DSEngere Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 My personal opinion on the matter 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted May 9, 2015 Share Posted May 9, 2015 The secondary reason Libertarians should not vote is because we don't want an advocate for liberty in the White House when the dollar collapses. I could see Rand Paul being the one set up to catch the financial hot potato, so that everyone in the media will claim, "This is what happens when you vote for liberty!" totally forgetting that each administration since Wilson, excepting Coolidge and Harding, has tacked on more to the national debt. http://useconomy.about.com/od/usdebtanddeficit/p/US-Debt-by-President.htm Adam Kokesh's 2020 campaign for president is likewise foolhardy. He explained that he will run on a platform of dissolving the federal government from the inside, so what he is really saying is that he wants a job that he thinks is completely unnecessary. If his gambit actually worked, which it won't, there would be a large segment of the population howling for the blood of anyone appearing conservative. I realize that I'm making an appeal to future consequences, but there is already a very solid foundation to the argument that voting endorses state violence. SM & AK debate queued up to the campaign plug: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df0SFAlwuMMt=1:38:00 I am of the opinion that the Libertarians are the biggest organized threat to attaining freedom and liberty, not the Democrats or Republicans, or Socialists. Great video! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Better Future Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 we don't want an advocate for liberty in the White House when the dollar collapses Agreed. The best thing for America would be to have Bernie Sanders as President when the whole thing implodes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRosado Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I see the pointlessness of voting on federal matters but what about state & local matters especially local? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. D. Stembal Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I see the pointlessness of voting on federal matters but what about state & local matters especially local? Scale does not matter. You are still supporting the violence of the state by voting. Case in point: the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes in Colorado. There were two state-wide voter referendums to tax the sale of marijuana (an excise tax and an extra point of sales tax). Both of them passed, and if you want to buy state licensed marijuana, you will pay up to 40% sin tax on it, thus funding the power of the state, ostensibly the public school system. Where is my choice to not pay a tax if I wish to consume marijuana? If I start growing my own weed and selling the excess tax-free to my friends and neighbors, men with guns will kick down my door and shoot me dead, or arrest me. The scale of tyranny does not matter. It's the involuntary nature that counts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frosty Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Scale does not matter. You are still supporting the violence of the state by voting. I've always taken issue with this for 2 reasons. Millions of people are dependent on the state and so even if you could somehow collapse the voting system and bring in some form of anarchy that would lead to millions of people needlessly suffering, a gentle ramp down of government control is almost certainly a better exit from the violence of the state to wean people off their dependency. 2nd, it seems completely impractical and maybe impossible to go from a current democratic voting system to an anarchist society in any other way than slowly voting out control of the state. I personally voted for UKIP in the UK, they're not exactly a hardcore libertarian party but they do have way more right wing and libertarian leanings than the other parties and if we can vote them in for a few terms and prove that a freer society is better off, that sets a good example for future change, it's gradual thing that has a realistic chance to lower the control and violence slowly over time. If I had the option to throw a magical switch and just remove the state, I wouldn't, I think that would do more harm than good in the short run and there's a better way of handling it. You can interpret that as "supporting the violence of the state" if you like but it's plausible that no other method of actually achieving a libertarian/anarchist society will work and if that's the case then the people who voted out the control in a slow and controlled way are going to be the ones who really helped put an end to the violence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GRosado Posted May 12, 2015 Share Posted May 12, 2015 Scale does not matter. You are still supporting the violence of the state by voting. Case in point: the legalization of marijuana for recreational purposes in Colorado. There were two state-wide voter referendums to tax the sale of marijuana (an excise tax and an extra point of sales tax). Both of them passed, and if you want to buy state licensed marijuana, you will pay up to 40% sin tax on it, thus funding the power of the state, ostensibly the public school system. Where is my choice to not pay a tax if I wish to consume marijuana? If I start growing my own weed and selling the excess tax-free to my friends and neighbors, men with guns will kick down my door and shoot me dead, or arrest me. The scale of tyranny does not matter. It's the involuntary nature that counts. So you're saying it would be pointless to vote on referendums that increase freedom such as Drug legalization, marriage freedom etc ? Edit: I agree with Frosty except in voting for UKIP they are pretty close to being fascists. Based on this political compass chart http://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2015 I would vote for either the Conservatives or Liberal Democrats. Also in regards to how to dismantle the state I think it would be foolish to say as I have heard before somewhere else on this board that the state will cease to exist after a time of recognition of the NAP & Peaceful Parenting. It sounds like Marxist nonsense of the state withering away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenshikenji Posted May 15, 2015 Share Posted May 15, 2015 voting is not counterproductive especially if you have a special interest group to lead. i suggest you gather a bunch of like minded people and vote for anything that puts a fiscal strain on the government. this is much better than not voting since you are actually contributing to the greatest weakness of the state. its immorality manifests itself through unprofitability and debt that eventually lead to its downfall. no violent revolution, law breaking, or activist protest is more effective with respect to risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts