• Voting: The 'God' That Failed!

    Email Print

    by Gary D. Barnett: Constitution
    Worship Revisited: I'mStillFedUp!



    is morally tragic whenever a citizen's only choice is between two
    wrongdoersu2014that is, between two trimmers.

    E. Read … The
    Lesser of Two Evils

    I am constantly
    amazed by my fellow citizen's reverence for voting. This blind worship
    for this worthless endeavor is troubling to say the very least,
    but nonetheless firmly entrenched in the minds of the masses. Almost
    from birth in this country, we are taught that voting is a "sacred"
    right, a right so important as to be one of, if not the greatest
    right. I must not have been indoctrinated properly by the government
    school system, as I consider the most sacred rights as those natural
    rights to life, liberty, and property, certainly not casting a ballot
    for one or another criminal in politics.

    I consider
    voting today only as an avenue that allows one group to legally
    plunder another, and a process that fully legitimizes a corrupt
    political system. Those who vote are obviously supportive of the
    political process and the political actions taken in this country,
    and are responsible for those they elect, and for what they do in
    office. This is why I think the old adage that "those who do
    not vote have no right to complain" is backward. Those who
    vote to allow the political carnage are the ones responsible for
    the problems, while those who don't vote have nothing to do with
    electing criminal politicians. Therefore not voting is in and of
    itself a political statement denouncing the system, while voting
    shows favor of that same nefarious system.

    One of the
    major problems of voting as I see it is that those who vote for
    this, that, or the other, are setting policy that affects all those
    who voted differently, and all those who did not vote at all. This
    is democracy or mob rule, the first step toward a socialistic and
    collectivist system. The reason this is so is due to the fact that
    we live in a forcibly run dependent society where one can vote to
    benefit at the expense of another. This truth is overlooked by the
    "I Voted" crowd, but nonetheless is the lynchpin of redistributive

    So who are
    the big winners due to this scheme called voting? Who benefits the
    most? The government and all its corporate sponsors, including the
    banking system, are the real winners of the voting process. They
    are the controllers; they are the takers and users. They use force
    in order to gain power, and to steal via extortion the honestly
    earned wealth of others. They gain the "right" to rule
    over the country and us, and are legitimized by this scam. By selling
    the notion that voting gives everyone a say in politics, little
    is questioned after the fact. The politicians controlling the government
    sit back and revel in the notion that they have been chosen the
    new Caesars by the people's vote. They were properly elected in
    a democratic process you understand. They are the people's choice.
    The dust has settled, and the people have spoken!

    How can any
    sane individual believe that this political process is not fatally
    flawed? How can any not understand that voting leads directly to
    one group ruling over another, this regardless of whether a minority
    or majority wins the day. Either way, those elected to power rule
    over all others when voting is the method used to choose, and this
    type of rule ultimately eliminates liberty and leads to tyranny.

    While the government
    benefits most from this procedure, the supportive public is just
    as responsible for the harm caused. Their votes authorize government
    action, and give willing consent to the elected king and his court.
    This group consent determines our individual lot in life, thereby
    destroying our individuality. If our society were based on self-reliance
    and self-responsibility, if our laws were based only on our natural
    rights to life, liberty, and property, if the individual were sovereign,
    would voting be necessary or would it even exist? Would we need
    "rulers" in a truly free society?

    Politics breeds
    corruption, and voting supports that corruption. The masses in this
    country have been force-fed the notion that voting is their sacred
    right. They have been brainwashed into believing that the vote is
    what sets them apart from slaves. The exact opposite of course is
    true. They have been taught to ridicule all those who would question
    this "sacred" right, and are not embarrassed to do so.
    Voting in the "minds" of most in other words cannot be

    Consider the
    recent Rasmussen
    highlighted on Lew Rockwell's Political
    showing that over 83% of the lemmings
    in this country believe that one person's vote really matters. In
    a country of well over 300 million people, how in the world could
    anyone think that their single vote counted? Even if they thought
    this possible, how could they accept that this voting was moral,
    when that same voting legally allows for one to be abused for the
    benefit of another?

    The act of
    voting has become so entrenched into this society that its validity
    cannot be questioned without rebuke. It is considered by many to
    be the rock of democracy, the literal cornerstone of liberty. While
    this thinking is nonsense, it is still the mainstream position,
    and therefore important because our lives are ruled by this dangerous
    and asinine process. Even if the current system we live under were
    not present, would voting then be more legitimate? Would the fact
    that one could not benefit at another's expense be enough to justify
    voting? I don't think so, because the act of voting would still
    always pit one against another in deciding the outcome of life.
    These things should be based only on natural and inherent rights,
    and all disputes should be handled privately. This way, one part
    of society is not constantly at odds with the other.

    I can think
    of only one instance in which voting could be considered legitimate.
    That would be in a system where all those who wanted to vote acted
    voluntarily, and accepted the outcomes of their own actions, while
    all non-voters ignored the entire process. In other words, all who
    did not participate in voting would be completely exempt from all
    decrees passed down by those elected by the voters. There would
    be no consent given, and therefore none granted. This is a just
    way to eliminate the rule of one over another within a corrupt system.
    It is a way to stop rule by a majority, or even a minority over
    those who disagree.

    No one who
    had any belief in freedom could ever have come up with the idea
    of voting. Voting by definition and design eliminates the individual
    in society for benefit of the collective. Individualism epitomizes
    freedom, while collectivism epitomizes slavery. Voting then is simply
    mob rule, the bane of freedom, and the fodder necessary for a society
    based on servitude!

    ass first let loose the doctrine that the suffrage is a high boon
    and voting a noble privilege?"

    ~ H.L. Mencken

    14, 2011

    D. Barnett [send him mail]
    is president of Barnett Financial Services, Inc., in Lewistown,

    Best of Gary D. Barnett

    Email Print