On this, even the patron saints of deontological individualist anarchism Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard groan at the rationale of the non-voting anarchist population:
"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself." -- Lysander Spooner, 'No Treason'
...
"Many anarchist libertarians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action--the argument being that by participating in this way in State activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the State apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision, and the State has placed individuals in society in an unfree environment, in a general matrix of coercion. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent." -- Murray Rothbard, 'Ethics of Liberty'
...
"I'm interested to talk about that. This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don't think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement – if five million people, let's say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On the other hand, I don't think voting is a real problem. I don't think it's immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people.
Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist's position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you're really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy – that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing.
I don't think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited choice – there's no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn't try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can't say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It's not a fully voluntary situation. It's a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can't vote out of existence. For example, we can't vote the Presidency out of existence – unfortunately, it would be great if we could – but since we can't why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don't see that it's immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open – provided that you don't think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! – which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote.
The second part of my answer is that I don't think that voting is really the question. I really don't care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say "I don't want to sanction the state" and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they'll elect. And it's important, because I think that there is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn't endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don't agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn't vote: he is also saying that we shouldn't endorse anybody. Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins? I don't see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us." -- Murray Rothbard
This much is clear -- Rothbard and Spooner both recognized that the question of whether you 'should vote' or not is very similar to the question as to whether you 'should defend yourself' from attack. Both saw that there is a war waged against your liberty, and it is under attack by those who wish to take it away from you via the ballot box. It's as if there are two sides of line infantry standing mere meters across from eachother -- with each shot fired being a guaranteed kill against the other side. One side is always attacking with the other side always defending -- as neglected and crumbling as it is -- the vestiges of whatever institutionalized liberty is left. Each vote is a bullet, and if the attackers overwhelm the defenders, then, whether you voted or not, another piece of your liberty will, in fact, be destroyed, and the attackers get that much more powerful. Liberty is a fragile thing, and all it takes is one bullet-vote to get past the defenders for it to be taken out, once again.
Shots have been fired and exercising your vote is firing a shot back.
I would, of course, never claim that libertarians and anarchists not voting is 'the problem'. There are a lot of problems, beginning with our values and culture and stretching all the way up to the law and the nature of the State. Solving these problems does not start and end at voting, but if libertarians of all stripes actually, regularly voted, then it would certainly help in stemming the unrelenting tide of assault against our liberty.
 |
| Just don't go in expecting that voting, by itself, is enough in the pursuit of liberty. |
At the end of the day, you will be oppressed by a president and his government. His vision of morality will be brought to bear on you under the machine of the State, whether you like it or not, regardless of your values -- so you might as well honestly reflect on who you prefer, and thus vote for someone who will limit the oppression you will have to deal with and/or maximize as much individual liberty in your life as much as possible. At the very least, even to the extent liberty may not be increased at all with someone voted into office, this can still help in keeping the authoritarian, collectivist hordes at bay and minimizing the damage they can and want to do, in the meantime -- like throwing a wrench in that vast machine that's been created to slowly grind up your liberty.
