9 votes

Voting in particular is an embarrassment, being a public display of weak character and low intelligence.

Fred Reed on Voting, in the vein of H.L. Mencken
From LewRockwell.com: http://www.lewrockwell.com/
June 24, 2004

The Con Game Called Democracy

Autumn looms and presidential elections will soon roll around, like droppings pushed by dung beetles. We will be exhorted to vote. Better advice would be not to vote. The proper response toward what we occasionally imagine to be democracy, methinks, is to retain one's self-respect by not participating in it.

Voting in particular is an embarrassment, being a public display of weak character and low intelligence. Let us face the truth: Democracy, like spitting in public or the Roman games, is the proper activity of the lower intellectual and moral classes. It amounts to collusion in one's own suckering.

continued... http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed37.html

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

We are NOT a Democracy.

So what's the point of the article?

In Liberty

sure we are.. transformed

sure we are.. transformed from a Representative Constitutional Republic, into a mob rule democracy. That is the point.

BUMP

This post needs to stay active.

"Qui audet adipiscitur"

I agree with the spirit -- but calling people "weak"

might not be the avenue to take.

I've been saying this for 4 years on DP:

1) Voting is an Abdication of Consumer-Rule
---It is a circumvention of consumer-rule (in the long-run)

2) Lobbying is Bribery
---An attempt to control the voting decisions of said elected official

Now what is embarrassing is the spectacle of elections -- the "debates" now those are embarrassing.

I would not site "Rockwell" or any Rothbardian, if my goal was to appeal to the largest number of people -- but then again I know the back-drop on some of their "PR" decision trees.

ytc's picture

How did private Republican & Democratic "clubs" manage

to position themselves to determine (and change whimsically) the rules to elect the President of USA?

Those R & D Party Bylaws cannot be Constitutional. Can they? How can they be OUTLAWed or privilege reversed?

@Missy

The only one on this thread that even remotely "gets it".

"Qui audet adipiscitur"

Wouldn't you just love it

If RP wrote a piece like the one Joe Sobran did in 2004?
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2004/040420.shtml
Thanks for commenting. It's good to know that I'm not the only one on this thread who "gets it." ;-)

Very Ironic

He's asking for votes and dreaming what he would do if elected, yet at the same time claiming votes don't matter.

The reluctant anarchist

Great term, huh? It was coined by Joe Sobran. He started out conservative republican, morphed into a minarchist, and finally finished his political evolution by taking that last logical step into anarchism. I love Joe because he really really didn't want to admit that the anarcho-libertarians/capitalists/individualists were right, but in the end, he was honest with himself and his readers.

I think Joe saw his campaign in the same way Ron Paul saw his own campaign, as a method to spread the liberty message and grow the liberty movement -- a means to educate. He knew he had no chance of winning.

Ron Paul has proven that's the wrong way to go

It's easy to give up, but easy doesn't get us anywhere.

Anarchy is logical, given an entire world of people that agree to abide by it's principles, but that's entirely unrealistic.

Anarchy is a comforting theory, but can also be a daydream to get lost in.

Liberty is logical

Yet practically no one in any government believes in it. Most of the world population don't really want it either (they don't want to give up the false sense of security and welfare handouts the state gives them). Does that mean we should give up on liberty? Any true liberty loving person has to admit at some point that the state is anti-liberty and becomes more so the longer any particular state exists. Not voting doesn't mean giving up for many of us. It means withholding our consent to be ruled by criminals and doing our part to take away the illusion of legitimacy of the establishment. Voting isn't the only possible means of activism, in fact it's the least effective means due to the fact that the electoral system is rigged through and through.

Liberty is protected by law

Because men cannot be trusted to protect it, not even in an anarchy.

Liberty is violated by law

Because men cannot be trusted to protect it, especially not in a centralized state.

The law is an obstacle to violating liberty

Which anarchy does not have.

The law is a means to violating liberty

which anarchy doesn not have.

Of course, law can be utilized to protect liberty. But surely you see that centralized states use law as a weapon against liberty. The Fed and the income tax were brought into existence due to acts of legislation. The patriot act, the NDAA, property taxes, public schools. All brought about through law.

Most anarchists aren't opposed to law per se, but to the arbitrary laws of the centralized state. Natural law, or common law are terms anarchists don't mind so much, because such law is based on commmon sense and justice. I think voluntary anarchist communities could certainly have this kind of law wihout violating their principles.

These were not brought through law, but violation of law

It was literally an usurpation of the rule of law. Rule of law is one step removed or further protected from the overthrow of an anarchy.

In an anarchy, you wouldn't even get to an usurpation over a hundred years later. An anarchy would simply be overrun in a matter of years.

Let's say you had an anarchist community right now. How would you protect it from China? Or, indeed the US?

They were brought through legislation (law)

You are trying to promote the state as something benign and good, an establishment that protects liberty. But nowhere in human history has any state behaved that way (at least, not for long). Believing in this vision of the state is just like believing in Santa Claus. Check out this great article by Albert Jay Nock called the criminality of the state...it's the most truthful piece I've ever read on the topic.

http://archive.mises.org/6071/the-criminality-of-the-state/

Legislation which violates the law

Is not law at all.

The state is good if it's purpose is to protect liberty and all laws protect liberty.

Believing in anarchy is like believing in Santa Clause, it's never worked and never will. Rule of law has worked, even if temporarily.

The lesson we didn't learn is that sound money is critical to any sound society. We lost the rule of law when unsound money was allowed to take over.

How does anarchy work any better, when I can simply gang up on you with no law to deter me at all?

Every anarchist argument against the rule of law and limited government occurs even easier in anarchy; including force, coercion, mob rule, tyranny, counterfeiting and murder.

Under anarchy

You couldn't simply go to the polls and vote to take more of my money through taxation to fund your pet bureaucratic projects, or to make me wear a seatbelt if I don't want to. You would have to actually try to force these issues on me yourself instead of having the ability to rely on statist bullies to do it for you. ;-)

Under anarchy

I could kill you and take your stuff if I am more powerful or have more friends in my gang.

Under the state

...people do kill you and take your stuff legally on practically a daily basis...just ask the bankers ;-) No one and no group of people can defend themselves against the centralized state with it's military and police power. Crime is systematized under the state and made as common as sand on a beach.

Delusional hyperbole

Anarchists are inherently delusional because they have never experienced anarchy. That old woman would call to be ruled by mafia over the state until she actually had to experience it.

Nonsense

We all have anarchist experiences every day. Whenever you make a choice that isn't forced by govt., that is an anarchist experience. Homeschooling, smoking, eating whatever you choose, buying the automobile you prefer. These are areas in which we still have freedom. Of course, govt. will find a way to take away these freedoms as well eventually.

It could be argued that the state is the worst form of anarchy...today, the state is lawless and does whatever it pleases regardless of constitutional restrictions and the will of the people. And it has the means to force all of us to finance it.

Without a centralized state, people at least could have a chance in hell of defending themselves against the bullies.

it's unfortunate that so many

it's unfortunate that so many of the points just go over these people's heads because of some blind faith to the state. i guess 'anarchy' or 'anarchism' has just turned into a dirty word thanks to leftists. i'll just stick to 'voluntaryism' now when having to debate with statists.

it's too bad that of all places, that members here haven't even heard of murray rothbard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BoUrrlbDoVs

Liberalism, conservatism, anarchism

All of these terms have been corrupted and twisted into something like the opposite of what they really mean. It seems to me that people like Albert Jay Nock, Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard are purist libertarians. They're not bomb throwing kooks, but highly intelligent philosophers of freedom. RP respects all of them and has mentioned each of them throughout his presidential campaigns. Would be great if people would actually read their writings before passing judgment on libertarian anarchists.

I'm guessing most of us vote because

A vote for Ron Paul, or a 3rd party is a way of sending a massage, win or lose. What is the message we send if we don't vote at all? It's like saying, "go ahead and rape us again, we don't even see the point of resisting anymore". That's the way the establishment will see it. We need to get real numbers behind the people with new ideas so we say instead, "We aren't going away, we know what we want, and it isn't you".

The message of not voting

It's been generally accepted that when half (or more) of the population of a country doesn't vote, it means that the population has lost faith in honest elections, that they believe "the system" to be broken. The governments of such countries lose legitimacy in the eyes of not only their own populations, but of those outside who are paying attention. That is why those in power in "democratic" countries try so hard to get people to vote. Sometimes, they actually make voting mandatory. Right now, close to half of Americans who're qualified to vote avoid the polls. If that number grows much larger, Fed Gov will no longer be able to claim a mandate of the people. This is terrifying to them. I don't understand why people have such a hard time seeing this.

BUMP

!

"Qui audet adipiscitur"

Missy

You could not have hit the nail on the head any more squarely than you just did! Bravo!

"Qui audet adipiscitur"