How the Vote Works

How the vote works

Nigel: Hi I'm Nigel.

Joe: And I'm Joe.

Corrina: Why are we here?

Nigel: We have decided to form a collective. To pull our resources and define our individual identities as a single unit.

Joe: Right, and we intent to equalize the three of us so that we all have, equal, fair lives. For the good of all of us!

Nigel: Exactly.

Corrina: Um, okay.

Joe: That's consent! Let's go!

Nigel: Before we start, though. I'm a little peckish. Is there any food?

Joe: No, but Corrina has a purse.

Nigel: Ah! Then to our first order. I proposed we establish a bill that requires those whom have purses, when the rest of us do not, share the contents. That the percentage that they share is 60%. They keep 40%.

Joe: That doesn't sound fair to Corrina. We'd be taking more than half.

Nigel: Oh, no, no, no. We'd split that 60% and each get 30%. She'd still get to keep 40%; the largest of the three shares.

Joe: Right! Okay.

Corrina: Wait? What? Why do you even want my purse?

Joe: Because you probably have food in there.

Nigel: Maybe Twinkies. I would really love a Twinkies right now.

Corrina: I don't have any food in my purse! And even if I did, you aren't getting it by those tactics! You even think to just ask?

Nigel: All in favor of taxing Corrina's purse?

Joe: Aye!

Nigel: Aye!

Joe: The aye's carry the motion, the law is passed.  Corrina hand over your purse.

Corrina: Screw you. Molon Labe!

Nigel: Seems we've run into a snag. I propose that we give ourselves the authority to enforce our laws. After all, we are writing them to benefit the group. All in favor for being able to enforce our laws?

Joe: Aye!

Nigel: Aye! Great the Aye's carry it and it is now law. Corrina, we demand, by the authority of our law that you hand over the purse!

Corrina: Or what?

Joe: Right...or what. What can we do Nigel? She might have a gun in that purse. Neither of us has a gun in our purse, because, well, we don't have purses, which is plainly unfair as you pointed out and we should equally have a percentage of what's in her purse. Including that gun!

Nigel: I propose we hire a third party to enforce our laws. This way we remain safe to write laws.

Joe: And by doing that, we create an insulation layer between our laws and those being affected by the law. We can call this insulation, a check and balance. Because our enforcing agent will appear to be doing the enforcing because he wants to, because he finds it moral and correct. Not because, well, we wrote them and he is simply doing our bidding because we keep him paid. I love it. Aye!

Nigel: Wait, before you vote, remember she might have a gun. We need to ensure that our enforcement agent is able to enforce the law and protect himself while he is enforcing our laws. So I'd like to add two addendum's to the prospered law: 1. Guns for citizens are now illegal, this will make it easy for or agents to know right away who's willing to fight them and of course give them the authority to enforce our laws. Our enforcement agents should have the power to 'protect' themselves...

Joe:... oh, I like that, "protect themselves"....

Nigel: ...yes, protect themselves when citizens refuse our equal and fair laws, thus 2. Law enforcement should be armed with the latest tools, which in this case is the gun. If lasers come out later, then those, but right now guns. The biggest guns they can get.

Joe: Great. Aye!

Nigel: Aye! The law is passed. Meet Tony.

Tony: Sirs!

Corrina: Who is that?

Joe: He's our enforcement agent.

Corrina: More like jack booted thug.

Nigel: You know, Joe, she's right. Enforcement agent sounds like an element forced on people without the concept of equalization involved. Even though Corrina, just by being here, gave us her consent to be forced to hand over her purse, we need some other word for what Joe does.

Joe: Law enforcement is what he is though. It seems pretty obvious to me.

Nigel: Right but, we need a "Hearts and Minds" approach. So how about a nice catch phrase, like "To Protect and Serve!"

Tony: That is brilliant, Sirs! I can now protect and serve...

Joe:... the law. *laughs

Nigel: Exactly! *laughs

Tony: Now hand over your purse, ma'm.

Corrina: or what?

Tony: I'm trying to do this the polite way, miss. You know the law, comply or... what do I do if they don't comply?

Joe: Oh, well, you use force.

Nigel: I propose that if resistance requires our Law enforcement officer to use force to get the citizens to comply...

Joe:...and by doing causes our officer to be in danger that he wouldn't be in before...

Nigel: Right, that too. The officer can do what he requires to get the individual to comply and then we can work out necessary punishments, prisons, executions, what have you, at a later date. 

Joe: Aye!

Nigel: Aye! 

Corrina: FINE! Here's my purse.

Tony: Thank you for your co-operation.

Corrina; Your not welcome and Fuck-you-very-much.

Nigel: Wait there are no Twinkies in the purse!

Joe: I propose that those who are lucky enough to have purses must always have a supply of Twinkies available.

Nigel: Aye!

Joe: Aye!

Corrina: Wait, not only are you stealing my property, but now you are demanding that I purchase property for you to steal?

Nigel: When you put it that way, you're right. I proposed that for those that refuse to buy Twinkies, because they want their independence, those selfish bastards.That they be charged a tax of 5% of whatever is in their purse, above the 60% we're already taking. An additional 5%, that increases every year by another 5%, until they comply with the Twinkies law.

Joe: Aye!

Nigel: Aye!

---------epilogue

There is an image going around, again. On the left side it shows a number of people, then a divide, and on the right side a much larger section of people. Above this larger section of people, it shows a talking bubble, indicating that many of them are saying: "I don't vote because it won't change anything".

Of course, the image is trying to imply that this means that the majority of people, that is the number that does not vote, is somehow being led by the minority, that is the lesser group of people that it is assumed by the image are voting. Obviously there are many problems with this image, but let us start with the first big failures, for the rest of the problems voting creates, look up Constitution for Fifth Grader or Lysander Spooner. Here are what the images wants you to believe:

**Majorities = moral reality**
The image implies that if the majority does vote it somehow has the 'right' of choice and by doing so the majority gains a moral reality. If the minority votes and the majority stays silent, the imagine is saying that the majority is in the wrong, outright foolish to let the minority dictate reality to them. Thus: in order for voting to have a moral prerogative, the majority must vote, else its akin to a crime against the social morality of the majority of people. A view, where the child runs the parent, a view in opposition to the formed sense of moral reality.
This is of course a lie.
The individual owns the self. The vote, either by a minority of people or a majority of people does not give the voting populous any authority over the individual. The only method available to the voting populous to take control of the individual is by violence. One need only think on it this way: if nine of ten people vote to eat the minority, does the minority simply roll over and point out what part of them is the most tender? No. The minority fights against the majority, it goes about its own existence. It ignores the vote and keeps a wary eye on the teeth the majority claims to own. In other words, the vote has no real power over the individual. It's the illusion of reality that the majority uses to form moral reality, not actual reality. Majorities, therefore, cannot simply create moral reality simply by being the majority.

**Thus Majorities can dictate reality to minorities**
If the majority, as the image implies, has the moral authority of the populous, then it gains, by the vote, the authority to determine reality for the minority (It gains the view that it can eat the minority, a moral truth is created by voting regardless of actual reality). This means, simply that the minority has a survival imperative to become the majority, so that its ideas of reality are not destroyed. All voting by design is combat designed to create 'citizens' of what were once individuals and to put them at arms against their neighbors. Ask anyone about taxation and listen to the vitriol they scream when they say taxation is part of life. The 'citizen' makes the assumption that the only way to lower taxes is by paying taxes to a government employee who then agrees to consume himself. An absurd proposition.

**And thus, individualism, self ownership is wrong by the vote**
This means that voting must destroy individualism. It has to hold a view of making people citizens, or cells, of the body called Country. Voting is comparable to cancer, in that it intentionally pits parts of one against the other and tries to convert as many as it can to its views and eat away those that do not agree. Doctors would suggest cutting out the cancer, but voters always suggest that its the lack of voting that is the issue, when in fact, the doctor's opinion of cancer is actually correct. Moral reality is owned by the individual, not some group calling itself the majority.

The individual says, "I don't vote because it makes no difference" not because he has given up, but because he realizes that no one owns him and he does not give anyone else the authority to determine his life and does not want the responsibility of owning someone else's life. The individual acknowledges that the only source of interaction, is by voluntary exchange, not coercion.