Why I Won’t Vote on May 5th (or is it 7th?) – and Nor Should You

(Neil’s Note: This essay is from my archives. The date stamp on it is April 28th, 2005.

Ten years on, I could write almost exactly the same essay again… – except for two things. One, I would be far less kind to both the Lib Dems and UKIP than I was a decade ago. And two, I would raise the question: “Who do I vote for to get all the bureaucrats sacked with their pensions cancelled, and all the politicians lined up and shot?”)

On the fifth day, of the fifth month, of the fifth year, of the century that would have been the fifth if the calendar had started in 1601, every adult in the islands called Britain is invited to take part in a charade. That charade is called a general election. It’s that time of the decade again, when the politicians offer us a chance to rubber-stamp their system. They ask us to select, from among a field of candidates, which best represents our views. Such selections, totted up in more or less complicated ways, are to determine which of two (or perhaps three) criminal gangs is to be granted licence to rule over us against our wills for the next four or five years.

Democracy, say the pundits, brings power to those who represent the will of the majority. Oh, yeah? Let’s look at the record. Last time this charade took place, in June 2001, just 24 per cent of eligible voters voted for Labour. 76 per cent of us didn’t. 40 per cent of us – only one per cent less than Labour and Tory voters put together – did the honourable thing, and refused to engage in the farce. Did the will of the majority prevail? Not a chance. The lying, thieving gang that call themselves Labour were awarded another licence of all but absolute power to bully and rob us all.

Looking back at Labour’s propaganda from 2001, you can see coming some of the crap they have thrown at us in the last several years. You can sense the glee with which they looked forward to wasting more, and more, and more of our money. You can see them limbering up to clobber us with enviro taxes and regulations. With hindsight, you can snigger at their lies about improving quality of life or helping businesses of all sizes. Though I myself, a victim of IR35 – Labour’s cynical attempt to ruin my career and the careers of tens of thousands of other honest, productive, one-man business people – am more likely to snarl than to snigger.

And yet, there is much bad that Labour have done, which they didn’t bother to warn us about. There was no mention of starting a war. There was no mention of their accelerating destruction of our civil liberties, although that had started before 2001. There was no mention of banning smoking in public.

So, what do B-Liar and its minions have to offer me this time round? My family better off? I don’t have a family. My children with the best start? I don’t have any children. My community safer? I don’t feel any sense of community in bloody Britain today. All Labour can deliver is the same crap as before. More lies, more spin, more taxes, more wasting of the wealth they steal from us, more bureaucracy, more new “crimes,” more senseless laws and more police to enforce them, more violations of basic human rights like privacy, more destruction of liberty.

What of the most obvious alternative, the Tories? I confess that, twenty years ago, the Tories had me fooled. I was stupid enough to vote for them in 1983 and 1987. But I know better now.

What do the Tories offer this time round? A few good-sounding things. One, lower taxes – they have even been talking about possibly repealing IR35, though I’m not holding my breath. However, they still want to spend more. How can that add up? Two, ending “Blair’s war on the motorist.” Nice idea, but a bit rich coming from the party that started that war in the first place!

And although (at last) rejecting the EU constitution and the euro, the Tories still want Britain to remain in the European Union. What, then, will they do whenever the EU orders them to do something that contradicts their manifesto?

And there is a strong whiff of the jack-boot about many Tory policies, like school discipline, more police, more immigration controls and a US-style homeland security minister. Furthermore, they supported, at the time, the war in Iraq. And I get a sense that some of them, at least, are eager for more military adventures.

But the worst thing about the 2005 Tories isn’t in the headlines. To find it, you have to dig a little deeper. And, when I found it, I almost collapsed in horror. For the Tories have gone green. Not only have they gone green, but they crow about it! They want to “show leadership on climate change.” They even re-cycle green slogans. My local Tory candidate sent out a letter headed “National vision, local action.” Or was that “Think globally, act locally”?

I want you to think, hard, about the effects your vote will have, if you choose to vote for either Labour or the Tories. Will innocent people be harmed by the policies of those you vote for? Do they deserve that harm? What will those victims think of you, when they find out what you voted for?

If you vote for a political party that is currently in power, you are endorsing its record. You are saying, I like what they have done, and I want more of the same. If you vote for Labour, then, you are signalling your acceptance of their culture of lies, spin and invasive regulation. You are approving their destruction of civil liberties, and their use of terrorism as a lame excuse for it. You are rubber-stamping their war in Iraq, and accepting a share of the responsibility for all the deaths it has caused. You are expressing your support for banning fox-hunting, and for banning smoking in public. You are sanctioning their tapping of our e-mails. You are asking for compulsory ID cards. You are condoning their ever increasing theft of our earnings. You are approving their waste of our wealth, and their bureaucracy. You are applauding their arrogance and their treating us like naughty children or lower life-forms.

If you vote for Labour, you are also committing an aggression against me personally. For you are endorsing IR35. You are saying, it’s OK, even good, for politicians to cynically destroy my career. You are, in essence, punching me in the face. What do you think my reaction to you will be, if I ever see you in need or in trouble?

If you vote for Labour, you’re either stupid or evil. You’re either so damn stupid that you don’t understand what Labour are doing to good people, or so damn evil that you actively approve of it. Either way, you aren’t my fellow human being.

So, what if you pick the Tories instead? Not much difference there. If you vote Tory, you are endorsing not only their current policies, but also what they did in their last spell in power up to 1997. Don’t forget that it was the Tories that first made the environment into a political football. Don’t forget that the Tories started the witch-hunt against our cars. Don’t forget that the Tories screwed up the railways and the education system. Don’t forget that, just eight years ago, so many people were so fed up with the Tories that even B-Liar looked like a better option.

And, now they have swallowed the green gospel whole, a vote for the Tories is also a vote for the Big Lie of our time. That is, the idea that human activities are causing runaway global warming (or is it cooling?), which must be stopped by draconian measures. The political establishment are using this climate-change Big Lie as an excuse to suffocate our Western civilization. If you vote for the Tories, you are – as well as buying more police, more immigration controls and the rest – buying the Big Lie. If you vote Tory, you’re stupid, and you’re hostile to my civilization. And that means you’re hostile to me.

So, what of the third lot, that call themselves the Liberal Democrats? They have never had power at national level, so we can’t judge them on that record. They do, however, have power at the local level in many places, including where I live. And it’s a mess. Their favourite pastimes right now are, one, sending out garishly coloured flyers congratulating themselves on how wonderful they are. And two, closing off key roads for weeks on end to install chicanes and speed-bumps on them.

What of their national policies? They talk of a “green backbone” to all their policies. They have big tax and spend plans. They favour more re-distribution of wealth. They talk a lot of crap about communities. They treat the National Health Service as if it was a god. They favour the EU super-state. They, too, want more police and are anti-car. There are a few small pluses, like their opposition to ID cards and to war in Iraq. But overall, I don’t see a big difference between the third lot and either Labour or the Tories. If you vote for them, you’re stupid, and you’re not any fellow of mine.

So there you have the three so-called major parties. There you have the three criminal gangs that alone have any realistic chance of forming the next government in Britain. Labour, corrupt, thieving and authoritarian, and green underneath. The Tories, corrupt, authoritarian and green, and – despite mouthing about lower taxes – still thieving underneath. And the third lot, green and thieving, and no doubt as corrupt and authoritarian as the others underneath. Add a tinge of racism in each of them – more than a tinge, in the case of the Tories – and there you have your choice.

Choice? What choice? Whichever of the three major parties wins the election, taxes will continue to go up and up, and freedom, the general tone of society and the quality of life will continue to slide down and down. No-one who values liberty, honesty or earned prosperity can vote for any of them.

If you really feel you have to vote, what other alternatives do you have? There are, of course, the extreme greens. But their policies are depraved. The Big Lie of climate change is a central plank in their platform. They are actively against earned wealth. They talk of “reducing our burden on the planet” and “tackling the root causes of demand for mobility.” This is a radical, anti-human agenda. If you care so little about human beings that you want to forcibly impose such policies on us, you don’t qualify as human.

Then there is the United Kingdom Independence Party, UKIP for short. At first sight, UKIP seems a different and better animal than the rest. They do not, so they say, see themselves as politicians. They are against “ill-conceived intrusive regulation, supposedly to protect our environment, to ensure our health and safety… and to protect us from terrorism.” They say No to “the culture of paperwork, performance targets and spin.” They say No to political correctness. They want “to turn back the culture of regulation and to strive for smaller government.” They are not actively anti-car. They understand the problems, which are stopping very many people (including me) from saving for our own pensions.

But UKIP’s main policy, which drives all others, is for Britain to leave the European Union. I can agree with this, though I go further. I would like to see the EU dismantled. My recipe for a Europe worth living in is, open all the borders, sack all the bureaucrats, and pillory all the politicians.

For a few days after I read their manifesto, I thought I might vote for UKIP, assuming of course they have a candidate in my area. For me, a conscientious non-voter of 18 years’ standing, this would have been a radical decision. But a few days’ contemplation convinced me that voting UKIP wasn’t for me. For three reasons. One, though they favour smaller government, their world-view is still top-down, of a state ruling over people, rather than bottom-up, of free individuals voluntarily forming a government to defend themselves. Two, I don’t know them well enough to know what I would be getting into. Three, they’re not going to win this election anyway.

Next, the British National Party, or BNP. The media tell us that they are neo-Nazi racists. But anyone whose right to freedom of speech is under attack from the political establishment deserves at least some sympathy. If we let them destroy the BNP’s freedom of speech today, it will be my freedom of speech that is in danger tomorrow, and yours the day after.

That said, the BNP and other right-wing fringe parties do not interest me. I am not into either racism or nationalism. I see people as individuals, and therefore find it odd, to say the least, for anyone to try to use skin colour as a reason to discriminate against (or for) them. Only how they behave matters.

And I have come to find the idea of nationalism increasingly ridiculous. Most of all when those, that support political policies designed to harm me, try to make out that because of their nationality or residence they have a claim on my resources or energies when they are in need. I find it absurd that, because I was born in Leatherhead, I am expected to feel a comradeship for someone born in Caernarfon or Edinburgh, which I am not expected to feel for someone born in Adelaide, Chicago, Rotterdam or Sofia. I might as well be expected to feel fellowship for someone just because they were born in the same week as I was. (The comparison is apt. For I was born in the same week as B-Liar).

Those, for whom I feel fellowship, are those who are on my side. My fellows are those who, over the long run, benefit me and strive to benefit me, and those who share my values. My kind of community will cherish individual freedom, common-sense justice (the idea that individuals deserve to be treated as they treat others), economic productivity, striving for excellence, honesty and desire for truth. No community, of which I could feel a part, would even admit any of today’s lying, thieving, bullying politicians as members.

I will pass quickly over the two parties I call Triveas and St. Creep, that are no more than show-offs for two limelight-craving individuals. And I will end my survey with my friends at the Official Monster Raving Loony Party.

Now Howling Laud Hope, unlike all the other party leaders, does something for people. He serves beer. A few years ago, I visited his party headquarters, which is a long day’s walk from my home. I received a couple of pints from his very own hand, and had an hour’s good conversation with one of his South African supporters.

I am amused by some of the Loony policies. I particularly enjoyed the one about changing the day from 24 to 32 hours, so pubs could be open longer. (It would bring lots of work for us software people, too!) But I do not feel that a Loony vote would be sensible or constructive, even if it was available in my particular bailiwick.

So, I won’t be voting on May 5th. I shall continue my 18-year honourable record of loyalty to Nobody. And I think you should be doing the same. Stay home, go to the pub, do what you want. But don’t go near that voting booth.

I have a truth to tell you, which many will find uncomfortable. Democracy has failed. Today’s so-called democratic government does not represent the will of the people, or even the will of the majority (if such things existed). It only represents the wills of the politically rich – those that benefit from the existence of a large, active state. It only represents the bullies, thieves and liars that get their kicks out of ruling over people, as harshly as they can get away with. The rest of us are politically poor. We are oppressed, exploited and unrepresented.

The failure of democracy is part of a much larger failure – the failure of politics as a whole. The top-down system of organizing human societies, which has been in place for 3,000 years and some, has reached the end of its road. The hell we are living through today is its death-throes.

Don’t get me wrong. Don’t call me an anarchist, who doesn’t want any government at all. Government is a regrettable necessity. But government need not – should not – be political. It should not take sides. It should be for the benefit of every good human being who has chosen to give his consent to it. It should not have overarching policies to save the world or anything else. It should not try to force people into a mould. In the words of John L. O’Sullivan, that government is best which governs least.

There is reason for hope on May 5th. Only 60 per cent of eligible voters turned out in 2001. We have reason to hope that, this time, the turn-out will be lower. A turn-out under 50 per cent, I think, would be a major watershed. It would be a strong signal from the moral majority that we don’t like or want the politicians and their evil activities.

Where might we go from there? How could we replace the sham of political democracy with something to make government work for all good people? In the short term, I think we need to move to a system where people are governed by their own kind of people. Where individuals know that those who govern them share their values, and are on their side.

One rough-and-ready way this might be accomplished is to allow each party’s voters to be ruled, in day-to-day matters at least, by a government of that party. Labour voters, for example, could have what they voted for: lies, spin, re-distribution and wasting of wealth (their wealth this time, not ours) and no civil liberties. Meanwhile, Tory voters can have their school discipline and more police, and can sit back and enjoy the lies about climate change. Better yet, those of us who are non-political, and favour liberty, prosperity and honesty, can have a government that does nothing beyond what government ought to do – defend us good people against the bad ones. The different governments would, of course, have to co-operate in certain areas – notably military defence.

Longer term, what we need to do is actually quite easy. Just tell the truth as we see it. For when good people come to understand that politics and politicians are the root causes of most of our evils today, their minds will turn. We must help them turn the top-down, political view of society that has been foisted on them throughout their lives, into a bottom-up, individual view. We must help them learn to value individual rights – like liberty, property, privacy, freedom of speech and association – and to shoulder individual responsibilities – like economic productivity, non-aggression, striving for justice, honesty and respect for others’ rights.

The way to get rid of wars, terrorism, racism, bullying, political lies, re-distribution of wealth, real environmental damage and the other evils of our age is to get rid of politics. Politics has passed its last-use-by date. It is time we took it off the shelf, and dropped it in the bin. An important step towards that is for many good people to unite in a resounding NO! to the politicians and their politically rich hangers-on.

By refusing to vote on May 5th, you can do your bit to help. Thank you.


Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

18 comments


  1. Agree with all you say, and am in a similar situation to your own.
    Larken Rose is a good person to listen to; I suspect he might be in the governmment you selected to look after your affairs.


  2. People should vote, in local and national elections, for a candidate who is committed to keeping down taxes and government spending – and can win.

    Notice I said “candidate” not “party” – candidates are individuals.

    And if no candidate like that is standing in your local council ward or Parliamentary seat?

    Well then, yes, do not bother to vote.

    However, ignoring politics does not mean it will ignore you.

    Trying to pretend that government is not there (or thinking you can bribe any policeman or official who discovers your business) leads to the sort of situation that can be seen in most Latin American countries – and that is not good.

    If you want lower taxes, less government spending and so on (either at a local or national level) you have to vote for these things.

    Or you will get higher taxes and government spending – and so on.

    It is not rocket science – but, somehow, some very intelligent people just do not seem to understand.

    To give a British example.

    High tax local councils are there because people voted for them – or did not vote at all.

    And not voting at all is the same as voting for higher local Council Tax – because if the people who do not want a higher local Council Tax do not vote, the people who do want a higher local Council Tax (because they think it will mean better local services) win.

    Again – it really is very simple. Perhaps too simple for some highly educated and intellectual people to grasp.


  3. Was my above comment self interested? Of course it was – but there is nothing wrong in that.


  4. After some applauding comments following Neil’s previous article “Empowerment and Democracy” I tried to offer a small way back in that my website http://www.camrecon.demon.co.uk exposes fairly well the system about which he is now bitterly complaining. I have little sympathy with such a whinge because the tiny bit of co-operation he could have offered to those who do want to fight back is withdrawn.
    His public refusal to vote has a tinge of sense, as per Russell Brand. A vote is indeed a transfer of power from the individual to the government and therefore is an unwise even dangerous thing to do, IF you vote for a party. The reason is simple: while you nominally vote for the party candidate your vote goes into the pocket of the government if that party gains a majority for the simple reason that that candidate has accepted the party whip and therefore the programme of that party in its entirety..For that reason that candidate is a representative of his party and can never be your representative. With the government and the body supposed to control it, the House of Commons, thereby entwined instead of separate the voter is indeed on a hiding to nothing.

    When one understands how the trick is played upon one most people seek a solution.
    The solution is simple to understand, but as I found when trying to be an Independent for Thirsk and Malton, the constituency of the great Edmund Burke, the practicalities are not so easy because the concept is alien to public practice. I therefore withdrew to save my £500 and in the hope that by the next election (a few months?) a handful of good people might have woken up.

    Why an Independent. Because then your constituents have a person who can and does represent them because he is not beholden to a party and a pre-arranged programme.. A vote for him means that your vote resides in his care and safe custody to be used on every occasion with judgement and with regard to the liberties of the voters.

    This is in every way is in accordance with the idea that “liberty is the freedom to accept or reject ONE policy at a time”. Contrast this with the party system (whether UKIPpers understand this or not) in that ALL party manifestos are “package deals” in that you get the whole package when you surrender your vote and there is no opt out. It is a rather subtle (totalitarian) way of pretending to give the voter the choice but forcing him to have everything he does not want as well.

    Having said all that it is not hard to see how individual liberty, which Neil wants back, has been eroded by this confidence trick called “political party democracy”. Tacking a toxic policy onto or including it in a party manifesto is the name of their game. Beguile the voters with “supporting the NHS” or similar but include mass immigration so that the immigrants become in time a powerful voting bloc to dispossess you of your homeland is one such example.
    My classic case( and I used it on an election platform this time at a school where I was still allowed to speak though no longer a candidate) was that of Mr Heath.
    He was elected in 1970 by the party faithful on the usual Tory platform of law and order etc etc and tacked on to that “package” was the bit about the entry to the EC ” a trading bloc, no more no less”.we were assured. Well, we all know that was a lie and how clever to choose the Tory party to commit Treason while the party faithful were asleep. Well, of course, as we should know, once a government has a “democratic majority” it is the alleged “will of the people personified” and that government can do anything. As Professor Wade’s Introduction to 10th edition of Dicey’s “Law and the Constitution”1960 records:” It must not be forgotten that there can be no check upon the unscrupulous use of power by a government which finds itself in command of a majority in the House of Commons”!! Mr Heath then proceeded to brow beat the Commons into doing his will and passed the final EC Act by two votes. Enoch Powell recorded that dissident Tory MPs were seen to leave the whips Office ashen-faced they had been so threatened.. Part of the trouble was that they must have felt “if we don’t do it, Labour will anyway, so let’s keep our jobs”

    Of course, as I have learned over the years and all this is on my website as well, the party system or “people’s democracy” has other toxic effects on our constitution and liberty. We flogged ourselves to get about 1\2 million signatures opposing our entry into the EC and submitted it to the Queen, under our ancient right, only to discover later that it merely goes into the relevant government department and pigeonholed for ever, never to be seen again. Our constitutional right is once again neutered by the “democratic” Prime Minister who “advises” the Queen. In so assenting to the Treaty of Accession she broke Her Coronation Oath to “govern according to our laws and customs” How much more totalitarian can you get than that?
    So, I say to Neil and other sympathisers who have given up against the tyranny. The remedy may be in your hands. Reverse what they have done so that our constitution can work again for us.
    I never said it would be easy but that is one way. You could also argue that if millions of people refused to vote their “democracy” would collapse and that would be far less effort!!!!
    Since you have to have a government of some sort and a means of controlling it I see Independents as one way. United in purpose, not divided by party


    • Dear Martin,

      Thank you for your comment – as well as for your supportive comments on my earlier thread.

      I do like the three quotes on the front page of your site. In addition to the quote you give, Lord Hailsham also, if I remember right, called the UK system an “elective dictatorship.” He was right on that.

      I think the problem goes deeper than just parliament. Parliament is one of several “bags on the side” that have been introduced into Western political systems over the years. Others include constitutions (whether written or unwritten), separation of powers, bills of rights (1215 and 1689 spring to mind) and universal adult suffrage. Most have had, in the short run, some positive impact. But in the long run, none of them works because they don’t address the real problem.

      I myself am trying to disentangle the threads and build a fuller understanding of the problems, leading eventually I hope to possible solutions. Please be assured that refusing to take part in next week’s charade does not mean that I have in any way “given up!” Quite the opposite, in fact. I am simply refusing to give any legitimacy to a system which does not deserve it.


  5. Post script. while I am fully aware of the dangers of the party system and having withdrawn from the contest myself as an Independent, nevertheless UKIP are saying more of the right things (however timid they are on immigration) than the others and quite clearly there are huge numbers of patriotic people trying to salvage our country. For that reason it would be irresponsible simply not to vote to help those who are fighting back. WE here are voting UKIP in Thirsk & Malton. The UKIP candidate here is a former constituency chairman of William Hague’s Richmond constituency, so clearly many patriotic people are striking back.
    That does not mean that I do not have some serious reservations about UKIP, especially for its treatment of the BNP which has been taking all the hostile flak for years and then proves to be unacceptable to Mr Farage. However, it is nice to see some middle class people finding the backbone to speak out and it is salutary that Farage has now experienced some of the left-wing violence the BNP and others have had to endure. I repeat. all political parties can be dangerous
    for the reasons already explained and especially that we the voters lose control if we vote for one.
    Farage could fail to win his seat and that means a new leader, who might be an unknown quantity.
    Meanwhile we try and hope that our efforts produce some good.


  6. A vote is not a “transfer of power from the individual to the government” – the government has power whether you vote for it or not. Not voting will not make the government vanish – or give Civil Servants or Local Government Officers the slightest hesitation in their various actions. All not voting means is that the people who want an even bigger government (who will vote) win.

    As for Russell Brand having a “tinge of sense” – a more senseless man that Russell Brand would be hard to imagine.

    Although, yes, I hope that everyone who has the opinions of Russell Brand (standard “down with the rich”, “down with big business”, “down with America” stuff – that has been pushed by the Nazis, and the Communists, and every other charlatan, for as long as I can remember) does NOT vote.

    Sadly I think that they will vote.


  7. For the avoidance of doubt, this is a personal view by one of our contributors. Its purpose is to provide a topic for discussion. The Libertarian Alliance does not encourage anyone to vote or not to vote for any of the political parties active in the current General Election.


  8. By participating in the voting farce you explicitly agree to accept the validity of the result. I don’t vote because I don’t accept that the resulting government is legitimate and, as a matter of actual fact, my vote counts for nothing (under no possible circumstances can my voting or not voting change the outcome). A bunch of people ganging up to agree to steal your stuff is banditry, whether it’s under the auspices of government or not. Further, voting guarantees nobody gets what they want – Arrow’s Impossibility Theorem.


    • Perhaps all this (understandably) negative comment would be improved by some positive suggestions. If John is one of those who gets nothing from the state then he is entitled to complain about banditry. I am equally disgusted with the situation as the other complainants and my suggestion is simply that what they have done to us is not very complicated to understand and could in theory be simply if not easily corrected if they would bother to read about it.
      My website merely describes a situation whereby the division of powers is restored and our ancient rights with that re-division.
      My advocacy of Independents might in theory be ok but only if the Independents were such locally known and trusted people that any attempt by the “establishment” to field “Independents” and split the vote would fail. I would love to her the Queen say from the Throne, “My government…” and it really would be Hers,chosen from the best brains in the land not this lobby fodder of the party system. All such Ministers would no longer be doubling up as MPs as that would destroy the separation of powers and was forbidden under the Act of Settlement.
      If us folks don’t strive to put things right it is guaranteed they never will be.


  9. In the ward I am sitting in the outcome last time was decided by one vote. My friend Larry Henson lost his seat to the socialists by one vote (I still argue that it was a spoilt ballot paper – one of several that were counted as “Labour votes”). So it is not true that one vote never matters.

    Nor is it true that the outcome of local elections does not matter – not if one cares about the level of Council Tax.


  10. One election that still upsets me was a County Council election back in 1989 (I think that was the year).

    My friend Mary Bland (now the late Mary Bland) lost her seat by a handful of votes – and we lost the County Council by one seat (Mary would have been leader of the Council).

    The BBC (and so on) crowed that “Mrs Thatcher has even lost Northamptonshire” (this was one of the things used by the enemies of the lady against her).

    I could have done a lot more to help Mary Bland than I did, I was deeply ashamed.

    I am still deeply ashamed.


  11. One councillor can do a vast amount of harm, if they put their mind to it.

    For example, former Cllr Mayhew (once a socialist now a “Green” I believe) did terrible harm to Kettering.


  12. I have never heard of anything here that hinged on one vote, whether local, national, or Europe. That’s just outright nonsense.
    The one and only time I participated in a General Election I went to the Polling Station, collected my Polling Card, and walked out with it. This should have meant the vote didn’t tally. There wasn’t even a recount.
    It’s a sham to quiet the cognitive dissonance for the serfs. We are not free men by any reasonable standard: we don’t have freedom of speech; we don’t have the right to keep and bear arms; you can never truly own land or property (in the UK the Queen owns it all and only ever leases it to people at best but anyway when you die inheritance tax makes claim to it all); anything you own can be arbitrarily taken on a variety of pretenses – asset forfeiture doesn’t require conviction of any crime under many circumstances or, more commonly, all sorts of things will be seized from you at ports and airports; habeas corpus has been abolished… and on and on.
    There is no justice, just us.


  13. A good essay by Mr Lock. Alas, it is all too valid today.

    It is a common criticism of non-voters that “if you don’t vote you can’t criticise the government”; it is rolled out at every election.

    Actually I believe that things are precisely the opposite way round. By voting, you are implictly saying that you will accept the authority of whoever happens to win the election, no matter how absurd their poiicies may be.

    The conservative voter, for example, who particpates in an election that the communists go on to win, can hardly complain when they take all his savings, any more than the gambler can complain when he loses everything on the roulette wheel.

    On the other hand, the non-voter has every right to grumble in the same situation, as he has implictly rejected the idea that merely assembling a collection of votes gives any group the right to take his property or order him about that a private individual would not have.

Leave a Reply