Consent withheld

Or, What if They Held an Election and Nobody Came?

Wendy McElroy writes on Practical, political and moral reasons to not vote:

I think the opposite is true. Those who vote, those who play the election game, have implicitly agreed to the rules and they are the ones who have no right to complain about an outcome they don’t like. It is non-voters who say “no” to the game and reject the rules who have a moral right to complain about outcomes.

Imagine a comparable situation: you are urged to play Russian roulette – a form in which a 2nd person controls the gun. You say “hell, yes!” At that point, with the act of saying “yes”, you have the lost moral right to complain about whatever happens when the trigger is pulled. Why? Because you agreed to the rules, you said “yes” to the rules. If you say “no” at the outset, however, then when the gun is fired, you have a right to scream bloody murder. And, indeed, if you were killed it would be murder rather than a tragic accident that occurred while playing a dangerous game. That’s how important your “yes” or “no” are. They are the difference between murder and an accident. So, rather than lose your voice by not voting, it is the act of saying “no” that gives you the moral right to complain your head off.

Three reasons not to vote are given in thorough detail. Above is part of the argument for reason #1, but it should be read in full. Especially important is #3, which deals with the basic libertarian principle of using force against no one.

Lots of food for thought, even if you don’t agree with it.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: