dsayers

When you vote on those, you are submitting to mob rule. YOUR vote might be against it, but you are communicating that the vote and the system offering it is valid. That if it passes, you will pay it because you agreed to go with whatever the group decided. Which says nothing of all the theft your vote is NOT stopping. Also, I'm not sure why you continue to reference morality and the NAP. There is no contention there. The battlecry of those with curiosity and integrity no doubt. It wasn't a conversation because I'm communicating as if logic, reason, and evidence is valid, and you're communicating that your preference supersedes it. Oh and I see the questions you claimed I didn't answer. They're the ones I DID answer before, which led to you answering them as you asked them. So it's pretty underhanded to ask a question after I answered it and then claim that I didn't. Why do you need this tactics I wonder? Hit me with your downvote. My rep level continues to go up despite those who need voting to be justifiable jumping on my every anti-voting post instead of offering logical, reasoned, evidence based refutations.

Biased assertion. Skepticism indicates a reluctance to accept something without proof. Faith is the acceptance of something without proof. They are opposites. Meanwhile, somebody who is skeptical of X isn't powerless or refusing to accept X. Once proof for X is provided, they are now convinced and in fact enlightened. Being able to accurately identify the world around you is paramount to your survival. As such, faith is antithetical to survival and would not be selected for.

Yes, I knew the pedantry was for the sake of deflection for the sake of preserving bias confirmation. Despite that, your challenges for precision were useful. So I bottom lined it so that others who might actually be curious, open-minded, and not emotionally NEED for voting to be a good idea might benefit. You don't own me. You are not living your values. The end. I didn't look at whether I in fact didn't answer any questions or not. Though I will say it is more important that objective claims made be true than I be compelled to spend my time answering every question whether I consent or not just because somebody asked it. You've balked on numerous falsehoods and obfuscations you've put forward while SAYING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER while using that as a standard to marginalize the input of another. Dude, you really need to look into why you need this so badly. This was posted in response to my call for a standard by which we can agree upon what is true. As humans have the capacity for error, I must reject perception alone. I feel like not expending the effort when you know it will not accomplish your goal, but it does achieve the opposite of your goal by legitimizing human subjugation is more pragmatic. Will you answer this discrepancy? I'm not trying to hound you, but what if you were wrong?

You don't own me. Therefore you cannot transfer that ownership of me to somebody else. When you vote for Trump, you're going to be communicating that you give Trump ownership of 300 million human beings. Which by extension is to communicate that such ownership is valid, as is your granting of permission. "You've been living in a dream world, Neo."

I'm very sorry to read this. I had a similar childhood and the destructive Ripples it has caused has effectively robbed me of the first 40 years of my life. It's no small matter. If you haven't checked it out already, Stef's Truth About Addiction does an excellent job of explaining why addiction is so potent:

So you ARE allowed to tell people they can rule over me?! I want people to be free. That's not what I attributed to you. No projection. You don't prevent future suffering by telling people it's okay to subjugate others. When you participate, you're educating people that government is valid. Again, you are in no position (do you like that better) to tell others they can rule over me, no matter how benevolently you try to package your motivation. Everybody who binds others without their consent. That is the ruling class, the enforcer class, and every member of the judicial branch that isn't privately hired. I haven't fully fleshed it out, but every State employee that is receiving stolen monies sounds right off the top of my head as well.

Exactly! You have no expectation that they will do what they said because they're sociopaths. But this isn't what we're talking about here. First of all, the aggression we're under is largely nickle and dime stuff. It adds up for sure, but we have the luxury of paying their protection money and using the rest of our time and resources towards FREEDOM. I'm also glad you said looking for the most productive way out. CLEARLY voting isn't that. In order to solve a problem, you must first understand the problem. The lifeblood of the State is its perceived legitimacy. Meaning it only exists in people's minds. Voting doesn't counteract this and in fact adds to it. The way out is to change people's minds. If you could convince enough of the enforcer class to reject that they exist in a different, opposing moral category, we'd have freedom TODAY without a drop of blood spilled. Hyperbolic, but valid. You won't change people's minds by pretending that 1) your vote matters 2) your vote will contribute to freedom 3) you have the right to volunteer other people for subjugation. shirgall, we need to arrive at an agreed upon standard for determining what is true. When you put forth protest vote, I pointed out that you do not protest something by participating in it. Your only answer to this challenge was a confession that the vote accomplishes nothing and a claim that it is pragmatic. To which I challenged you that if it accomplishes nothing, how is it more pragmatic to doing nothing? Instead of answering THIS challenge, you only offered challenges of your own. Above, to DCLugi, I think I've done a fine job of making the case for how it legitimizes all of it. We know that statism is not a rational conclusion. We know that one of the reasons why it's still alive and well despite being imaginary is momentum of the past. Ostracism is a very real influence and the majority will entice the undecided or unsure or even just those not willing to sacrifice comfort for principle (which would be my description of those who accept property rights but vote). I remember watching a TED talk where they talked about motivation and a recycling campaign experiment that tried posters that showed recyclable litter laying about a bin and another showing a human being making use of such a bin. The latter was more effective because people are more likely to do something if they see other people doing it. We also know that if somebody is unanimously told one thing, they have every reason to believe it. A dissenting voice can be all it takes to instill doubt. Finally, since you accept that voting does nothing, the chances that my speaking out against voting does not in fact do MORE to bring about freedom is such a tiny hurdle, it would be improbable that the claim is false. Which given the above, I don't even see it as a chance to be wrong if my claim were absolute. But it was relative to your claim. I appreciate the conciseness and accuracy of this point. Surely you recognize that it only adds credibility to my position, eh? I don't know who that is. Express an idea that actually says something and maybe we can have a conversation

I accept that political voting is an amoral behavior. I don't see how voting either way is more pragmatic than not voting. As Tyler H pointed out, there's opportunity costs. My efforts in this thread will contribute more to freedom than any political vote could. So why vote instead of using that energy to help others understand that accepting subjugation and modeling the giving of permission to subjugate others is not productive? Because casting any vote works against this by legitimizing all of it.

Could you elaborate please? I am curious. I do not see how telling somebody they can rule over you is self-licensing or not self-erasure. Can you flesh this out for us? I would also push back on the idea that you can protest something by participating in it. They don't see your motivation. All they see is that you accept them as your masters and the system as valid as a whole. "They" being not only the psychopaths, but your peers who might be on the fence and/or only going with the flow. If I'm right, then this would be a behavior that has the opposite effect of one's stated goals. This is why the overall lack of integrity in this thread saddens me. People are downvoting and obfuscating, offering no rigorous refutations. They're repackaging the behavior as noble and righteous by tacking on well-poisoning descriptors like defensive and protest. It doesn't seem like a two-sided conversation, but rather emotional defensiveness to the degree of being willing to harm others, if only by way of reputation in their own mind. It hasn't been very productive.

Upvote for overall value. I did want to challenge the claim that it is not emotional. It can be. Which is fine. If it's voluntary, the motivation isn't relevant. Not to mention emotions are one of our senses and not automatically a bad thing.

Assertion. Nobody is threatening you if you don't vote Trump. You have no logic, reason, or evidence that voting Trump will make ANY difference. You don't preserve yourself by erasing yourself for the sake of your abusers. Oh. Forgot to add that by telling somebody that they can rule over all of us, it's not about self at all. It's about making sure everybody else is suffering as much as you. Again, you don't have the right to tell anybody they can rule over me.

I wanted to bump this. A couple of people have told me recently that it was a very impactful thing for them to read. So I thought maybe it might bring value to people who weren't active when it was fresh.

There was a time in my life when I probable would've done the same thing. I'd wager you wouldn't do such a thing today out of principle. Every little bit helps and it takes all sorts. I have no problem with people seeing the truth and wanting to try SOMETHING to take steps forward. I'm just doing my part as somebody who has taken that many more steps towards freedom to encourage other to CONTINUE to take those steps. Instead of stopping at a point where they'll stagnate. Does that make sense? What I think and feel has no bearing on the truth. The fact is that we do not have the capability of giving people that which we don't have to give. We don't have the right to condone human slavery and subjugation. Your post assumes that somebody in the position of president of the United States has the power to enact these things. They don't. And just because they say they will, they don't have to. These points keep getting brought up over and over. If they're not convincing, please point out how/why. What is the null hypothesis that Trump both could and would do these things? What if every person who would vote in a presidential election instead told one friend, made one facebook post, one YouTube video, one article about property right, their validity, where they come from, etc. We would come much closer to ending child abuse than we would by getting Trump elected. We would bring people closer to the understanding that the throne is invalid. Both immediately by clarifying property rights, and again down the road as the people we saved from child abuse grow up not speaking the language of aggression. I vote for being free in my own mind. Which means I will not dignify these psychopaths any more than is required for self-preservation's sake. Translation: "I'm going to deflect, move the goalpost, and put words into your mouth unless you give me something else to deflect from, move the goalposts away from, and misrepresent." Your entire post was just more deflection from the challenges. I only bother dignifying them to provide others with the resources to cut through similar bullshit in the conversations they have with people who lack integrity in their lives.

Appeal to emotion. In some 3rd world countries, these child laborers work in sweat shops as opposed to prostitution. Should I use an appeal to emotion, non-argument to ask you if you're pro child prostitution?

Libertarian Party is a self-detonating idea. You cannot use slavery to free people. You cannot push a brick wall over. You cannot cure cancer by first becoming a cancer cell. And so on. Saying "a course of action on the way to your goals" poisons the well by begging the question that political activism can effect political change. No arguments here. Just lots of deflection. Maybe if you wave your arms about enough, people won't notice that you're trolling. You cannot stick with anything you've said sometimes even within the same post. So you are certain that the emperor protects, but when provided with evidence that this is not true, suddenly it is certain that nothing is certain. Got it.

As if logic comes in flavors. As if belief has any bearing on what is true. As if speaking the truth is speaking "to my liking." Donna, when you make objective claims, YOU are saying that truth is preferable to falsehood. Though vague and not arguments, for those interested in what Donna is referring to, you can check out a fine example in his most recent thread where he asks me to jettison rationality to just accept what he's saying.

Thank you for being forthcoming and thorough. I don't think it's relevant to point out that we post while under the threat of violence. It is true that if there was no government, of course I wouldn't be posting about misguidedly contributing government legitimacy. That said, nobody is pointing a gun at my head directing if and how I communicate on an international internet forum. So while there is an opportunity cost in not posting on other forums AT THE SAME TIME, this has no bearing on whether I'm being threatened in other ways. Would you agree? This is actually a good thing to flesh out when considering that you experience some trepidation in accepting what I see as the mythical idea of defensive voting. Six months ago, I hit rock bottom on a scale I could've never imagined. It has been a level of loneliness, starvation, and anguish I never thought possible. Or survivable for that matter :*( Yet survive I did. It was a contributing factor in an awakening I had already been experiencing with regards to how I hadn't been applying myself in life because I was in a defeatist mindset, as if it was "too late." 100% of my time now (and I am not exaggerating) is spent on either self-care, cultivating connections of quality people in my now increasingly robust support network, and helping others. This past week in particular has been amazing as I've seen the beauty in the ways people come together, build each other up, and those people now built up help to inspire and build up others. I cry just thinking about it because I realize that this is something some people take for granted and I'm only just now seeing because of the fact that I had been abused and isolated and allowed the Ripples of that damage to flow through me, keeping me that much more isolated for that much longer. The reason I'm sharing this potent-to-me anecdote is because for all intent's and purposes, the State doesn't exist in my life. Yes, every time I pay for something, the State is in there stealing some too. Yes, as I drive down the road, if I cross some arbitrary, imaginary lines, the State will aggress against me. We live under a State and just like breathing oxygen in different ways at different altitudes, it's something we have to adapt to for survival's sake. But whether Trump or Hillary is elected, my life will not change in any way. "I'm a giant, and I ain't gotta move till I'm provoked." -Dr. Dre, Say What You Say. Those MOSQUITOES are annoying, but have virtually no perceivable influence in my life. So I could spend my time listening to them, pretending like I can make a difference, modeling the acceptance of slavery in my life by getting involved in their sham of a ritual. Or I could instead use that time to build myself up, build others up, and save people from the very prisons ALL of their abusers, including these mosquitoes insist are there.

This is moving the goalposts. Your initial claim was that they were mutually exclusive. It was intended to support a position you've now retracted. So I'm not sure what it is you're trying to communicate or why. Would you elaborate?

Strawman. The explication being that you made an objective claim 1) without knowing whether it was true 2) despite evidence that it's false 3) despite reason that reveals you were repackaging huge, certain aggression as protection against a chance of much smaller aggression.

You have no proof. Meanwhile, one can easily see that threatening everybody, stealing from the unborn, assaulting, raping, and murdering many is not protection. It's the very things you're claiming protection from and it's happening on a much larger scale AND with perceived legitimacy.

I can't answer that. Only you can. However, I did want to comment on what appears to me you throwing out the possibility that there's a problem in her in favor of assuming there's a problem in you. Which again I cannot answer for you on either person. I did want to point out though that if your self-knowledge was lacking when started the relationship, then chances are there is A problem with her. Because the lower your self-knowledge, the lower the quality of person whom you will accept and be attracted to. Vice versa too; The lower your self-knowledge, the lower the quality of person who will accept and be attracted to you. While I would never suggest it is an absolute rule, chances are that people in a romantic relationship who develop their self-knowledge will either need their partner to make some of that journey also or might have to find a more suitable partnership. Because of my time constraints, I haven't gotten too involved with your situation (sorry!). However, given my own experiences, I have to say: There's NOTHING like being partnered with somebody you can share your every thought with and process your every emotion with. If I had a partner I was afraid to speak to and especially afraid to challenge them, I could not be romantically involved with that person. It's a requisite because my self-knowledge and self-love are too high to accept less.

Moving the goalposts, deflection, and being disingenuous. YOU STARTED this thread by imagining what things would look like in a stateless society without any road to explain how you get there. You cannot use this as a standard to reject what others have said here. At least not with integrity. It's the other way around! People do not behave in a disruptive manner because they have no incentive to. The State being in place conditions people to seek external solutions, which invites people to behave in a disruptive manner in public places because they presume nobody can do anything about it because they've been relegated to calling on the police to solve their problems. I can see that you're rejecting all evidence to make your claims. Anybody willing to take a look at the evidence will see that so called "tolerance" actually begets intolerance of people who think differently. You're claiming that "PC" has shaped behaviors, but that same ostracism could NOT shape behaviors without somebody pointing guns at people's heads. Also, your claim of 1st amendment and such makes no recognition of people who "behaved" prior to that, or in places where they don't have that. It also deflects from the reason I provided that a business has no motivation to censor its patrons and that it would be antithetical to their stated goals to do so. You are fighting an imaginary foe.

No I didn't. I said: "You haven't defined free speech or shown how it's being infringed. You're leapfrogging over the fact that in order to have "free speech," you have to have property rights. You ARE using your property to exercise this speech after all. You've created a specious problem. My local Taco Bell is privately owned and they open their doors to the public. Once inside, they don't make special efforts to control what people say because most people don't behave in a way that's disruptive." source Unless you are literally incapable of conceptualizing and applying what you learned in one place in another place, you are being obtuse for the sake of marginalizing input you don't care to accept. You painted a picture of a dystopia where nobody would be able or allowed to communicate because everything was privately owned. I showed you an example of private ownership that has made no such efforts because *gasp* no such efforts are necessary! And in fact would be antithetical to their stated goal. This is so very delicious to me for a variety of reasons. The first being that the post only went live when staff allowed it to. Secondly being that in your attempt to childishly mock a dissenter of your position, you actually contradicted your position. Because you're right! The forums ARE privately owned. And look at how many people aren't being silenced. In particular because there's no reason to. Including my use of the word "bullshit." Which by definition is not swearing because it's one of those words that literally has no direct replacement. Any adult will tell you the same.

Amen, brother. Open channels of communication is key. Shut them down and you rob yourself of happiness. Or rather your inner-abusers would rob you of happiness. So I guess I should say self-knowledge is foundational and then communication is key.