Voice for Democracy


At Saturday's meeting you noticed I seemed rather cool to the Voice for Democracy newsletter and asked why.

Perhaps a short answer would have been that I consider voting to be an act of government. Most voters are seeking to impose taxes and obligations on someone else and, hence, voting is mostly an act of aggression and violence like all other acts of government. Unless. of course, you vote against more government.

For example, I tell people who want a raise in the minimum wage that "If you think all these people are worth $11.00 an hour, hire them yourself; don't vote to force someone else to pay more". "If you think CCSF deserves more money, get out YOUR checkbook and write them a check; don't vote to force someone else to pay a parcel tax.

Democracy is a game where everyone tries to live at everyone else's expense. Democracy can only last until people discover they can vote themselves benefits from the public trough at everyone else's expense.

The CfER newsletter on the back says "Californians for Electoral Reform is a statewide citizens' group promoting reforms that ensure that our government fairly represents the votes". What good is that to me, if those votes want to impose taxes and burdens on me that I don't want??? Some people seem to think voting is your most important political right; I desire freedom from the voters.

Les Mangus

I figured you would be. :slight_smile: Copied you in case you don't subscribe to lpsf-discuss (do you?) and wanted to weigh in with any more technical points or data than I have handy.

Love & Liberty,
                                  ((( starchild )))

I do subscribe.

I was hoping you would renew your sub to Ballot Access News, which expired a couple of months ago. You can have it for $12 per year.

Oh, sorry for sending you a duplicate message in that case. It can be hard to keep track of who's on which lists unless I see them post regularly.

  Thanks for the offer on Ballot Access News... How do you feel about increasing transparency and bottom-up governance *within* the Libertarian Party?

Love & Liberty,
                                 ((( starchild )))


I think your third paragraph about the scope of government hits the nail on the head.

Proportional representation will be good only if the majority is against big or more government. Prop Rep might do the Libertarian Party some good, but....it would also empower all the other small parties who are redistributionist and oppressive. European countries generally have Prop Rep and their governments are far larger than ours.

I don't really have any alternative except strictly limited government. If government kept within its proper bounds, it wouldn't matter if it were democratic, oligarchic or even monarchical. "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others...." A democratic government which is redistributionist and activist is as bad as any other. Maybe even worse because the number of tyrants is greater. In a monarchy it's only the royal family that is stealing from me; in an oligarchy it's a small group; in a democracy it's practically every one else.

I am not sure what to say about your last paragraph. Donating to non profits is voluntary; if I find out they are doing things I don't approve of, I can stop donating. There are only two reasons to vote: (1) to impose unwanted costs and burdens on other people or (2) to resist having unwanted costs and burdens imposed on you.
I support the voting rights only of the second group.