Lysander Spooner wrote:
⚠ “In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot – which is a mere substitute for a bullet – because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.⛔
Voting is NOT consent. NOT voting is also NOT consent. So presenting my previous words on the subject:
Voting for a Representative
You have been taught to believe that you have a right to vote to choose a Representative. There are logical flaws and delusions in this fairy tale.
Imagine two candidates trying to get elected. Candidate A is running on an anti-Lilac platform and has promised to enact legislation making it illegal to have Lilac bushes growing in your yard. Candidate B is running on a pro-Lilac platform and has promised to oppose any anti-Lilac legislation.
If the anti-Lilac Candidate wins, then the anti-Lilac majority of voters will have representation in Congress; the pro-Lilac voters will not have any representation in Congress.
Conversely; If the pro-Lilac Candidate wins, then the pro-Lilac majority of voters will have representation and the anti-Lilac minority of voters will not.
The majority controls who is going to allegedly represent the minority.
An elected alleged Representative will write, dicker, and then vote with other alleged Representatives regarding a new law and if 51% of the alleged Representatives voting agree that thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property, then that is the law and thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property.
Any person who represents another is called an agent. The person being represented is called the principal.
In a true principal - agent relationship, the agent can not command the principal. The agent is required to obey the principal's wishes and protect the principal's interests. Also, if the agent fails to represent the principal and the principal's interests, the principal can terminate the agent's employment immediately.
Calling Congressional Legislators "Representatives" is a lie, regardless of the dictionary definitions doing just that. Newspeak anyone?
Legislators can not be immediately terminated for failing to protect any voter's interests. True representative agents can not command their principals, which is exactly what Legislators do with their laws. Laws that Legislators enact are commands.
So why call them Representatives?
They're not and they don't.
So why vote for them?
The record of alleged Representatives sure looks to me like they just do what they want anyway.
