Having been in this epoch before, it was a stalemate explaining my position on why I don't sign my valid signature for petition or voting. Such headaches.
@docappleman Do you believe that you are any more free than me by casting a vote that has no effect on the results of an election? Don't kid yourself; you live in a dictatorship right now.
every vote counts. everybody´s votes count because they make up a mass of a public desire. just because you feel small and pointless doesn´t mean you can´t be part of something bigger than yourself
do you know the amount of people in the fuckin world that would LIKE to have the ability to vote??
you live in a fucking country where you aren´t murdered because of you´re political opinions.... isn´t that nice??? why don´t you use the benefits that you so happily enjoy everyday?
@docappleman anyone in the world bitchin about the right to a pointless activity can have mine. i may not be murdered for my political opinions, just ostracized. pointing out of people's bad luck doesn't make voting all the more important, but exposes how funny life really is.
When you accept any form of organized government to rule over you, are forced to obey the laws they pass without your consent, use a system of standard currency they define, then you have no freedom. You're on a leash and are merely given privileges disguised as freedoms that can be taken away at any time.
If voting had any relevance, it's extinct. It's all meaningless choice designed to give these people in office credibility to keep ruling us.
Your attempt to badmouth an institution that has allowed for the most innovational and efficient market system is flawed and appalling
You are too blind to see the beneficial ways that government affects us every minute of the day.
Who was it that created the internet system that you are currently using? Do you know how many people in the middle east literally DIE for the chance to live under a system as protective as ours? Democracy isnt perfect, but it is the best system there is
@docappleman We don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic. That means we elect leaders to run the government for us. Our role as citizens is severely limited to only voting or demand that they act accordingly.
In a actual democracy, the majority of people wouldn't be voting out politicians, they'd literally be throwing them out of office.
I'm not making this up. Were you to research real democracy, you'd understand our government is not actual that.
@MrEniena So the only point you have against me is the fact that the name is different for the system? Regardless of the name, the rules inside of the system are still the same. What about my other points? Have you nothing to say? I would agree that large corporations have their hands too deep in the pockets in congress, but then again, Corporations, Political aciton groups and the like play an important checks and balance role. also, you too can be an elected official. TRY IT.
@MrEniena constitional liberalism is the most important part of democracy, and you seem to ignore the amount of freedoms that you are allowed to enjoy. You are a consumer in this country, and you promote this system with every computer or Mcdonalds meal you buy. You should learn to be happy with what you have, and then try to improve on your situation. "Representative republic" is just a step in the right direction for all mankind. Try constructive criticism instead of complaining
@docappleman I won't be happy because our representative republic is a failure like all governments. Its collapse can't come quick enough because at least when it does we'd have a opportunity to start over with one that actually allows us as a citizenry to have actual power and freedom instead of a small group of men who deny it to us all.
Thanks, but I'm happy with letting it fail through a lack of consent as it'll be a good lesson for us all.
@docappleman Actually, I'm feeling a guilty now and I've got a confession to make: I'm just playing devil's advocate.
I'm the kind of person who just enjoys good debate just randomly adopted the whole "I don't care about this stinking system, RAWR, RAWR, RAWR" attitude just to start one. I just like picking people's brains this way.
I apologize for leading you on, but it's just one of those things I do just to understand people's political beliefs.
If everyone voted, that would imply that people were interested in public policy and shaping tomorrows world. If all people voted for presidential and congressional elections, politicians would be forced to become more connected to the electorate and fulfill the needs of the people in order to stay in power. That is the problem with today's politics,,, politicians can win elections WHILE not working effectively. Not voting only makes it easier for them
But there's also the problem of the people who still vote. They've got the right idea, it's just a majority of them are fools. They elect the wrong people and have kept the same two corrupt parties in office. If people were to inform themselves thoroughly and start putting their votes behind a specific third party instead, that would be a start.
These voters keep repeating a deadly routine that is harming us all in addition to those not voting.
@MrEniena I agree that these two parties have serious flaws. I do think that a new party might help,,, but what really needs to happen is in the population. People need to care about what goes on around them. I personally believe that even many that vote are not very informed on their candidates, and just vote for whoever seems more of a leader,,, or can make CHANGE. Its all bogus. There will be no change in the whitehouse until there is a change in public attitudes.
I actually have this secret fantasy of starting a national third party movement,, but it needs to be organized and needs to be set up in everystate,,, good luckgetting that to happen when people dont even go out and vote NOW!!!!
No third party will ever be able to qualify for all national elections if the same ratio of people in the country vote.... New voters need to be activated.
I'm just turning 18 this april, and I will be able to vote this next elecition. Neither party is goo
neeither party is good, but i'd rather see the more responsible party in office than the less responsible one,,, therefore id rather exercise my right to make a little bit of a difference instead of watch others make decisions for me
@docappleman Sorry, misread. Derp. Anyway, having new voters will not simply get ride of the problem. It's the parties that have to give the people that are not voting a reasons to vote again.
@docappleman Plus, in the event not enough people vote, the system is designed to enable leaders to elect someone in lieu of the public. This at best is only going to anger the citizens and would cause people in and out of America to question our government "by the people and for the people" given the lack of consent it gets.
Except discrediting, a lack of votes from the majority is not going to change a system. Guys like the one in the video don't seem to be aware of that.
@MrEniena Looks like this year it's going to be the Democrats... again.
I'm actually just thinking of voting for a third party this year anyway. I know it's not going to do any good, but I'd like to tell my future grandchildren that their old man actually voted for one more credible than the two main candidates.
Come on. One of four nutty GOPers or a leader who can't talk right without a teleprompter is going to win? How do I say I seriously voted for either of those guys?
@MrEniena Believe me, I'm going to have enough of a hard time as it as trying to tell them that I voted for Mike Huckabee in the 2008 California primary.
but the problem is that voting for a third party doesnt do anything other than just take a way avote from the better of the two candidates... I think alot of what Obama is doing is good even if he is unpopular economically... He is investing in education, in innovational technologies and green technology.... Those are extremely important issues in my book... and I know that the only innovation that the republicans would allow would be from the private sector
@MrEniena private sector yayy!!!! but the private sector does not care about environmental contamination... they care about profits. That is why it is important for the government to tkae on some of the market failures that exist in the US
@docappleman I say to heck with those choices. We should take the advice from Bender of Futurama and start our own third party. With hookers and blackjack!
Actually, forget the blackjack.
But seriously, with the hate the GOP is getting and the choices they present, I'm certain Obama is going to be staying in office for four more years. I know you're right about third parties, but I doubt his win won't mind if I vote for a more sane guy.
@MrEniena Not surprising. In fact, I don't see that many people take their politics seriously enough. That's why many voters blindly accept voting as the greatest means to regulate a government. You don't see many common people actually picking up a pitch fork and a torch and actually fight for their rights and it's getting to be appropriate horridly. What would voting do?
It won't, but atleast it's nothing pointless as voting. If someone wants to change something, like these supposed voters, they're going have to do more than vote, especially in the circumstance they're in now.
I'm british and here in britain, the government don't care for the public or anyone's well being, even the wages and money people earn from their jobs are dropped along with benefits which is ridiculous and disgusting. The government says this always "We will sort out the problems" and guess what, you eventually find out that they've made things worse. Democracy and liberal parties should be destroyed. We don't need a government, we need hope!
People are sheep. Einstein once said "great spirits will always face violent opposition from mediocre minds." Johathan Swift said, "You cannot reason a man out of a position he was not reasoned into." Point being, people don't think. Those who can and do are mocked for it. What we today as a society would deem unpatriotic conspiracy nuts, are the very traits that our founding fathers carried. The definition of tyranny fits the description of the "patriots" driving our country into the abyss.
@jusdafide I live in California and I have never registered to vote, but I got a jury duty notice recently. I think they use DMV records now, so the moment I got a CA driver's license, I was in their radar.
My point exactly. I can't stand when people tell me that even if they're evil, and corrupt, that we might as well vote for the lesser of the evils. Fuck that. Don't vote.
In my ideal society, voting would not exist at all. I don't care about what the majority wants when it comes to any issue. I only care about the right of each individual to do whatever he likes, so long as he is harming no one else. Voting is simply an infringement upon individual rights via mob rule.
Had people not voted for Obama we would have had Sarah Palin as VP. I will continue to encourage people to vote against Sarah Palin. To encourage people not to vote would mean victory for this self-centered fascist media whore. I have given up on politics because too many people have supported the nonsense of the Right for thirty years. The Republicans have abused the democratic process to usher in Fascism. If people vote for fascism democratically the end result is fascism, not democracy.
Best solution ever: 1. Don't vote. 2. Use the time you would otherwise use to vote, to convince others to vote your way. Scenario 1: You convince 0 people, but it's ok your vote would count for nothing anyway. 2: You convince 1 person, better than voting, since that vote won't be countered by an opposing vote. 3: You convince more than 1, much better than voting. In any case, voting = bullshit.
I don't vote for the simple reason that I don't want to use coercion against others.
Also, voting is quite similar to praying: You feel like you are doing something but in reality you are just tricking yourself so that you don't feel the need to actually get off you ass and make a difference.
I said the same thing over and over again (about time spent changing the opinions of others versus voting). Get a podium and an audience. Your individual vote is a drop of water in a 50 gallon drum on one side of a beam balance. Change the minds of gallons of water and you'll have done something, but you'd still end up with a politician.
You hit the nail right on the head my friend. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil! I am proud to say I have never voted and I never will.
all current politicians are corrupt because they can't get to where they are with out being corrupt they simply wouldnt allow someone who doesnt want to fuck over the public to be president lol look at kenedy and lincon i apologize for my spelling.
Voting seems like a waste of time, I agree with you. Leonard Peikoff had a good point about why you should vote, and the reason is simply to prevent the socialist in getting ahead (parafrasing).
You, my friend, are a genius. I'm glad to see there is someone out there who actually understands why voting, and politics in general, is a complete utter joke. Politics has become nothing but a big game, with much money and time being wasted on campaigns. Your vote doesn't matter mathematically, no matter what people say. The presedent you vote for isn't magically going to make everything better, it is still up to you to make your own life better.
If you have a choice between someone throwing a rock at you or shooting at you, and you choose the rock, does that mean that you voluntarily consent to the rock being thrown at you? Of course now. Likewise, voting is coerced. The rational libertarian is just trying to minimize the harm from himself. And, he tries his best to dodge the rock. He doesn't consent to it even if he votes "for" it.
Voting is not coerced per se, but I understand what you mean. One candidate or another is going to win; "none of the above" is not going to take office. So it makes sense then to vote for someone that truly represents one's interests.
However, if your interests are opposed to those of the state, i.e. you are a libertarian, you should recognize the futility of your vote. Libertarians will never wrest power from the power-hungry by the processes designed by the latter. It defies reason.
Voting is indeed coerced. Think about it. I don't vote voluntarily. I'm threatened with force such that if I don't get someone elected that threatens less force then I will receive more force against me. I do it purely out of self defense.
I do recognize that there will probably never be a society as libertarian as I would like, but again, that's not why I vote. I vote simply to try to lessen the force used against me. I don't expect any more than that to come of it.
Though no one is actually twisting your arm to cast a ballot, I can see how it is coerced in the sense you describe.
However, this is only coercion to the extent that you believe in the power of the ballot. This is to say, you have assumed that your ballot can protect you, that there is a viable candidate who won't steal from you quite as much as the other viable candidates.
This isn't true. The ballot has no power. All viable candidates will steal from you as much as possible.
That's not true. Some politicians are more oppressive than others. There are also other reasons to vote such as trying to bring about gridlock. It makes sense to get a Republican president elected if there's a Democratic congress, and vice versa, just to slow down the elimination of liberty.
Some candidates have a genuine desire to reduce the size and scope of the state, but these are not viable candidates, so I won't consider them.
Of the viable candidates, all of whom seek our enslavement, you aim to choose him that will enslave us w/ better conditions, as you judge them. The conditions of slavery vary, but slavery itself does not. The slaves have no say in the conditions of their enslavement; the voters do not decide to raise or lower taxes.
Can it rightly be said that one viable candidate is less oppressive than another, when both would have us slaves, under conditions they might change as they wish?
The state will ever expand in size, b/c it is a means to plunder, for those who would be plunderers. In choosing among viable candidates, you choose among plunderers. Forgive me, but unless you are a plunderer yourself, it is likely far beyond your reckoning to say which plunderer is least competent (least proficient at enslaving).
With ballot in hand, you are in no position to cause gridlock. Among plunderers, political differences are pretense, like ceremonial headdresses put on before public appearances. No viable candidate believes anything he says on a stage. Once off the stage, he takes off his headdress to cooperate and collude w/ other plunderers as much as possible.
Maybe you don't believe any of that, but I think you do.
What a negative fatalist you are. You're content to let others vote your freedom away without so much as lifting a finger to cast a ballot in defense of what liberty you have. That's not something to admire in a person, to say the least. If everyone who wanted more freedom refused to vote, guess who would be left to vote? Those that hate freedom. We would be worse off. No thanks to you.
Maybe the state will ever expand in size, but the least you could do is delay the expansion to buy yourself some freedom. You're not focusing enough on your own material welfare, but seem to be concerned about relieving yourself of some kind of moral guilt. I'll put a plunderer in office any day, if it will give me just a few more moments of freedom than I would otherwise have.
With regard to your first paragraph, again all of this is contingent on your recognition of the ballot's power, which I do not recognize. I argue that the ballot cannot protect you, or me, b/c all viable candidates are equally tyrannical. So, according to what I've stated, when freedom-haters vote in place of freedom-lovers, it makes no difference in the outcome.
As to my alleged fatalism, what would you have me say? That there's some hope playing along w/ the statist charade? There isn't.
With regard to your second paragraph, please remember that the state is parasite on the economy. B/c of the liberties granted to the people of the US, the economy grew considerably. As the host grew, so did the parasite, if only b/c of its parasitic nature (plundering).
The expansion of the state is not a phenomenon one can halt or delay by playing its mind games. It's... bigger than voting, if you will. Your freedoms will disappear at the same rate, no matter how defensively you vote.
You mistake is claiming that a person who votes for someone is "sanctioning their actions." That's not a true statement. It depends on why the person is voting. When I vote, it's simply as means of self defense. It doesn't mean I sanction anything other than that person being in office over another person. It doesn't mean I approve of everything that they want to do.
I vote because i'm part of this country, I run this country, so does my neighbor, and his neighbor, and his neighbor and so on. I voted (mine ACTUALLY didn't matter because I voted in the kid's vote) for Obama because he doesn't endorse violence, neither does John McCain. john may support the war but he's still a human, killing or harming other human beings isn't agaisnt our nature.
Don't let them indoctrinate you. I think if you take a long, hard look at our political system, you'll see a bunch of men who do not take your opinion into consideration or care about your well being.
The state, or national gov't, is not the same thing as the country. The former is a collection of men who impose their dominance with violence and indoctrination, and exact tribute from the people at large. The latter is the people at large. The former rules the latter, but they are not the same.
The only way to "run this country" would be to enslave the people, which is what the state does. Unless you are a key official in the state, you do not "run this country."
Most of what your parents and teachers told you about the gov't and the people was untrue. The gov't does not represent the people. It owns them. Once you've worked for a living, this will be abundantly clear to you.
When you vote, you implicitly give approval to a system of oppression. It doesn't matter who's at the helm. The ship will be steered the same way, toward ever greater enslavement of the human race.
I do not own the country. So by what logic should I even be allowed to decide who runs it? I do not own the property in Nebraska. So what right do I have to go to the polls and decide who will run their lives 4-8 years? By voting, I would be interfering with their right to govern themselves.
I don't govern what I do not own.
I don't own any human beings, and as such do not govern them, and have no wish to.
That's why I don't talk about voting with people when I just meet them. It's like religion. You have to respect their vote. And I don't. So why get them all up in arms, when I could say say "fuck this, fuck you, bye" and figure out a way that works, and then present that to them later, and then everything works out?
That is a good attitude, but I hope you see that de-legitimizing democracy in this way does little to combat the state, which will always produce some excuse for its own existence and continued growth.
A politician, once elected, will always speak and act as though he has a "mandate" from the people. Apart from all the pretty words he and others may provide, he is a man of violence and fraud, a conqueror.
I agree, I don't know how many times people have asked me "Well if you don't vote, how do you a way to politically speak out. Isn't your vote your voice?"
No my voice is my voice, and people can do more to change society for the good, through talking, than voting.
Everyone seems to believe that government dictates policy, that's not quite accurate it's the underlying culture that acts subserveant to force that ensures policy. The only way to change the country is to change people.
How can my notion of freedom be vague when you, in your our words, have reach an understanding of my belief that I 'have no obligation to ANY other living thing'? That seem pretty explicit too me.
As far as arming yourself, I think that anyone that doesn't arm themself is an idiot, even if, or especially if, the government doesn't allow it. And, private security firms are extremely efficient at carrying out the mission they are hired for.
If people vote based on their values and ideas, and a culture is the sum of a group of people's values and ideas, then changing the culture will change the outcome of elections.
I think that if one makes the claim "if you don't vote then you don't have the right to complain" they have accepted their master-slave relationship between the state and allegiance to the democratic system. This argument can only work for people who are proponents of democracy. Saying an anarchist can't complain because (s)he didn't vote makes no sense to me.
Are you simply encouraging as many people as you can in practical terms, trying to point out the cold hard truth, which is, that no matter how many people you individually rally to vote (or against it), you will have no noticeable effect on the election, which is in fact, true?
Or are you suggesting that in principle, no one should actually vote?
If it is a combination of the two, I think you ought to propose an alternative. How do you think we should govern ourselves without free elections?
Hell I'll check 'em out. I can't criticize ideas I haven't investigated, however my impulse is to point out that while you may support such alternative governments in principle, it doesn't really follow that one ought not participate in the current government because one simply sees a better alternative, particularly when the alternative posited is not likely to become a reality. Such an action is akin to saying that you won't ride a horse to get around because you can't afford a car, no?
As an Anarchist myself, I see it as a wrong to impose my will on anyone else, therefore, voting is wrong. That's like saying I think working is better than stealing, but since there is theft in the world, I may as well steal.
This is a good point, Cail. However, I will point out that the fact that by voting you are not actually, in fact, imposing your will on anyone because they retain the right to leave this country if they don't want to have to deal with someone else's wish.
Certain issues must be dealt with sometimes. How do we come to a consensus about how to respond to these situations without a determined majoral opinion to create a course of action?
But this kind of misses my point. Like I said, I don't disagree that, in practical terms, voting could be dismissed as something that an individual's participation in will have no discernable impact on policy. However, in principle, excluding the practical inconvenience it is to vote, why should an individual not vote? I wouldn't say that it has literally "0" impact on policy. I'd actually say that the process of voting, rather than an individual vote, has a tremendous impact on state policy.
I don't see necessarily see consensus as a good thing if it trumps individual freedom. Basically, the country the country is swaying back and forth between neo-corporatism and socialism, the only two consensus votes a majority is will to compromise on. The only rational consensus one can achieve is between willing participants that aren't forced into compromising their values, and that only happens in a truly free exchange.
Well, the current state policy probably what would determine who an individual votes for. If you want to change it, you'll want to vote for the candidate who wants to change it. If you don't want to change it, you'll vote for the candidate who wants to keep things the way they are.
Do you not see voting as either a theoretical way or an actual way to rediscover the voice of the people?
What I was getting at is that someone's values and ideas determine who they vote for, and a culture is basically the net sum of a group's values and ideas.
Therefore, effort should be made to change the culture rather than discussing politics directly.
I don't recognize the "voice of the people" as a valid concept. The only way an opinion could be "of the people" is if everyone held that opinion, which is virtually never the case.
I suppose we've different world views. I'm working on the anarchism stuff you gave me, but feel that history has demonstrated democratic governments provide for the most secure, and overall fair, way of life for the most people possible. The "voice of the people" is a tool. It's a tool to get things done. Democracies are compromises. They're far from perfect, and theoretically many perfect governments can be constructed, but they seem to work best (so far). And they can't work without voting.
If you shared a house with others, would you leave it to others to clean the place, because you knew they would, and thereby escape responsibility for doing your share?
If my roommates are making my home less livable then they will not be my roommates for long. This, however, is a voluntary relationship. Government is not. If I was serving a life sentence in prison and my cellmate was making my life misserable, I wouldn't be asking the cockroaches what they thought was best, I'd be carving a shank.
a choice for the lesser of two evils- provided those two are the only choices- is not a bad thing.
elected officials don't usually get to impose their personal ideology that easily, that's why there are three branches of gov't
i guess you being a hardcore individualist it wouldn't matter to you if the country as a whole is well off, but in my country, for example, a lot of marginalized working poor pretty much depend on their right to vote in hopes of achieving some relative prosperity.
Fighting evil is a good thing, but not in a way which brings you great harm.
If a man points a gun at me I'll do everything required for my survival - I won't attempt to fight him if I don't have to.
The Presidental elections are the same thing - if you don't approve of elections do everything in your power to attempt to change them, but you should still vote because the outcome will determine your future.
"II don't believe I have ever stated that I support agressive tactics to achieve a desired outcome."
This is the point I think you you either aren't seeing or cannot reconcile; government, even some imagined Utopia, Is based on pure aggression. It only exists under threat of violence. And what is it doing for us that we cannot do for ourselves? A government doesn't support itself, it steals and used our labor to sustain itself. The burden is on you to say why it's needed.
You would support force against me from another continent, while supporting national identity? Not only is your hypocrisy unethical and lacking in consistency, but your aggressions would only be responded with in force.
Enforce?! Who said anything about enforcing? The very idea of freedom is THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT, it's an oxymoron. If you come in my home uninvited, intending to forcibly deprive me of my life, liberty, or property, I assert my rights with my AK-47, but no one can force me to. If an AK-47 doesn't deter someone from trying then they are crazy and no ammount of government can fix that.
And nobody has to cooperate in free exchange, but that's their lose. Why should I give a crap whether they cooperate or not, so long as they don't violate my rights?
You are convoluting entirely seperate, if not opposed, concepts; freedom and responsibility. Unless you're willing to qualify these kinds of contradictions, should restrain yourself from using words like naive if you want to be taken seriously.
Let's pretend for a moment that the state is more efficient in providing services than competitive business. Even if the state was some Utopian dream, as long as it is in any way compulsory, it is still founded on faith in evil. If a person is not agressing aginst you and you commit violence on them then there is no difference between you and any other despot.
And using a Islomic Theocracy as example of how leaders, not rulers, are elected is only furthering my point.
Living independently by the golden rule is obviously a flawed life method, but there is no single approach that is perfect, and that's the point.
We have one life during which we can maximize our own personal fulfillment, and if we can marry that concept with helping others achieve this for themselves, we could function without narrow ideology.
I appreciate your mind, XO, and your ability to share insight with others.
Very simply, I favor freedom, and not the hollowed out version that comes to your mind. Your mind, body and property belong to you and no other. Do as you please so long as you aren't INITIATING violence. Free and voluntary interaction. Anarchy, Agora, Liberty. Pure, simple, and and good for all.
A republic, as intended by the founding fathers, based on logic and facts and on non initiation of force/fraud. A system in which the individual is the highest value.
So in your opinion, what is the magic barrier between good and bad democracy?
And LEADERS are not elected, they are merely people who inspire others to follow their example and advice. What you are talking about is RULERS, people that lord their will over other through violence.
I'm for no aggression, no rulers, no mob rule. Individuals should govern themselves, and fear death when they think of forcing another.
You're right, I will be shot if I don't submit to their coercion, but I don't see how participating in violence ends the threat of violence. I want to live my life peacefully without someone democraticly elected threatening to kill me for not submitting to their will. And I certainly don't want to force my will on others, so how does voting fix that?
The Soviet Union throughout most of it's history enjoyed enormous popular support. Does that make Gulags the best option? Kim Jong-il is very popular in North Korea, does that make him moral? The Interahamwe was cheered by the majority when they were hacking to death a million Tutsis with machetes in Rwanda. Was mob rule cool here? The Kristallnacht was democracy in action! Good shit, right?
"you can say whatever you want, but in the end you're subject to those laws and you didn't exercise your opportunity to help change them."
With the choices that we're given there is literally NO opportunity to help change the laws in a constructive way by voting. Nothing will get better until the culture changes, which is what XOmniverse is trying to make happen.
Voting for measures and local reps is important, those are chosen by popular vote, unlike the presidential vote, which I agree feels pointless due to the electoral system.
Yeah, I've gotten called apathetic many times after telling people I don't vote, which is ridiculous. Apathetic people are those that don't care enough to vote; I care enough not to vote. There's a difference.
Thats the same argument I've been using as of late. In fact once you point out I don't like delegating control to an entity I really have no control over some people start to get rattled.
By voting for a third party, I increase their vote totals, increasing the chances that e.g. the mainstream media will pay attention to them, piquing some interest and spreading the ideals. In other words, I'm paying attention to the long-term consequences of my actions.
Why not abolish voting altogether and force people to accept one candidate then?! Instead one of two candidates?! Democracy is immoral because it is the implementation of coercion and dictatorship.
2. Legitimizing the outcome which almost certainly doesn't favor your values, even if "your" guy wins
3. Legitimizing violence againt anyone whom does not 100 percent agree with the winner
4. Arousing hate and fear in your neighbors
5. Corrupting yourself.
"If you don't vote you can't complain about what you get". What a CROCK OF SHIT! So if you don't choose the method of your execution you can't complain about being murdered, either?
Even if you can only choose the lesser of two evils, that is better in terms of your rational self-interest. Otherwise, if you and people like you do not vote, the odds of the greater evil winning increases, resulting in negative consequences. To refuse to vote for moral reasons is to sacrifice yourself for supposedly moral reasons and curse others for not doing their "duty". Kant, anyone?
I'm not being sarcastic, i'm going to ask for your legitimate honest response to this question: what do you think would happen if nobody voted? Would a candidate be chosen anyway? Like lets say everyone agreed that voting was bogus, what would be different that if we did vote?
Shall we kill the gypsies or the Jews? What if no one votes, you ask? Perhaps we have a false dichotomy here? Perhaps we do need, nor do we have the right to choose one or the other? The correct choice is none!
depends, will they be killed fast? or slow? Im assuming thats what we are voting for right? Becuase I cant decide a persons death...picking lesser of those evils doesnt change the fact that its still killing them. How about we rescue and hide the gypsie and jews(with others that share the same idea)from rather than vote for thier survival...you will accomplish more that way.
If a small group of maybe 10,000 want to try to force their laws on a group of 300 million without convincing them that they need the laws, then good luck to them!
How does being an internet nerd who bitches about a lunatic fringe ideology with no impact on the real world matter? Has it ever made a difference?
People who are politically active in real life (as opposed to bitching on the internet) organize and mobilize themselves in large numbers, as to each one, doing his part, amount to something that has an actual impact.
But you nerds don't care about real life politics, only about your out-of-touch, pie in the sky ideological masturbation.
Well said. Voting is just a number to let them know how many people are dependant on the broken system. False hope. Americans are sleeping. So sad
MRBLACKPEARL04 4 weeks ago
god you guys... so idealistic in thinking that they actually care about us.
sweetmay73 1 month ago
Having been in this epoch before, it was a stalemate explaining my position on why I don't sign my valid signature for petition or voting. Such headaches.
Swampymcswamp 2 months ago
pastebin(dot)com/uyZdF2hf
skilo1983 6 months ago
you guys are crazy. what would happen if everyone thought that their vote didn´t matter, hmm?????? NOONE WOUld vote. Now what do we call that????
DICTATORSHIP
you idiots should get off the computer and exercise your right to individual liberty positively
docappleman 7 months ago
@docappleman Do you believe that you are any more free than me by casting a vote that has no effect on the results of an election? Don't kid yourself; you live in a dictatorship right now.
XOmniverse 7 months ago
@XOmniverse
what the fuck are you talking about it doesn´t effect an election?¿
are you saying that you would like everybody to not vote?
how the fuck would the us benefit from thtat?
docappleman 7 months ago
every vote counts. everybody´s votes count because they make up a mass of a public desire. just because you feel small and pointless doesn´t mean you can´t be part of something bigger than yourself
docappleman 7 months ago
do you know the amount of people in the fuckin world that would LIKE to have the ability to vote??
you live in a fucking country where you aren´t murdered because of you´re political opinions.... isn´t that nice??? why don´t you use the benefits that you so happily enjoy everyday?
docappleman 7 months ago
@docappleman anyone in the world bitchin about the right to a pointless activity can have mine. i may not be murdered for my political opinions, just ostracized. pointing out of people's bad luck doesn't make voting all the more important, but exposes how funny life really is.
Skevinblack7 1 month ago
@XOmniverse hahha you must live a really shitty life bro
docappleman 1 month ago
@docappleman Liberty? How cute.
When you accept any form of organized government to rule over you, are forced to obey the laws they pass without your consent, use a system of standard currency they define, then you have no freedom. You're on a leash and are merely given privileges disguised as freedoms that can be taken away at any time.
If voting had any relevance, it's extinct. It's all meaningless choice designed to give these people in office credibility to keep ruling us.
MrEniena 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena
Your attempt to badmouth an institution that has allowed for the most innovational and efficient market system is flawed and appalling
You are too blind to see the beneficial ways that government affects us every minute of the day.
Who was it that created the internet system that you are currently using? Do you know how many people in the middle east literally DIE for the chance to live under a system as protective as ours? Democracy isnt perfect, but it is the best system there is
docappleman 2 weeks ago
@docappleman We don't live in a democracy, we live in a representative republic. That means we elect leaders to run the government for us. Our role as citizens is severely limited to only voting or demand that they act accordingly.
In a actual democracy, the majority of people wouldn't be voting out politicians, they'd literally be throwing them out of office.
I'm not making this up. Were you to research real democracy, you'd understand our government is not actual that.
MrEniena 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena So the only point you have against me is the fact that the name is different for the system? Regardless of the name, the rules inside of the system are still the same. What about my other points? Have you nothing to say? I would agree that large corporations have their hands too deep in the pockets in congress, but then again, Corporations, Political aciton groups and the like play an important checks and balance role. also, you too can be an elected official. TRY IT.
docappleman 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena constitional liberalism is the most important part of democracy, and you seem to ignore the amount of freedoms that you are allowed to enjoy. You are a consumer in this country, and you promote this system with every computer or Mcdonalds meal you buy. You should learn to be happy with what you have, and then try to improve on your situation. "Representative republic" is just a step in the right direction for all mankind. Try constructive criticism instead of complaining
docappleman 2 weeks ago
@docappleman I won't be happy because our representative republic is a failure like all governments. Its collapse can't come quick enough because at least when it does we'd have a opportunity to start over with one that actually allows us as a citizenry to have actual power and freedom instead of a small group of men who deny it to us all.
Thanks, but I'm happy with letting it fail through a lack of consent as it'll be a good lesson for us all.
MrEniena 2 weeks ago
@docappleman Actually, I'm feeling a guilty now and I've got a confession to make: I'm just playing devil's advocate.
I'm the kind of person who just enjoys good debate just randomly adopted the whole "I don't care about this stinking system, RAWR, RAWR, RAWR" attitude just to start one. I just like picking people's brains this way.
I apologize for leading you on, but it's just one of those things I do just to understand people's political beliefs.
You still want to keep going?
MrEniena 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena ME TOO!!!!!!!
hahahhahahahahahah im so glad
docappleman 2 weeks ago
@docappleman i enjoyed that mental joust though!
docappleman 2 weeks ago
@docappleman I doubt we're going to have any real debate now that I've spilled the beans on my debate starting fetish.
I'm curious btw, how much of what you said do you really believe?
MrEniena 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena Here is what i believe:
If everyone voted, that would imply that people were interested in public policy and shaping tomorrows world. If all people voted for presidential and congressional elections, politicians would be forced to become more connected to the electorate and fulfill the needs of the people in order to stay in power. That is the problem with today's politics,,, politicians can win elections WHILE not working effectively. Not voting only makes it easier for them
docappleman 2 weeks ago
@docappleman Good belief :)
But there's also the problem of the people who still vote. They've got the right idea, it's just a majority of them are fools. They elect the wrong people and have kept the same two corrupt parties in office. If people were to inform themselves thoroughly and start putting their votes behind a specific third party instead, that would be a start.
These voters keep repeating a deadly routine that is harming us all in addition to those not voting.
MrEniena 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena I agree that these two parties have serious flaws. I do think that a new party might help,,, but what really needs to happen is in the population. People need to care about what goes on around them. I personally believe that even many that vote are not very informed on their candidates, and just vote for whoever seems more of a leader,,, or can make CHANGE. Its all bogus. There will be no change in the whitehouse until there is a change in public attitudes.
docappleman 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena
I actually have this secret fantasy of starting a national third party movement,, but it needs to be organized and needs to be set up in everystate,,, good luckgetting that to happen when people dont even go out and vote NOW!!!!
No third party will ever be able to qualify for all national elections if the same ratio of people in the country vote.... New voters need to be activated.
I'm just turning 18 this april, and I will be able to vote this next elecition. Neither party is goo
docappleman 2 weeks ago
@docappleman READ FROM THE BOTTOM UP anyway
neeither party is good, but i'd rather see the more responsible party in office than the less responsible one,,, therefore id rather exercise my right to make a little bit of a difference instead of watch others make decisions for me
docappleman 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Tetzukai 1 week ago
Comment removed
Tetzukai 1 week ago
@docappleman Sorry, misread. Derp. Anyway, having new voters will not simply get ride of the problem. It's the parties that have to give the people that are not voting a reasons to vote again.
Tetzukai 1 week ago
@docappleman Plus, in the event not enough people vote, the system is designed to enable leaders to elect someone in lieu of the public. This at best is only going to anger the citizens and would cause people in and out of America to question our government "by the people and for the people" given the lack of consent it gets.
Except discrediting, a lack of votes from the majority is not going to change a system. Guys like the one in the video don't seem to be aware of that.
MrEniena 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena Looks like this year it's going to be the Democrats... again.
I'm actually just thinking of voting for a third party this year anyway. I know it's not going to do any good, but I'd like to tell my future grandchildren that their old man actually voted for one more credible than the two main candidates.
Come on. One of four nutty GOPers or a leader who can't talk right without a teleprompter is going to win? How do I say I seriously voted for either of those guys?
MrEniena 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena Believe me, I'm going to have enough of a hard time as it as trying to tell them that I voted for Mike Huckabee in the 2008 California primary.
Talk about uninformed voting.
MrEniena 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena hahahah i get it man
but the problem is that voting for a third party doesnt do anything other than just take a way avote from the better of the two candidates... I think alot of what Obama is doing is good even if he is unpopular economically... He is investing in education, in innovational technologies and green technology.... Those are extremely important issues in my book... and I know that the only innovation that the republicans would allow would be from the private sector
docappleman 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena private sector yayy!!!! but the private sector does not care about environmental contamination... they care about profits. That is why it is important for the government to tkae on some of the market failures that exist in the US
docappleman 2 weeks ago
@docappleman I say to heck with those choices. We should take the advice from Bender of Futurama and start our own third party. With hookers and blackjack!
Actually, forget the blackjack.
But seriously, with the hate the GOP is getting and the choices they present, I'm certain Obama is going to be staying in office for four more years. I know you're right about third parties, but I doubt his win won't mind if I vote for a more sane guy.
I'm thinking Vermin Supreme ;p
MrEniena 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena hahaha you should run for pres bro!
i myself woiuld go for the Purple monster machine party" that is actually a real party in new york hahahahah
docappleman 2 weeks ago
@MrEniena Not surprising. In fact, I don't see that many people take their politics seriously enough. That's why many voters blindly accept voting as the greatest means to regulate a government. You don't see many common people actually picking up a pitch fork and a torch and actually fight for their rights and it's getting to be appropriate horridly. What would voting do?
Tetzukai 1 week ago
It won't, but atleast it's nothing pointless as voting. If someone wants to change something, like these supposed voters, they're going have to do more than vote, especially in the circumstance they're in now.
Tetzukai 1 week ago
@docappleman
Tetzukai 1 week ago
I'm british and here in britain, the government don't care for the public or anyone's well being, even the wages and money people earn from their jobs are dropped along with benefits which is ridiculous and disgusting. The government says this always "We will sort out the problems" and guess what, you eventually find out that they've made things worse. Democracy and liberal parties should be destroyed. We don't need a government, we need hope!
JoshuaMouncer 8 months ago
People are sheep. Einstein once said "great spirits will always face violent opposition from mediocre minds." Johathan Swift said, "You cannot reason a man out of a position he was not reasoned into." Point being, people don't think. Those who can and do are mocked for it. What we today as a society would deem unpatriotic conspiracy nuts, are the very traits that our founding fathers carried. The definition of tyranny fits the description of the "patriots" driving our country into the abyss.
jusdafide 9 months ago
The only thing voting guarantees is that you're going to get called to jury duty..... =D......again and again and again and again....
jusdafide 9 months ago
@jusdafide I live in California and I have never registered to vote, but I got a jury duty notice recently. I think they use DMV records now, so the moment I got a CA driver's license, I was in their radar.
XOmniverse 9 months ago
@XOmniverse Yeah I'm in California as well. They use both your DMV records and drivers license. Peace.
jusdafide 9 months ago
Respect
abake101 10 months ago
@Adlasyn What are the reasons for your disagreement? Is there a mistake in my reasoning somewhere?
XOmniverse 1 year ago
voting is like recylcling:
People like this guy dont do it because it "wont make a diffrence"
Some right wing extremists think it dosent even have a purpose or exist
gameexpertsdotcom 1 year ago
@gameexpertsdotcom You mocked me but completely failed to address the points I made, and then smeared me as a "right wing extremist."
XOmniverse 1 year ago
voting just isnt pointless.
gameexpertsdotcom 1 year ago
My point exactly. I can't stand when people tell me that even if they're evil, and corrupt, that we might as well vote for the lesser of the evils. Fuck that. Don't vote.
Marzbarz007 1 year ago
this makes complete sense. no sarcasm, i don't vote.
xjxfx 1 year ago
In my ideal society, voting would not exist at all. I don't care about what the majority wants when it comes to any issue. I only care about the right of each individual to do whatever he likes, so long as he is harming no one else. Voting is simply an infringement upon individual rights via mob rule.
magiccat12 1 year ago
Had people not voted for Obama we would have had Sarah Palin as VP. I will continue to encourage people to vote against Sarah Palin. To encourage people not to vote would mean victory for this self-centered fascist media whore. I have given up on politics because too many people have supported the nonsense of the Right for thirty years. The Republicans have abused the democratic process to usher in Fascism. If people vote for fascism democratically the end result is fascism, not democracy.
socialmedic 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Best solution ever: 1. Don't vote. 2. Use the time you would otherwise use to vote, to convince others to vote your way. Scenario 1: You convince 0 people, but it's ok your vote would count for nothing anyway. 2: You convince 1 person, better than voting, since that vote won't be countered by an opposing vote. 3: You convince more than 1, much better than voting. In any case, voting = bullshit.
Psychosmurf547 1 year ago
I don't vote for the simple reason that I don't want to use coercion against others.
Also, voting is quite similar to praying: You feel like you are doing something but in reality you are just tricking yourself so that you don't feel the need to actually get off you ass and make a difference.
MigDanskeren 1 year ago
I said the same thing over and over again (about time spent changing the opinions of others versus voting). Get a podium and an audience. Your individual vote is a drop of water in a 50 gallon drum on one side of a beam balance. Change the minds of gallons of water and you'll have done something, but you'd still end up with a politician.
EgotisticalZilch 1 year ago
God I remember watching this video when it showed up in my subscription box.
IndividualAutonomy 2 years ago
You hit the nail right on the head my friend. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil! I am proud to say I have never voted and I never will.
DesertEagle97531 2 years ago
you dont have to appologize! : )
you do need a girlfriend
and should probably stop playing WOW and watching the news
nonSteel 2 years ago
all current politicians are corrupt because they can't get to where they are with out being corrupt they simply wouldnt allow someone who doesnt want to fuck over the public to be president lol look at kenedy and lincon i apologize for my spelling.
SyC0PaThiK 2 years ago
Voting seems like a waste of time, I agree with you. Leonard Peikoff had a good point about why you should vote, and the reason is simply to prevent the socialist in getting ahead (parafrasing).
Jesper, Denmark
Jazzper79 3 years ago
prevent by using force ? No thanks.
MaikUniversum 2 years ago
You, my friend, are a genius. I'm glad to see there is someone out there who actually understands why voting, and politics in general, is a complete utter joke. Politics has become nothing but a big game, with much money and time being wasted on campaigns. Your vote doesn't matter mathematically, no matter what people say. The presedent you vote for isn't magically going to make everything better, it is still up to you to make your own life better.
tjv189 3 years ago
If you have a choice between someone throwing a rock at you or shooting at you, and you choose the rock, does that mean that you voluntarily consent to the rock being thrown at you? Of course now. Likewise, voting is coerced. The rational libertarian is just trying to minimize the harm from himself. And, he tries his best to dodge the rock. He doesn't consent to it even if he votes "for" it.
DackBev 3 years ago
Voting is not coerced per se, but I understand what you mean. One candidate or another is going to win; "none of the above" is not going to take office. So it makes sense then to vote for someone that truly represents one's interests.
However, if your interests are opposed to those of the state, i.e. you are a libertarian, you should recognize the futility of your vote. Libertarians will never wrest power from the power-hungry by the processes designed by the latter. It defies reason.
lnd3005 3 years ago
Voting is indeed coerced. Think about it. I don't vote voluntarily. I'm threatened with force such that if I don't get someone elected that threatens less force then I will receive more force against me. I do it purely out of self defense.
I do recognize that there will probably never be a society as libertarian as I would like, but again, that's not why I vote. I vote simply to try to lessen the force used against me. I don't expect any more than that to come of it.
DackBev 3 years ago
Though no one is actually twisting your arm to cast a ballot, I can see how it is coerced in the sense you describe.
However, this is only coercion to the extent that you believe in the power of the ballot. This is to say, you have assumed that your ballot can protect you, that there is a viable candidate who won't steal from you quite as much as the other viable candidates.
This isn't true. The ballot has no power. All viable candidates will steal from you as much as possible.
lnd3005 3 years ago 3
That's not true. Some politicians are more oppressive than others. There are also other reasons to vote such as trying to bring about gridlock. It makes sense to get a Republican president elected if there's a Democratic congress, and vice versa, just to slow down the elimination of liberty.
DackBev 3 years ago
Some candidates have a genuine desire to reduce the size and scope of the state, but these are not viable candidates, so I won't consider them.
Of the viable candidates, all of whom seek our enslavement, you aim to choose him that will enslave us w/ better conditions, as you judge them. The conditions of slavery vary, but slavery itself does not. The slaves have no say in the conditions of their enslavement; the voters do not decide to raise or lower taxes.
lnd3005 3 years ago 3
Can it rightly be said that one viable candidate is less oppressive than another, when both would have us slaves, under conditions they might change as they wish?
The state will ever expand in size, b/c it is a means to plunder, for those who would be plunderers. In choosing among viable candidates, you choose among plunderers. Forgive me, but unless you are a plunderer yourself, it is likely far beyond your reckoning to say which plunderer is least competent (least proficient at enslaving).
lnd3005 3 years ago 3
With ballot in hand, you are in no position to cause gridlock. Among plunderers, political differences are pretense, like ceremonial headdresses put on before public appearances. No viable candidate believes anything he says on a stage. Once off the stage, he takes off his headdress to cooperate and collude w/ other plunderers as much as possible.
Maybe you don't believe any of that, but I think you do.
lnd3005 3 years ago
What a negative fatalist you are. You're content to let others vote your freedom away without so much as lifting a finger to cast a ballot in defense of what liberty you have. That's not something to admire in a person, to say the least. If everyone who wanted more freedom refused to vote, guess who would be left to vote? Those that hate freedom. We would be worse off. No thanks to you.
DackBev 3 years ago
Maybe the state will ever expand in size, but the least you could do is delay the expansion to buy yourself some freedom. You're not focusing enough on your own material welfare, but seem to be concerned about relieving yourself of some kind of moral guilt. I'll put a plunderer in office any day, if it will give me just a few more moments of freedom than I would otherwise have.
DackBev 3 years ago
With regard to your first paragraph, again all of this is contingent on your recognition of the ballot's power, which I do not recognize. I argue that the ballot cannot protect you, or me, b/c all viable candidates are equally tyrannical. So, according to what I've stated, when freedom-haters vote in place of freedom-lovers, it makes no difference in the outcome.
As to my alleged fatalism, what would you have me say? That there's some hope playing along w/ the statist charade? There isn't.
lnd3005 3 years ago
With regard to your second paragraph, please remember that the state is parasite on the economy. B/c of the liberties granted to the people of the US, the economy grew considerably. As the host grew, so did the parasite, if only b/c of its parasitic nature (plundering).
The expansion of the state is not a phenomenon one can halt or delay by playing its mind games. It's... bigger than voting, if you will. Your freedoms will disappear at the same rate, no matter how defensively you vote.
lnd3005 3 years ago
wonderful post :) thanks
MaikUniversum 2 years ago 3
You mistake is claiming that a person who votes for someone is "sanctioning their actions." That's not a true statement. It depends on why the person is voting. When I vote, it's simply as means of self defense. It doesn't mean I sanction anything other than that person being in office over another person. It doesn't mean I approve of everything that they want to do.
DackBev 3 years ago
I vote because i'm part of this country, I run this country, so does my neighbor, and his neighbor, and his neighbor and so on. I voted (mine ACTUALLY didn't matter because I voted in the kid's vote) for Obama because he doesn't endorse violence, neither does John McCain. john may support the war but he's still a human, killing or harming other human beings isn't agaisnt our nature.
calapanpo 3 years ago
Don't let them indoctrinate you. I think if you take a long, hard look at our political system, you'll see a bunch of men who do not take your opinion into consideration or care about your well being.
XOmniverse 3 years ago 7
They're idiots, tell me something I don't know.
calapanpo 3 years ago
If you knew it, you wouldn't be advocating voting. Voting is in place to make you feel like the system is for you and about you.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
The state, or national gov't, is not the same thing as the country. The former is a collection of men who impose their dominance with violence and indoctrination, and exact tribute from the people at large. The latter is the people at large. The former rules the latter, but they are not the same.
The only way to "run this country" would be to enslave the people, which is what the state does. Unless you are a key official in the state, you do not "run this country."
lnd3005 3 years ago
Most of what your parents and teachers told you about the gov't and the people was untrue. The gov't does not represent the people. It owns them. Once you've worked for a living, this will be abundantly clear to you.
When you vote, you implicitly give approval to a system of oppression. It doesn't matter who's at the helm. The ship will be steered the same way, toward ever greater enslavement of the human race.
lnd3005 3 years ago
I do not own the country. So by what logic should I even be allowed to decide who runs it? I do not own the property in Nebraska. So what right do I have to go to the polls and decide who will run their lives 4-8 years? By voting, I would be interfering with their right to govern themselves.
I don't govern what I do not own.
I don't own any human beings, and as such do not govern them, and have no wish to.
I also don't gamble. The House always wins.
Silam81 3 years ago
"Not voting for the "lesser of 2 evils" is essentially a vote for the "most evil", simply by absence."
Because there might be a God, it would be better to believe in him than not. Save yourself from hell.
IntrigueIs 3 years ago
That's why I don't talk about voting with people when I just meet them. It's like religion. You have to respect their vote. And I don't. So why get them all up in arms, when I could say say "fuck this, fuck you, bye" and figure out a way that works, and then present that to them later, and then everything works out?
IntrigueIs 3 years ago
For me, the big reason is that low voter turnout delegitimizes democracy. Not voting has a bigger effect than voting.
kulza23 3 years ago
That is a good attitude, but I hope you see that de-legitimizing democracy in this way does little to combat the state, which will always produce some excuse for its own existence and continued growth.
A politician, once elected, will always speak and act as though he has a "mandate" from the people. Apart from all the pretty words he and others may provide, he is a man of violence and fraud, a conqueror.
lnd3005 3 years ago
Both pointless and immoral. I agree.
BboyMindless 3 years ago
For as long as people vote, they perpetuate the current political systems.... which is why I don't vote.
Sparkygravity 3 years ago
I agree, I don't know how many times people have asked me "Well if you don't vote, how do you a way to politically speak out. Isn't your vote your voice?"
No my voice is my voice, and people can do more to change society for the good, through talking, than voting.
Everyone seems to believe that government dictates policy, that's not quite accurate it's the underlying culture that acts subserveant to force that ensures policy. The only way to change the country is to change people.
Sparkygravity 3 years ago
How can my notion of freedom be vague when you, in your our words, have reach an understanding of my belief that I 'have no obligation to ANY other living thing'? That seem pretty explicit too me.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
As far as arming yourself, I think that anyone that doesn't arm themself is an idiot, even if, or especially if, the government doesn't allow it. And, private security firms are extremely efficient at carrying out the mission they are hired for.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
I do Youtube videos.
XOmniverse 3 years ago 2
If people vote based on their values and ideas, and a culture is the sum of a group of people's values and ideas, then changing the culture will change the outcome of elections.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
lol@enforce and then calling him naive.
Oppp2 3 years ago
I think that if one makes the claim "if you don't vote then you don't have the right to complain" they have accepted their master-slave relationship between the state and allegiance to the democratic system. This argument can only work for people who are proponents of democracy. Saying an anarchist can't complain because (s)he didn't vote makes no sense to me.
ConceptualizedGhost 3 years ago
Are you simply encouraging as many people as you can in practical terms, trying to point out the cold hard truth, which is, that no matter how many people you individually rally to vote (or against it), you will have no noticeable effect on the election, which is in fact, true?
Or are you suggesting that in principle, no one should actually vote?
If it is a combination of the two, I think you ought to propose an alternative. How do you think we should govern ourselves without free elections?
superdog797 3 years ago
I'd suggest reading some books on the subject of market anarchism or anarcho-capitalism. I've also done some videos on these topics.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Hell I'll check 'em out. I can't criticize ideas I haven't investigated, however my impulse is to point out that while you may support such alternative governments in principle, it doesn't really follow that one ought not participate in the current government because one simply sees a better alternative, particularly when the alternative posited is not likely to become a reality. Such an action is akin to saying that you won't ride a horse to get around because you can't afford a car, no?
superdog797 3 years ago
As an Anarchist myself, I see it as a wrong to impose my will on anyone else, therefore, voting is wrong. That's like saying I think working is better than stealing, but since there is theft in the world, I may as well steal.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
This is a good point, Cail. However, I will point out that the fact that by voting you are not actually, in fact, imposing your will on anyone because they retain the right to leave this country if they don't want to have to deal with someone else's wish.
Certain issues must be dealt with sometimes. How do we come to a consensus about how to respond to these situations without a determined majoral opinion to create a course of action?
superdog797 3 years ago
Riding a horse is more effective as a means of transportation than voting is as a means of changing state policy.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
But this kind of misses my point. Like I said, I don't disagree that, in practical terms, voting could be dismissed as something that an individual's participation in will have no discernable impact on policy. However, in principle, excluding the practical inconvenience it is to vote, why should an individual not vote? I wouldn't say that it has literally "0" impact on policy. I'd actually say that the process of voting, rather than an individual vote, has a tremendous impact on state policy.
superdog797 3 years ago
I don't see necessarily see consensus as a good thing if it trumps individual freedom. Basically, the country the country is swaying back and forth between neo-corporatism and socialism, the only two consensus votes a majority is will to compromise on. The only rational consensus one can achieve is between willing participants that aren't forced into compromising their values, and that only happens in a truly free exchange.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
Ok, and what determines who individuals vote for?
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Well, the current state policy probably what would determine who an individual votes for. If you want to change it, you'll want to vote for the candidate who wants to change it. If you don't want to change it, you'll vote for the candidate who wants to keep things the way they are.
Do you not see voting as either a theoretical way or an actual way to rediscover the voice of the people?
superdog797 3 years ago
What I was getting at is that someone's values and ideas determine who they vote for, and a culture is basically the net sum of a group's values and ideas.
Therefore, effort should be made to change the culture rather than discussing politics directly.
I don't recognize the "voice of the people" as a valid concept. The only way an opinion could be "of the people" is if everyone held that opinion, which is virtually never the case.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
I suppose we've different world views. I'm working on the anarchism stuff you gave me, but feel that history has demonstrated democratic governments provide for the most secure, and overall fair, way of life for the most people possible. The "voice of the people" is a tool. It's a tool to get things done. Democracies are compromises. They're far from perfect, and theoretically many perfect governments can be constructed, but they seem to work best (so far). And they can't work without voting.
superdog797 3 years ago
I don't live in the USA, but if I had to crawl naked over broken glass for 10 miles to vote, I'd crawl, and never miss my 5 seconds of freedom.
dexarouskies 3 years ago
Do you actually have an argument in favor of that being a sound investment of your time? It sounds more emotional than rational.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Video response forthcoming.
dexarouskies 3 years ago
If you shared a house with others, would you leave it to others to clean the place, because you knew they would, and thereby escape responsibility for doing your share?
dexarouskies 3 years ago
If my roommates are making my home less livable then they will not be my roommates for long. This, however, is a voluntary relationship. Government is not. If I was serving a life sentence in prison and my cellmate was making my life misserable, I wouldn't be asking the cockroaches what they thought was best, I'd be carving a shank.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
a choice for the lesser of two evils- provided those two are the only choices- is not a bad thing.
elected officials don't usually get to impose their personal ideology that easily, that's why there are three branches of gov't
i guess you being a hardcore individualist it wouldn't matter to you if the country as a whole is well off, but in my country, for example, a lot of marginalized working poor pretty much depend on their right to vote in hopes of achieving some relative prosperity.
fede2 3 years ago
what the fuck happened to your hair? It used to be long and awesome.
BattousaiOfChaos 3 years ago
I voted
dandeentremont 3 years ago
Fighting evil is a good thing, but not in a way which brings you great harm.
If a man points a gun at me I'll do everything required for my survival - I won't attempt to fight him if I don't have to.
The Presidental elections are the same thing - if you don't approve of elections do everything in your power to attempt to change them, but you should still vote because the outcome will determine your future.
GamblerJustice 3 years ago
I am not giving someone my sanction if there is no other choice.
If I thought there was a chance none of them would be elected if I didn't vote - then certainly I wouldn't!
But: One of them is going to be the President - no matter whether I vote or not.
It would be immoral not to vote for the lesser evil.
*cont'd*
GamblerJustice 3 years ago
"II don't believe I have ever stated that I support agressive tactics to achieve a desired outcome."
This is the point I think you you either aren't seeing or cannot reconcile; government, even some imagined Utopia, Is based on pure aggression. It only exists under threat of violence. And what is it doing for us that we cannot do for ourselves? A government doesn't support itself, it steals and used our labor to sustain itself. The burden is on you to say why it's needed.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
However politicians also have the guns backing them up.
ewops 3 years ago
I'm very offended by your voice and I don't accept your apology.
ForOrAgainstUs 3 years ago 5
You would support force against me from another continent, while supporting national identity? Not only is your hypocrisy unethical and lacking in consistency, but your aggressions would only be responded with in force.
TruthHidden 3 years ago
Enforce?! Who said anything about enforcing? The very idea of freedom is THERE IS NO ENFORCEMENT, it's an oxymoron. If you come in my home uninvited, intending to forcibly deprive me of my life, liberty, or property, I assert my rights with my AK-47, but no one can force me to. If an AK-47 doesn't deter someone from trying then they are crazy and no ammount of government can fix that.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
And nobody has to cooperate in free exchange, but that's their lose. Why should I give a crap whether they cooperate or not, so long as they don't violate my rights?
You are convoluting entirely seperate, if not opposed, concepts; freedom and responsibility. Unless you're willing to qualify these kinds of contradictions, should restrain yourself from using words like naive if you want to be taken seriously.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
Let's pretend for a moment that the state is more efficient in providing services than competitive business. Even if the state was some Utopian dream, as long as it is in any way compulsory, it is still founded on faith in evil. If a person is not agressing aginst you and you commit violence on them then there is no difference between you and any other despot.
And using a Islomic Theocracy as example of how leaders, not rulers, are elected is only furthering my point.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
*sigh*
I hate how correct you are. I hate it.
Living independently by the golden rule is obviously a flawed life method, but there is no single approach that is perfect, and that's the point.
We have one life during which we can maximize our own personal fulfillment, and if we can marry that concept with helping others achieve this for themselves, we could function without narrow ideology.
I appreciate your mind, XO, and your ability to share insight with others.
ZenAnarchistAmerican 3 years ago
Only if you see morality as a tool to control others and not a tool to enrich your own life.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Neither candidate even comes close to representing my values.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Very simply, I favor freedom, and not the hollowed out version that comes to your mind. Your mind, body and property belong to you and no other. Do as you please so long as you aren't INITIATING violence. Free and voluntary interaction. Anarchy, Agora, Liberty. Pure, simple, and and good for all.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
A republic, as intended by the founding fathers, based on logic and facts and on non initiation of force/fraud. A system in which the individual is the highest value.
Check this out watch?v=muHg86Mys7I
SuperFinGuy 3 years ago
So in your opinion, what is the magic barrier between good and bad democracy?
And LEADERS are not elected, they are merely people who inspire others to follow their example and advice. What you are talking about is RULERS, people that lord their will over other through violence.
I'm for no aggression, no rulers, no mob rule. Individuals should govern themselves, and fear death when they think of forcing another.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
good points, conscise and to the point
altargirl89 3 years ago
You're right, I will be shot if I don't submit to their coercion, but I don't see how participating in violence ends the threat of violence. I want to live my life peacefully without someone democraticly elected threatening to kill me for not submitting to their will. And I certainly don't want to force my will on others, so how does voting fix that?
Cailwyn 3 years ago
The Soviet Union throughout most of it's history enjoyed enormous popular support. Does that make Gulags the best option? Kim Jong-il is very popular in North Korea, does that make him moral? The Interahamwe was cheered by the majority when they were hacking to death a million Tutsis with machetes in Rwanda. Was mob rule cool here? The Kristallnacht was democracy in action! Good shit, right?
Democracy is only an excuse, not a reason.
Cailwyn 3 years ago 2
by not voting you are also consenting with their presidency, as per the laws of your country.
Finiras 3 years ago
And I suppose a woman attacked in a park is consenting to rape, right?
No, no, I never consent to any law. I make my own judgements.
Cailwyn 3 years ago
you can say whatever you want, but in the end you're subject to those laws and you didn't exercise your opportunity to help change them.
Finiras 3 years ago
"you can say whatever you want, but in the end you're subject to those laws and you didn't exercise your opportunity to help change them."
With the choices that we're given there is literally NO opportunity to help change the laws in a constructive way by voting. Nothing will get better until the culture changes, which is what XOmniverse is trying to make happen.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Hail The King! Long Live The King!
IntrigueIs 3 years ago
Voting for measures and local reps is important, those are chosen by popular vote, unlike the presidential vote, which I agree feels pointless due to the electoral system.
I voted third party anyway!
77Porthos77 3 years ago
"That's rather silly. That's called a dictatorship."
So if you change the dictator it's not a dictatorship anymore?! Now that's silly.
"I doubt it's "immoral" (by who's standards?)."
Ever heard of a thing called being right or reason?! Obviously being in greater number doesn't give you the right to assault others.
SuperFinGuy 3 years ago 2
Yeah, I've gotten called apathetic many times after telling people I don't vote, which is ridiculous. Apathetic people are those that don't care enough to vote; I care enough not to vote. There's a difference.
Austrolibertarian 3 years ago 3
Bingo.
Beethovens7th 3 years ago
Thats the same argument I've been using as of late. In fact once you point out I don't like delegating control to an entity I really have no control over some people start to get rattled.
ewops 3 years ago
By voting for a third party, I increase their vote totals, increasing the chances that e.g. the mainstream media will pay attention to them, piquing some interest and spreading the ideals. In other words, I'm paying attention to the long-term consequences of my actions.
jparagons 3 years ago
Why not abolish voting altogether and force people to accept one candidate then?! Instead one of two candidates?! Democracy is immoral because it is the implementation of coercion and dictatorship.
SuperFinGuy 3 years ago
By voting you are:
1. Sacrificing your own values
2. Legitimizing the outcome which almost certainly doesn't favor your values, even if "your" guy wins
3. Legitimizing violence againt anyone whom does not 100 percent agree with the winner
4. Arousing hate and fear in your neighbors
5. Corrupting yourself.
"If you don't vote you can't complain about what you get". What a CROCK OF SHIT! So if you don't choose the method of your execution you can't complain about being murdered, either?
Cailwyn 3 years ago
hooray for signing contracts in another's name!
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
nice jew fro
thorsmitersaw 3 years ago
Even if you can only choose the lesser of two evils, that is better in terms of your rational self-interest. Otherwise, if you and people like you do not vote, the odds of the greater evil winning increases, resulting in negative consequences. To refuse to vote for moral reasons is to sacrifice yourself for supposedly moral reasons and curse others for not doing their "duty". Kant, anyone?
There are also direct vote propositions.
ediblepet 3 years ago
There are a bajillion practical reasons not to vote.
brainpolice2 3 years ago 3
I'm not being sarcastic, i'm going to ask for your legitimate honest response to this question: what do you think would happen if nobody voted? Would a candidate be chosen anyway? Like lets say everyone agreed that voting was bogus, what would be different that if we did vote?
martheczar 3 years ago
Shall we kill the gypsies or the Jews? What if no one votes, you ask? Perhaps we have a false dichotomy here? Perhaps we do need, nor do we have the right to choose one or the other? The correct choice is none!
subach 3 years ago
depends, will they be killed fast? or slow? Im assuming thats what we are voting for right? Becuase I cant decide a persons death...picking lesser of those evils doesnt change the fact that its still killing them. How about we rescue and hide the gypsie and jews(with others that share the same idea)from rather than vote for thier survival...you will accomplish more that way.
hasaywhat 3 years ago
my last comment....to subach
hasaywhat 3 years ago
If nobody voted, the legitimacy of the entire system would fall apart in front of everyone's eyes.
It would be glorious.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
Yes I agree, the legitimacy would fall apart - but i'm skeptical about the outcome. Wouldn't the government just force its laws on us anyway?
martheczar 3 years ago
If a small group of maybe 10,000 want to try to force their laws on a group of 300 million without convincing them that they need the laws, then good luck to them!
XOmniverse 3 years ago
you know your totally right :)
martheczar 3 years ago
Certainly. It would be glorious if the entire nation refused to vote for either one of the dictators.
But do you really think this is likely to happen?
GamblerJustice 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
More sour grapes from the lunatic fringe.
TheSockWithNoName 3 years ago
How does you vote matter? Has it ever made a difference?
overmind25 3 years ago
*your
overmind25 3 years ago
How does being an internet nerd who bitches about a lunatic fringe ideology with no impact on the real world matter? Has it ever made a difference?
People who are politically active in real life (as opposed to bitching on the internet) organize and mobilize themselves in large numbers, as to each one, doing his part, amount to something that has an actual impact.
But you nerds don't care about real life politics, only about your out-of-touch, pie in the sky ideological masturbation.
TheSockWithNoName 3 years ago