Wednesday, August 15, 2012

The Only Choice on November 6th

By Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

The critical problem we face today is the same one all mankind has faced: the State, those monopolists who claim the right to break the laws that they make and enforce. How to restrain them is the critical problem of all sound political thinking. Making matters worse, this gang now has a monopoly on the money and the ability to print it, and they are abusing that power at our expense.


How does voting change the situation? Neither of the candidates for president wants to do anything about the problem. On the contrary, they want to make it worse. This is for a reason. The State owns the “democratic process” as surely as it owns the Departments of Labor and Defense and uses it in ways that benefit the State and no one else.

On the other hand, we do have the freedom not to vote. No one has yet drafted us into the voting booth. I suggest that we exercise this right not to participate. It is one of the few rights we have left. Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket they have cooked up for us, and we want no part of it.


You might say that this is ineffective. But what effect does voting have? It gives them what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear.

This year especially there is no lesser of two evils. There is socialism or fascism. The true American spirit should guide every voter to have no part of either.


Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. [send him mail], former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard, and editor of LewRockwell.com. See his books.

19 comments:

  1. I agree, and never vote, but what happens if no one votes? Does the government shut down or do they declare their own winners?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I imagine that if nobody voted, they would just do the same as they do now: rig it. Also, no. The government doesn't shut down merely because a politician hasn't been elected. In fact, you could remove all politicians from the picture and the state apparatus would still function just as it does today. It's a self-perpetuating entity, the politicians are only there to make you feel like you have some say in the matter.

      Delete
    2. It's about destroying the myth of legitimacy.

      Also see, Time to Boycott the Election...

      "What if they staged an election and no one came? No one but suckers and fools who were programmed to chew on empty slogans, that is. So will we be idiots, yet again, this November? Or will we respect ourselves by calling out these sneering imposters who have hijacked our country? Let's collectively expose and discredit them."

      Delete
  2. ROMNEY MIGHT NOT BE PERFECT BUT...BUT... BUT...WE HAVE TO STOP THE MARXIST MUSLIM OBAMA FROM TURNING AMERICA INTO A SOCIALIST COUNTRY! <---Typical Republican sheeple response.

    OBAMA MIGHT NOT BE PERFECT BUT...BUT...BUT...WE CAN'T LET ROMNEY WIN OR WALL STREET WILL BE GIVEN FREE REIGN TO LOOT THE 99 PERCENT! <---Typical Democrat sheeple response

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think it's a bad suggestion. I think it would be more positive to vote for gary johnson. It does a much better job sending a message that I'm not happy with the 2 choices I've been given. I don't think anyone will care if there is less voter turnout. Anyone can interpret that however they want.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The government shut down? And pull the plug on all of their lucrative programs? "...or do they declare their own winners?" When have they not declared their own winners? They're declared for decades to come and decades preceding. On this one issue of presidential elections, I am absolutely cynical because it is so evidently clear--that they own the f^*#ing contest. I could do better on the 5th race at Santa Anita or on a Super Bowl game than I could on the presidential elections, for whoever wins I lose. Always the final 2 candidates are so much alike on ever policy issue that they have nothing to discuss, so they have to invent ad hominems and appear as though they are breaching debate etiquette to which the public holds them to. The ad hominems are crumbs for Americans who are looking for a good fight where there is no difference. They are of the same class, sometimes blood related, and always members of the same organizations. They're peers who've known each other and their connections and their families for a very long time. The media is not going to draw a chart on the screen for the viewers to show the financial, business, social, and blood connections between the two candidates. They have to appear as mortal enemies engaged in mortal combat. Just think World Wrestling Federation with opponents dressed up in silk costumes that resemble a demon or a gladiator with cute little silk masks that cover their eyes. Then backstage they're talking about little leagues games their kids are in for the weekend or how they're going to their nephew's wedding on Saturday. Drawing a chart with connections would mean pulling the plug on the pageant. There are no issues discussed on the national scene. We only get personal attacks--"You did cocaine!" "Well, you were seen leaving a rodeo bar with 3 strippers!" That's their appeal to the moral majority. People watch in dismay, caught in kaleidoscopic disbelief and cognitive dissonance, all designed to turn people off from local political action and to remind us that the system does not belong to us. No issues come to light on the national political scene. The best place is local action. And the best advice is to just start. Track what local organizations do, who has connections with local government. You may find that your city is run by or co-opted by gang cartels, as my city in California is. A suit is as much a costume as is a man in blue with a tin star. But each one is bound by his reputation, his business, or by his career. But it is worth tracking local government, utility companies, and civic-minded organizations and within these spread the Ron Paul line--limited gov't, cut spending, sound money, end gov't regulation on businesses. Most people don't have the time, let alone the stomach, for it. But a little bit each week or each month, recording your experiences on a blog for all to learn from can be a powerful organizing tool down through the years and the months.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You have the freedom not to vote. We who do vote then have the freedom to tell you to STFU when you complain about the government.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Its kind of pick your poison or better yet, your brand of fascism. Do you like your fascism with a socialist flare then vote for Obama and if you like it with a more nationalistic flare pick Romney. Either way we lose.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Unfortunately, the ever-growing number of gov't dependents always win.

    At this point, the lower-level dependents (welfare recipients, faux disability recipients, food stampers, etc.) outnumber the higher-level dependents (defense contractors, corporate welfare junkies). So that means Obama wins.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree too and I've always voted.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Lew has spent so much time and energy promoting Ron Paul, and talking about politics in general that taking a principled stand against voting falls really flat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What the heck are you voting for? What do you do when both candidates are essentially the same? Yes we know, the dems are for the working man and the reps are for the rich or the dems are socialists for the lazy and the reps are free marketers for the real hard working Americans, but these are nothing more than party line rhetoric for the dimwits that fall for that kind of nonsense. Anyone capable of doing a little reading quickly learns that they both serve the same masters. Why does anyone need to vote given such choices?

      Keep in mind I am referring to not voting for President and not not voting at all. Chances are there are local things on every ballot that are worth voting for.

      Delete
  10. I am going to be the only person in Alabama to write in Ron Paul's Name

    ReplyDelete
  11. I understand Lew's point, but I'm not convinced. If you have a liberty candidate in your district you might as well vote for him/her. I still use the post office, even though I don't think it should exist.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There are a few local leaders here I like which have truly done good for my community so I will be going to vote for them but as for the children running for "president"... I'm writing in Ron Paul whether he's running or not.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Abstaining from voting does nothing to check from the power of the state. To truly oppose state power, one must become a vagrant, fugitive, tax "evader", criminal or saboteur. Even then, opponents of the system play the role of visible enemies and as such can be exploited by the state for propaganda purposes.

    Voting for principled third party candidates would be more effective if more people would do it. He is not Ron Paul, but Gary Johnson deserves serious consideration this cycle by any proponent of free markets and sound money who is dissatisfied with the establishment alternatives. Anti-war, pro-civil liberties leftists on the other hand should reject Obama and vote for Jill Stein.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I disagree-- go vote. Even if they won't count Ron Paul write in votes or because Gary Johnson can't win. Just don't vote for the lesser of two evils.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-15/cynicism-intellectual-cowardice-cop-out-rationalize-fear-and-laziness

    ReplyDelete
  15. I don't usually vote, but here in California in November, there are a bunch of new taxes to vote against. All the tax eaters wil be voting for them, so every vote against them is needed. For President, I'll either write in Ron Paul again, like I did for years ago, even though they don't count write-in votes here. Or else I'll vote for Gary as a protest vote.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I suppose no one on this blog knows the story of the great Coluche, the French comedian worshipped, with good reason in France, by the masses. He was a fine analyst of the French and French statist society who confronted the French with themselves and made them love it. He decided to take apart the political fraud by presenting himself as a candidate for the presidency in a giant satire on the system and its vile inhabitants.In no time his candidacy took off and under the impact of the pressure of public opinion, the candidacy became serious. The political caste who were initially nervous, began to panic. Huge attempts behind the scenes were made to head him off, including very serious threats. The clergy saw vividly that they were being de-legitimised. The pressure on him was so intense that he began to drink and finally he pulled his candidacy.The public outpouring was such that he was being pushed to reinstate it.He was killed in an accident on his motorbike at a very low speed when a truck coming the other way pulled directly in front of him, in front of his friends on motorbikes. Bikes were his passion. He held the world 1km speed record. The strong suspicion is that he was put out of the way. This is France. These things are not impossible.The panic of the political establishment on both sides was striking. They were aware that for the first time there was a legitimate protest vote. People who had voted Communist, National Front,not voted, or with reluctance for one of the conventional parties were declaring their intention to vote Coluche in huge numbers. There are two ways to undermine this statist system. One is to delegitimise it by not voting. It would be well if the system had a provision for voting and being registered as a vote for'none of the above',recorded in the final count as such. The other is a giant movement for a tax strike. But before this, we must have a debate about how we are to replace statism.In the meantime, vote refusal accompanied by a campaign to count the refusals will help. Voting for the fraudulent statist priests is a cop out. Where is the movement for reform.

    ReplyDelete