Search the Community

This post has been created to continue the discourse from this thread in order for the title to more accurately reflect the content that developed.

Hello, I have watched Stefan's videos for a few months. I have not seen them all, I have watched a few of them more than once, and I donate every time I believe that I could not live without having seen other people agree with me on the issues discussed. I also like the comments on the youTube pages. I joined the members group recently and started to chat this morning. I was very happy to talk with a guy from Australia sharing similar views on immigration, the nature of academia diluting the national spirit etc. Then another member comes into counter balance these nationalistic preservation views, and a discussion comes up, and the views I saw as being either Liberal or passive. Eg Liberal in that he saw the frame of humanity as a global ethno mixing group, and passive in that he wanted to convince me that any effort in voting is in vain, and makes no difference. Later on, other members assisted in degrading the value of voting and supporting the activity of abstaining from voting. They presented videos to stress that Stefan does not vote or even support it. I thought in spirit, that he would support voting and activism. My question is this: >>> Does the community here, discourage voting? (yes/no) Does the community here have a nihilistic approach to not taking actions and placing value on actions to assist change? <<< At first I accused this member of being a professional agitator/troll because I considered it unbelievable that someone who is concerned with change from many issues Stefan discusses, would be anti-voting and anti-activism. The large number in the chat room convinced me that this was their line. Is this so?

Trumps stance on foreign policy is vague at best. He's said we'll "...get rid of Isis and get rid of them fast." He's also said he's comfortable with targeting the families of terrorists. Finances and borders are important, but personally I can't vote for another war monger. I did it with Obama when I was on the other side of the isle, thinking he was the peace candidate. Sanders and Paul were the only two this go around. Why do you all feel that supporting a war monger is preferable to abstaining from voting altogether or casting a vote for a third party? Specifically, do you think that saving your children from paying taxes is more important than preventing our military from slaughtering thousands or hundreds of thousands of people?

I was in the chat room, and was shocked that the majority of people 'lol'ed me when I put value on my vote. I thought at the start that they wanted to sabotage me putting into practice the things I learned from Stefan's videos as it resembled the line of thinking of those that dismiss Stefan's videos (passiveness). I labelled them as liberals, but found that those of majority in the chat room were supportive. I am totally confused as I expected to find people looking at each and every way to make a change however large or small, and not find those efforts to be meaningless. I can understand seeing the minor value it contains but not to see it as something to abstain from. Can someone clarify to me the stance commonly seen from people in this community in regards to voting?

My post on Donald Trump's position on eminent domain and the Kelo v The City of New London case started a dialog on voting for the lesser of two evils. I thought I'd start a thread here to continue that discussion. On one hand, the act of casting a vote for the politician you believe will do the least harm helps insure that the least harm will be done. On the other hand, low voter turnout demonstrates a lack of faith in the system and could be used in arguments for reform -- hopefully towards a more libertarian system -- or as a welcoming signal for new ideas. As far as presidential elections go, I've usually chosen the second option, except when Ron Paul or Gary Johnson were candidates. But in current events, I'm leaning more towards the first because the United States is drifting closer towards socialism. Do either of these positions have merit? What are their flaws? What's your position on voting and why?

I’d like to start a conversation about women’s suffrage. I think a case can be made that giving women the vote was a huge mistake. Women are the rulers of the sexual domain, so when they’re given equal share over the political realm we get feminism and Hillary Clinton. Here’s a video I illustrated explaining how the integration of women into the political sphere has led to the decline of Western societies. Somebody is going to take women’s freedom away from them—it’s either going to be white Western men or North African / Islamic migrants. Which will they prefer? I want to stress--this isn’t a moral issue. If we presume a State exists and if we want to maximize freedoms for everyone, then women's suffrage—like illegal immigration--is essentially a government program because women (especially single women) tend to vote for leftist policies, the net result of which is greater power for the State. For more on the marriage gap see: http://www.crisismagazine.com/2012/the-marriage-gap-in-the-womens-vote Voting was supposed to be reserved for property-owning white men--typically the highest IQ in America. Since those days we've bought into the myth that everyone is equal and therefore deserves an equal say in their government. The only problem with that argument is it's just not true. You might say “it’s going to be impossible to repeal the 19th Amendment”. I'll respond to that with two points. Firstly, we did it with prohibition. Secondly, a lot of people thought that a politically incorrect businessman like Donald Trump wouldn’t have a chance at the Presidential office. And yet, he's poised to win the nomination. Also, maybe this doesn't require a political solution. We--men and women who are waking up to the lies of feminism--can start shaming women who try to influence politics. I look forward to hearing your comments.

Do you like Donald Trump but on principle reject the idea of voting? Perhaps there's a third way...

Today I saw a meme which depicted a mass of people on the left with Tshirts that read 'I voted' and on the right a mass of people with blank Tshirts. The caption above the mass of people on the right "We didn't vote because it doesn't make a difference." Obviously the message portrayed is that had those on the right joined in the vote, it would have made the voting mass bigger/stronger, etc. the 2012 election was my last election that I voted in and after the results I made the conscious decision to no longer vote but I have always had trouble make the argument against voting in a concise way. Besides the obvious corruption in the voting system that many fail to WANT to see, I simply feel that why do I need to vote just because there are choices. I used to say that if there was anyone WORTH voting for, I would but until then, I won't participate. But this flies over people's head. I think I also can't wrap my own brain around the concept at times. lol My comment to the image I described was this: ...As much of a difference can be made if the non voters all joined to vote, voters can make a difference if they join the non voters. I mean just because their are a few choices every few years doesn't mean 'difference' is always for the better. For the sake of opening our minds for a minute. If no one voted.....what would happen? Would we no longer be able to make a difference in our world/country/community/day-to-day interactions? Of course we could. And if none of the candidates at any particular time are worthy of a vote. we should do it anyway...continue settling just because we want to 'make a difference'? I appreciate if anyone has good arguments that support not-voting to help me clear up my own fog. Thanks!

Is voting the initiation of force through proxy? If voting makes you complicit to the governments immoral actions, (taxation at the point of a gun for example), then does an individual who votes have any 'right' to property rights. As an example, a lifetime government employee who votes has a savings account. The source of this accounts value is made entirely through the support and subsequent payment of and from government, a gang with a monopoly on violence. Does this person have property rights over the money or does it belong to the tax payers that it was stolen from (impossible to redistribute back). I guess the question follows, if you flipped the anarchy switch tomorrow, would this person have any moral claim over their cash?

I understand that voluntarily voting in a eletction is morally unjustifiable as you are participating in the decision-making process of a force-initiating armed gang. It is also seen as consenting to be ruled over by the government. I have read some of the discussion about referendums on this forum (from 2007) and I get that voting in typical referendums (i.e. ones which are for a specific law) is in the same category as voting in elections. However, a new dimension is added when a referendum is not for a law, but for the actual abolition of a state (or in this case, not the full abolition of the British state of course but the abolition of its jurisdiction over Scotland). I live in Scotland and for me the issue is not (as it is for most here) a decision between voting yes or no to independence, but between voting yes or not at all. The way I see it, if I were to vote no, I'd be consenting to the rule of the British state, which over its history has given me a bounty of reasons never to do, so that's that option out the window. So, not voting means I'm not contributing to the chance of secession (assuming that the referendum isn't rigged of course, which we can never be sure of) but I do keep my full principled integrity by not consenting to be ruled over. On the other hand, voting yes increases the chance of having a more local government (yay) and practically, the state couldn't care less if I consent or not of course, but I do lose out on some principled integrity. Another factor which (to anyone who knows what the Scots are like) obviously doesn't phase the population of Scotland is the fact that it's a very, very socialist country and therefore any genuine democracy would result in the government becoming "larger" in the American sense. I'm not sure "big government" is ok just because it's geographically small. Anyway, I think I've expressed the fact that I'm in two minds about this well enough. I'd very much like to hear what people on here have to say about this, especially since there is nobody else who would actually understand this perspective or take it seriously. Apart from literally one friend, the only people I know here who oppose the state are "anarcho" communists so I'm not getting any useful feedback from them. So, to vote or not to vote?

Back in 1984 I decided to do my civic duty and vote in the presidential election. I knew then that it was an exercise in futility but I wanted to experience the actual thing. The only candidate that had anything in common with me was the Libertarian candidate ... so I duly voted for him. I felt really good about voting ... the glow lasted for about 10-15 minutes then flagged as I recalled that it was utterly pointless. Some time later I began a project to create my own government (on paper) wherein my voting would be meaningful ... if this was at all possible. This took the form of writing a formal constitution using as the initial model the US constitution. I wrote and rewrote all manner of more or less bizarre rules as I fluffed up the manuscript and alternately stripped it down. After about 6 months of such fluffing and stripping my "constitution" was becoming more and more streamlined and shorter ... shorter is what I wanted most ... short means "if it's possible at all, it must be simple". It finally dawned on me that there is only one political question. It is this. "Who says what goes?" Armed with this 'fact', I proceeded to fluff and strip away and finally went for the "gold" ... the solution to all of man's governmental problems ... in 50 words or less. Yup ... 50 ... count 'em ;o) -------------------------------------------------- Each individual shall have the right to: Cast one personal vote Receive votes from others Recall those votes and Cast them for another Votes must be given to one personal acquaintance A representative must have not less than twice the votes of any of his electors The highest representative rules -------------------------------------------------- I won't explain these rules in detail because, as part of this post, I'd like to see if people can actually understand the rules without further elucidation. That's important. To work correctly, anyone must understand, almost intuitively, what's supposed to happen. It's a control system that if well understood shouldn't go "out of control", i.e. go over to the dark side. Conjectures: 1) This form should produce a bottom up representative government immune to gross corruption. 2) Government is not "inherently" evil. It's simply a hierarchical control system (albeit with guns). The reason it hasn't worked so far is that it's like a circus performer first learning to balance on a cylinder while standing on a wood board ... he ALWAYS fails ... then, finally ... success. With experience, it becomes very easy and pleases the crowd. 3) A bottom up representative government will shrink to least control (maximized freedom) ... as opposed to top down government that expands control to totality (enslavement). 4) A constitution is for the army to read ... not so much for the people. It's the young men in the army who will be called upon to enforce the constitution. These guys, at 19, don't understand complex philosophical arguments and are easily turned by sophists ... but they do understand command and control systems. They can understand these terms very well. It would be difficult to confuse even the gruntiest grunts into supporting a gross violation of the command structure. Questions: 1) What do you think? 2) Would this make a viable transitional form if rational anarchy is indeed the 'final destination'? 3) What would happen if the Libertarian Party held this form and put the highest representative on the presidential ballot? 4) What if someone as logically effective as Stefan Molyneux was the candidate? 5) What if the presidential election were held on the internet and the denizens therein declared by fiat that their election was the only valid election? At what point would the army follow the "People's Election" and ignore the mainstream? 6) What if there was an online government at the ready to take over after the "collapse"? 7) What if they printed their own debt free currency and distributed it to the party members, i.e. anyone at all who wanted to join? 8) What if the duly elected members of that party received those monies in quantities proportional to the votes they received? Would this suffice to do a "full restart" of civilization if such were required after a catastrophic collapse? 9) What if the online truth community created their own "shadow government" that ruled on every topic that the mainstream governments did and ... by their utter variance ... showed the people what 'proper government' would do in that specific instance? Would the people want to hear that opinion lucidly expressed from the representatives of an actual political party that could be their own "sticking place"? Would they not then experience a moral, intellectual and ethical congruence with rationality that would be to the good of all? Thank you for reading this far... and, in advance, for any comments generated.