Many people also believe that it is the "voting process" that "forms" the "government". From these beliefs, it would follow that if John (whom I mentioned in the prior section) decides that he doesn't wish to "vote" for the "candidates" offered to him, then he may "form" his friends into the "government" by "voting" for them - if they agree; or perhaps he may "vote" for himself - "form" himself as his own "government" - a self-leader - if he wishes. After all, those who are offered as "candidates" drop their own "vote" into the "ballot"-box (and if they don't "vote" for themselves, then why would they want to be "voted" for by others?). Or John may simply think that the whole notion of "voting" is so absurd that he doesn't even consider "voting" at all, as he may realise that only he can be his own "government" and "govern" himself anyway; and besides, he wouldn't want to volunteer to be someone's slave (by "voting" for a "master").
Either way, if the "voting process" is truly legitimate, at least by this view, then it must be completely voluntary and consensual. It can't be "legitimate" if the established "government" who others "voted for" previously, force others to "vote" for someone who they offer, perhaps out of a selection of parties that are associated with them or their "system" in some way.
Any argument such as: "That suggestion is stupid - how would it work if people vote for anyone they want!"; does not make the current "system" "legitimate" (or even "workable")! -- Unless of course you also believe it would be "legitimate" (and "workable") for John to "decide" that if he "votes" for himself to be "government", then your opinion doesn't matter anymore because from his point of view, only he is the "government", and therefore he may force you to accept his method! -- How would that be "legitimate"? What if John got organised with a group of one million people who all "voted" themselves to be "government", then they "decide" that they may force you to accept their method? Would that be "legitimate"? Another consideration: what if a so-called "majority" "voted" to mislead, oppress, and exploit a "minority" (or vice versa) - how could that be "legitimate" (or "workable")? Is that how things are done now?
Just because there are lots of people with a "superiority"-complex who masquerade as "government" (so-called), and the "majority" of people unwittingly believe and accept them as such, doesn't make their "system" "legitimate"!
So what does? Well, if John "voted" for someone other than the "candidates" offered to him, or if he "voted" for himself, or if he didn't "vote" at all (or if he otherwise indicates that he rejects anyone's attempt to "govern" him without his consent), then his complete lack of association with the "government" that others "voted" for, should mean that anything their "government"-bureaucrats and politicians say, do, or demand (such as with their "laws", "taxes", "regulations", "registrations", etc.) have no relevance or applicability to him. If this is the case, and the people in other's "governments" leave John alone entirely (unless he harms or violates someone else or someone else's property), then I agree, that such a "government" is legitimate - at least when viewed only from the point of "voting". If the "government" bureaucrats around the world today are legitimate, then these are some of the criteria for their foundations and legitimate methods of operation.
But now we need to do a reality check here: It doesn't happen like that! Those who masquerade as "government", impose and enforce their coercive, oppressive, exploitive "laws", "taxes", "regulations", "registrations", etc., upon people like John whether he "voted" for them or not! In fact they don't really care who did or didn't "vote", or who "voted" for whom - they (mis)treat everyone the same.
Now consider all of the above, and you have to ask yourself what is wrong with this "system"? Why do people believe such inherently contradictory things? Or more importantly, how can such an apparently obvious flaw be overlooked?
As an analogy, would it be "legitimate" if several gangs of thieves organised a "system" ("government"?) whereby they allowed you to "vote" on which one of them was to rob you for the next three years?
Each one could put up their "leader" for "election", and say: "here are the candidates you may vote for". Each one would promise to not rob you as much as the other ("taxes"?) - in the hope that you would "vote" for them; and some may even promise to give back some of your money if they rob you too much and make you poor ("benefits"?).
But even if you don't "vote" for any of them, then they will fight it out between themselves as to who will get to rob you anyway! And once they're "elected"... they can break their "promises" as they please!
"Voting" cunningly conceals a great hoax, myth, and fraud from the average onlooker. This is why the (terrorist) bureaucrats and politicians are so determined to perpetuate the mistaken belief that their falsely-called "governments" are "legitimate" through such "democratic" "voting" processes.
"Territorial gangsters are individuals who use force, fraud, terrorism, violence, and threat of violence to claim "jurisdiction" (so-called) over an arbitrarily defined "territory" and the people who happen to be there, and to live like parasites or cannibals off the production of their victims. The primary weapons these territorial gangsters use to control, dominate, enslave, and suck their victims dry are not guns - they are words.
Words are also used to brainwash slaves into believing they are "free"."
- Frederick Mann (edited by David T. Freeman)
I've seen many proposals for "voting reform"; but almost all of the authors overlook the fundamental problem:
No individual or group can legitimately "vote" for what another, or others, should or should not have, do, etc., without the prior consent of the other individual or group. Thus no one can "vote" for a "government" to ostensibly "govern" a non-consenting individual or group. It is ludicrous to try to "justify" any notion that a "majority" should be able to "vote" on how other people should be coerced.
These pervasive "systems" of "voting" ("compulsory" or not) serve mainly to distract people from the fact that they are perpetuating a giant hoax and a fraud! By getting people to "vote", they become stuck in the flawed mentalities of the old, unworkable, exploitive, oppressive, and misleading ways - whether they realise this or not!
Through the process of "voter"-bribery, where most "voters" tend to "vote" for the party who'll give them the most "benefits" (which results in more deception, oppression, and exploitation), amongst other inherent flaws, the whole thing gradually decays, though sometimes this regression is so slow that very few notice it or realise what is happening, until its inevitable collapse (or dissolution, if enough people realise soon enough and either abolish it or withdraw their support).
"Governments" (imaginary entities) are based on collectivist thinking: the notion that a centralised (dis)organisation can and should control another collectivist idea - a "nation" - which really consists of individual human beings - each with unique characteristics, abilities, interests, etc. (people aren't all the same - as bureaucrats would have us believe - as they attempt to apply their same unproductive "system" (drudgery) on everyone). Only individuals can manage their own affairs optimally - unlike arrogant and pompous bureaucrats and politicians.
Compare the current "voting" system to that of groups of people who voluntarily associate with each other for mutual benefit (unlike the current "system" where it's really only the bureaucrats and politicians who are benefitting). There is no coercion. If they decide that they want to vote on any particular issue, then they all agree prior to taking the vote, that they will abide by the outcome. For a vote to be legitimate and binding, these are some of the conditions which need to be considered.
But overall, I reject the entire "system" of "voting" that is currently being used - as do many other people, though they may not state their case as openly or unequivocally as I have here. I also reject the commonly touted assertion that there is a "need" for "voting" and the coercive "governments" they pretend to "elect". Besides, most "government"-bureaucrats, politicians, etc. are hand-picked by others of their ilk. We'd all be better off if the whole "voting" system were abolished today, and all of the liars, impostors, and parasites who masquerade as "government" had to get a real job in the free-market (or learn how to run a business, where they need to offer products and services of value, which people will voluntarily purchase. Of course this would require that they use their minds to think and no longer coerce people - much easier said than done for a parasite.). People in businesses are the ones who "run the country", if anyone does - for those who believe in collectivist notions like that.
One of the problems for most people, when the suggestion of changing or abolishing anything is made, is that they are reluctant to even consider it (let alone do it), mainly because that's how it's been all their life. Another problem is that they suffer from the Semmelweis-reflex, which is the automatic rejection of the obvious, without thought, inspection, or experiment. See Report #03: How to Improve Your Information.
Incase I haven't made it clear enough, the current political "voting" systems (as used around the world in various forms), are not and never could be a solution to any problem you may perceive there to be - they don't solve any problem, they create problems! When any amount of coercion is still involved in the "system" which the "vote" supposedly supports, "reforming" (without abolishing) the "voting system" is hardly going to improve anything!
HOME ~ SEARCH ~ GUEST BOOK ~ CONTACT ~ WHAT'S NEW ~ DISCLAIMER ~ SOURCE AREA
Common Law Copyright David T. Freeman, 1997. All Rights Reserved.
Downloaded from the Personal Empowerment Resources Web-Site: http://www.mind-trek.com/