Skip to main content.


Email out just now to a casual friend who asked about my choice for President.

I don't vote. I don't believe in voting. I don't believe in democracy. I'm a capitalist and an individualist, and those are, separately but especially in combination, wholly incompatible with democracy. I believe in the ideals of the Declaration, and that the Constitution was a repudiation of them. I believe in governance by the *unanimous* and individually revocable consent of the governed. The only forms of governance that are consistent with that are self-governance or governance for hire by individuals.

Voting is a way of distributing power over other people's lives. I don't want any power over other people's lives, and I don't want anyone having power over mine. The only power I want to share in is the power to trade or not to trade, to associate or not associate, to respect or not to respect. Government itself is the second biggest scam ever pulled over on the human race, and it is the cause of most of the problems in the world today. Those that it is not the cause of are nearly insolvable because government won't get out of the way.

There's no utopias, but there is real freedom, real happiness, and a truly good life available to human beings. Government is an obstacle to that, not a benefit. Rules are absolutely necessary for them, but government is about the arbitrary, and the lawless when law is defined as natural law. Government is chaos.

So, my answer is not only "none of the above", but "never again".


"Voting is a way of distributing power over other people's lives."

This is exactly what I was getting at when I described voting as delegated coercion:

For the life of me, I cannot figure out how so many people have come to revere voting as if it were some sacrament.

There are only two possible types of interaction between people: voluntary and involuntary. Voting is clearly an involuntary interaction.

Posted by Matt at Friday, April 11, 2008 05:56 PM

I understand abstaining from voting as it is now, with every detail of everyone's life in play, and I don't vote myself, but it's possible to elect officers of a government who's only power is to protect rights.

The thing I don't get about anarchy is that one apparently never submits to the power of anything. Put that way, this objection makes even me uncomfortable, but in any dispute, someone eventually has to get their way. A man, when convicted of murder by one authority, cannot just decide that he isn't subject to that authority, but to another more forgiving one or to just himself. The morality of the punishment can't depend on the consent of the criminal. So somebody has to impose their will, right or wrong, on someone else eventually, and then how are they different from a government?

Posted by Luke at Monday, April 14, 2008 06:51 AM


Stay tuned. I won't have time today, but I want to address your objections fully. Some of it fits in with another post I've been mulling over, so the rely to you may come in that form.

In the meantime, think about all the things you accept responsibility for now even though no government (yet) forces you to. Also think about how you currently hold others to their obligations to you without government getting involved, how you treat people who don't keep them, and what the consequences to those people are.

Posted by kylben at Monday, April 14, 2008 07:19 AM

"So somebody has to impose their will, right or wrong, on someone else eventually, and then how are they different from a government?"

That sort of thing can -- and *should* -- be handled by the principals to the case, Luke. IOW: nobody has any business putting "The People vs ..." on the indictment. If it's none of my direct affair, then I don't necessarily want any part in it.

The difference is in the lack of a presumption that some people are unilaterally authorized to act in everyone else's name.

Posted by Billy Beck at Monday, April 14, 2008 08:01 AM

Thanks for the feedback, Guys. I am thinking about this, and I don't want to say something stupid, so sorry that there isn't any response yet.

I want to go find the post on Two-Four about the presumption in question, when I have time. I think that it had something to do with a motorcycle accident. For now, it surprises me that the presumption is the defining characteristic as you both say, and I'm disappointed to not focus on it before.

Posted by Luke at Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:29 AM

Luke, do you mean this:

Not sure if it's the one you mean, but it's a good read anyway.

I'm at work now, but will be getting back to this. Don't worry about stupid, you're willing to think it through, so stupid's not on the table.

Posted by Kyle at Tuesday, April 15, 2008 10:48 AM

Luke, if you're still watching, there's finally a long-ass response at the top of the main page. Sorry it took so long, hope you find it worth the wait.

Posted by kylben at Sunday, April 20, 2008 02:00 PM

Add Comment

This item is closed, it's not possible to add new comments to it or to vote on it