Thoughts on people who say that it's more important to vote locally than federally?

[BaylorPRSer]

I don't vote, but I get this a lot when I tell people I don't vote.  They'll say "well I understand why you don't want to vote for president, but you should at least vote locally.   That stuff does affect you know."  I say I don't participate in the affairs of the state and usually just leave it at that. What is your take on people with this position?  What is your response when this comes up with people? I've been told this by fellow Ancaps who vote libertarian oddly enough. 

[shirgall]

The appeal to vote in local elections is easy to understand. Your vote has more value, the consequences are more immediate, and you are far more likely to be able to express your opinion directly to a local official than a national or state one. The question is whether someone feels that voting or the government is wrong, as that would be the same whether it's local or statewide.

 

I admit that I got elected as a delegate locally in order to push Ron Paul as the GOP candidate at the county level, but you can see that influence petered out pretty quickly.

 

Even so, I accept the process is one of influencing and directing mob mentality and not rational argument and debate.

 

I vote for gridlock, in hopes of slowing things down. It's a losing game.

[Alan C.]

Some anarchists believe that voting libertarian is defensive voting. I disagree.

 

I tell people that I don't vote because the act of participating lends sanction and legitimacy to the political process and the State. One should lead by example by responding to politics and the State with scorn, ridicule, and denunciation.

 

Prosperity in society won't be achieved by giving power to a bunch of criminals and idiots, nor will tallying the ill-informed, unqualified opinions of millions of moronic voters and imposing the most popular ones upon the whole populace.

[MarcAnthony]

Im stuck. On one hand I completely agree that participating in something lends it power of legitimacy but on the other hand I think of similar to the argument for gun ownership. Government is a gun, in our moral stance against picking the gun up we leave only the immoral to handle it. They would use this gun to control others whereas we would use it to free ourselves. I am stuck in the his contradiction currently but am sure with my penchant for benign neglect upon this earth I will side with non-involvement.

[J. D. Stembal]

When the Muggles are constantly being propagandized to vote, it's hard to stem the tide of irrationality. I caught a glimpse of a newspaper in Starbucks the other day, and all I saw was VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE PLEASE VOTE WE ARE DESPERATE FOR VOTES slathered all over the front page. I think it was the New York Times. When no body goes to the polls any more, governments will be in a pickle. I tried to argue this with a statist friend earlier this year and he just shook his head at me and walked away like I was telling him that I wanted to rape his sister. He didn't want to hear it. Statists think that without democracy and voting, we'll devolve into North Korea. While that is a chance that we must take, it is better to know the truth than to continue to live in a fantasy.

 

I would be relieved if the gestapo started dragging us away in the night. At least we would know that we were right. I could tell the statists, "Look. Fascism. Keep waving your flag, you stupid Nazis!" The reality is that probably won't transpire, and if it does, the media will be sure to spin it in such a way to assuage fears. Everyone is so brainwashed that they will attack and uphold violence for the state rather than see the truth. I remember the look on my face when I told my former girlfriend that America was the Fourth Reich, meaning that, as a country, we are worse than Nazi Germany in terms of deaths caused by war, democide and global economic control through central banking and the reserve currency, the U.S. dollar.

 

Do you remember after September 11th and the start of the Iraq War how no one could figure out why the rest of the world was becoming vocally anti-American? We collectively scratched our heads. We would wonder, "Is it our freedom that they hate?" but I think deep down inside we knew the real reasons. We would hear the advice, "If you plan on travelling to certain areas of the world, tell people you are Canadian if they ask if you're American."

 

I think David Bowie nailed it with, "I'm afraid of Americans, I'm afraid of the world."

 

[dsayers]

@title: My initial thought is ye olde "If they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are." People who are focusing on local vs global aren't focusing on moral vs immoral.

 

I don't have the right to steal from, assault, rape, or murder my fellow moral actors. It is unclear how I can be expected to give that right that I do not possess to somebody else. When you vote, you are directly giving somebody your blessing to steal from others under threat of violence up to and including murder. It IS the initiation of the use of force by proxy.

 

Plus, as Mr. Chapman pointed out, you legitimize the State's claim over you by participating in any of its programs that you don't have to. Meaning that people who vote, by way of ANY motivation, are not free even in their own minds. We need to get past this.

[growler76]

Edit: Double post.

[growler76]

I have recently been going through this dilemma of the prospect of "defensive voting", but I decided to not vote.  My state is in the midst of voting for more gun control and I've had the urge to vote against it.  There is actually one gun control initiative and another initiative that if passed, would restrict gun control.  I think the gun control measure is very likely to be passed. Not sure on the other one.  Again,  I decided not to vote though.

 

I think moral considerations have to trump utilitarian considerations because if they don't then they are not universal nor consistent, and if they are not then there is no point having moral considerations in the first place. They become relative and not objective. So, I can't perform an immoral action of voting for utilitarian purposes. My apologies if I've used any incorrect terminology here.

 

Having said that, I would like to phrase the question a certain way.  Can the act of voting against laws that advocate more violence be considered defensive in the same way that violence can be justified against violence that has already been initiated against a person?

 

On a certain level I feel almost like a pacifist that will just let the aggressors walk all over me.  When I think of all the socialist laws that are continually getting passed here, I just want to move (with my only options being to "slightly less bad" areas). 

[tasmlab]

Anecdote: In my (my former) town of 17,000 a tight mayoral election was determined by two votes.  My wife and I, who didn't cast a ballot, could've turned the whole thing.

 

On a small enough scale you could probably make the case that at least change can be affected (strictly a consequentialist argument).  Of course, the new mayor didn't lower taxes or cancel public school or anything.

 

If my neighborhood association of about 50 homes had a vote, I'd probably want to do it.

[dsayers]

 

Can the act of voting against laws that advocate more violence be considered defensive in the same way that violence can be justified against violence that has already been initiated against a person?

 

No. Because it's not a law at all. Laws are binding which is why those in power want us to think of their whims in unavoidable terminology. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what legislations are (not) present, they're going to do what they want anyways. If voting no on something actually meant that for the remainder of human history, one human COULD NOT enact the immorality in question, THEN voting no could actually be construed as defensive. As it stands, voting no on something is as futile as buying pants because you're hungry.

 

Perceived legitimacy is the problem, not the minutia of how it manifests. Participating in voting adds to the perceived legitimacy.

 

On a certain level I feel almost like a pacifist that will just let the aggressors walk all over me.

 

If you catch a bear ransacking your camp, you only endanger yourself further by trying to take your sandwich back. Recognizing the scope of your aggressor and staying out of sight for the sake of self-preservation is not pacifism.

[shirgall]

Im stuck. On one hand I completely agree that participating in something lends it power of legitimacy but on the other hand I think of similar to the argument for gun ownership. Government is a gun, in our moral stance against picking the gun up we leave only the immoral to handle it. They would use this gun to control others whereas we would use it to free ourselves. I am stuck in the his contradiction currently but am sure with my penchant for benign neglect upon this earth I will side with non-involvement.

 

As you aver, the legitimacy of power comes from force, not ceremony. Ceremony only serves to comfort what George Carlin called, "The Symbol-Minded."

[growler76]

 

 

 

No. Because it's not a law at all. Laws are binding which is why those in power want us to think of their whims in unavoidable terminology. What I'm saying is that it doesn't matter what legislations are (not) present, they're going to do what they want anyways. If voting no on something actually meant that for the remainder of human history, one human COULD NOT enact the immorality in question, THEN voting no could actually be construed as defensive. As it stands, voting no on something is as futile as buying pants because you're hungry.

 

Perceived legitimacy is the problem, not the minutia of how it manifests. Participating in voting adds to the perceived legitimacy.

 

 

If you catch a bear ransacking your camp, you only endanger yourself further by trying to take your sandwich back. Recognizing the scope of your aggressor and staying out of sight for the sake of self-preservation is not pacifism.

 

 

Makes sense and I appreciate that insight. Thanks.

[Pepin]

They are correct depending on your location. Many small towns around here have about a voter turnout of around a hundred, so you do have some influence. From what I've heard, it is somewhat common for single votes to matter.

 

Personally, if my town had a vote for legalizing marijuana or prostitution, I'd vote for it. I tend not be very pragmatic in most of my opinions, but I think possibly preventing hundreds of people from having their lives ruined for smoking a plant is enough to outweigh my dignity.

 

I don't think people who advocate voting are correct in general. I'd say there are a few clearly defined issues in which you'd be voting to stop the initiation of force, but beyond that, voting and politics is a waste of time.

[J. D. Stembal]

I have recently been going through this dilemma of the prospect of "defensive voting", but I decided to not vote.  My state is in the midst of voting for more gun control and I've had the urge to vote against it.  There is actually one gun control initiative and another initiative that if passed, would restrict gun control.  I think the gun control measure is very likely to be passed. Not sure on the other one.  Again,  I decided not to vote though.

 

Vote with your dollar and buy weapons. Shotgun, handgun, and rifle is a well-rounded home defense system. You just voted three times in this election!

[growler76]

Vote with your dollar and buy weapons. Shotgun, handgun, and rifle is a well-rounded home defense system. You just voted three times in this election!

 

Good idea!.  Although, I currently am not in the best living situation to store more arms than I already have (I'm in a small apartment) but our state has had increasing sales so those stats are positive. Still trying to figure out if I want to buy a house or move into a rental house.  Moving to another state is on the table, so I just might end up voting with my feet.