Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Your "right" to vote and a note about the Founding Fathers

I realize that this post is a bit late as most have already voted and key states pretty much decided. This post is intended to challenge people to reconsider what they are implicitly doing when they cast a vote. I highly doubt this will change anyone's actions tomorrow or 2 or 4 years from now. If I can influence one person, perhaps they can influence another.

Before reading this post I urge you to read the essay A Way to be Free, by Robert LeFevre. It truly changed my life and I think it could change yours as well. I do not think I could write anything better and I will not try. I will keep my argument as concise as possible.

Axioms & Definitions:
  • Definition - I will refer to the State as a territorial monopoly that receives its income through involuntary exchange
  • Axiom - Exchange can only take place between individuals
  • Axiom - Exchange can either be voluntary or involuntary.
  • Definition - Involuntary exchange is an exchange that is made due to the use, or threat (i.e. coercion), of force. Fraud, theft, rape,murder, assault are all examples. Blackmail cannot be included so long as coercion is not involved. Slander is excluded because you do not own how another perceives you.
  • Definition - Natural, or just, rights are rights to control property that are acquired voluntarily
  • Definition - Unnatural, or unjust, rights are rights to control property that are acquired involuntarily
From the above we can conclude that all taxation is a form of involuntary exchange as it is acquired through coercive means. Income received as a result of inflation (i.e. money printing) and any other form of currency devaluation is also involuntary because it constitutes fraud. Also, the owner of property acquired through involuntary means cannot be considered the rightful owner.

It follows that the institutions that are presently referred to as governments are unjust because their income and property are acquired through involuntary means. In addition, any individual or organization that receives property from a government is also a member of the State as that property was either acquired through; a) taxation or b) conquest.

Finally, any individual that has their property taken by involuntary means is a slave. From the second axiom we know that there can exist at any time only two relationships between any given set of individuals; the ruler (i.e. the master) or the ruled (i.e. the slave). Participating in the State is an acceptance of this relationship. By voting you are condoning slavery and the right of your representative to rule over others. To claim otherwise is an example of cognitive dissonance.
The "right to vote", in conclusion, is an unjust right.

A note on the Founding Fathers:

I'm tired of hearing the nonsense being touted by "libertarians" and "constitutionalists" that the Founding Fathers were some all-knowing, all-caring group of people that established a limited central government. This could not be further from the truth. Consider this:
  • The Constitutional Convention was held to replace the Articles of Confederation because the members of the existing federal government were upset that they did not have any power.
  • Of the 40 that signed the Constitution only 7 also signed the Declaration of Independence. None of whom were Thomas Jefferson. wiki
  • Ratification was rushed hastily through the states (sound familiar?)
  • The new federal government began violating the Constitution less than a year ratification.
  • An executive, legislative, and judicial branch will not check & balance one another if they are all part of the same institution.
  • The Constitution was created by politicians.
For further reading, please see The Anti-Federalist Papers and Albert J Nock's, Our Enemy the State.


Scott Lombardo said...

I like all different views and enjoy reading your opinions. But (and it is possible I've missed something) what is your idea for a better system? Most of the time (it seems) you're just criticizing the establishment (an easy target from many angles these days).

Zach Bush said...


Thank you for commenting and taking the time to read my blog. Unfortunately to adequately address would be too lengthy for a comment. At some point I will do a series that lays out what an ideal society would like and how to get there.

The short answer would be this; my ideal society is one where all exchanges/interactions among people are voluntary (i.e. the non-aggression principle). This is commonly referred to as anarchism or voluntarism. Legal and defense services would be provided by court and police companies.

Like LeFevre, I'm not naive enough to believe that there will ever be a moment in time where everyone will respect the person and property of others. I do think, however, that it is insane to believe that granting institutions (e.g. governments) the power to commit unjust acts will create a peaceful society.

For a clear outline of what a Libertarian society might look like please see For a New Liberty by Murray Rothbard.