Putting aside moral arguments against voting and the utter ineffectiveness of using the state to shrink/smash the state, please consider the practical matters. You’ve seen it time and time again, a big push to get pro-liberty types to get behind one candidate or another, only to be disappointed by the candidate’s utter defeat on Election Day. The excuses for why they lost, just like the hopes of every new group of supporters are the same year after year; accusations of voter apathy, mainstream media ignoring or belittling the candidate, a lack of money, etc… Although each of this hints at the real issue, none of them ARE the real reason their guy/girl lost; there aren’t enough of them. There may be a place in electoral process for liberty activists, but it isn’t in voting for a candidate.
Minority Report
A small minority will never win an election, by definition Democracy is majority rule. Things are looking up for libertarian ideas, according to a Gallup poll 23% of American voters consider themselves socially Liberal and economically conservative. This is a fairly safe definition of libertarian. Unfortunately, despite their views a majority of those voters are going to vote either Republican or Democrat, no matter how much they disagree with the candidate, because of team loyalty, or because no 3rd-party candidates stand a remote chance. Even if by some miracle you were to get all 23% to vote libertarian, the best you can hope for is that their candidate acts as a spoiler, skewing the result away from one of the major parties, in favour of the other.
Walking the Plank
What can be done? How can a small minority achieve any victory in a democracy? Winning enough candidates to make a difference is out of the question, but winning policies isn’t. Vote-friendly activists may advance pro-liberty policies at the polls by following the model of the Socialist party in early 20th Century America, the “Religious Right” in the 1990s, and the Environmentalist Movement now; forming coalitions and getting your policy suggestions adopted as planks by one of the two major parties.
Coalitions allow you to use the less consistently pro-liberty as tools to get needed changes made inside the system. Alliances can be formed with the mainstream Left fighting war, the war on drugs, the death penalty, the trampling of civil rights by the Patriot Act. Working with the Right on gun freedom, reduced trade restrictions, and fighting the welfare state. Focusing all your effort on one issue, under an issue-specific banner, will allow more success than trying to get someone elected whose stances will manage to piss off both the Left and Right.
Running a candidate can be a great idea, but don’t expect her/him to win. If (s)he scares the major candidates into thinking that (s)he may become a spoiler and cost them the election, they will do anything to steal her(his) supporters. The evangelicals represent a small part of the GOP but have successfully gotten horrible policies like Abstinence Only Sex Education passed as laws, and yet not had major electoral success in getting their candidates elected. Republicans, fearing the loss of that minority voting block, adopted those policies. The political branch of the liberty movement could have similar successes.
So what will it be, a continued push to get one or two folks elected who will later betray the voters, or a chance for in-system activists to actually make a change?
Xaq Fixx lives outside Charlotte, NC with his wife, Garland, 2 Cats and roomate. He supports the freed market and the voluntary society while opposing the initiation of force. He runs Fr33 Labs for the Fr33 Agents Network.
Xaq is an avid practitioner of the DIY ethic, enjoying Home Brewing, Screen Printing, Art, Bike Maintenance and Customization, Cooking and fiddling with a soldering iron in his workshop.
As the Market Research Manager for an International Multi-Media Firm Xaq has spent the last 5 years traveling and exploring new technology, policy, & web marketing trends. 
I think that those other groups (Religious Right, Socialists and Environmentalists) all have a huge advantage on us as they want to grow and take over the power that is government.
There are a few things I’ve never quite understood about this particular strategy.
1. How do you ‘choose’ the issue? People have differing ideas on what should be ‘the issue.’ That’s the whole point of it all – our individual preferences within a framework of freedom.
2. Candidates have no idea why an individual voted for them and they will gladly assume that voters agreed with all of their stances. So even if you work only on a single issue, you end up helping to prop up all the other issues too.
3. What makes you think the end law you helped create (and if you want to get involved in an issue, unless you are going for all out repeal and amazingly get it, you will be creating yet another law) will be even close to the real goal of freedom?
My recent observations on this revolve around the marijuana issue. From what I’ve seen, the only thing that is occurring from any single issue political action in this area is that some politicians are starting to see it as a good thing, not because people should have that freedom, but because it would simply be another product to tax. It has nothing at all to do with individual freedom. So is it really a step forward?
Xaq, I don’t understand why I should ever put aside moral issues. Voting is immoral. It is the imposition of force, at least by delegation. It seems silly to put that idea aside.
Your final question comes from the department of false dichotomies. I won’t support candidates that would betray me. Since voting is immoral, I won’t vote for any candidate. There is no chance for in-system activists to change anything. At best, they can, by sometimes failing to do their jobs, do slightly less harm.
Your entire essay seems to be predicated on the classical liberalism fallacy. Governments do not derive their authority from the consent of the governed. They derive their authority from the power of those who control the state. Governments are not instituted to protect life, liberty, and property. They are instituted to separate the unwary from their property for the benefit of those who control the state. All externally imposed, coercive government is surplus order.
There is no possibility for change by working within the system because the system is not broken, from the perspective of those who use its power to smash faces and get loot. The system works for the banking gangsters who got away with trillions of dollars (from the treasury and from the Federal Reserve) in the last year. The system works for the death merchants who sold three trillion dollars worth of garbage, mostly guns that jam and bombs that don’t explode, to the military. The system works for the big pharmaceutical companies that are the only ones who can get new drugs through the FDA “process” and got a big prescription benefit from GW Bush and are getting what they want from health care “reform.” The system works for the patrons in politics who pass out favors to the vested economic interests who hire lobbyists to corrupt them. Against this vast array of happy, wealthy people getting exactly what they want from government, what, exactly, do you and your in-system activists, your reformers, and your Ron Paul rEVOLutionaries plan to muster?
You’ve got nothing. Because you insist on doing what the admirals in the Navy did with every Japanese atoll in the Pacific. You keep insisting on frontal assaults against fortified positions.
Give up on politics. It saps your energy and disappoints your activists. Focus on creating markets, wealth, and opportunity in the golden economy. Turn your energy to buying and selling, building and networking. With wealth, with a network of friends who are wealthy, and with time, the state will wither and die.
You lack patience. When waiting is fulfilled, change will be. Prepare to act rightly at the cusp by not acting when it just doesn’t matter.
Maybe I’m just a multi-tasker, I can’t give up on politics. I believe our country is in this situation because too many people said the problem is too big or too dirty or too crooked so – I “Give Up.”
I may look at things rather simplistic. But I have been a register Independent for almost 30 years. I have basic voting principles that have worked well for me. They are:
1. If you know a candidate is honest, then vote for him or her.
2. Else vote for the 3rd name on the ballot.
3. If only 1 or 2 names & neither honest, see rule #2 & write in “Micky”.
4. ALWAYS, ALWAYS vote the judges out.
5. Absent a knowledgeable opinion, watch who advertises the most and vote the opposite on that issue. Right always has less money to persuade.
Now, you may say, what a waste of time. Your candidate never wins. To that I say, you’re right BUT I long ago realize, before the teaparties, before the outrage, that there was no difference between R&D. So, my main purpose in voting is so that I can bitch.. and for that it works great.
I know several friends have adopted these simple rules in voting, and I’ve noticed that the third person seems to be getting more and more votes each year.
I call my philosophy “Line 3.”
Now, to explain the “Honest Person” vote.
First, political beliefs or standing: If the person is honest, I don’t care where they stand because first and foremost I want an honest person representing me.
Second, how can you tell an honest person? For me, it is the person who is taking heat in the mainstream media for their “stands.” In Nebraska it was Ernie Chambers. He was called every name in the book by the media, but he was honest as the day is long. He was a man that you could have an honest discussion with and come to terms on items. In the House, it would be Ron Paul. Here is another person that has been roasted by the drive by media, yet one thing you can rely on – he is a man of his word and he stands by it. I have to admit after years of abuse, it is nice to see him being interviewed in the media. Again, I do not agree with these individuals all of the time or on all of the issues – but I trust them and I know where they stand. If I was to look out onto the horizon, I would say Sarah Palin is honest. Why? Because of the attacks by the media.
I take little else into account. I will always prefer an honest person to one who tries to buy me with platitudes and promises.
Now, to explain “vote the judges out.”
All judge positions are appointed, very political. Being very anti-political, I therefore vote the way I do.
So, there is my simple philosophy on voting… remember “Line 3″
Jim – I’m not asking you or anyone else to do anything (s)he considers immoral, this article is meant for who don’t share those objections. Did you even read anything beyond the first sentence before writing your diatribe? Let me make this perfectly clear: I do not support the election of any candidate & the political system will never be used to effectively end the political system. I have never voted for President, Senator, or even dog catcher.
I am not defending the state or looking to justify the existence of any state. I am simply offering a strategy for slowing the growth of tyranny in certain areas and possibly winning tiny advances to regain some freedoms. Is it wrong for a slave to want hit less hard and less often even while being against slavery?
The in system activists made advances against slavery and Jim Crow, etc. etc. Yes, they were all reductions in evils allowed and created by the state, that could not exist in a market based stateless society, but we aren’t there yet.
Debbie
1 – What ever issues you as an individual feel most strongly about, the entire movement, or even every like minded individual have to join in. It may be advisable to get behind whatever issue is most popular with the general public at the time though. Use the Zeitgeist to your advantage.
2 – I didn’t say to vote for a candidate, even one the shares a specific stance on a specific issue. Do you think the Democrats that Bush was pandering to when he passed the prescription drug bennefit are now GOPers, and how man republicans are now Obama followers after he said torturers will not be prosecuted? Of course you don’t, fear of a loss of support or a chance for increased support, in the name of an imagined political capital, or votes or money, even when counter-factual drives the change. In politics, like in all marketing, perception is reality.
3 – There are very few (if any) statutory laws that ever advanced freedom, just ones that either confused common law or directly violated it. The exception being those that limited, repealed, or blocked the creation of even worse laws, those do not make you free at all, but stem the growth of tyranny in a temporary and specific way. There is more in the political field than the passing of laws though, the Anti-War movement doesn’t seek to repeal a law or pass a law, but does seek to promote peace, a pro-liberty ideal.
We should run campaigns to convince folks NOT TO VOTE.
“Knock the Vote,” anyone?
Mock the Vote
http://anti-politics.ws/
The only way the anti-politics would work is if 100% of the people joined… wouldn’t happen. So the result is.. well the result would be you get what you get… more bad leaders.
Even the Indians, aka heathens, acknowledged the importance of leader within their tribes. Maybe we should go back to selecting a few good men to fight for that privilege to lead.
Or better yet, lets have no leaders, and let each person’s moral compass, with property right, be their guide. Then we can wait for the Huns or the Muslims or any other aggressive group to band together and take what was ours. I just don’t see it working. But please educate me….
Private security firms for domestic security combined with an armed and educated populace. State armies do not do very well against armed civilians defending their homes. Vietnam comes to mind.
Check out
mises.org/etexts/defensemyth.pdf
No vote = can’t complain about the state of the union…
Actually, I think George Carlin’s “Don’t blame me, I didn’t vote” is more on target.
I don’t care about the state of the union, I just want it to leave me alone.
Oh, I can certainly understand that “just leave me alone.” I say it every payday as I remit taxes to our government. But they don’t leave us alone now, and can you imagine if it gets worse…much worse? If you have a car, they tax you; if you have property, they tax you; if you work, they tax you; if you want to get married, they tax you. Sorry, I’d join you if there was such a place but there isn’t.
I’ve even tried overseas, and if you can believe this, it’s worse.
So, all I can do is try to change our direction BEFORE my utilities triple; before they start taxing me for every mile I drive; before they hire everyone either onto welfare or onto the state/federal payroll making it impossible for small businesses to have any staff; before they say I can’t practice my religion; before they come into my home and take my possessions because something NEW is now illegal…. you get the idea.
ps I love George Carlins “Save the earth routine…”
Line 3….
Utterly wrong. If you vote, you are agreeing to be bound by the outcome of the election. By casting your vote, you agree that the people voting get to choose.
So if you vote, you don’t get to complain.