For many, voting is an emotional topic, where years of cultural conditioning and mythology collide head on with physical reality. It is not uncommon to see the “democratic process” defended with religious fervor. We are immersed in pro-voting advertising messages. For some reason, it’s very important to Hollywood celebrities that people vote. Young people are told to “rock the vote.”  

It seems prudent for freedom lovers to consider the question, can we vote our way to freedom? While some avoid all participation in government, others see the electoral process as a way to seize the ring of power.

Notable libertarian, Professor Walter Block endorses voting as a strategy to gain more freedom. His argument is presented as a familiar, seemingly pragmatic analogy. Murray Rothbard and Tom Woods have made similar arguments.

In a recent LewRockwell.com article (https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/03/walter-e-block/libertarians-trump/), Dr. Block ponders: “Suppose we were all slaves, and the master said we could have a democratic election; we could vote for overseer Baddie, who would whip us unmercifully once per day, or overseer Goodie, who would do exactly the same thing, but only once per month. We all voted for the latter. Is this incompatible with libertarianism?”

"But, the perfect is the enemy of the good. It is our goal to throw our weight behind the candidate who has a reasonable chance of actually becoming President of the United States whose views are CLOSEST to libertarianism.”

It is this logic that led Dr. Block to form “Libertarians for Trump with a mission of "mobilizing massive support for Donald Trump within the libertarian community.”

Let’s unpack some of the underlying assumptions of the analogy.

Assumption #1) There is a candidate that will rule in a “more libertarian” fashion, and we can discern which one that is. In Dr. Block's view, Donald Trump is that candidate, but how could he know? Does he believe what politicians say? Any correlation between what a presidential candidate says and how they rule when elected is purely coincidental. It is often contradictory. Remember, George W. Bush campaigned on a “humble foreign policy” and “no nation building.” Picking a “more libertarian” candidate based on campaign rhetoric is highly problematic.

Murray Rothbard, who is often cited as a pro-voting example for freedom lovers, acknowledged in his criticism of Samuel Edward Konkin III’s, New Libertarian Manifesto, that “there might well be circumstances—say when both masters are similar—where the slaves would be better off not voting in order to make a visible protest.” All modern “electable” presidential candidates support every aspect of the welfare/warfare/regulatory state. With only minor difference in rhetoric, their range of actual positions is barely perceivable compared to their distance from libertarianism. It would be hard to deny that Murray’s similitude requirement for non-participation has been met.

Assumption #2) Votes are counted correctly. Election fraud is as old a democracy itself. Google “voting machine hack” to see exactly how insecure the entire process is. Numerous hacking demonstrations can be found. The only real surprise is how easy it is. 

Assumption #3) The act of voting will actually affect policy outcomes. While candidates may bicker over certain details, only candidates anointed by the establishment institutions ever come close to winning a major election. Without the support of the banking cartel, military industrial complex, government unions and a host of other special interests, the presidency is out of reach. Whoever wins will continue to wage endless wars abroad and at home. This is by design. Every component of the system has been built to enable and protect the entrenched powers. Gerrymandering, ballot access restrictions, pre-scripted conventions, super-delegates, campaign finance regulations… all play a role in blocking the will of voters.

Overwhelming evidence is available to support the conclusion of the 2014 Princeton University study, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens” (http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746). This scientific study concluded that "economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”

Assumption #4) There are no adverse consequences to voting. This might be the most dangerous assumption. What if voting for a ruler became "a mandate of the people” to commit unspeakable acts of evil? To maintain the veil of legitimacy, rulers require a justification to rule. The pharaohs of ancient Egypt claimed to be gods. When people stopped falling for that, the rulers invented the “Divine Right of Kings.” In other words, the ruler’s authority was god-given, and obedience to his will was coerced through fear of sanctioned earthly punishment and the threat of eternal damnation. War and plunder were declared “god’s will.” Eventually, people stopped falling for that too. That’s when they invented “We the People” as the source of authority. In this narrative, rulers are ordained via the ritual of democracy. Phrases like “we are the government” deflect criticism of government employees committing horrible acts. Through the alchemy of democracy, the rulers’ immoral acts are transmuted into “the will of the people.”

Few have the level of understanding of the political process that Dr. Ron Paul has. He recently stated “More people are discovering that the system is all rigged and voting is just pacification…” During a recent RT America interview he concluded: “I see elections as so much of a charade … So much deceit goes on … I’ve worked on the assumption that for many, many decades, that whether there’s a Republican or a Democrat president, the people who want to keep the status quo seem to have their finger in the pot and can control things…”

US elections a ‘charade’ – Ron Paul to FishTank:

Let’s revisit the analogy of the slave master election, but let’s make it a bit more accurate.

Suppose we are all slaves and the master said we could have an election to choose an Overseer. The slave master hand picks two choices. Candidate Stick-In-The-Eye or Candidate Kick-In-The-Crotch. Both candidates are well known for their horrendous brutality. The votes will be counted with special devices given to you by the slave master. The slave master will tally the results and will tell you what the outcome is. There is no way to verify the results. 

This process is so important to the slave master, that he invests in a massive PR campaign to convince slaves that it’s their duty to vote. If they don’t vote, then they can’t complain about the lashes, etc. After the election, the selected Overseer will accept his mandate from the slaves, and commences the lashings. Once criticized for the barbarity of chattel slavery, the slave master now explains that through the miracle of democracy, it’s actually the slaves enslaving themselves.                                                  

When a few slaves bring up the idea of a slave rebellion, they are denounced as radical “purists” who don’t understand the process. “Another vote is coming in four years. It is our goal to throw our weight behind the candidate who has a reasonable chance of actually becoming Overseer, who views are CLOSEST to abolishing slavery.”

Under these conditions, would you attempt to vote your way to freedom? Would you play their rigged game? Or would you refuse to participate, deny the slave master moral cover, and proceed with a rebellion, unimpeded by childish wishes for the perfect Overseer to make the plantation great again?