Тег: Voting

Open voting against the tyranny of the majority

Friends-libertarians, let’s talk straight: secret voting is not a protection of freedom, but a perfectly cozy smokescreen for those who want to push their desires onto others’ accounts under the radar. And if you’ve decided to push new taxes, bans, and other “gifts” to society through a ballot, be so kind as to not hide behind anonymity and answer for it fully.

Imagine a world where voting stops being secret. Want to push a law about raising your neighbor’s taxes through a ballot – go ahead, but be prepared for a retaliatory reaction from them that could end badly for you. Yes, yes, it sounds scary, but it’s honest. Because a ballot isn’t an innocent little piece of paper; it’s a weapon with which the state applies violence to those who disagree with your opinion. Anyone willing to defend their position must be ready for reputational costs as well. You vote for tightening screws – please, everyone knows who the author of these new chains is. Neighbors turn away, friends stop inviting you for beer, colleagues give you a sidelong glance in the office – that’s justice!

By the way, lovers of mandatory AML/KYC when buying crypto – here’s an argument worth a million: if you think it’s normal to reveal your identity with every transaction on a couple of hundred bucks, why shouldn’t elections – a much more dangerous affair capable of leading to openly tyrannical power – be anonymous? A tyrant on the throne is far more dangerous than a couple of guys swapping Bitcoin for USDT without a passport. Seriously, has anyone heard of genocide orchestrated by the “shadow economy”? But there are whole volumes of stories about it from states around the world!

Someone might say: “What if my employer threatens to fire me?” Well, if it’s just one employer, then there’s still an opportunity to think: “Maybe I should drop it?” But if the risk is that people will turn away from you and even start to take revenge through your entire circle, he’d rather not make any political choice at all and not vote. And that’s fantastic! Why? Because fewer voters mean less legitimacy for power. Power nobody elected looks pathetic and helpless, and it’s harder for it to restrict our freedoms with more idiotic laws. The fewer people who vote, the looser the hands of power. That’s exactly what libertarians are aiming for!

Some people are racking their brains over another question: how does Sweden, a country with such astronomical taxes, manage to remain almost an example of personal freedom? And the trick is simple, though unexpected – “partially open” voting, which existed in Sweden for as long as 2019. Imagine the picture: you come to the polling station, and there are stacks of ballots lying right in front of everyone. You take a leaf from moderate parties – and the whole city already knows your preferences. Did you decide to boldly reach out for a leaflet from ultra-left or ultra-right groups? Be prepared to catch sideways glances from the entire queue. As a result, “local Tramps” or “Orban’s” did not take root in Sweden. Freedom is so abundant there that it’s enough even in personal life, despite high taxes in the economy.

It turns out to be an interesting thing: openness of choice with clear reputational consequences – this is like a good brake on a slippery road. It keeps the entire system from radical skidding into authoritarianism! And therefore open voting is not a step back, but a giant leap towards freedom. Whoever is afraid of openness should sit at home and wave a ballot paper like a whip over others. But whoever is ready to openly support some positions, especially those encroaching on the freedoms of their neighbors, they should, as an adult, bear responsibility for their choice. Otherwise, he has nothing to do with voting and should occupy himself with something more useful!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

On Participation in Elections – 2

About a year ago, I wrote a post “On Participating in Elections”, where I gave my interpretation of why ancaps need it at all. Recently, a snide comment appeared under the post, suggesting that people will come up with anything just to convince voters to give up on boycotting. I replied to the comment, but perhaps these considerations should be put into a separate post.

Election boycotting is a tactic that leads to victory in only one case: if voters, by not showing up at polling stations, form their own self-governing bodies without the state’s participation and voluntarily use them, ignoring those created in state-organized elections. In other words, one should boycott not only the elections, but the state as such.

In principle, my argument that going to a polling station to vote or observe is simply practice can be flipped in favor of boycotting elections—that it is simply practice in boycotting the state. I agree, but it is one thing to practice a plank, and quite another to practice simply lying on the couch; nothing will come of that except bedsores. A boycott is an active refusal to cooperate, so if you want, you can practice specifically this skill; it is also very useful. In this case, you will need not just to skip the elections, but to convince as many people as possible to skip them, so that the preaching of non-participation in this shit is heard from everywhere. And then, not limiting yourself to elections, begin to boycott legislation on mass rallies, the tax code, the law on personal data, and many other harmful state regulations. Do not inform the state about your actions, because it’s a boycott—there is no state for you. Treat state employees as ordinary people, and if they use violence, as ordinary gangsters.

In short, a boycott is a very difficult and responsible path, and boycotting elections is only the beginning. If you are not ready for it yet, or consider it hopeless, then it is better to practice the skills of democratic decision-making. Again, a year ago, when I suggested you engage in this, the exercise was simple. Now, the proposal is to master something more complex—not just to simulate filling out a ballot, dropping it in the box, and counting votes, but additionally, to do this in a consolidated manner, within the framework of smart voting. If anyone hasn’t registered to participate in this flashmob yet—I highly recommend it, because ancap is not about aggressive individualism where you don’t give a damn about anything except your immediate desires. Ancap is about living in a society without coercion, based on voluntary cooperation. Smart voting is the opposition of that very voluntary cooperation to the administrative resource, so it’s high time to show whose kung fu is stronger.

Who will you bet on: the balding old man, or the guy whose hand Svetov himself shook?