No Choice

It’s better to vote third party and let people think you’re an idiot, than to vote major party and remove all doubt. This is my response to the party animals who are now trying to persuade me of the “necessity” to vote for either Democrats or Republicans in the upcoming Congressional elections.

To believe that I have a choice outside of the system, apart from the options prescribed for me by others or inferred by me from superficial appearances, leads to a certain liberty of the spirit. This liberty is, however, destructive of the intimate, voluntary relations by which people are bound up in their society at various levels. Thus it is rightly considered treasonous or anarchistic, or even atheistic to one who worships the institutionalized representation of social order called sovereign government.

Vital Liberty
[T]hat which liberty sets free is the psyche, that is, the conserved, largely hereditary demands and powers of a man or a society. If you are nothing liberty to go any where can’t do you much good.
George Santayana, letter to Peter Viereck, 8 September 1949

What is Santayana talking about here? He is distinguishing vital liberty from empty liberty. Vital liberty is the freedom to fulfill your potential; empty liberty is the freedom to dissipate your energy and let your “self” disintegrate.

Vital liberty requires a basis for natural growth, a foundation of character and belief, the roots of identity. If you don’t have character, beliefs, or identity, or cannot recognize them, it is useless. An uprooted plant dropped in the middle of the desert has almost unlimited freedom to grow and huge amounts of energy flowing to it from the sun. However, all that energy is just going to make it shrivel up until it turns into dust and blows away.

Empty liberty is the freedom to become nothing, to let everything flow out of you uselessly, like exhaling marijuana smoke while you numb your pain. Empty liberty is what you want when you are too afraid to grow. It is entropic and nihilistic.

It seems that Santayana’s vital liberty is different from the liberty to make choices not endorsed by society. They are judged different if the result of your choice is to waste your self and become nothing. If, however, your self is rooted in something outside of society and above it, your choice may result in freedom to grow.

For several years now I have been developing an appreciation for anarchism in many forms, such as left-wing, right-wing, Christian, primitivist, millenialist, cyberpunk, existentialist, and naturalistic. As one might expect, anarchists are not entirely consistent in their philosophies. For example, left-wing anarchists start out denouncing all kinds of bourgeois social constructs, and then end up proposing new, more “enlightened” attitudes to be enforced by a global thought police. Right-wing anarchists start out denouncing socialistic over-reaching central governments, then end up proposing arbitrary laws that require vicious authoritarian enforcement.

Ah, well…there won’t be perfection in this life, anyway. Perhaps that is where the problems start: the belief that one is personally responsible for developing a perfect system as an end-product. The whining of the worldly morons goads the naive philosopher on to overextend his analysis and propose a “workable solution,” as if all thought must be subordinated to pragmatic considerations. This is a foolish idealism, because real life is already full of workable solutions. That is what it means to live in the world: to find ways to make things work, to git’r done, to overcome supposed obstacles and impossibilities, to improve and adapt. Only a theory-soaked freshman engineer believes that working prototypes are miraculously formed from the graphite on his drawings with no intervening process of practical invention based on actual resources and pressures. Yet, the social engineers of every political stripe constantly agitate for a new working prototype based on their pet sentimentality. This is why modern politics should always be suspect, because every modern politician, especially in a democracy, seeks to birth a cosmic beauty fully formed from his hot little head.

*I will cite Ellul, Nietzsche, Zerzan, Kierkegaard, and Santayana to illustrate this thesis as it develops.


4 thoughts on “No Choice

  1. We still have a two-party system Dave: The Libertarians and the Kakostocrats (the latter often palm themselves off as “democrats” or “republicans”). Most of America wants handouts in one form or another from the Kakostocrats, so they keep voting for them.
    This has led to where we are now, about to sell out to the illegal aliens, because the Braveheart nobles in Congress smell great hoardes of people more ignorant than the average, public-school-dumbed-down American to exploit.

  2. It isn’t really a sellout, because the “illegal” aliens were virtually invited here by US businesses, and the elite need them to do dirty work. The same folks are still in control.

  3. The most important aspect of voting independent of party is to let the party, as an entity, know that you do not grant your consent to be governed by it. In those cases, blank spots on your ballot will achieve the same effect.

    Most entities that control voting manage to successfully ignore blank spots, though. Wouldn’t it be nice if the controlling agencies for voting would report the number of votes for “none of the above” in line with the votes cast for the names listed?

  4. I once read a Canadian libertarian who proposed that the main question in politics is whether elected officials are truly “agents” of the voters, empowered to do almost anything necessary in the name of the people.

    The real problem with democracy, to me, is that some people ascribe a supernatural power of agency to democracy, as if being democratically elected empowers someone to act without any ethical constraints. A leader who believes this would only feel the need to restrain his exercise of power in response to a negative poll or referendum. I don’t see much practical difference between that and a monarchy or a totalitarian communist state.

    People who actively work to discourage third party voting and keep them off the ballots reveal their belief in this theory of agency, as if a dissenting viewpoint with a verified number of adherents would destroy the image of national unity and permanently destabilize the federal government, leading to complete anarchy.

    I’m afraid your idea of “none of the above” voting would be regarded as equally subversive.

Instigate some pointless rambling

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s