“Obedience to a ruling authority is not, by definition, a choice. Thus, the only way one can legitimately choose government–to freely and democratically elect it–is if it has no authority over him or her. The problem with this is that absent authority government is not government. For what is government absent authority? And what is authority absent the right to use violence to compel behavior? The answer: It is nothing. And to some, unfortunately, this is mere paradox; and this assuming people think of it at all, which for the most part they do not. But to the truth it is the contradiction which makes the smallest government the largest, and the most compassionate benefactor the most monstrous tyrant ”
For now, I will more or less focus on the idea of mandatory voting–government enforced voting, much like government enforced healthcare. But understand that whether voting is mandatory or not does not change the fact that voting in either case is not a legitimate choice. To be forced to choose or to force those who did not choose a certain way, or at all, to accept the outcome of a choice is NOT choice. As I said in part one of this series, once force is injected as a means to compel others into the outcome of a choice, which is functionally the same thing as forcing them to make a choice in the first place, then there is no such thing as choice. Choice is a function of will, and force is the rejection of the will–that is, force is the explicit or implicit admission that will is irrelevant. Force and choice are mutually exclusive. They cannot be synthesized into a single context. One cannot be free to choose if he must choose, nor free to accept what he must accept. That shit just doesn’t compute.
If I am forced to choose between A or B (or C, or D, etc.) then obviously choice is utterly besides the point. That is, to declare that I have no choice but to make a choice is a blatant contradiction in terms, and frankly I’m surprised that the idea of mandatory voting gets any traction at all, anywhere, based on this fact alone. How “choose or get punished” gets translated into “free and democratic elections” defies my suspension of disbelief. Then again, when the underlying metaphysic which dominates humanity is “man must be governed because he is so naturally wicked and stupid”, I suppose its not hard to understand after all.
So, the logic goes: I am forced to accept either A or B–and yes, C or D or E, but for simplicity’s sake let’s just say A or B…so I am forced to accept A or B, of a “free” choice, that I am forced to make.
Hmm…something smells juuuuust a little off here.
The fact that a choice–in this case a vote–between A or B which you are forced to make is purely an imposter of choice is starkly exemplified by the forced acceptance of A or B by those who don’t make the choice at all, as in the United States, where voting for public “servants” is not (yet) compulsory. But, as I said in the beginning of this article, and in the previous article in this series, the distinction between being forced to vote and accepting the outcome of the vote, as in Australia (I think), being not forced to vote but to be forced to accept the outcome of the vote, as in the United States, is a meaningless and fundamentally redundant distinction. The truth is that those who vote have exercised no more real choice for their officials than those who, like myself, recognize the futility of the whole spectacle and avoid it completely. And this I will address more thoroughly and specifically in a latter article.
So, again, a “choice” you are forced to make and which obligates you to an outcome you are forced to obey is not, by definition choice.
To be continued…