“The government is us; we are the government, you and I.”-Theodore Roosevelt
Well, It’s been a while since I have written something. I’ve been doing a lot of shows and hanging out with Joe once week in Hangouts, but I haven’t really had the time to write anything in a very long time. Because of that, I feel that I’m about due for something. One thing I run into a lot when I talk to people about anarchism or voluntaryism is the idea of voting. Voting gives the illusion that we are the government and that the government acts on behalf of us. While this sounds very nice, it simply is false. There is no way to logically prove this idea that the government has the right to initiate force against peaceful individuals (which is how government accomplishes anything) and that it does so with the consent of the people. I endeavor to explain why that is in the words to follow.
No One has the Right to Initiate Violence Against Anyone
This idea is very simple. It is the non-aggression principle (or axiom as some say) that guides this line of thinking. This principle is the idea that it is immoral and wrong to initiate violence against others outside of defending one’s self and property. I cannot walk up to you, assault you, and take your wallet. That is an unjust initiation of violence against another person. If I do this, you have every right to defend yourself and your property from harm as using force and violence in self defense is perfectly acceptable. Many people, libertarians even (I’m looking at you Libertarian Republic, you filthy statist cesspool) have attempted to throw this principle out by saying that initiating violence is needed from time to time. I have already refuted this line of thinking in a previous piece here. What I wish to dissect is the idea that we the people grant this right to government as our representative. As you will see, if something is immoral for the individual, it must be immoral for the collective.
The Non-Aggression Principle is irrefutable. If anyone seeks to deny it, try asking what they would do if you hit them or steal from them. These deniers will quickly refer to this principle in their defense when they experience the initiation of violence first hand. It is what some call “natural law” or objective morality. It is part of life and nature and this is why all attempts to refute it or disprove it fall flat and carry zero weight. Sure, you can use all of the flowery speech you want in defending the initiation of violence against people, but that doesn’t change how reality works or the knee jerk reaction people have when they experience violence first hand.
Voting is Initiating Violence Against Others
“When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand.”-H.L. Mencken
The truth is that if voting actually instituted any real change, the state would not allow it to exist. Not only that, but democracy is itself an initiation of violence against others. If a population of people are voting on a law and 51% are in favor with 49% opposed, is it really civil to force the other 49% to conform to everyone else under the threat of violence? I would say no. To me, this sounds like mob rule which is the antithesis of “civility”. No, civil people search out a peaceful and voluntary solution without initiating violence against others. Democracy is just the right of kings or divine authority masked as “power to the people.” The individual is still crushed under its boot. Why is that? Because all government is fundamentally a monopoly on violence.
You Cannot Delegate Rights You Do Not Possess to Others
We have established that one cannot initiate violence against others or their property. We have discussed the barbarous nature of democracy and voting. Now we must tackle the delegation of rights that do not exist. What is a right first of all? Rights are not something you are “entitled” to like healthcare or college. If your “right” requires the confiscation of life or property (or both) of someone else, no matter their social class, it is not a real right. Essentially, each of us are free to do as we see fit so long as we do not harm others by violating the Non-Aggression Principle. I have said many times that what is immoral for the individual must be immoral for the collective. Yet, statists believe that individuals are not allowed to rob their neighbor, but they can elect state officials to do it for them.
How does one delegate rights they do not own, to others? Can individuals do that? Maybe I don’t have the right to use your car, but can I delegate that right to others? Of course not, that is a right reserved for you as it’s legitimate owner. As I stated, what is immoral or moral for the individual must also be immoral or moral for the collective. If an individual lacks the right to legitimately steal from their neighbor then they lack the ability to delegate that right to the state (Which robs people in the form of taxation).
So, is the government “us”? No, it is not. This statist rhetoric is simply used to mask the illegitimate monopoly on violence held by the state. It is used to give you the illusion of choice and it is designed to keep you happy as a slave. So long as you are party to the cycle of your own oppression, you will never break free from it. The sad part is that you will continue to sink further into the mire, into the gaping jaws of the state, and all the while you will cry out to the state to save you as it devours you whole.