Today is election day. Many people will be heading to the polls to select the next tyrant to rule over their lives. Even liberty-oriented people feel that “participating in democracy” is a good strategy for reducing the size of government. They believe that if we can just get the right people in government, then everything will be all right.
This view is all wrong. Voting is not an effective strategy for liberty. To the contrary, the cause of liberty can be even better promoted by not voting. There are three strong reasons that warrant staying home on election day: First, the probability of your vote actually affecting the outcome is negligible. Second, renouncing democracy and its hallowed trappings is a big step toward developing a fully anarchist mindset. Third, and most important, not voting sends a stronger message than voting pro-liberty, or lesser-of-two-evils: low voter turnout delegitimizes the entire statist system. Finally, if we all become non-voters, what strategy should we pursue? The answer is secession – exercising our right to free association.
Voting is ineffective
A common non-voting phrase is “You have a better chance of getting struck by lightning than your vote affecting the outcome of an election.” This has been illustrated over and over throughout history. Rarely has there been an election decided by a tiny margin, to say nothing of being decided by a single vote. The fact is, your vote will probably not make a difference. You are only one out of millions of voters.
But if the probability of your vote affecting the outcome is negligible, what is the point of informing yourself about the election? Moreover, what is the opportunity cost of political action? Voting usually means researching politicians and their platforms, watching debates, donating money, petty debates with friends and co-workers, watching the news for tidbits about the election, attacking your candidates opponents on message boards, etc. All of this must be at the expense of non-political action, such as reading Rothbard and Mises, directly educating people about anarchism, or promoting secession movements (see below). In the end, when you compare the costs and benefits of political action, it is clear that, as a general rule, political action should be minimized and non-political action should be emphasized.
Voting preserves the political mindset
The second argument against voting is about developing a fully anarchist mindset. Market anarchism is truly an apolitical ideology. But participating in democracy indicates a political mindset: that maybe, just this once, the system will work and we can restore our freedoms. As Brad Spangler writes: voting serves “as a rationale to keep you under the illusionary impression that freedom or justice are somehow obtained by changing the policies or leadership of the gang of thugs called “government” — rather than through subverting, defying, ignoring or circumventing the same.”
Also, voting serves to promulgate other statist myths. For example, participating in elections strengthens the dangerous myth that “you are the government”, or that we have a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”. In reality, our government is more like a plutocracy: the vast majority of politicians are wealthy, politically connected elites. Another delusion is that the political process works, and that through it you have power and can effect change. In reality, elections change nothing but the hood ornament; the truck running us over is painfully still the same. All elections really do is distract the masses. The voting circus gives the populace a new shiny toy to play with while they are robbed of their property and freedom. Elections also help preserve the status quo by encouraging people to “work within the system”, rather than going to the root and overthrowing the system itself. One step toward ridding ourselves of these myths is to stop voting. By circumventing the political process altogether you can gain a huge boost towards developing an anarchist mentality and eradicate all traces of statism from your consciousness.
Low voter turnout delegitimizes government
A common worry about voting third party is that people fear it will be a “wasted vote”. Then surely not voting will be even more wasteful? However, the truth is the exact opposite: by not voting we can have a more powerful effect than if we voted. The key to recognizing this truth lies in the fact that the politicians’ credibility and legitimacy depend on the support of the masses. As de la Boétie has shown, the government rests, not on force, but on the public opinion of the citizenry. Hans Hoppe writes of the same phenomenon: “It is necessary to recognize that the ultimate power of every government – whether of kings or caretakers – rests solely on opinion and not on physical force. The agents of government are never more than a small proportion of the total population under their control. This implies that no government can possibly enforce its will upon the entire population unless it finds widespread support and voluntary cooperation within the nongovernmental public. It implies likewise that every government can be brought down by a mere change in public opinion, i.e., by the withdrawal of the public’s consent and cooperation.”
Next, observe that low voter turnout is an effective means to delegitimize politicians. After all, why do politicians beg us to vote, telling us “It doesn’t matter who you vote for, just vote”? The answer is that politicians feel very nervous without mass public support. As Joseph Sobran puts it : “Winners of presidential elections like to claim a “mandate” when they defeat their opponents decisively — that is, with 55 per cent or so of the votes cast. But when half the eligible voters abstain, it suggests a quiet but decisive mandate against the whole political system.” By not voting we can remove our support of politicians, and remove their legitimacy as well. Lew Rockwell adds: “But what effect does voting have? It gives [politicians] what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear.” Thus, politicians must be much less tyrannical when voter turnout is low. Knowing that only a small minority supports them, they must be very moderate with their policies lest the people revolt.
And so, by not voting we send a radical message: that we reject the entire statist system, and will not settle for minor changes like a new hood ornament. But now we need a new strategy. Something that will attack the root of statism, while remaining radical and uncompromising. This strategy is secession.
Strategy: Secession
The right to secession is derived from the right to free association. Either the relationship between individual and government is voluntary and mutual, in which the “political bands” connecting them can be broken, or the relationship is involuntary and hegemonic, in which case the “political bands” should be broken. Anyone who rejects the right of secession must also advocate all forms of slavery. Thus, secession is an individual, unilateral, and unlimited right.
There are also strong consequentialist arguments in favor of secession. First, secession as political disintegration promotes economic integration. Because the new countries are smaller, they have stronger incentives to engage in free trade and to reject protectionism. For example, if New York City seceded and implemented high tariffs, they would starve within a week. But if New York opted for complete free trade they could undercut protectionist governments and dramatically increase New Yorkers’ prosperity. Moreover, as more and more cities become free and independent, there would be an incentive to switch to a common free market money, instead of having, say, 10,000 competing currencies. Thus, secession provides a direct impetus for free trade and economic integration.
Second, secession forces governments to be more moderate. On one hand, governments must be less tyrannical in order to prevent regions from breaking away. On the other hand, seceding regions must also be liberal to prevent emigration as well as further secessions. The prospect of productive citizens emigrating or seceding is a constant, devastating threat to governments, one which pressures them to tax less and show more respect for private property. Secession is a powerful tool which we can use to break down the modern Leviathan state and move toward a totally voluntary society.
Finally, along with non-voting, secession subverts and undermines the democratic process. The integrity of majority rule is violated when a minority threatens to secede rather than obey majority decisions. As Abraham Lincoln wrote: “The principle [of secession] itself is one of disintegration, and upon which no government can possibly endure”. Further, once the legitimacy of secession is granted, it opens up a Pandora’s Box of secessionist claims that cannot be rejected. Secession would have an exponential, snowball effect: Once Vermont secedes, Quebec’s secession will progress more smoothly, New York will become a free independent city, and on and on! This is why governments fear secession so much: once it starts, it can’t stop. Once one secession is granted, entire nation-states will crumble apart.
Thus, not voting and secession are two strategies we can use to rid the world of governments. Instead of going off to the polls, why not stay home and start planning a secession?
