Voting, Like Gambling, is a Rigged Game

If you've ever stepped inside a casino and played the tables, or the machines, then you must know the game is rigged against you.

Casinos know their systems guarantee they are the real winners, and rely on people's hopes of striking it lucky to bring in the punters. Or in common parlance, "The house always wins".

Well, it's the same with voting.

You, the voter, are the punter. You hope you'll be lucky and get the life you want. But the reality is that the "house" always wins.

So, the issue that needs to be identified is: what is the exact nature of the political "house"?

Consider your voting options. No matter what part of the world you live in - you're probably very familiar with them.

Take your pick: Republicans/Conservatives/Tories, or Democrats/ Liberals/Labour. They represent the big boys of the two-party system. And in countries with some form of proportional voting system, then you may have additional choices like: Greens, Libertarians, Nationalists etc.

The name doesn't really matter - because they all represent the "house". And the house always wins.

To clear the fog from your decision-making at voting time, you need to be very clear on the nature and purpose of the political "house".

So let's get it out in the open.

No matter which way you vote, you will always get the same result - which is, you will be RULED over.

Of course, there are subtle differences between the various voting options - and the consequent ways you WILL be ruled over.

Republicans and Conservatives will generally promise more economic freedom, less taxes and more personal responsibility - while at the same time promise less personal freedom (what you do with your own body).

Democrats and Labour/Liberal will generally promise more personal freedom, while at the same time promise less economic freedom - more taxes, more regulation.

Libertarians are a little unusual, in that they promise more economic AND personal freedom - making them hard to classify under the two party system.

Greens, Nationalists and other special interest parties usually promise specific policies of control in respect of their pet issues.

So, no matter what and who you vote for - it really comes down to a matter of degree - the degree to which you will be ruled.

The name of this voting game is democracy. And when push comes to shove, democracy means rule by the majority. So, you are ruled over by the majority - as represented by the rulers so voted in.

What if you don't want to be ruled over? What if you see yourself as a self-owner and self-ruler? Who can you vote for? The answer is no one, and you shouldn't vote at all.

If you know the odds of losing your money at the casino - then you probably won't play there. Likewise, if you know the "odds" of getting what you want by voting in the political casino - then you won't "play" there either.

So, what's the alternative?

To know that, you must first clearly understand that the political game of voting only offers you a choice between the DEGREE of rule you are subject to. It doesn't offer you the choice of opting out - of NOT being ruled.

And that is the ONE choice we desperately need.

I personally don't care if other people want to pay taxes, be told they can't ingest certain substances, have their business regulated, that they can't watch certain movies, must send their children to government schools, or can't make an alteration to their own home without official permission. It matters not one whit to me if OTHER people desire these rules - provided I'm not forced to go along with them.

You see, I don't want to be ruled. I believe I can rule myself. And the term "self-ruler" is a good definition of a sovereign individual.

In more common usage, the word "sovereign" is usually applied to a king, or to a nation - as in national sovereignty. But this is "old-think".

The history of societies, from the beginning up until now, is the history of ordinary people being subject to the rule of others - whether king, dictator, president or parliament. And, as you would expect, the rulers aren't ruled themselves.

A sovereign individual is thus someone who declares themselves to be their own "king" - their own "government". It's a declaration of personal independence.

Is there another name for this political position?

Yes there is: "anarchy" - the absence of "archy" (which is a suffix meaning "rule", as in monarchy, oligarchy or minarchy). Or to quote the dictionary: "absence of any form of political authority".

Being an anarchist doesn't mean you are against social order, but against the "political" means of organising and achieving it.

Self-rulers work on the proposition of voluntary interaction with others - not forced compliance to edicts from above.

The political means of social organisation is the opposite of the voluntary means - for as Chairman Mao Zedong once said, "All political power comes from the barrel of a gun".

A free society, organised on the principle of voluntarism, relies on give and take, agreements and contracts, and the free market. A "ruled" society relies on force to get things done.

In a social order without POLITICAL control - the market would be the provider of everything.

So, there you have it. The real choice should be either a society based on force (the political order) - or a society based on voluntary co-operation (the market order).

Of course, sovereign individuals are not interested in forcing others to think or do as they do - and would never presume to demand everyone live that way. No, all we require is the freedom to opt out of the force-based social system - and to live according to our own ideas and values.

How could this work practically?

There are a number of possibilities. One would be to allow such people to come together, in a specified geographical area, and live according to their own beliefs - without being disturbed or bullied by other states. This option usually involves the idea of a "new" nation being set up somewhere - but many have tried this and failed. The fact is that all land is under the sovereignty of one nation or another. The only possibility of a new state being "born" would be if a particular existing nation agreed to lease or sell not only the required land, but the sovereignty over it.

Another possibility would be to allow various "opt-out" choices on the voting paper. For example: An opt-out as regards certain taxes - in return for a signed agreement that says you won't draw down any social security. Or, an education opt-out, where you get to keep your kids out of government schools, and make your own alternative arrangements, in return for a tax deduction. Or, a health care opt-out, where your tax is further reduced in response to your agreement not to use public health facilities.

A third alternative is the "virtual" opt out - where you use your wits to dodge as much of the current system as you can. This at least has the advantage of being doable - right now. For an interesting insight as to "how" this could come about, then I'd recommend you read "A Lodging of Wayfaring Men". (We are currently offering a free pdf copy of this book to all new members. See: http://www.sovereignlife.com/lodging.html for more details.)

Now, you'd think that nation states, democracies and so-called freedom loving countries would not be averse to such ideas - or letting those who choose to, to live them. But of course you'd be wrong.

The very idea of "no political rule" threatens the status quo and a myriad of vested interests - so don't expect such "opt-out" choices to be on your voting paper any time soon!

Is such an idea utopian? Absolutely not! A voluntary, market- based society would not in any way guarantee HOW such a society would evolve or turn out. It is not a plan, but a process.

Those who support force-based social organisation are the true utopians - whether marxists, religious fundamentalists, nationalists or liberal do-gooders - because they are never content with man's nature as it is. They are forever meddling and planning to produce preordained, ideological outcomes - at the point of a gun.

There you have it. The current voting system gives you all the choices you'll ever need - IF you are content to be ruled. On the other hand, if you want to be a self-ruler, you have no choice at all.

Voting will be on the minds of many this year - so use your mind, get smart, and act accordingly. It's your choice whether you play the GAME or not.

Yours in freedom

David MacGregor