There is no reason whatsoever to vote in the upcoming presidential election. Seriously, who am I going to vote for? Obama? Give me a break. Romney? Don't make me laugh. Of course Ron Paul isn't even on the ballot. Nor is Gary Johnson (I live in Michigan). Just hold my nose? Not a chance in Hades. The "lesser evil" is still evil nonetheless.

Voting for either of these two clowns would mean not only my tacit approval of the Status Quo, but imply my endorsement of a political platform I abhor. It also would mean that I took the time and effort to go out of my way to support evil, which is something I refuse to do. Hey, I do have to live with myself when all is said and done.

I do not support the arbitrary powers wielded by the federal government these days (particularly its Executive Branch). I think the very idea of putting my life, liberty, property and 'pursuit of happiness' into the hands of the criminal gang which occupies Washington, DC, is totally nuts! I consent to none of it. These creeps and charlatans aren't merely unfit to rule … they should be (permanently) locked behind bars.

I get why people want to kick the corrupt and contemptible Democratic Party out. What I don't understand is, how anyone could possibly think putting the odious Republican Party in power could even marginally restore "truth, justice, and the American way." It's a leap of faith that flies in the face of all of life's experience … talk about a fairy tale.

Both wings of the federal government — Democratic and Republican — are more than guilty of "a long train of abuses and usurpations." One could argue (correctly, I think) that it's unAmerican to support either of them. But what good would it do? If the high taxation, crushing debt burden, failing economy, open-ended wars, non-stop lies and systematic assault on our personal liberties hasn't radically changed opinions regarding this two-party charade … what will? We're too busy "rooting for clothes" to even think about it. May God have mercy on us all.

Last but not least, "we" are not the federal government. Our forefathers understood this, which is why the Bill of Rights specifically protects us — private (unique) individuals — from the federal government. As Murray Rothbard put it,

The government does not in any accurate sense "represent" the majority of the people. But, even if it did, even if 70 percent of the people decided to murder the remaining 30 percent, this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part of the slaughtered minority. No organicist metaphor, no irrelevant bromide that "we are all part of one another," must be permitted to obscure this basic fact.

If, then, the State is not "us," if it is not "the human family" getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area; in particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet. Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.

By its very nature, the state works against, and ultimately consumes society. Its tools are immoral and unjust. You can argue all you want that the state will always exist, and you may even be right. But that doesn't mean I have to support it by voting for Statist Schmuck #1 or Statist Schmuck #2. After all, that certainly sends the wrong message.

We, the Anti-Electorate, do not believe there is a need for "strong leadership" in government. We are not drawn to "intellectual" authorities and political "heroes." We are not impressed with titles, ranks, and pecking orders … We do not lobby the State for favors or permission to control those with whom we disagree. Rather, we advocate freedom. By its very nature, the State does not. Exercise your right to say "No" to the warfare-welfare system. Refuse to vote. Then tell your friends why. — Wally Conger, The Anti-Electorate Manifesto

 
P.S. — Contra popular myth, the truth is that if you vote for evil (even the "lesser" kind), you have no right to complain. What did you expect? You didn't really believe all those campaign lies, er, uh, "promises," did you? "Garbage in, garbage out." I'll let George Carlin take it from here.

  • Chris

    Fantastic post, CL. It seems you have summed up my feelings on this election year entirely. It's funny, I constantly hear from people on both sides that this year is an especially IMPORTANT election year... Hm. Given what the media and parties chose as candidates that's like offering me a cup of arsenic or laundry detergent to drink. Either way, you're going to have a bad time. I hail from Missouri, in my mid-20's and have a few friends that are libertarian minded. Since Paul is out, maybe Johnson will be on my ballot? If not, maybe I'll just write in Batman.

    • http://the-classic-liberal.com/ theCL

      Yeah, it's soooo IMPORTANT. We're supposed to pick our favorite criminal - the one wearing "our team's" clothes, then argue with our neighbors over it instead of turning on the 545 schmucks occupying DC.

      Talk about a recipe to destroy civil society.

  • http://humboldtlib.blogspot.com Fred Mangels

    Voting for Gary Johnson in California.

  • Dont_Ever_Vote

    Every political action is trying to answer the following 3 questions:

    Who shall we steal from?
    Who will do the stealing?
    How much should we steal?

    Voting is essentially saying, Candidate X will do that stealing, from those people, and hopefully only steal X amount. It's all still theft!

    I also want to point out that voting for the lesser evil is still voting for evil, and the greater evil is always the one who gets elected because he is the one that will be in charge of the theft.

  • Pingback: Sunday Afternoon Links: The Hay Roll Edition | motorcitytimes.com

  • ccoffer

    What abject stupidity. The only choice one ever has in any election is to do what one can to keep the worst candidate out of office. Far too many self-worshiping asswipes see voting as some strange form of masturbation wherein all that matters is how they feel about themselves while they're voting. We have a Communist in the White House. If you're too stupid to see a batter alternative in Mitt Romney, you were never on America's side anyway.

    May you rot.

  • JP

    I vote for no one, Thats my choice. Wont make a difference if I did. There are 2 sets of laws one for the working man and another set for the politicians. I will never vote for these criminals. It makes me want to puke listening to their token speeches and the people actually fall for this bullshit. Carry on cocksuckers!!!!!!!!!