This isn’t entirely true, as there would be some “voting,” but its typically a situation to be avoided when possible.
“If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” Emma Goldman
With suffrage, or the universal vote, it is evident that the law is neither direct nor personal, any more than collective. The law of the majority is not my law, it is the law of force; hence the government based upon it is not my government; it is government by force.
That I may remain free; that I may not have to submit to any law but my own, and that I may govern myself, the authority of the suffrage must be renounced: we must give up the vote, as well as representation and monarchy. In a word, everything in the government of society which rests on the divine must be suppressed, and the whole rebuilt upon the human idea of contract.
When I agree with one or more of my fellow citizens for any object whatever, it is clear that my own will is my law; it is I myself, who, in fulfilling my obligation, am my own government.
Therefore if I could make a contract with all, as I can with some; if all could renew it among themselves, if each group of citizens, as a town, county, province, corporation, company, &c., formed by a like contract, and considered as a moral person, could thereafter, and always by a similar contract, agree with every and all other groups, it would be the same as if my own will were multiplied to infinity. I should be sure that the law thus made on all questions in the Republic, from millions of different initiatives, would never be anything but my law; and if this new order of things were called government, it would be my government.
Thus the principle of contract, far more than that of authority, would bring about the union of producers, centralize their forces, and assure the unity and solidarity of their interests.
The system of contracts, substituted for the system of laws, would constitute the true government of the man and of the citizen; the true sovereignty of the people, the republic.
The Contract is Equality, in its profound and spiritual essence.—Does this man believe himself my equal; does he not take the attitude of my master and exploiter, who demands from me more than it suits me to furnish, and has no intention of returning it to me; who says that I am incapable of making my own law, and expects me to submit to his?
The items below are from http://ne.libertarianleft.org/vote/:
This section wants to answer the question: Should we vote? If so, why? If not, why? Both sides of the argument from the left-libertarian perspective will be given in the interest of fairness.
- Nick Ford – On The Morality and Practicality of Voting (The series that shares this title is here as well as other anti-voting videos)
- Nick Ford – Refuting The Anti-Corn Laws League and the Ron Paul Appeal & Reaffirming the Non-Emphasis on Politics and Government: A Second Reply to Mr. Stolyarov
- Nick Ford – Addressing the Voting Question & More Thoughts on the Voting Question
- Robert LeFevre – Abstain from Beans
- Jock Coats – Don’t Vote: It just encourages the bastards!
- George H. Smith – The Ethics of Voting
- Charles Johnson – Don’t Vote
- Charles Johnson – In which I fail to be reassured
- Thomas L. Knapp – Politics for Anti-Politicians
- Thomas L. Knapp – Remember, Remember, Don’t Vote in November
- Thomas L. Knapp – On the Road to Nowhere With Johnson and Paul
- Thomas L. Knapp – No Masters, Not Even Ron Paul
- Kevin Carson – To Vote, or Not to Vote?
- Roderick Long – Dismantling Leviathan from Within
- Roderick Long – Agorist Education versus Partyarchist Education
- Roderick Long – In Defense of Voting (Sort of)
also see: Kevin Carson – A “Political” Program for Anarchists