Watch:
Listen:
http://www.cantus-firmus.com/Audio/20200914-theballotisabullet.mp3
Read:
In an election year, especially in a time of intense political polarization like we’re having now, the stakes seem high. We’re always told that “this is the most important election of our lifetime” and we fear the worst if the man or woman we voted for doesn’t get in.
But why do the stakes feel so high? Why does politics make us so suspicious and angry at other people?
As the 19th century natural rights theorist Lysander Spooner wrote:
“without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave… His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself.”
He goes on to describe the ballot as a substitute for the bullet. This an important point, because we’re often told that in a democracy we should use peaceful means like voting instead of outright violence. But what about when voting is violence? In the last election, my right wing friends voted for Trump, even when they didn’t like or respect him, because they saw that vote as a defensive maneuver against a progressive movement that seemed to be on the attack against wedding photographers and cake makers that felt that they had the right to say no to participating in same sex weddings. On the other hand, Trump’s nasty rhetoric against Muslims and immigrants made those on the left fear what a Trump presidency might bring.
In other words, we, both on the right and on the left, are suspicious and angry at our political opponents because we perceive that they are seeking to use violence against us to build the society that they want to see. We vote defensively, trying to protect ourselves by attacking our perceived enemies. And then for libertarians like myself who don’t identify as either right or left, voting is like one big trolley problem where casting a vote for one of the major parties would be like directing a train toward a path where you hoped it would run over the least number of innocent people.
But isn’t there another way? Why can’t we, as the early church did and as alternative societies even today do (such as the Amish), choose to build societies on voluntary affiliation? Why not create a system of governance with the smallest footprint possible so that communities can be organized along shared values and force doesn’t enter into the equation? If you’re a progressive and want to see wealth redistributed, why not create a voluntary progressive community where people choose to share their wealth instead of voting for other people to take it at the end of a gun? If you’re a conservative who wants to see communities built around faith and family values, why do you have to create these communities by force when you can build them on mutual agreement?
We can create the society we want to see without using violence. When we realize that, we can begin to stop suspecting our neighbors and hating our family members, and we can stop believing once and for all that voting for a politician to force our way of life on others is our only hope for protecting ourselves.
Music credit:
F E E F I F O by Failed Kingdoms. Available here: https://soundcloud.com/failedk