View RSS Feed


How voting is immoral

Rate this Entry
Consider the scenario where you have the problem of wanting to give me access to your money. You can do this in two methods. First, you could give me your ATM card and your pin number. Second, you could give me power of attorney. Either way is completely possible and straightforward - you have something, and you give me access to it. You could do the same with property, or with ideas that you own (you could give me explanations or documentation related to your idea, or simply tell me your ideas in great detail)

This is suddenly made difficult if you consider the scenario where you want my money. You could approach this a few ways, but none of them are guaranteed. This is strange, for you were so easily able to give your property away just a moment ago. if I were to (as I likely would) say no, you would not be able to obtain my money. Well yes you could. You could just take my money. However by making that act, you would be leaving yourself open to retaliation - prior to your choice to take my money, neither of us had justification to invoke force against one another. By using force against me, you allow me to use force against yourself.

But wait, you say. I don't necessarily have to use force myself. If I wanted your money I could simply vote for a government that will take your money and give it to me. After all, this is what corporations do, and what everybody else who votes does. You will only vote for the person who offers you what you want - what sense is there voting for the person who will take your money and give it to somebody else?

But aha, I retort - this is exactly the point: the act of voting in itself is contradictory to the established notion of property rights earlier - if one cannot bequeath what one does not have, how can one bequeath a right one does not have? Could you bequeath to another private citizen the right to assault a third party? Well, no you can't. What if you and five thousand individuals collectively decided to rob a poor fool who was the sole voice of dissent?

Therein lies two conclusions. First, that voting merely redistributes wealth in a way that violates established negative rights regarding property ownership, and second, that voting can only result in unjust conclusions. Either it is tyranny of the majority (as in direct democracy), or it is tyranny of the minority (as in republics, or any sort of Westminster/Parliamentary system).

There is an uncouth argument made that democracy is like a gang rape. I tend to agree, and not because I am being raped, but because I see the gang rape and want to stop it.

Voters, in this sense, are participating in the rape and when approached to stop announce 'hey at least I'm not being raped'

Updated 10-04-2012 at 05:26 AM by Peegee

Tags: None Add / Edit Tags


  1. Jiro's Avatar
    So democracy is inherently flawed, then? What then, if you were to vote for the already incumbent government? You're not voting for change and their actions are already pre-established norms.

    You mention the "poor fool" but what if he wasn't poor? If he was a rich fool, is there something more abstract saying that's okay? I mean he has enough money. Surely we should all be given a level playing field?

    Bequeathing the ability to assault someone is the best idea ever.
  2. Tigmafuzz's Avatar
    Everything is immoral.
  3. Peegee's Avatar
    Good point dak. You have more money than the bum. Give him your money. Or a woman who isn't that grossed out should have sex with a desperate bum. Utilitarianism based on relative "good" is faulty.

    [url=]Austrian Economics and Libertarianism | Walter Block - YouTube[/url]
  4. Jiro's Avatar
    If I give away all my money then I will be the bum. Will someone then give me all their money? How will that stop the cycle?
  5. Peegee's Avatar