Gavitor

You're right, sorry bout that. Enjoy the rest of your day also. And sorry Dsayers for calling you a sophist.

You mean this definition? The definition of legitimize is literally "to make legitimate"... https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimize Stop being a fucking sophist just because your argument has no leg to stand on. Also you have NO PROOF whatsoever that voting binds anyone. The fact remains that whether you vote or not is completely irrelevant when it comes to guys with guns initiating force. Remember there are governments that exist where the common rabble isn't allowed to vote at all. The fact that people can use force against you regardless of whether you voted or not should not be ignored. THEY DON'T NEED YOUR PERMISSION!!!! You said so yourself that voting is akin to praying, if that's the case it cannot be immoral. Also because voting in and of itself can be used for a variety of things that are not immoral voting in and of itself cannot be immoral. What is immoral is that actual force that is used against the common people which happens whether you voted for it or not.

And he never will.

I didn't say "not an argument", also I wasn't making an argument. I'm simply pointing out how you will continue to behave, being the predictable person you are. I must have touched a nerve because you're doing what everyone else does when I say something that touches a nerve. You purposefully misspell my name. Have a good one dsayers.

How does one enslave those that are already enslaved? On a serious note I'm not surprised you're still at it, I admire your tenacity and persistence however its a shame your argument is based on a false premise and faulty logic. No matter how many people explain it to you, you will continue to repeat yourself like a broken parrot while ignoring valid counter arguments. You continue to repeat yourself as though that makes you correct even though the election is over and you are not putting forth any ways to actually increase freedom other than obstinance which doesn't necessarily increase freedom and in some cases can actually restrict it. Why don't you call in already and have a formal (or informal) debate with Stef (or Mike)? If your argument has any leg to stand on then it shouldn't be an issue for you. PS: in before "I'm not going to respond to your post because you said something I don't like"

What has he flip flopped on?

basically anti trump people ganging up on and destroying the property of a homeless trump supporter.

You couldn't be more wrong, you continue to make assumptions about me and others and that is the problem. You assume that we have forgotten or something, and act as though because some are willing to play the game that they can't differentiate the difference between the game and reality. By the way I'm not irritated, this again shows you are making assumptions about me. Who said anything about righteousness? You assume this. you cannot prove what goes on in other peoples minds so you cannot prove that voting signals anything. This is simply your belief. I've already argued that people believe voting is useful or not REGARDLESS of whether or not you vote. We all cooperate regardless, you pointed out yourself we are coerced into doing so (paying taxes). Voting being voluntary doesn't change that neither does the act of voting itself. I don't tell others its valid, given that there is a new variable I'm ok with people trying something to see if anything has indeed changed. Actually it is an assumption, especially when I don't accept the concept of masters/rulers in the first place. Again just because someone is willing to play a game doesn't mean they can't differentiate the difference between the game and reality. Your premise is flawed because you are telling other people what they think... I'm not the only one who has noticed this. I am NOT telling you to vote and I will push back at those who put you down for choosing to opt out. If you don't want to play the game I respect your decision, recognizing that it is a game I'm ok with others trying to play it to see if indeed they can actually affect the game in the first place. At the end of the day none of you change the fact that assholes with guns steal from me on a daily basis so why fight over it? You are correct that it isn't action it is however a choice that has consequences. You also missed the point entirely. This is a good answer. Thanks. I wasn't clear when I said alternative, I was saying an alternative that is actually effective. Why is it a problem if it is ineffective? You're concerned people might think a certain way if some of the people here vote? What is my prejudice?

I never made the claim that I do... You are making an assumption that I believe that based on your false premise that by voting I somehow own you in the first place. You are ignoring that those that claim to be government are the ones claiming ownership, and voting for less doesn't mean we want government at all the problem is that the option for NONE isn't there. I don't support the government owning you or me or anyone else. Whether I vote or not doesn't change this. Whether I vote or not also doesn't change those that ARE claiming ownership over us. You continue to insinuate that by voting we are giving away your ownership which is completely unfounded. You have yet to prove that those who claim to be government require us to vote in the first place. I would argue they do not, as there are plenty of "countries" that don't have voting. It's not voting that gives them the ok its the guns they hold and the support of those who outright claim that they need their precious master.

While I have my disagreements with dsayers I seriously doubt he supports any of that. Also I'm pretty sure most of us regardless of whether voting or not don't support the creation of more laws... More laws will not solve our problems and voting for trump is still taking a big chance. Some want to take that chance and others don't. I agree with A4E we could be doing better things with our time then fighting one another when in the end we all want the same thing, a free world. Dsayers is correct when he points out that voting is there to divide us. Especially when there is evidence that the #1 prejudice people have is political prejudice. (IE people don't care about the person or the policy they only care about the stupid D or R) However I have to point out that when it comes to slave on slave its not about voting, the problem is that the majority of slaves believe they need a master and will actively protect their masters. This applies in areas where there is no voting either. Also with the fact that most people will not be swayed by reason and evidence and in fact will double down on whatever it is they believe when receiving reason and evidence then how do we go about dealing with that? If the majority of people in the world care nothing for reason and evidence let alone principles how then does speaking truth change that when telling the average person the truth has the opposite affect and only strengthens their false belief?

Thank you for making the video. It's very well said and is a good summation of the divide between anarchists and the evidence for trump. No need to apologize, it's not easy to change your views when new evidence presents itself. I too struggled with this as well and also barely came around recently. You get that just because we are using the few options available to us in the moment doesn't mean we have abandoned our principles. I hope more will watch your video as its very well put together and is very concise.

My friend was vehemently against Trump, called him an idiot etc same old bullshit talking points from the media and was a Bernie supporter... He is now voting for Trump and pushing back against people who still blindly support Hillary despite the overwhelming evidence of her crimes. I'm willing to hear what people have to say against trump with regards to his policies however those are NEVER brought up by the average person (they're more concerned with Trumps appearance or him grabbing their pussy through the monitor) and the majority of complaints about those policies came mostly from here. (and they are legitimate complaints) Make reasoned arguments, don't pressure people into voting (or not voting), Stand your ground and those who aren't willing to listen or think will leave of their own accord. My goal is to inform people and let them decide for themselves, nothing to fight over give people the info and let them decide for themselves. If they spread misinformation then be willing to correct them. (and be willing to correct yourself if you are mistaken) I've found this approach to be best regardless of topic.

The voluntary action of voting in a state that is predicated on coercion... That coercion doesn't go away just because voting is voluntary.

What the fuck are you talking about? We aren't discussing whats in your head... Being free in your mind doesn't mean you are free in reality much in the same way that believing you can fly doesn't make it so. You can continue to live in your head if you like but this is getting pretty asinine, perhaps you should stop pretending to be psychic and telling others what goes on in their minds. You continue to say that voting is ineffective while simultaneously saying it has an effect. Make up your mind! Who here is advocating for subjugation? You accuse others of sophistry while telling others that by voting it means they support government which is an ASSUMPTION on your part... People vote for any variety of reasons, you don't get to dictate what people do or don't support with their actions especially when those actions have no effect according to you. Since you get to equate voting with supporting and legitimizing government does that mean I can equate not voting with supporting and legitimizing nihilism? You haven't given people an alternative... have you made a free society for everyone here to go to? I'm sure if they had that option they'd be much less likely to vote. Also voting in and of itself isn't the issue, people vote all the time every day, they vote with their feet and with their wallets. Is that a problem also?

Who said Trump is a savior? Considering he was friends with the Clinton's in the past he could very well be just putting on a show. I say let Trump win and let reality speak for itself. People voted for it and it won despite many saying it didn't, whether or not they make good on it is another story entirely. This isn't about people voting themselves off the plantation. I've actually yet to hear of any one actually put forth an option or plan of action that would destroy/remove said plantation in our lifetime. What is your plan for eliminating "rulers/masters" or freeing yourself from them? What is the principle people are using regarding this situation, I'm curious to hear from both sides.

If you want him to win then vote for him... If voting doesn't work how/why did brexit happen? Why is Trump competing with Hilary rather than any other republican that the powers that be would much prefer? Given that they had no issue letting Hilary win over Bernie when I would argue Bernie had a much bigger following than her, why did this not occur with Trump? What are the downsides to Trump being president that aren't already guaranteed with Hilary (or any other dipshit politician)? Mike already pointed out the potential upsides to Trump that dont exist with anyone else. If anyone can show that he is mistaken I'd like to hear how he is.

Whether you take part or not really depends on whether you think its effective or not. If you think its ineffective (it appears you do, I do as well) then whether you vote or not is irrelevant and by the same token so is worrying about whether other people vote or not. It cannot be immoral to take an action that has no effect. This statement contradicts itself, you cannot say that it has no effect and that you are then somehow responsible for an effect that was never there. Why are you accepting responsibility for something you say is going to happen regardless? How can you be responsible for something you can't control? This makes no sense to me. Well that's fine because last I checked I'm certainly in the extreme minority. (being an anarchist and atheist) So when dealing with people who don't play fair do you make it a point to always play fair? Considering that government and the people who support it (which is easily 95%+) have no issue supporting the use of force against you for simply disagreeing, do you still think we should take the high road? If you're right that voting ineffective (If I'm mistaken and you were talking about being right about something else then please correct me) than it cannot be immoral because ineffective actions can't be immoral. If you're wrong and it is effective than its a missed opportunity for a potential positive when the negative is already guaranteed.

Are you equating voting with rape? Are you saying that voting is effective? Because rape certainly is effective. You point out that the gun IS being pointed at me for protection money so you understood exactly the context in which I made the comment and supported the point I made about the gun always being pointed at me. Go back and read my original statement on this , actually I'll make it easy for you Thanks for proving my point. You refused to answer my question on whether you think voting is effective or ineffective. Why? I ask because you are contradicting yourself when you say it is both effective and ineffective at the same time. You cannot say that it affects other people or gives people permission or legitimizes actions and then turn around and say that its like praying which is completely ineffective. My stance on voting has NOT changed... I said I literally point out that I have NO FAITH in voting (ie its ineffective) and this is why I don't give 1 fifth of a half eaten shit whether someone votes or not. I sure as hell have no control over the people who call themselves government. But if someone wants to try I say go right ahead. I've been consistent with this the whole time and you are literally preaching to the quire... Why you feel the need to tell an atheist not to pray is beyond me. Getting upset at someone who shouts at the sky in an attempt to make it rain is equally silly. They dont care who votes or not, they are gonna do what they want to regardless. You are nothing more than a number to them and its not like they sit down and go " oh look Henry is ok with x". Like they need your permission in the first place. Other people don't even know if you voted or not so saying that by voting we give them legitimacy is asinine. People think the state is legitimate whether you vote or not. I would argue that they are incorrect but that's besides the point. Also people are more concerned with whether or not you pay taxes than voting. This is evidenced by their continuous focus on Trumps tax records... And speaking of Trump, someone asked what makes him different from every other president. Well to my knowledge no other president has been able to divide anarchists. People have lost boyfriends/girlfriends, friends, family, and pets over this guy and even anarchists are arguing among themselves over him. I find it extremely humorous that people argue about voting and talk about wasted resources and energy when it would be far more efficient to simply let them vote and focus our efforts on ways to actually make progress in removing the state from our lives.

Sure I can, because as long as you live in a statist society the gun is ALWAYS being pointed at you. Legality is irrelevant, they can change that on a whim and often do. If something is beyond my control then what does it matter if I get involved or not? If there is a chance to change the outcome why not take it if the outcome is already going to be negative regardless? That's literally saying that I'm responsible for the planet being destroyed by trying to stop the meteor that's gonna hit. Now in the second 2 sentences you say that my actions are ineffective and akin to praying, if that's the case what difference does it make? Either voting is effective or ineffective. It cant be both at the same time. So which it is? If its ineffective you are literally arguing with people to not do something that affects no one.

Whether you're being forced to do something or not doesn't change the fact that the gun is pointed at you and you are participating regardless. You can opt out of eating food given to you by a captor but I don't think anyone would hold it against you for eating said food. Whether you vote or not is entirely up to you, I won't hold it against you regardless of what you choose. I do think Mike made a good case for why you should take the chance. The grenade is gonna get thrown at the crowd regardless, if there was a chance that you could change its trajectory would you not take that chance? The negative consequences are the standard... so technically you have nothing to lose. Its like getting a coupon/voucher at a casino, worst case scenario you leave with nothing which is what you started with and were gonna have. However there is the chance you could leave with some money, why wouldn't you take that chance when there is no downside to doing so? And just to be clear, if you don't want to take that chance for any reason I fully support your right to do so. I just personally see no reason not to. Yes. However if you know that negative consequences are gonna happen regardless why wouldn't you take a chance if there is even the slightest possibility for a positive consequence?

I said Where did i say anything about knowing what is good for others? People think that charities can do good, is it wrong for them to support said charities? You said In what sense? Morally? I brought this up in the other thread and no one has addressed it.

Yea in hindsight I shouldn't have made that comment. I apologize.

I was expecting better from you dsayers, I'm disappointed. I already agreed i don't own you, so why are you repeating yourself? Why can't I give my vote away? I can perform the action of voting regardless of what the vote is for. If someone wants me to perform said action and is willing to pay me to do so do you have a problem with that? If so why? You say that playing along doesn't resist your enslavement, that's true. However by continuing to live in said society we have to play along anyways or the result is death. This means paying taxes and not resisting police. Those are also playing along, are you suggesting that people not do those either? Or have you found a way to deal with the gun in the room that I haven't been made aware of? You also completely skipped over this Your statement doesn't refute or challenge this in any way.

Another thread on basically the same subject? Regardless I made some points in the other thread that you haven't responded to. I'd like to hear your thoughts. (if you did respond and are awaiting approval then disregard the comment about not responding.) How is dividing IQ by race an arbitrary distinction? Some people think he could do good, do you think no possible good could come from trump becoming president? If so could you share why you think that's the case?