42 votes

I'm not voting anymore

I have been a libertarian for about two years now. I was introduced to libertarian thought by Ron Paul's 2012 campaign. After that whole debacle, I began to consider who I would vote for in 2016 when the time came. Since the 2012 elections, however, I have been doing a lot of thought about my philosophy. I have really delved into libertarian ideas such as the non-aggression principle, and my outlook on voting has completely changed. I will no longer be voting.

I believe there can be no moral justification for government. If we accept that people should never use violence except in cases of self-defense, then we can no longer justify government. Government requires violence to exist. Taxation is theft, etc. If the system you support does NOT require violence, then it is not government. Government is by definition violent.

Can we move past the idea that reforming our government could somehow work, or is even the morally right thing to do? It's a delusion.

Comment viewing options

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


One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.


"Endless money forms the sinews of war." - Cicero, www.freedomshift.blogspot.com

That is why I continue.

Though, deep down, I know that it is inevitable. The dilemma is, prolong the agony and come to terms that the next generation will not miss what they do not know, or just get it over with.

Perhaps Plato could have learned a thing or two from Ron Paul:


2014 Liberty Candidate Thread: http://www.dailypaul.com/287246/2014-liberty-candidate-thread

2016 Potential Presidential Candidates: http://alturl.com/mt7tq

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Vote for Nobody!...LOL


If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle


is one of the most meaningless, stupid things one could do. I registered to vote ONLY to help get Ron Paul elected. It was obvious that the entire election was (in your face) rigged. I was such a fool (hanging my head in shame). Had Ron Paul actually been elected, he would have been assassinated before he even took the oath. Who needs anyone to rule over or lead them? 99% of all politicians are bought and paid for and don't give crap about you. They work for nobody except themselves and all become part of government mafia. Screw'em all. Congratulations! I cancelled my voter registration and returned to my "non-voting" self. Never, never again.

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”― Henry David Thoreau

Too much Fraud for me

After watching the documentary Hacking Democracy and seeing videos like this one I have real difficulty participating anymore.


If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Neither am I

(Not that I ever could, anyway. I'm only an anonymous screen name. A ghost. Ghosts can't vote.)

allegory - ˈalɪg(ə)ri/ - noun - 1. a story, poem, or picture which can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one.

One more down...

How many are left?

Seriously: Congratulations. Now that you've put down the most dangerous superstition, (if you haven't already) pick up The Most Dangerous Superstition, read it, order a case. Pass on the good word.

I totally,


Quit encouraging/supporting the beast and be responsible for your own happiness.

You make a good point........

I wish we could defeat the legislation that seems to be taking away our freedom and prosperity too.

"In the beginning of a change, the Patriot is a scarce man, Brave, Hated, and Scorned. When his cause succeeds however,the timid join him, For then it costs nothing to be a Patriot.” ~Mark Twain

good for you!

minarchism to anarchism = 6 months.

I hear you. I didn't vote for 34 years due to my apathy for the

...2-party system.

You stated...

"Can we move past the idea that reforming our government could somehow work, or is even the morally right thing to do?"

I think "reforming" is a confusing word because we already HAD a proper type of government when our founders set it up.

It was a mere shadow of what it is today, but that is what it should be scaled back to or "reformed" to.

As Dr. Paul has stated, the federal government should be at most ONE-FIFTH the size it is today and based only on what the Constitution allows for.

"We have allowed our nation to be over-taxed, over-regulated, and overrun by bureaucrats. The founders would be ashamed of us for what we are putting up with."
-Ron Paul

Tried that. It didn't work ...

Then I started smoking again.


Great start, welcome to the club. Some excellent insight on voting and it's consequences can be found here:


And some words of wisdom and inspiration:

“These voters, having given their votes in secret have put it out of your power to designate your principals individually. You have no legal knowledge as to who voted for you. And being unable to designate your principals individually, you have no right to say that you have any principals. And having no right to say that you have any principals, you are mere usurpers, making laws and enforcing them upon your own authority alone. A secret ballot makes a secret government; and a secret government is nothing else than a government by conspiracy. And a government by conspiracy is the only government we now have. You say that “every voter exercises a public trust.” Who appointed him to that trust? Nobody. He simply usurped the power; he never accepted the trust. And because he usurped the power, he dares exercise it only in secret. Not one of all the voters who helped to place you in power would have dared to do so if he had known that he was to be held personally responsible for the acts of those for whom he voted.” -Lysander Spooner


I love reading Spooner! Thanks!

and so it is as he states...

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Principals vs Principles

Thank you providing that Lysander quote.

I just thought it was worth pointing out Mr, Spooner's use of pricipals here.

Mr. Spooner, here, is referring to principal as in the liable principal to the one(s) acting in agency on behalf of, as required under the common law of agency.

Most people have forgotten the common law of agency requires a liable principle as a required element for agency to lawfully exist. This means secret voting literally breaks the law at its root. This means there is no identifiable individual(s) who are the liable principal of those claiming to be agents of the people under law.

Breaking the law in this manner at its root means that court actions initiated by government who claim to be agents of the people and therefore claim that the accuser in the action is the "people" is not provable in fact according to the rules of evidence in the court performing the action. When any court of prosecuting attorney makes a claim that the "people of" [X] is the plaintiff everyone who understands lawfully agency under common law can know that those claims are false and not provable in a court of law because of several things:
Voting is secret - no principal is identifiable
Bills by legislature only- Legislative bills have no formal chain of identifiable source from the people's delegate agents
No presentment of vote- Representatives are suppose to re-present what has been presented to them by the people's delegates in order to vote for a bill hence no presentment should result in abstention by representatives because the liable principals of their agency has not been identified.

I mention this here because I believe Americans failure to understand the common law of agency is the prime failure in upholding the protections of law, whether the crats or the people. Without understanding proper agency within a bounded contractual capacity I see no hope of Americans prevailing to uphold our laws. Once this is understood the law becomes orders of magnitude easier to understand because then the prime issue becomes finding the proper chain of liability. The place of no liability is the tyrants playground called confusion.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Anarcho-Capitalist++ Sub-cons

Sub-conscious Govt. Sympathizers--

For moral reasons, voting and

For moral reasons, voting and universal suffrage cannot go hand-in-hand. This is because the act of voting is basically the act of indirectly deciding how your fund contribution (taxes) gets spent.

With Universal Suffrage people who don't contribute taxes also get to vote thereby creating an permanent conflict between net producers (tax-payers) and net-consumers (tax-recipients).

The only situation where voting would be anything near moral is in a setup where there is no representation (no vote) without taxation and variable number of votes based on net-taxes paid. A person who is a net recipient of taxes will have no vote and a person who pays $10K as taxes will have twice the number of votes as the person who pays $5K. This is the only situation in which voting would be moral and just. But ofcourse such a system is difficult and costly to implement (due to various data collection) and won't scale much beyond a city or county.

I came to this conclusion

I came to this conclusion about a year ago, after the Ron Paul run. Glad I did... Because I couldn't see myself falling for that pursuit again.

Voting is you giving consent. Your signature is your yes vote to the wars and the criminal acts of the government. Do the right thing and don't vote.

Do you like Steph's view on defooing?

Or his groundbreaking masterpiece UPB?


Steph is a kook and an idiot

If you want to learn about anarcho-capitalism, read Rothbard.

As for Steph, you might find this information enlightening (and disturbing):


"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Thank you for that...

I salute you. I was going to search for that video and post it...

I have Stef's voice saying "HAVE SOME PRIDE! For god's sake... walk away." engrained in my memory.


You my friend... are an anarchist

And I welcome you aboard. You have reached the bottom of the rabbit hole, and the pinnacle of philosophy, principles, and ethics.

If you have not checked out Stefan Molyneux or Larken Rose, I suggest those 2 for solid philosophy.

With the NAP (non-aggression principle) alone, it is impossible to justify "a government."

But Larken outlines it even more thoroughly. Larken outlines the 3 principles you can used to defend your arguments:

1. The NAP.
2. Self-ownership aka "property rights."
3. You cannot delegate or grant rights that you do not inherit yourself.

The only problem with the bottom of the rabbit hole.

Is I don't see people actively trying to do anything about it.

Ummmm... Bitcoin, local

Ummmm... Bitcoin, local bartering, time-based currency, "silk road" type of sites etc are all happening right now. Mostly from people that want out of the current system.

What is it that you think should be done? A civil war? An overthrow of the government?

The way out is to just make it easier for everyone to walk away from it peacefully. It will happen naturally and through the free market, and if they try to collapse that it will go through the black market.

It WILL happen.

When in the world

When in the world - with all the material available on a site like this, the combined wisdom (?) of all the patriots that comment on this site - are we going to figure out and REMEMBER that there is a HUGE difference between "violence" and "force"?

Force can be good. You use force to open a bottle of juice, to peel an orange, to chop down a tree, to build a home, to catch a fish, to harvest wheat, etc. But it isn't violence to do these things. (And if you want to argue that, well, go ahead and waste your time but I will not argue with fools who only know how to critique for the sake of critiquing, but don't have common sense. I won't even bother to rebut silly arguments. I will let them stand as a testimony to your ignorance.)

Force can be bad. You can force someone off the road. You can force someone to lie for you. You can force your way into a building, shoving people ahead of you aside. You can force people to bow, to pay taxes, to shut up, to apply for a license to do something they have a right to do, etc. But all of the above violate the rights of someone.

Violence comes from the root word of "violate", so the use of force is never wrong unless you violate someone's rights! Then it is violence.

Likewise government is not bad, as long as it is held in check by the consent of the free thinking, aware people who consent to create the government for their own protection. Only bad government is bad. Good government by virtue of its description cannot be bad. But just because someone calls it good does not make it good. Good government is self-evident by its fruit. The same goes for bad government.

If you do not like government at all, then to call the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and even the Bill of Rights great documents is hypocritical! Furthermore, what are you doing on this site beside trolling since it is dedicated to Ron Paul, the "Champion of the Constitution"?

Libertarian principles are good principles if you know what liberty really means, but sadly, most libertarians don't understand liberty. They only understand what they want - just like spoiled children.

It's time the liberty community matures a little and learns what words mean in honesty instead of passing along good-sounding liberty/freedom rhetoric.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

"Likewise government is not bad..."

Government is BY DEFINITION "violence."

What is the difference between a "normal guy" and a "policeman?"
We GRANT the policeman THE RIGHT to use violence, and we conjure up the authority to make that happen.

What is the difference between a "normal guy" and a "IRS agent?"
We GRANT the IRS agent THE RIGHT to use theft, and we conjure up the authority to make that happen.

Government = "The exclusive right to use violence."

Sorry you have been so beat up...

...by bad government that you actually believe government is by definition violence. If you really believe that then you should never exercise self-governance. Of course, if you did that you would be violating your own life as you would fall apart.

You totally missed the fact of the root word of violence.

You've been so beat up, that I can see it would be a mistake to discuss any serious issue with you. Your mind has been affected adversely.

I am sincerely sorry for you. I hope you recover.

Freedom is the ability to do what you want to do.
Liberty is the ability to do what you ought to do.
"Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." 2 Corinthians 3:17

How can we stop or slow down federal tyranny without anyone

keeping our government in check?

kind people rock

I Didn't Respond to Your Comment Before But Now I Will

You left a comment, ("Do You Think We Should Ignore Our Congress When") in response to my post about voting here
(see: http://www.dailypaul.com/308141/rand-paul-has-a-serious-chan... ).

You implied then and now that petitioning the Congress still works for the people and cited the second amendment initiatives to stop the ban on certain types of firearms (i.e., Ar-15) as proof they listen.

I'm afraid you have become another victim of "hope and change" propaganda if you believe the elitists won't find some other way to restrict our constitutional rights to bear small arms such as ammunition shortages as reported by Ben Swann here (see: http://www.dailypaul.com/307156/exclusive-what-the-media-is-... ).

The tyrants in the central government and their bureaucratic minions don't give a damn about me, my family or you and your family or our God given natural rights to liberty and freedom. They only care about maintaining power and wealth at the expense of the average American.

As I've written a number of times before, Washington is a vile, evil place and nothing will change as long as the people continue to participate in the illusion of "democracy" through the machinations of the corrupt federal system of electing career thugs and criminals.

If the American people truly want change, reject the system by not voting in federal elections as suggested by jglisson in his original post or by writing in NOTA (None Of The Above) on the ballot for every congressional or presidential office. If the autocrats aren't elected they can't stay in power nor the "candidates" who are hand picked by the political party to replace them.

I assure you the next day we all will get up in the morning, eat our breakfast, go to work, and come home. We don't need to be ruled by central government overseers and we must work together to free ourselves from their self-serving despicable policies of corruption and control over every aspect of our lives.

Majority of politicians are actors, I know that.

I'm not saying we should have hope in our government, I'm saying it does help to try and keep it in check because of its' tyrannical nature. Would you rather not of had Ron Paul in Congress? Are we better off without Justin Amash in Congress? Tyranny grows, and pretending like it doesn't within our government can be dangerous to an individual's freedom in my opinion. I advocate liberty in all ways, I'm not saying voting is the answer, I'm saying swinging the bat for liberty is the answer, anyone using THEIR VOICE helps. And yes, I did use the example of the 2nd Amendment rallies earlier this year where individuals contacted Congress to voice out against the legislation banning AR-15s and the implementation of a universal background check. Would you rather the ban on AR-15s and a universal background check to have gone through?

I agree with spreading liberty every way possible, please understand that. My question never gets answered, so I'll ask it once more.

How can we stop or slow down federal tyranny without anyone keeping our government in check?

That is a serious question, so I'm not looking for a lecture on the corruption of our government, I'm curious about the answer to that QUESTION?????????????????

kind people rock