Voting

Yes

No

[theCelestrian]

Alright, now we're getting somewhere:

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

Thanks, but it really was an afterthought, so I can't claim "real" credit for this "accidental brilliance."

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

I didn't say have to, I said "going to."  The bureacrats if no one else will vote.  Those who have the "fuck your opinion if you don't vote" opinion, are going to vote.

If you can show it to me aI would be glad to repudiate it.

The material, manhours and organization for voting from the local to federal level is paid for by taxes, i.e. "theft."  Voluntarily choosing to vote could be argued to be a willful participation in that theft.

Voting for a guy who isn't going to win is a waste of time.

Not true.  At the very very least, it allows me to talk to other people about the message of liberty without them summarily dismissing my opinions and calling me a crazy because "I didn't vote."  It's happened more often than not, and I can credit no less than 5 people in the last 2 months before I left for Japan who switched from "fiscally conservative, socially liberal and the government is needed to make that happen" to "you know what, you're right.... Fuck that government bullshit."

Who knows, maybe those 5 people have stopped paying their taxes.  I know at least one has....but then again, you can only take what I'm saying at face value, and I recognize that "talk is cheap on the BBS."

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

Not quite, but this is another discussion.  The REALITY is that your principles are an abstract and arbitrary set of statements (which may or may not be logically consistent) that were formed as the result of you having a rational mind.  This has nothing to do with the "reality" of the world.  Marxism is a principle, so is fascism, that doesn't make them any more "real" than Democracy, Liberalism or libertarianism.

The entire system that we live in (the US state) is a result of ad hoc positions.  That's the reality.  The majority of human beings on this planet live by a series of ad hoc positions that might seem consistent to them, but may not be logically consistent.  That's the reality.  When you tell these people about not voting, they're evaluating you based on their ad hoc set of statements (and likely saying, "You don't vote, you don't matter" and dismissing you).

That's the reality.

But is being open minded about it really that horrible?

I'm glad you're open minded, now take a moment and look at what I said with the same openness, just for a second.

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.

Indeed not.  Might also want to examine your claim about how "really upset" I am.

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.

Well, maybe you're a better human being than I am today.  Had this conversation happened last week or next week, I might have decided to take a different tack on this discussion.  The reality of the situation is I would never know until I was actually asked, but again you're taking what I said at face value, so I understand your sentiments.

[theodorelogan]

Same thing.

[theCelestrian]

Now that the fog of sake has cleared a little bit, there's some other points I missed.

Only to people who believe they are principled.

I've never claimed to be a "principled" libertarian.  I have claimed that I would very much like to wish I could jump on the board the "purist bandwagon," but I still have concerns about a New state filling the void upon an uncontrolled collapse of this State, and the problems of having a group of people (us in the U.S.) living in a world where there are a bunch of states around.  Also doesn't stop a group of people "voluntarily" forming their own "private community" and then morphing that private community little by little into another State, complete with involuntary taxes and oppression and the "works."

It's a different discussion, sure, but I would not call myself "principled" by any means yet.

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 never said this, and I notice you added this in later.  What I am saying is, "It's impossible to live a 100% principled life all the time, and so while using principles as a guideline is great and admirable, there are times when you might be faced with a 'lose-lose' sitatuation, which is what voting is."

You vote - even on issue voting your using tax payer dollars voluntarily.  Yeah, that sucks, and sure I'm repsonsible for that as far as it goes (I agree with Ladyattis' argument that that's where the line or responsibility ends.)

You don't vote - then government will continue to grow at an even faster clip with guarantee that no one is going to stop them.  There was already a case where a bureacrat was elected with ZERO VOTES because no one voted.  Is the system there collapsing on itself because the population of that town looks and this and goes, "hey, you know what.....this government is illegitimate!"

Nope.  The voting isn't going to stop.  If I don't get in there and "dilute" the power that the other "votes" have, then I'm acquiescing more and more power into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people, who will continue to us it and likely use that power to "legally" continue to grow the state, and provide that State with more and more power to increasingly punish those who "drop out."

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

I'd never say that you should vote, that's ultimately your choice.  I am however, saying that given the reality of the system we live in, it might be prudent to seriously consider how we can bend this avenue of outreach/expression/protest/prevention to suit our purposes....like the FSP.

Speaking of which, if New Hampshire was ever going to secede in a non-violent manner, thus giving it any possibility "moral authority" (for the rest of the US to stand behind NH or get "outraged" when/if the Feds roll tanks into the state) to stand up to the Federal Government, how do you think it's going to happen?


.....by a vote.

[theodorelogan]

Nope.  The voting isn't going to stop.  If I don't get in there and "dilute" the power that the other "votes" have, then I'm acquiescing more and more power into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people, who will continue to us it and likely use that power to "legally" continue to grow the state, and provide that State with more and more power to increasingly punish those who "drop out."

I don't think you are seeing what I am saying.

1) You keep using words to lessen what a vote is.  A vote is not "diluted" unless your candidate wins.  If your candidate wins then he/she will commit aggression....thanks in part to your vote.

2) Voting has not made government saller.  Even now in NH with FSP members moving people are still voting for bigger government (on the whole).  Yes, I understand that only a few are there now.  I doubt that even with 20,000 people that will change.  Why?  Because 20,000 is still a very small percentage...and with voting you need 50% to make a change.  Look at the percentage of people intimately involved with the government.  You will never get 50%.  Changes in NH will come NOT from voting, but from civil disobedience, tax resistance, and monkey wrenching.  One monkey wrencher can do to a state what it would take thousands of voters to do.  Too many people have (or beieve they have) a vested interest in the state to ever change things via voting.

3) I am not providing the state with power,  Why?  Because I don't have to wait until

I'm sorry but I don't see this discussion going anywhere.  What can I say once you admit that your attempts to put someone in charge of me is wrong, and yet still do it unrepentantly? 

[theCelestrian]

1) You keep using words to lessen what a vote is.  A vote is not "diluted" unless your candidate wins.  If your candidate wins then he/she will commit aggression....thanks in part to your vote.

My vote is a vote, one of many or one of a few. If my candidate wins, the candidate as an individual will do what that individual decides to do, might uphold his word, might break his word.  Sure I'm responsible for putting this hypothetical person in office, but I would say that's where my responsibility ends, as the candidate is an individual.

I've re-examined your claim that "representatives" have an explicit agreement to act on my behalf.  This is not exactly correct because the representative "acts on behalf" of everyone within his/her constituency.  Voters, Non-voters, Voters who "voted for the other guy", the whole kit and kaboodle.  Does that sound like a "valid" agreement?  I think an argument can me made this "madate" from the "community" is no madate at all from a academic abstract position, which is where we currently are discussiing this.

Again, that's fine.  You can insist that this is morally tantamount to murder.  I disagree.  Responsible for putting someone in office who does aggress?  Sure, but that's where the responsibility ends, as I have no control over this individual.  (The example you used with "bush" and the soldiers being responsible for Iraq is a little different because as the "Commander-in-Chief" he CAN control the actions/decisions of the military, but we don't say Bush is explicitly responsible for the solider who makes the individual troop who decides to disregard standing orders and shoot/rape an innocent civilian)

Since you live in California, you have some extra "voting tools" at your disposal.  You have "initiatives" where you can get measures put on the ballot.  Why haven't libertarians / small goverment people used this to put repeal/dismantle registration on the ballot (for example, a voter referendum demanding that the laws allowing politicians a salary be removed/changed to be $0..... might be interesting.).  You can also use that wonderful "recall" button.

Could you imagine if every politician got recalled?  Again, talking "not-gonna-happen-in-reality" land, but some interesting ideas.  

2) Voting has not made government saller.

Voting has made the government bigger because of the big government education that the majority of our "citizenry" have been fed since kindergarten.  That's a big problem no matter what your opinion on voting is.  These people have have programmed to "vote or shut up" and that they need to the State to take care of them.

Non-compliance and non-voting isn't reaching these guys.  If you know (as you say) that you'll never reach 50% (which by the way, people have been elected with less than 50%...see Senor Clinton in 92'  won with 46% of the vote), then your voting (be it voting for the libertarian candidate or no on issues) isn't going to "stain your hands."  So why not do, say you don't think people should, but use that voting in conjunction with your tangible non-compliance to reach and be able to speak to a wider audience without being summarily dismissed?

One monkey wrencher can do to a state what it would take thousands of voters to do.

 

I can agree to this, but the number of people who vote are far, far, far greater than monkey-wrenchers and non-complyers.  70 million tax evaders and the government's still going.  A Monkey Wrencher does a little too good of a job and you got yourself more crack-down legislation.

Each has a set of consequences, some intended, some not.  Not saying you shouldn't stop monkey wrenching, but the reality is not as simple as your black-and-white principles mandate.  Non-compliance is not stopping (really even slowing) the government any more than voting is. What hasn't been seen yet is if a coordinated combination of both on a wide scale (what if all 70 million people could be turned to vote NO on government issues and vote for libertarian candidates).

...but, if both are "not working" (since that seems to be what we're each independently claiming) then does that mean it's time to storm the capital?  

You know... "live free or die?"

3) I am not providing the state with power,  Why?  Because I don't have to wait until

You trailed off here, but that's okay, I'll address the first part.

Are you providing the state with power?  It's an interesting question, I could say that your refusal to vote gives more "power" to those who do, which by your argument "get their power" from the voters, which they don't, they get it from the legal statutes/legislation that they and their predecessors have passed outlining what they can and cannot do, independent of their "constituency."

So I could see how you not voting is "consolodating the power of the State" by surredering your share of this "power" to fewer and fewer people, including those bureacrats who will continue to vote. That choice is also something you are responsible, since it was, after all... a choice. What happens when "no one" (meaning everyone BUT the direct government employees) votes?  Well, we've pretty much "completed" our police state/dictatorship/fuedal state, since those with a profit incentive to pass their broader sweeping government legislation, complete under the guise of "legality" and "legitimacy."

And at that point I guess they can just "remove" this whole "voting" thing from the system, and you would get exactly what you wanted:  no one voting.

I'm sorry but I don't see this discussion going anywhere.

Yep.  Pretty much.  Shows that this issue of "voting" in general (incluing issue voting) is not as cut and dry in the practice of reality as the black and white of the "principle" dictates.

What can I say once you admit that your attempts to put someone in charge of me is wrong, and yet [would you] still do it unrepentantly?

I don't know, again the realities at play are a little bit more gray than what you're trying to boil it down to.  I guess I could "not vote" and walk around and say, "Hey, don't blame me, I didn't vote!" while others continue to vote and the State continues to appoint other "masters" regardless....but someone would still be in charge of me.  So right now I still will do it.

Unrepentantly?  Well, like I said before, might be an imperfect solution but it's what I consider "I gotta do."  i didn't choose to be born into this system...or on the planet where the world has pretty much become either socialist/communist or fascist (pick a country and take your pick)...but I'm here.

Sure, voting isn't perfect, but I'm not losing sleep over it... and won't be.

(EDIT: fixed word "initiatives")

[FTL_Mark]

...

Mark said something which I thought was quite genius...the one of the three who does not have a whiny voice..

That's me Mark Edge, Whiny Genius.

[theodorelogan]

My vote is a vote, one of many or one of a few. If my candidate wins, the candidate as an individual will do what that individual decides to do, might uphold his word, might break his word.  Sure I'm responsible for putting this hypothetical person in office, but I would say that's where my responsibility ends, as the candidate is an individual.

What does it mean to take responsibility if it isn't to be held responsible for the actions?

"I take responsibility for putting this perosn in office....but don't punish me for the rotten things this perosn did"

How did you take any responsibility then?

[cerpntaxt]

If we're going to talk about this again I might as well bring up a couple of points that I thought of:

• You can't force people to be free
• Voting is not self defense. It is preemptive because no act of aggression against you has taken place against you. You only believe that one may take place in the future. You do not have absolute certainty. And voting seems like an ineffective means of self defense.

That is all.

[Taors]

Oh my fuckin gawd I am soooo much moral than you because I dont vote omg look at me I'm a snooty snoot snoot oh my gawd.

Fuckin' Kye;ARDs!

[Taors]

I've got some advice for you, little buddy!
Before you point your finger, you should know that I'm the man!
And if I'm the man, then you're the man, and he's the man as well...
So you can point that fuckin' finger up your ass!

[Taors]

Also - voting fucking sucks.