty. You either believe in the system and trust it to eventually do right by voting, or you do not vote.

Voting is a moral wrong. Subjecting your will, even if you are voting for small government, is done through an act of coercion, which Libertarians must be against if they are driven by the principle of self-ownership and voluntarism.

Voting is begging, a ransom, buying a lottery ticket into the system, and not incorporating the act of living freely in your own life.

Though voting to be freer can further the liberty movement, voting is asking to be free, rather than declaring your right to self-ownership. This sort of relationship is akin to a prison officer as government and the prisoner as the voter, asking to be let go. The fact of the matter is, asking to be free is counter-productive and is clearly not a worthy goal. Refusing to rebel against your oppressor is, in a great sense, Stockholm Syndrome. By doing so, you play the games of your oppressor.

A Way to Live Freely

Voting is different than revolution and agorism when it comes to obtaining liberty. Both revolution and agorism come with direct human action. Voters must be willing to supplement their votes with some external force, in order to destroy the oppressive state. Voting, in this sense, is just a poll that holds no real value, unless the citizenry takes the power back through revolution or agorism.

The greatest—and only—contemporary option there is is one free of government and its systems. We must be free and show people a world without governmental control over our lives. Agorism shows the power of self-ownership. While a revolution would come at a time no one could predict, engaging in the black market is prime way to work against the system. Show people that society can operate peacefully without government. By doing so, you can tear the State’s grip off of your hand and advertently own yourself.

Libertarian thinker Frank Chodorov put it best, when speaking on the abstinence of voting: “Since we as individuals have decided to look after our affairs, your services are no longer needed. “

To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.