Voting

Yes

No

[theghostofbj]

The only other option is armed revolution.

[theodorelogan]

No, it isn't (although it definitely is one).

The other is agorism.

[theghostofbj]

Yeah, right.

[theodorelogan]

You won't know until you try.  As I said, tax protesters have actually had a measurable effect on the government.  IF the voters change gears and focus on THAT, we will have even MORE of a measurable effect.

What has voting done for you so far?

[theghostofbj]

What has non-voting done for you so far?

[theCelestrian]

Oh, look at this, the hypocracy ensues:

Vince:

Yes, but don't you know backstabbing will occur before you vote?  Don't you understand that there is a high likelyhood (more like a certainty)_ that the person you are voting for is a liar?

but wait a minute,... isn't this what I was arguing about buying a car?  About using government services?  About going to college?  About paying rent?

"Oh, but I'm not responsible for this because the government intiates force through theft, even though I know that buying a car will result in money going to the government"....fap...fap..fap...."an agreement under duress is no agreement at all, even though I voluntarily and knowingly put myself in a position to put under duress"....fap..fap...fap..."voting just means your a different degree of socialist"....fap..fap..fap..."but I don't know about issue voting, and I'll completely avoid this little 'contradiction' in my position"....fap...fap...fap..."everyone who's principled needs to drop out and engage in the counter-economics of agorism"....fap...fap...fap...

What has voting done for you so far?

Why don't you ask Ian, Mark and the FTL crew what their voting has done in New Hampshire... particularly when they stopped a school funding measure, and are working to prevent the state from centrallizing education.

Oh wait, actually don't.... they're responsible for murder and aggression because they support voting.

So let's see:

Your Tax Evasion cost the government - maybe $10,000 (and I'm being GENEROUS because I don't know what you do for a living)
Their "voting" cost the government - millions of dollars by denying them the ability to raise property taxes to pay for a school grant.

[theodorelogan]

What has non-voting done for you so far?

i have sex with my wife every election day instead of voting....and yes I don't have sex with her ONLY on election day.    I save time and energy on campaigns to make my business better, to spread the message of freedom and liberty.  I also don't promote government, and I don't risk being responsible for what a politician might do (I don't want to be an accessory to theft, murder, etc....)

but wait a minute,... isn't this what I was arguing about buying a car?  About using government services?  About going to college?  About paying rent?

I didn't give them the money....they took it.  They did not take your vote.  You gave it to them willingly and knowingly.  I don't see why a so-called libertarian doesn't understand the vital difference between a voluntary action and a coerced one

I don't hold paying taxes against people (though I would prefer they didn't).  I know that they wouldn't do it except they are threatened if they don't pay.  No one is threatening you with anything if you don't vote.  But when you vote, YOU are threatening ME with violence if I don't follow your person (should he or she win).w

Why don't you ask Ian, Mark and the FTL crew what their voting has done in New Hampshire... particularly when they stopped a school funding measure, and are working to prevent the state from centrallizing education.

Have they saved taxpayers 270 billion dollars a year yet (and thats just federal tax evasion)?

Let me know when voting slashes the government that much.

I joined the FSP, but it wasn't to vote.  I am hoping to show people how voting is antithetical to freedom (and libertarians know this....but do it anyway.  That's the really pathetic part....talking about how terrible it is to install leaders via voting....and then do the exact same thing.)

FTL is not about elections.  It is about spreading the message of freedom and liberty.  That's why I contribute $50 a month.  Unfortunately they do advocate voting...unfortunate but I have met few people that I agree with more than Ian.  Hopefully candidates he votes for never win....then he won't have blood on his hands, so to speak.  Then again, I don't think there is a big risk of that...if 50% of the people ever vote for a candidate that Ian believes in...then a large enough % of people will surely be principled enough to bring the government down wholesale (you won't need even close to 50%)

[theCelestrian]

I didn't give them the money....they took it.

You still voluntarily and knowingly put yourself in a positon where you would allow the government to take your money.  If you can argue to Lindsey that she's reponsible for candidates who break their "verbal contract" and change their platforms because "she knew this would likely happen"... then turnabout it fair play.

Again, where the hell's the "counter-economics" you keep talking about?  Buying your car on the black market? "Phony" registration, tags, SMOG?

The problem with advocating a 100% principled stance is you'll never ever, ever be able to live that principle 100%.  It's a great guideline, sure, but sometimes "you gotta do what you gotta do."

Have they saved taxpayers 270 billion dollars a year yet (and thats just federal tax evasion)?

And the government is still growing, still passing more and more legislation to give themselves more and more control, giving more and more power to the fewer and fewer people that will enevitably particpate in the system. They continute to grow their ability to take more and more money from the people who do pay, (and they will, even if just for the FEAR of having their door kicked in), and from businesses who will continue to pay the fees because it's still profitable for them to do so.

Money which you help fund when you buy products on the "legal market."  So where's your "counter-economics?" in all of this?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I live in Japan currently (if thats not obvious from all my other posts), I don't have to pay taxes here because of the tax treaties between Japan and the US,... so really what can I do to spread the message of liberty in my home country, one of the few that actually has the best chance to be free?

• Tax evasion is not an option
• I can contribue to FTL, and I do.
• ....and I can vote NO on state referndums from California (my state of residence for the purpose of voting) to hopefully try and stem the tide of government spending/growth where I can.
• I can encourage people, particularly those of the "if you don't vote, I don't care what you think" mindset to at least steer the voting in the direction of shrinking/dismantling the state by getting them started in the right direction.... maybe over time they might become more and more liberty-minded, but to call them a "socialist" and a "muderer" immediate short-circuits these efforts.

....and you're calling me and everyone else who does this a, "different degree of socialist" and for intents and purposes an accomplice to Murder for doing one of the few things as my disposal to actually try and make a difference.

Fine.  I guess I'm an accomplice to murder and a "socialist"....and you know what, I'm gonna keep doing it because the reality is that to fix this imperfect system that we have to live in, I'm going to have to use an imperfect solution, which includes but is not strictly limited to voting.

Nice going.  Hope you're real proud of yourself, and if there is anything that you can take away from this is that I hope you realize that your methods for communicating your "principled-not-gonna-happen-in-reality" position, including the labeling, is only going to be counter-productive to your goals.

...and when you need activists for whatever anarchist pet project of yours that you may or may not have in the future, be sure you call someone else....after all I'm just a socialist.

------------------------------------------
Feel free to address this post should you have any other "thoughts" you want to share with me:

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13033.msg231611#msg231611

------------------------------------------

...and I still contend your whole stance on voting is inconsistent given your concessions regarding issue voting and voting for nonsensical candidates.

[ButlerShafferRules]

I agree with Mr. Japan.

Mark said something which I thought was quite genius...along the lines of- in some people's quest for perfection [in no government] they lose sight of the fact that you can have improvements. It's this all or nothing mentality that is quite harmful. If you can't have it just the way you want then you will not make any efforts to make it better-  to those that are not involved I say- HOW ARE THINGS GOING TO BE PERFECT IF YOU DO NOT TRY TO MAKE THEM BETTER? It's a progression...

Another good point from that show was the other dude (the one of the three who does not have a whiny voice) who said- would you rather they cut your arm or your finger. Are both horrible? yes! is one better than the other? YES!

From my view, I don't drop out because I will not allow the stupid stupid government to deter me from having the best life I can possible have. I'm not going to be some dingbat living in a cabin in the woods looking over my shoulder - I'm going to be plugged into society and make the best possible life I can for myself while voting and getting people into the message of freedom. If you quit your job, live alone, are paranoid and affect your quality of life in any way in order to avoid government influence guess what? GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE ALREADY BESTED YOU- and you just laid down and let them win.

[theodorelogan]

You still voluntarily and knowingly put yourself in a positon where you would allow the government to take your money.

I didn't "allow" them to do anything.  They did it, without my permission.  The act of voting IS the act of giving permission.  Major differences that you still don't get.

You don't sanction a rape by walking down a dark alley.

Comparison inapplicable. "Freedom from Hunger" is positive right. "Freedom from Slavery" is a negative right.

That isn't the point of the comparison.  The point is that "not acting" does not make you culpable for anything.

[theCelestrian]

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13033.msg231611#msg231611

[theodorelogan]

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13033.msg231626#msg231626

[theodorelogan]

....and I can vote NO on state referndums from California (my state of residence for the purpose of voting) to hopefully try and stem the tide of government spending/growth where I can.

BTW as I said I don't have a specific moral problem with refferendum voting (meaning I am open to the subject).  I won't do it because the most important vote to me is NOT voting.  But I don't think people who try to vote against spending refferendums,, for example, are doing anything bad since your vote will NEVER lead to the initation of force.  Voting for a politician NECESSARILY does.  I am certainly open to arguments that refferendum voting is or is not violence.  But it is pretty clear that voting for a politician is.  It is the attempt of the voter to foist a leader of his choice onto me.

Tax evasion is not an option

It always is.  For some, it is a tougher decision.  And as I said I don't hold it against people who are too scared to.

can encourage people, particularly those of the "if you don't vote, I don't care what you think" mindset to at least steer the voting in the direction of shrinking/dismantling the state by getting them started in the right direction.... maybe over time they might become more and more liberty-minded, but to call them a "socialist" and a "muderer" immediate short-circuits these efforts.

I don't call people who are new to the liberty movement any of these things.  But I think the people on this board are people who pride themselves on their rationality and who are already well on their way down that path.  I would hope that you could look critically at your actions and see that voting for politicians is an act of violence.  If that makes you angry, then you should probably ask yourself WHY.  Why do you think socialists get so angry when we tell them that their actions HURT the poor?  Or especially when we say that they aren't acting out of altruism but out of self-interest?

....and you're calling me and everyone else who does this a, "different degree of socialist" and for intents and purposes an accomplice to Murder for doing one of the few things as my disposal to actually try and make a difference.

1) You aren't making a difference, you are making things worse by voting
2) You have many things at your disposal you can do.  you don't want to pay the price of doing them (which is perfectly understandable mind you...I certainly don't hold that against you) so you vote and tell yourself that is doing something.  Sorry, I'm not here to make you feel better about yourself by telling you (You voted!  Great job Mr. Celestrian!  Way to work for liberty!).  This isn't a support group.  I am going to look at what you did and say, "Hey the guy you voted for came to office...and now he is taxing me.  Why are trying to install your leader over me by force?  Isn't this exactly what you are trying to prevent?"  When your actions lead to my oppression, I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.

Nice going.  Hope you're real proud of yourself, and if there is anything that you can take away from this is that I hope you realize that your methods for communicating your "principled-not-gonna-happen-in-reality" position, including the labeling, is only going to be counter-productive to your goals.

Instead of worrying about how bad my words make you feel, maybe you should concern yourself with whether I am right or not.  Because this post was the most crybaby BS I have read in a long time.  I'm sorry you feel sad.  It's your responsibility to align your actions with your alleged principles so you don't feel that way.

...and when you need activists for whatever anarchist pet project of yours that you may or may not have in the future, be sure you call someone else....after all I'm just a socialist.

More proof you aren't really interested in liberty...your feelings get hurt and so now you won't help promote liberty to "show me".  I guess it isn't that important to you in the first place.  I would be glad to participate in any pro-freedom activities or protests you might have (or course, since voting is antithetical to liberty I won't participate in anything promoting voting).  But tax protests?  I'm in.  protests against the war?  You can count me in too.  It would be nice to have more than just me holding a sign at library walk at UCSD.

You really need to grow a sack dude.  I had to go through this myself, but instead of crying about how hurt my feelings were, I looked critically at my actions and the outcomes and realized that voting is wrong.

How does it feel to defend democracy from freedom?

You can find my response to your ridiculous argument here.  It's only one line, but then again, that's how weak your post is.

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=13033.msg231626#msg231626

[theCelestrian]

I should probably wait until I sober up to answer this, but that hasn't stopped me so far tonight:

It always is.  For some, it is a tougher decision.  And as I said I don't hold it against people who are too scared to.

Guess you didn't read. I'm in japan.  I dont have to pay taxes, legally.  How is evasion an option for me again?

(EDIT: and actually, if we REALLY want to get technical, I'm living more of a "principled" life than you right now.  I don't pay taxes...obviously because of the legality.  I don't use US government roads, I don't use Government subsidized utilities or services of ANY kind...well, that's not true... there is my Skype number, which I know kicks some fees to the US government for having a US number tied to the account.

I voluntarily signed a contract consenting to abide by the laws of Japan.  Perfectly within my "libertarian" right to do so..... I just "vote" for no-winner candidates and NO on every referendum and issue I come across, barring the repeal of a law or dismantling of a government office....which so far hasn't happened yet.)

Also, you completey dodged my point on your "counter-economics."  Why aren't you purchasing or providing forged documents that will allow yourself and other to circumvent the illegitamate state?  Why are you buying products from business who knowingly and willingly continue to pay licenses and taxes to the State because it's still a profitable venture for them?

I would hope that you could look critically at your actions and see that voting for politicians is an act of violence.  If that makes you angry, then you should probably ask yourself WHY.

First off, I've already clarified that I've only voted for libertarian candidates who've never been elected, so I really don't have anything to be angry about othen than "the principle" of this entire discussion.

Second off, it makes me angry because you're position is still inconsistent: and you have yet to answer this -

You've already conceded that voting in some respects is not "immoral" or "unprincipled" or whatever word you choose to use. So:

1. If people are going to vote anyway, and believe in the system.
2. Voting for a Libertarian candidate or someone who doesn't get elected isn't "murder"
3. Issue Voting "kinda-sorta-maybe-might-be-not-too-sure-because-maybe-I'm-more-of-a-realist-than-I'd-like-to-admit" isn't agression.

....then why the hell are you not telling people, "Hey, if you're gonna vote, why not vote for 'this guy' or 'just vote on the issues'?"

It makes absolutely no sense to me, none, and it tells me that you seem more interested in masturbating to the sound of your own voice while you stand upon Anarchist Soapbox high and engage in your sophistry of how "a principled libertarian" should be, rather than actually utilize all the tools at your disposal "NOW" to shrink the size of government,...even if your end goal is to eliminate it entirely.

Instead of worrying about how bad my words make you feel, maybe you should concern yourself with whether I am right or not.

Doesn't make me feel bad, it just makes me not like you.  Which I don't.  (EDIT:) I've also already taken responsibility for my voting, which I've also outlined for you what I've done, and I've also raised questions about your "openess" to issue voting and voting for nonsensical candidates.

rather than looking for a way to simply dismiss everything I've said by calling me a "whiny bitch who needs to grow a sack," you might also take some of your own advice and really look at what I've been saying.... particularly that paragraph up there with the numbered list.

I am going to look at what you did and say, "Hey the guy you voted for came to office...and now he is taxing me.  Why are trying to install your leader over me by force?  Isn't this exactly what you are trying to prevent?"

You would never be able to know that unless I told you.  Try again.

Because this post was the most crybaby BS I have read in a long time.

Maybe, or maybe I'm once again illustrating the point about how your presentation of the your message is tuning a potential ally to your cause out.  I've already pointed out that I'm sure with enough questions, I could find something where you didn't live up to your "principled"..... principles.

Which reminds me, you never did tell me if you went to college or not.

More proof you aren't really interested in liberty...your feelings get hurt and so now you won't help promote liberty to "show me".  I guess it isn't that important to you in the first place.

I'm all for promoting liberty, I'm just not interested in helping you.  I'll be more than happy to help other people with their anarchist pet project, I just plain don't fucking like you.  Maybe you can get one of your friends to call me and I'll still show up.





...keep fappin' off to your principled dream, Mr. Agorist Man.

(edit: and if you think I'm really offended,... look for a post of mine that basically sums up how I look at everyone on the BBS.  I'll give you a hint; Pictures and Words.  Just take a moment and think about that.)

(2nd edit:  ...and if you think I haven't been thinking about your position, and my position about voting.... well, whatever.)

[theodorelogan]

Guess you didn't read. I'm in japan.  I dont have to pay taxes, legally.  How is evasion an option for me again?

Moving to Japan allowed you to do this legally.  I congratulate you on your choice which led to further disempowering the state.

Also, you completey dodged my point on your "counter-economics."  Why aren't you purchasing or providing forged documents that will allow yourself and other to circumvent the illegitamate state?  Why are you buying products from business who knowingly and willingly continue to pay licenses and taxes to the State because it's still a profitable venture for them?

As I said before, I don't hold it against people who choose not to go out in a blaze of glory.  When the government robs you, who am I to say that, "You should have fought back harder!"  It isn't my life to risk.  I avoid the state to the level that I am comfortable with....and to the extent that it still is able to agress against me, I deal with it like everyone else.

You've already conceded that voting in some respects is not "immoral" or "unprincipled" or whatever word you choose to use. So:

Initiating force against people is immoral.  Some votes do this...some votes don't.  The ones that do are immoral...the ones that don't aren't.  It's a pretty clear distinction.

1. If people are going to vote anyway, and believe in the system.

I don't understand.  It is not a universal certainty that people have to vote.

2. Voting for a Libertarian candidate or someone who doesn't get elected isn't "murder"

Not, it isn't.  Only if that politician gets elected and commits aggressive acts against people (like drawing a salary for example) is it a problem.

3. Issue Voting "kinda-sorta-maybe-might-be-not-too-sure-because-maybe-I'm-more-of-a-realist-than-I'd-like-to-admit" isn't agression.

Living according to principles IS realism.  Living according to ad hoc positions is ignoring reality.

It's that I don't see the aggression in issue voting.  If you can see it, please point it out.  If you can show it to me aI would be glad to repudiate it.

....then why the hell are you not telling people, "Hey, if you're gonna vote, why not vote for 'this guy' or 'just vote on the issues'?"

Voting for a guy who isn't going to win is a waste of time.  As far as the issues, as I said, I don't know.  My opinion is that my voice is louder by joining the majority of people who don't vote.  But I don't hold it against referendum voters.  I can actually see the self-defense in THAT.  I just personally think it is a waste of time to participate, period.  But is being open minded about it really that horrible?

You would never be able to know that unless I told you.  Try again.

You did tell me.  We wouldn't be having this discussion if you didn't.  BUt just to be clear, that was a hypothetical, since you did tell me that no candidate you ever voted for has ever won.

Maybe, or maybe I'm once again illustrating the point about how your presentation of the your message is tuning a potential ally to your cause out.  I've already pointed out that I'm sure with enough questions, I could find something where you didn't live up to your "principled"..... principles.

Well, if I have convinced you that liberty is not a worthwhile goal, then you didn't ever really believe it anyway.

As I said before, I don't speak this way to recent or potential converts.  Only to people who believe they are principled.

Are you going to stop amping now because I made you upset?  No?  Then I didn't turn you off to liberty, so no harm done.

I welcome you to keep asking questions to try and find a place where I don't live up to my principled principles.  I know I am not perfect or all knowing and I would be happy for you to find an area that I am not living in alignment with my principles.  That's part of the journey right?

BTW I am sure you probably could.  The difference is that when I see something I am doing that is unprincipled...I stop doing it.  I don't rationalize it.  I don't say, "Well, it's impossible to live a totally principled life, so why bother trying.  Let's just be unprincipled" or "That guy is unprincipled, so who is he to tell me that I am too" or "Nobody lives according to principles so why should I?"

I'm all for promoting liberty, I'm just not interested in helping you.  I'll be more than happy to help other people with their anarchist pet project, I just plain don't fucking like you.  Maybe you can get one of your friends to call me and I'll still show up.

Sorry to see your your emotions get in the way of your so called quest for liberty.  As I said before, if my pointing out the violence in voting has made you that upset you must not be that interested in liberty anyway.  As I said, I would be more than happy to join you in an y pro-freedom activities you might plan, regardless of how you feel about me.  Because freedom is important to me.  More important to me than hurt feelings on a bbs.