A vote for either candidate is a vote for the system. Do you like the system?

People [native Americans] who do not vote for an issue -- whether they abstain or vote against it -- often resent having to abide by it and insist that they should not be affected by the final decision since they did not themselves affirm it. A number of Indian groups -- such as the Hopis here in the Southwest -- are still divided over the issue of their constitution, those who voted against it or who did not participate in the constitutional election, insisting that they should not be bound by the vote of the others. -James E. Officer, Journal of American Indian Education, Volume 3 Number 1, October 1963, INFORMAL POWER STRUCTURES WITHIN, INDIAN COMMUNITIES 109_clip2

Socialists who call themselves liberals should be made to live by all the restrictions -- and suffer all the taxation -- they would inflict on everybody else. ... Likewise, conservatives -- and nobody else -- should be required to live the anal, authority-entangled lives that they would force everybody else to live. -L. Neil Smith, LIVE AS YOU VOTE, The Libertarian Enterprise, 1 June, 1997 109_clip3

KOTA BARU: A bill seeking to implement hudud law in [the Malaysian State of] Kelantan was tabled in the state assembly yesterday. 109_clip4

It gives non-Muslims [~30% of Malaysians are ethnic Chinese, thus mostly non-Muslim] the choice whether they want to be subject to the legislation. 109_clip5

The bill, if passed, will be applicable to every Muslim in the state. 109_clip6

However, Nik Aziz said if an offence under hudud definition was committed by or against a non-Muslim, he had the right to choose to be tried under the hudud system or to make a complaint under hudud regulations. -The [Kuala Lumpur] Star, the people's paper, 25 November, 1993, pg.1 109_clip7

And our native Americans and Malaysians weren't the only ones to recognize that to hold only those agreeing to something to be bound by it is a logical and eminently moral notion. In fact a very clear exposition of this was produced by our own urban literate, Lysander Spooner in his best known tract, No Treason, No. VI - - -

The [U.S.] Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [first published in 1870 remember -lrw] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. --Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority [1870] 109_clip8

In fact, if law were restricted to protecting all persons, all liberties, and all properties; if law were nothing more than the organized combination of the individual's right to self defense; if law were the obstacle, the check, the punisher of all oppression and plunder - is it likely that we citizens would then argue much about the extent of the franchise?
+
If the law were confined to its proper functions, everyone's interest in the law would be the same. Is it not clear that, under these circumstances, those who voted could not inconvenience those who did not vote? -Frederick Bastiat, The Law 109_clip9

Hume's paradox: In his work on political theory, [English philosopher David Hume] describes the paradox that, in any society, the population submits to the rulers, even though force is always in the hands of the governed. [1] PFRM: Hume's paradox The Prosperous Few and the Restless Many (Interviews with Noam Chomsky) Copyright 1994 by David Barsamian 109_clip10

As this theory [propounded by T. J. Lowi, in 'Incomplete Conquest: Governing America,' Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1981 -lrw] goes, participation [in the electoral process] is an instrument of conquest because it encourages people to give their consent to being governed by the state. Stemming from a sense of fair play deeply embedded in the human psyche, people generally obey the principle that those who play the game accept the outcome. Those who participate in politics are no less committed even if they are consistently on the losing side. Therefore, to no ones surprise, politicians plead with everyone to get out and vote because voting is the simplest and easiest form of participation by masses of people. Even though it is minimal participation, it is sufficient to commit all voters to being governed, regardless of who wins.
+
This scheme of politics is remarkably ingenious in the way it exploits the natural inclination of humans toward fair play, loyalty and cooperation in process of subjecting them to conquest. This kind of subjugation of the masses is no recent discovery. Etienne de la Boetie described this phenomenon as 'Voluntary Servitude' over two hundred years ago, well before the mystique of majority rule became the subliminal message in sophisticated, saturation propaganda campaigns instrumented by a mass communication media. - Alvin Lowi, Jr., originally for Economic.net [2] 109_clip11

On the savanna, ... the pressing problem for early hominids was distributing available resources, not conserving resources for a group's welfare. Thus, among people who identify with a small [or large] group, hominid evolution has set the stage for individuals to contribute money willingly toward a group goal. Yet little in our evolutionary background deters individuals [or "selfish" government cliques -lrw] from looting the group's general fund if they want or need money and think they can get away with it. -Bruce Bower, "Getting Out From Number One," SCIENCE NEWS, April 28, 1990, p. 267. 109_clip12

It's internationally agreed that all types of plunder, mayhem or murder are acceptable for a government, as long as it limits its predations to its own citizens.
+
Let me see if I can explain this bizarre game in plain talk.
+
People cordon off a piece of land and arbitrarily announce that it is henceforth a "sovereign nation." Ruffians and schemers soon grab the posts of government, and by the power they vest in themselves set about plundering the individuals who live there. This has been going on for thousands of years, until today the entire earth (other than a portion of the oceans) is divided among different gangs, who wear pinstripe suit[s], and run their plunder under the flag of governments. -Albert Keuls, The Offshore Game, From John Pugsley's Journal, Private Conversations with the Money Masters (and thanx to ) 109_clip13

"Successful politicians are those who can adopt policies which keep them in office by taking the wealth from the politically less powerful and redistributing it to supporters, ...the prudent citizen-voter must pay a steep price even to be informed about the costs and benefits of policy options. Voters, therefore, remain ignorant of costs while politicians remind them of the alleged benefits. All this suggests a great tragedy for modern democracies: The better a political system represents the narrow private interests of some citizens, the worse it may be at fostering economic progress and safeguarding liberty." -Randy T. Simmons, (author "Politics: Markets, Welfare, and the Failure of Bureaucracy (Westview Press)), quoted in "Can Washington Change?," Reason, August/September 1996, p.28 109_clip14

NEW: The abuse of buying and selling votes crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread to the law courts. And then to the army, and finally the Republic was subjected to the rule of emperors. --Plutarch (46 A.D.-127 A.D.) Historian of the Roman Republic 109_clip15

"There are over 22,000 corporate lobbyists [now, 2006 A.D., there are 27,000] in the capital. These are the people who are running Washington, D.C. ...Our country has been hijacked by corporate supremacists who have bought and rented our government right out from under the people." -Ralph Nader, Fox News Channel, 12 November, 2000, 5:10:26 PM 109_clip16

"I see the White House is like a subway -- you have to put in coins to open the gates." -businessman Johnny Chung testifying to Congress in the 1997 Clinton fundraising scandal 109_clip17

"A Nation is surely in a wretched condition, when the principal object of its government is the increase of its revenue. Such a state of things is in reality a perpetual warfare between the few individuals who govern, and the great body of the people who labour. Or, to call things by their proper names, and use the only language that the nature of the case will justify, the real occupation of the governors is either to plunder or to steal, as will best answer their purpose; while the business of the people is to secret their property by fraud, or to give it peaceably up, in proportion as the other party demands it; and then, as a consequence of being driven to this necessity, they slacken their industry, and become miserable through idleness, in order to avoid the mortification of labouring for those they hate."
+
"The art of constructing governments has usually been to organize the State in such a manner, as that this operation could be carried on to the best advantage for the administrators; and the art of administering those governments has been so to vary the means of seizing upon private property, as to bring the greatest possible quantity into the public coffers, without exciting insurrections.[3] Those governments which are called despotic, deal more in open plunder; those that call themselves free, and act under the cloak of what they teach the people to reverence as a constitution, are driven to the arts of stealing. These have succeeded better by theft than the others have by plunder; and this is the principal difference by which they can be distinguished. Under those constitutional governments the people are more industrious, and create property faster; because they are not sensible in what manner, and in what quantities, it is taken from them. The administrators, in this case, act by a compound operation; one is to induce the people to work, and the other to take from them their earnings." -Joel Barlow, [4] "Advice to the Privileged Orders in the Several States of Europe - Resulting from the Necessity and Propriety of a General Revolution in the Principle of Government," written between 1792 and 1795 109_clip18

It is true that the theory of our Constitution is, that all taxes are paid voluntarily; that our government is a mutual insurance company, voluntarily entered into by the people with each other....
+
But this theory of our government is wholly different from the practical fact. The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: "Your money, or your life." And many, if not most, taxes are paid under the compulsion of that threat.
+
The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the roadside, and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful.
+
The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not acquired impudence enough to profess to be merely a "protector," and that he takes men's money against their will, merely to enable him to "protect" those infatuated travellers, who feel perfectly able to protect themselves, or do not appreciate his peculiar system of protection. He is too sensible a man to make such professions as these. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you, as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will: asuming to be your rightful "sovereign," on account of the "protection" he affords you. He does not keep "protecting" you by commanding you to bow down and serve him; by requiring you to do this, and forbidding you to do that; by robbing you of more money as often as he finds it for his interest or pleasure to do so; and by branding you as a rebel, a traitor, and an enemy to your country, and shooting you down without mercy if you dispute his authority, or resist his demands. He is too much of a gentleman to be guilty of such impostures, and insults, and villainies as these. In short, he does not, in addition to robbing you, attempt to make you either his dupe or his slave.
+
The proceedings of those robbers and murderers, who call themselves "the government," [5] are directly the opposite of these of the single highwayman." -Lysander Spooner, No Treason, No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority [1870] excerpted from LP News, Spring 1986. Available on-line here: www.mega.nu [6] 109_clip19

The government, under the pretext of security and progress, liberated us from our land, resources, culture, dignity and future. They violated every treaty they ever made with us. ... My words reach out to the non-Indian: ... Your own treaty, the one between yourselves and the government, is being violated daily; this treaty is commonly known as the Constitution. With us, they started a little at a time, encroaching on our rights until we had none at all. [7] It will be the same for the Constitution; We are ...embattled with ...a mindset that lusts for power and wealth at the expense of life. -Anniversary Statement from Leonard Peltier, Fri, 23 Jan 2004 109_clip20

Belief in the Constitution is essentially a lost cause. [8] That's why it is unpatriotic to vote. Since neither of the major political parties has any interest whatsoever in enforcing the constitutional limitations on the state, they are all traitors to the Constitution (with one lone exception, Congressman Ron Paul).
+
Anyone who supports them is also behaving in a traitorous manner. That is, anyone who votes for any of them. Voting only allows these traitors to the Constitution to proclaim that "the people have spoken" and "I am your president," or congressman, senator, governor, or whatever. Their legitimacy rests solely on their ability to make this claim. Be Patriotic: Don't Vote, by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

109_clip21

No matter who you vote for, the government wins. -Unknown 109_clip22

Serbia will have to hold fresh presidential elections after only 45.5% of eligible voters turned out for Sunday's run-off, independent elections monitors said. Under Serbia's electoral law at least 50% have to take part to make the poll valid. Serbia fails to elect president, BBC, Monday, 14 October, 2002, 04:45 GMT 05:45 UK 109_clip23

Only about 77 million of the 197 million voting-age Americans, a little over 39%, cast a ballot at all in the 2002 mid-term elections. Even in the Bush/Gore presidential election of 2000, only about 105 million of the approximately 197 million voting-age Americans, about 53%, cast a vote for any of the 16 presidential candidates. [9] 109_clip24

Appearing on the TV show Hollywood Squares, American Idol creator Simon Cowell got the question, "Did more people vote in the [Bush vs. Gore] 2000 presidential election or on the first American Idol." Cowell said, "What's more important? Of course more voted for American Idol." The contestent disagreed -- and lost! More people voted for the first American Idol than voted for Bush and Gore combined in the 2000 election. -Hollywood Squares, ~July 17, 2003 109_clip25

NEW: ~"How many major elections since 1900 have been decided by one popular vote? ANSWER: None. So as an individual voter, it doesn't matter whether you vote for the democrat, the republican, the libertarian, the green, or the martian, the odds are overwhelmingly that your individual vote will have no effect on the outcome of any major race what-so-ever. That means you can cast a vote of conscience, a protest vote --- or no vote at all -- and you won't have any effect on the election. You're free to cast your vote anyway you please. You won't effect the outcome in any way." --L. Reichard White 109_clip26

Your vote is irrelevant, except possibly, to you. Major elections that were decided by exactly one popular vote (yours?) are simply non-existent.
+
I regularly make the following proposition to people around presidential election time when I hear, "I'd vote (Libertarian, Independent American, Populist, etc.) but I don't want to waste my vote:"
+
The Proposition: "If you come to me after you vote and tell me you voted for the Libertarian candidate for president and your (Democratic or Republican) candidate loses by one popular vote, I'll give you $10,000 dollars."
+
You have a significantly better chance of winning most lotteries. -journeyman 109_clip27

Reprise: Since neither of the major political parties has any interest whatsoever in enforcing the constitutional limitations on the state, they are all traitors to the Constitution. Anyone who supports them is also behaving in a traitorous manner. -Thomas J. DiLorenzo 109_clip28

If Bastiat, native Americans, Barlow, Spooner, Cowell, Lowi, & DiLorenzo -- and the American electorate -- are all right, what does all this hoopla from the political establishment about voting, starting a year-and-a half before the 2008 presidential election, tell you? Will you be fooled again?

The diffused power distribution on many reservations poses serious problems for outsiders whose jobs require them to deal with Indian tribes. Before one can count on having strong support for a program, it is frequently necessary to discuss it individually and collectively with nearly every Indian in the area. ...
+
There is a pattern for these meetings. ... Finally, all with the desire to contribute to the discussion offer their comments and the matter comes to a vote. At this stage, those who oppose a motion may refuse to vote on it at all, especially if they feel the opposing faction has more supporters than they.
+
Reprise: People [native Americans] who do not vote for an issue -- whether they abstain or vote against it -- often resent having to abide by it and insist that they should not be affected by the final decision since they did not themselves affirm it. -Ibid, James E. Officer 109_clip29

Reprise: KOTA BARU: ...gives non-Muslims the choice whether they want to be subject to the legislation.... if an offence under hudud definition was committed by or against a non-Muslim, he had the right to choose to be tried under the hudud system or to make a complaint under hudud regulations. -The [Kuala Lumpur] Star, the people's paper, 25 November, 1993, pg.1

109_clip30

It [the U.S. Constitution] purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. ["No Treason" was first published in 1870 -lrw] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. -Lysander Spooner in his best known tract, "NO TREASON No. VI." first published in 1870 109_clip31

"I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, & restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere. Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves & sheep. I do not exaggerate." -Thomas Jefferson 109_clip32

NOTES:

[1] Chomsky also suggests that, "Ultimately the governors, the rulers, can only rule if they control opinion --no matter how many guns they have. This is true of the most despotic societies and the most free, [Hume] wrote. If the general population won't accept things, the rulers are finished." SEE also Media's Role return

[2] You can find an updated version here. return

[3]

MUNICH Suddeutsche Zeitung (centrist): Russia's crises have been repetitive, and almost all have the same causes. The government is unable to get a grip on its finances because it is incapable of enacting an effective tax system and of parsuading taxpayers to obey the law .... What Yeltsin needs is money, and lots of it. To get it on good terms, he must convince the IMF that he is collecting taxes to reduce the budget, if necessary, by expropriating the assets of delinquents. -Josef Riedmiller [WORLD PRESS REVIEW, AUGUST 1998, p.7]

109_clip33

Only one in 10 Russians is registered with the taxing authorities. Communists are particularly adept at avoiding taxes. The IMF loans won't go to pay the miners, and others who haven't been paid for over six months, or for any other social welfare programs; they will go to stabilize the financial markets. -NWI, 10 Aug 1998, 4:31:32 PM EDT 109_clip34

The United States is urging the Afghan President, Hamid Karzai, to rein in provincial warlords who are hijacking hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, and has not ruled out US military assistance in the event of a showdown.
+
The US views Afghanistan's deepening financial crisis - which threatens the legitimacy and the future of Mr Karzai's administration - with increasing alarm, a Western diplomat said on Monday. Karzai set for showdown over revenue, May 14 2003 return

109_clip35

[4] In 1788 Barlow went to France as the agent of the Scioto Land Company and induced the company of Frenchmen who ultimately founded Gallipolis, Ohio, to emigrate to America. In Paris he became a liberal in religion and an advanced republican in politics. In England he published various radical essays, including Advice to the Privileged Orders (1792), proscribed by the British government. In 1792 he was made a French citizen. Thomas Paine had become his friend in England, and during Paine's imprisonment in Paris Barlow effected the publication of The Age of Reason. - www.nagasaki-gaigo.ac.jp return

[5] If you're curious just who "those robbers and murderers, who call themselves 'the government'" work for and where they came from you might want to see Silent Partners . return

[6] Also of interest: -Lysander Spooner, "No Treason:The Constitution of No Authority, IV" www.fourmilab.ch and Trial by Jury, 1852, available on-line here: www.mind- trek.com return

[7] See Albert J. Nock, Our Enemy The State for a good synopsis of how this gang of robbers and murderers operates. return

[8] return

[9] Further, Bush, who actually lost the popular vote (47.87% for Bush vs. 48.38% for Gore) -- and even had his Electoral College totals challenged -- was declared winner by the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush received votes from less than half of the ~53% of Americans who could have voted if they chose to. That is, George W. Bush became president even though only 27% of the U.S. electorate, a little more than one in four, bothered to cast a vote for him. return

N+N: Home Page

mailto: L. Reichard