Trump, Rand and voting.

[null]

A vote is an appeal to, and acknowledgement of, the authority of government.

 

Maintaining an enlightened state of mind while voting does not change its nature nor absolve you of being an idiot--it's just doubly sad and pathetic because you really ought to know better.

 

Apologies for the intrusion, but some needed a reminder.

 

That is all.

(Not that Rand. I meant the Paul one.)

[dsayers]

One important qualification if I may. POLITICAL voting is the initiation of the use of force. If you vote for Taco Bell over Burger King for example, nothing immoral there. I make this mistake sometimes myself when I refer to something a if it's inherently immoral when in fact only the coercive variant of it is immoral.

[Pelafina]

Voting can be viewed as asking a criminal gang to rule over you and everyone else, which means you're aiding and abetting the criminals.  Some people say that voting is an act of self defense because you know you will be ruled by someone, but you choose the lesser of two evils.

[shirgall]

Voting with one's dollar isn't just moral, it's a duty!

[RCali]

One important qualification if I may. POLITICAL voting is the initiation of the use of force. If you vote for Taco Bell over Burger King for example, nothing immoral there. I make this mistake sometimes myself when I refer to something a if it's inherently immoral when in fact only the coercive variant of it is immoral.

 

How is it initiating the use of force, if you haven't had any physical contact with someone, or their property? 

[thebeardslastcall]

How is it initiating the use of force, if you haven't had any physical contact with someone, or their property? 

 

How is it the initiation of force to stand next to a murderer and cheer them on and give them tips on how to get away with the murder? Question isn't about direct violence, but the morality of supporting immorality through voting. Helping evil is evil.

[jughead]

I've heard it suggested somewhere that voting can be a form of self defense. Putting aside for the moment the statistical reality that a single vote doesn't affect the outcome, I have some sympathy for this point of view, insofar as the candidate who promises to take less of my wealth, or the slave master who promises to beat me less, can have a real tangible impact on the quality of my life. I don't imagine of course that voting can ever change the fundamental nature of society or bring about true freedom.

[dsayers]

How is it initiating the use of force, if you haven't had any physical contact with someone, or their property? 

Political voting is giving person X permission to threaten and steal from people for reason Y.

[DCLugi]

Political voting is giving person X permission to threaten and steal from people for reason Y.

Being one who has never voted I still ponder this analogy. If you were kidnapped and given the choice of having your legs broken or your shoes stolen wouldn't you give permission to take the shoes?

[thebeardslastcall]

Being one who has never voted I still ponder this analogy. If you were kidnapped and given the choice of having your legs broken or your shoes stolen wouldn't you give permission to take the shoes?

 

It's like the often used evil villain plot of making the 'good guy' choose between two shitty options or force a choice and tries to put as much of the agency and moral responsibility on the guy making the choice even though it's a choice made under duress and neither is desired and it's the bad guy doing the evil things and executing upon the choice. Whole situation is based on neither not being an option. Given how little individual votes matter why do people spend their time on it instead of promoting or working against the established evil? Making one vote is less effective than swaying a single vote. It's an ugly situation for sure, another reason why government democracy is sinister as it inevitably becomes a true civil war.

 

Edit: (No Country for Old Men slight end movie spoiler)

 

Made me remember the end of No Country for Old Men and the opened ended nature of the relevant element which I remember finding interesting at the time of viewing that it didn't tell you what happened.

 

Edited December 15, 2015 by thebeardslastcall

[dsayers]

Being one who has never voted I still ponder this analogy. If you were kidnapped and given the choice of having your legs broken or your shoes stolen wouldn't you give permission to take the shoes?

This analogy is misleading. People in the political voting booth were not kidnapped.

[Mister Mister]

To be clear, voting is not the initiation of force.  It is an attempt to influence others who initiate force.  If everyone stopped voting this year, do you think the State would cease to exist, would cease to initiate force against people?

[DCLugi]

This analogy is misleading. People in the political voting booth were not kidnapped.

Having to pay taxes is the kidnapped bit.

[dsayers]

To be clear, voting is not the initiation of force.  It is an attempt to influence others who initiate force.

So pulling the trigger is immoral, but pulling the finger that pulls the trigger is moral? Amoral?

 

To be clear, voting is not the initiation of force.  It is an attempt to influence others who initiate force.  If everyone stopped voting this year, do you think the State would cease to exist, would cease to initiate force against people?

The fact that a gang rape would continue even if you don't cheer it on does nothing to diminish your culpability for cheering it on.

 

Having to pay taxes is the kidnapped bit.

The point of contention is political voting, not being stolen from. I'm not going to put more effort into this than you are.

[DCLugi]

So pulling the trigger is immoral, but pulling the finger that pulls the trigger is moral? Amoral?

 

The fact that a gang rape would continue even if you don't cheer it on does nothing to diminish your culpability for cheering it on.

 

The point of contention is political voting, not being stolen from. I'm not going to put more effort into this than you are.

We are all already kidnapped. Whether our choice to vote affects the outcome of how much damage said kidnapper will do is the question. Some believe that their vote is a way to lesson the damage. If the vote means nothing then it won't matter what choice the kidnapper gives us as they will simply do as they please. Hence, why I've never participated.

[dsayers]

We are all already kidnapped.

You're still mixing metaphors. The people in the world that are kidnapped in the context of political voting are the ones who will literally be aggressed against for not voting. In places in the world where people, such as yourself, can choose not to vote, then saying they are forced to vote (kidnapped) is misleading.

 

Some believe that their vote is a way to lesson the damage.

Which only serves to legitimize their ability to do damage at all.

[DCLugi]

You're still mixing metaphors. The people in the world that are kidnapped in the context of political voting are the ones who will literally be aggressed against for not voting. In places in the world where people, such as yourself, can choose not to vote, then saying they are forced to vote (kidnapped) is misleading.

 

Which only serves to legitimize their ability to do damage at all.

I am playing devils advocate for why people vote. If you were given the choice of broken knees or stolen lamp would you elect not to choose because you don't want to participate in the kidnappers game? You would have to be convinced that the kidnapper won't base his decision on your choice. If you thought it might effect his decision then you'd say take the lamp.

[dsayers]

I understand why people vote. It's really easy to steal from your neighbor when you don't have to take on the risk of doing it directly and the vehicle by which you do it is viewed by most as righteous. That's why I'm willing to persist in helping to expose the gun in the room. When you expose people to the idea that they're initiating the use of force, they become responsible for that decision. Agency is the greatest gift you can give and this easter bunny's got a great big sack o' gifts.

 

If you were given the choice of broken knees or stolen lamp

I wish you wouldn't just repeat yourself as if no challenge has been offered. This is truly staggering that you can continue to point out that you don't vote AND assert that people are forced to vote.

[labmath2]

I didn't want to post anymore, but i can't help ot here. I think people are not being clear on what the initiation of force is. The initial question "is it the initiation of force if you have no physical contact with someone or their property" and in addition did not coerce someone else into doing so. When does support become itself the initiation of force. Take the man who is standing there cheering for rapists is he initiating force against anyone? Can he be held responsible for the rapist's choice because he cheered? Even if he offers the rapist advice on how to get away with it, does that count as initiation of force. I thought i understood what initiation of the use of force meant (dont rape, assault, murder, violate property right) but now its clear that i do not.

[Romulox]

To be clear, voting is not the initiation of force.  It is an attempt to influence others who initiate force.  If everyone stopped voting this year, do you think the State would cease to exist, would cease to initiate force against people?

 

I agree that if everyone stopped voting this year, the State would continue to exist and would continue to initiate force against people.  However, the state could no longer perpetuate the myth that it is carrying out the "will of the people" or rules by "the consent of the governed".  What percentage of voter turnout could the state continue to successfully make these claims?  Each drop in the voter turnout makes it that much easier to dispel these myths and expose the gun in the room. 

 

While I don't believe that people will stop voting any time in the near future, a practical goal for the US system would be to have voter turnout reduced to a point where they have to institute mandatory voting, which is already done in 22 countries.  What better way to point out that "consent of the governed" is false than to show that you will be shot for not consenting. 

[Bushrat]

I think if you really want to protest the government and don't want to support one of the corrupt parties you go and spoil your ballot. Imagine if the majority of ballots were spoiled because of this?  What conclusions wold people draw? I think its the best way to communicate your disgust during an election.

[RCali]

I reject your argument, dsayers. You aren't a rapist by cheering on a rape happening in front of you, and you aren't initiating the use of force by standing idle by. Also, you aren't responsible for someone else's actions, if you advise on taking them. We've spoken of this before, and we had opposite roles, that previous time. I gave the example of a driving instructor teaching someone wrongly, and the student crashing his car. I said he had responsability for the student sucking. You rejected this idea. Now, somehow, the roles are reversed, and I don't understand why. How could you understand this logic, and then back down from it, substituting it with seemingly very flawed logic. I agree with the previous conversation we had. The teacher has no responsability for the actions of the student, just like the spectator has no responsability for the actions of the rapist, like the voter has no responsability for the actions of the government. Yes, the voter is promoting the continuation of the existance and growth of government by voting, and yes, he's not a very informed person by doing it. But that doesn't mean he is involved in the atrocities that same government he ellected (let's imagine his party won). He's not responsible for the theft, kidnap, murder the party commited, since he didn't commit that action. Furthermore, if you say someone speaking about a rape and incentivising it has responsability for that same action, you're condemning freedom of speach. Am I guilty of rape if I congratulate rape? Am I guilty of theft for congratulating the government taxing? Am I a murder if I constantly speak of how great war in Syria is? No. I didn't have any of the actions I was speaking of, and thus I have no responsability for them. I have responsability for what I said, not what happened following my words.

[dsayers]

I reject your argument, dsayers. You aren't a rapist by cheering on a rape happening in front of you, and you aren't initiating the use of force by standing idle by. Also, you aren't responsible for someone else's actions, if you advise on taking them. We've spoken of this before, and we had opposite roles, that previous time. I gave the example of a driving instructor teaching someone wrongly, and the student crashing his car. I said he had responsability for the student sucking. You rejected this idea. Now, somehow, the roles are reversed, and I don't understand why. How could you understand this logic, and then back down from it, substituting it with seemingly very flawed logic. I agree with the previous conversation we had. The teacher has no responsability for the actions of the student, just like the spectator has no responsability for the actions of the rapist, like the voter has no responsability for the actions of the government. Yes, the voter is promoting the continuation of the existance and growth of government by voting, and yes, he's not a very informed person by doing it. But that doesn't mean he is involved in the atrocities that same government he ellected (let's imagine his party won). He's not responsible for the theft, kidnap, murder the party commited, since he didn't commit that action. Furthermore, if you say someone speaking about a rape and incentivising it has responsability for that same action, you're condemning freedom of speach. Am I guilty of rape if I congratulate rape? Am I guilty of theft for congratulating the government taxing? Am I a murder if I constantly speak of how great war in Syria is? No. I didn't have any of the actions I was speaking of, and thus I have no responsability for them. I have responsability for what I said, not what happened following my words.

Dishonesty is not a very compelling argument. For those interested in what he's talking about, the conversation can be found here. What was actually said is that a person's honesty is their property and that person X cannot be MORE responsible for person Y's behavior than Y is. Here, I've made no claim that voters are MORE responsible for the aggression carried out at their behest than those carrying out the aggression.

 

I think you would do well to acquaint yourself with chain of causality. Let's say you're driving along, hurting nobody. Suddenly, there are red and blue light in your rear view mirror. Which make no mistake about it IS a death threat. You pull over. Is the cop initiating the use of force? What about the people who legitimize his artificial existence in a different, opposing moral category? What about the people that wrote down whatever arbitrary edict he feels you've crossed that motivated him to detain you? He writes you a ticket. You appear before a judge and plead no contest. You are given a fine. Is the judge initiating the use of force? What about the clerk you end up giving your money to? What about the prosecutor that is representing "the city's will"? Or is it just the bailiff who will harm you if you try to defend yourself? Is it the clerk that will issue a summons if you don't pay? What if the reason you were pulled over is because you had a warrant for your arrest? What if that warrant was the result of not paying taxes? Is the specific person at the IRS the one who initiated the use of force? Is it the person who is dead now, but originally penned whatever claim that said they could do this to you?

 

You haven't even addressed my answer to your question. Which is not surprising since you've demonstrated before that you think rejecting a claim is refuting it even if you reject it on no specific basis.

[Matt D]

I'm going to make the case that it's not about whether you vote or not, it's about how you talk about your decision to vote or not.

 

I'm going to assume we're all anarchists here who want to see the eventual demise of the State. I hear a lot of people saying, "Focus on peaceful parenting and self-knowledge instead of voting." What I think they mean to say is: "Focus on peaceful parenting and self-knowledge instead of advocating for political action as a solution to violence." The act of voting itself is not necessarily the equivalent to advocating for political action as a solution if when talking to other people you explain that your vote was cast in self-defense of an injust system because you though that the odds of a better future were slightly better than flipping a coin. If they can't understand that, if they say "No, you are supporting the system implicitly", and they refuse to look at what you're actually saying, then they aren't worth your time. (Note: There may even be people who respond as such lurking here, so be warned.)

 

For instance, a conversation could go something like this:

 

Stranger: "Who'd you vote for?"

Me: "I voted for Donald Trump. Although I'm an anarchist who believes that government is immoral because it's funded by theft, I definitely don't want to see my children grow up in a country governed by extreme totalitarianism. In the long term I think we need more people to speak out about the immorality of all forms of coercion are, including the deleterious effects of spanking and the abuse of children, but in the short term we also need to protect the conditions, such as free speech and the separation of church and state, left over from the European Enlightenment in order for our grandchildren to be able to have the conversation we're having right now without cowering in fear."

Stranger: "Interesting. Do you think Trump can reverse the trend towards socialism? Won't he be a war-mongering hawk abroad just like all the others?"

Me: "I think a Trump presidency would improve the odds of reversing that trend by a small amount... We know for sure that peaceful parenting is not going to experience a renaissance in the middle east any time soon. The West is the best shot the world has. Let's just say that in exchange for an hour of my time at the voting booth I can improve the chances of that happening from 5% to 10%. I think that's worth it, don't you?"

...

 

And suddenly, I've just had an honest conversation about morality, peaceful parenting, immigration, values and statism all at once. They may not agree with me but that would be the case even if I told them "I don't vote because it goes against my principles", without explaining anything beyond that.

[thebeardslastcall]

I am playing devils advocate for why people vote. If you were given the choice of broken knees or stolen lamp would you elect not to choose because you don't want to participate in the kidnappers game? You would have to be convinced that the kidnapper won't base his decision on your choice. If you thought it might effect his decision then you'd say take the lamp.

As if the kidnapper doesn't know which you prefer. They're not asking for you to tell them which you prefer, they're asking for you to submit and play along with their evil game and to legitimize them. What does the kidnapper do if you say nothing, default to the known non-preferred possibility or stand there and wait? It's a hostage situation except that you don't have to vote and don't have to interact with the villain directly at the 'voting time', but you can tell the thieves your preference when they come to steal your stuff and they'll ignore you and possibly kill you. There's a relevant disconnect and gap there between the voting booth and the point at which you're directly stolen from. Also with voting they don't care what you vote for, they ask you would you like the lamp or to have your leg cut off, you answer the lamp, and then they cut off your leg anyways. Given how many examples and evidence we have that they don't care what you say and generally know your preference or don't care about your preference and that you give them some legitimization by voting and it takes time and effort on your part, how can you argue for telling them the lamp when you're most likely much better off not driving to go ask for the lamp over your leg, but instead using that time in a far more productive fashion working to undo the authority of the state and resist the tyranny?

I reject your argument, dsayers. You aren't a rapist by cheering on a rape happening in front of you, and you aren't initiating the use of force by standing idle by. Also, you aren't responsible for someone else's actions, if you advise on taking them. We've spoken of this before, and we had opposite roles, that previous time. I gave the example of a driving instructor teaching someone wrongly, and the student crashing his car. I said he had responsability for the student sucking. You rejected this idea. Now, somehow, the roles are reversed, and I don't understand why. How could you understand this logic, and then back down from it, substituting it with seemingly very flawed logic. I agree with the previous conversation we had. The teacher has no responsability for the actions of the student, just like the spectator has no responsability for the actions of the rapist, like the voter has no responsability for the actions of the government. Yes, the voter is promoting the continuation of the existance and growth of government by voting, and yes, he's not a very informed person by doing it. But that doesn't mean he is involved in the atrocities that same government he ellected (let's imagine his party won). He's not responsible for the theft, kidnap, murder the party commited, since he didn't commit that action. Furthermore, if you say someone speaking about a rape and incentivising it has responsability for that same action, you're condemning freedom of speach. Am I guilty of rape if I congratulate rape? Am I guilty of theft for congratulating the government taxing? Am I a murder if I constantly speak of how great war in Syria is? No. I didn't have any of the actions I was speaking of, and thus I have no responsability for them. I have responsability for what I said, not what happened following my words.

 

Promoting evil is a form of evil. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you aren't responsible for your words. You may not be the one committing a violent act, but if you support and cheer it on I don't consider that an amoral, but an immoral action. I'm not going to treat it in the same way I would treat the actual murderer, but if you knew your words encouraged and may have been the difference in relevant action as may be the case with an ignorant student then I'd hold you to a higher standard of responsibility for the action if the student was put under your responsibility to command a vehicle they weren't qualified to control alone yet. If the student knew they were doing something wrong then they'd hold more responsibility for sure ,but I wouldn't say you're necessarily free of responsibility depending on the situation and were it a free society I would have plenty of reason to ostracize you and to promote the ostracism of you for being a less moral agent, while the murderer as in the first example would likely warrant direct physical action or restraint. I may not have reason to kill or directly harm you for cheering on rape and I respect free speech, but I also respect free association and would take measures to dissociate with people who encourage vile behaviors regardless of whether or not they're the ones doing them directly or with or without direct responsibility.

[DCLugi]

I understand why people vote. It's really easy to steal from your neighbor when you don't have to take on the risk of doing it directly and the vehicle by which you do it is viewed by most as righteous. That's why I'm willing to persist in helping to expose the gun in the room. When you expose people to the idea that they're initiating the use of force, they become responsible for that decision. Agency is the greatest gift you can give and this easter bunny's got a great big sack o' gifts.

 

I wish you wouldn't just repeat yourself as if no challenge has been offered. This is truly staggering that you can continue to point out that you don't vote AND assert that people are forced to vote.

Be not staggered ol chum. I haven't suggested that people are forced to vote. The kidnapper is going to break your knees and take your lamp regardless if you vote or not. I'm only saying that some people believe that they have a say it which one will happen.

[Mister Mister]

I understand why people vote. It's really easy to steal from your neighbor when you don't have to take on the risk of doing it directly and the vehicle by which you do it is viewed by most as righteous. That's why I'm willing to persist in helping to expose the gun in the room. When you expose people to the idea that they're initiating the use of force, they become responsible for that decision. Agency is the greatest gift you can give and this easter bunny's got a great big sack o' gifts.

 

I wish you wouldn't just repeat yourself as if no challenge has been offered. This is truly staggering that you can continue to point out that you don't vote AND assert that people are forced to vote.

 

To be fair, people also vote for "defensive" reasons, and to protect themselves from imaginary or highly exaggerated external threats.  Political parties are good at terrorizing people with threats of global jihad, global warming, and so on, and many people are convinced that if the "other guy" gets in it will be catastrophe.

[shirgall]

I'm going to make the case that it's not about whether you vote or not, it's about how you talk about your decision to vote or not.

 

In that case, I would discuss who I was voting against... not who I was voting for.

 

In the old days I used to say I voted for gridlock.

[dsayers]

I haven't suggested that people are forced to vote. 

Then you need to circle back and admit that I was correct when I said "This analogy is misleading. People in the political voting booth were not kidnapped." The point of contention if the voluntary act of voting itself. If you use any analogy that talks about people involuntarily being kidnapped, you are saying that those in the voting booth are not there voluntarily which is either a lie or a misleading analogy.

 

I do appreciate your input though. It serves to demonstrate why moral clarity regarding political voting is so important.

 

To be fair, people also vote for "defensive" reasons, and to protect themselves from imaginary or highly exaggerated external threats.  Political parties are good at terrorizing people with threats of global jihad, global warming, and so on, and many people are convinced that if the "other guy" gets in it will be catastrophe.

I will be the first to concede that fire isn't inherently bad. Because while it can burn down a person's house, it can also be used to cook them a nourishing meal. It's all about how it is used. I also acknowledge that rape is mechanically identical to love making, theft is mechanically identical to borrowing, etc.

 

The thing is, there is no use of political voting that isn't violence because it is POLITICAL voting. So even if the vote being cast was for the reduction of something, it legitimizes that there's something in need of reduction while not doing anything to contribute to its elimination. It's like handing a rapist a condom so they don't also spread a disease. It is the initiation of the use of force.

 

It's tragic to me that part of the reason why so many have a hard time seeing this is because they see it as something that's just there. So while I despise such distractions, I want to bring up ye olde runaway train with a fork in the tracks where there's disparate groups tied to either track and you're in range of the switch. The reason why the scenario is bullshit (beyond its unrealism) is that the innocent bystander has done nothing to tie those people to the tracks or send a train uncontrollably down the tracks. They are not guilty of anything. The moment they touch that switch though, they are an accomplice.

 

I hope this helps to elucidate how contributing to the violence makes one culpable. Though I think the stealing from a neighbor for schooling vs voting for that same theft was sufficient.

[Ray H.]

Many people that vote don't put much thought into it. They've been led to believe their whole lives that it's a duty; that democracy is the bulwark of freedom. It isn't immoral for them to think this. In fact, they may believe that the alternative is despotism. It would be immoral for them to choose that outcome, and so they vote to preserve liberty. Many people have placed trust in the concept of democracy. I can't blame them. It's got a two hundred forty year marketing campaign behind it. By the same reasoning, I don't hold it against otherwise moral Christians that the god they believe in is immoral. The church promotes "God is love" and this is what Christians that I know are drawn towards. When, overwhelmingly, the voters/Christians that I am surrounded by are living in a moral way, I will not hold it against them that they've fallen for entrenched dogma. This is the only life I'm going to live. What a waste it would be to write off everyone who votes as just as immoral as the liars they've placed trust in. My tack is to inform those I know of political and bureaucratic bullshit. Hopefully, adding to the discontent for those institutions. The solution is changing the minds of the powerless, not indicting them.

[Magenta]

I don't vote, but Donald Trump has me very tempted to do it once. His destroying of the media and political correctness are valuable and unprecedented, but let's just talk immigration at the moment. The left is ramping up immigration. They're bringing in more people who will go on welfare and drive up government spending and that money, one way or another, will come from us working class people. They're bringing in people who will reliably vote Democrat, increasing wealth transfer from conservatives/libertarians to liberals, which reduces the birth rate for us and grows it for them. They are using violence to wipe out us and our ideas. At the moment, I'm thinking a vote for Trump is like a vote for self defense. I don't approve using the gun and I don't say "oh but if I get behind the gun, it can be better". But the gun is going off and I want to push it away from me. My goal is to spread philosophy through parenting, through discussions with receptive people, and through ostracism/discrimination of opposing people. But immigration combined with the welfare state and non-discrimination laws remove some of my ability to ostracise, are forcibly reducing parenting for us, reducing the number of receptive people, and increasing the number of opposing people, some murderously opposing.

[DCLugi]

Then you need to circle back and admit that I was correct when I said "This analogy is misleading. People in the political voting booth were not kidnapped." The point of contention if the voluntary act of voting itself. If you use any analogy that talks about people involuntarily being kidnapped, you are saying that those in the voting booth are not there voluntarily which is either a lie or a misleading analogy.

 

I do appreciate your input though. It serves to demonstrate why moral clarity regarding political voting is so important.

 

I will be the first to concede that fire isn't inherently bad. Because while it can burn down a person's house, it can also be used to cook them a nourishing meal. It's all about how it is used. I also acknowledge that rape is mechanically identical to love making, theft is mechanically identical to borrowing, etc.

 

The thing is, there is no use of political voting that isn't violence because it is POLITICAL voting. So even if the vote being cast was for the reduction of something, it legitimizes that there's something in need of reduction while not doing anything to contribute to its elimination. It's like handing a rapist a condom so they don't also spread a disease. It is the initiation of the use of force.

 

It's tragic to me that part of the reason why so many have a hard time seeing this is because they see it as something that's just there. So while I despise such distractions, I want to bring up ye olde runaway train with a fork in the tracks where there's disparate groups tied to either track and you're in range of the switch. The reason why the scenario is bullshit (beyond its unrealism) is that the innocent bystander has done nothing to tie those people to the tracks or send a train uncontrollably down the tracks. They are not guilty of anything. The moment they touch that switch though, they are an accomplice.

 

I hope this helps to elucidate how contributing to the violence makes one culpable. Though I think the stealing from a neighbor for schooling vs voting for that same theft was sufficient.

I do see how it could be misleading, yes. Glad we cleared it up. We are probably in agreement that voting won't change the violent outcome but those who don't see that will wonder why you don't want to keep your knees intact.

[AccuTron]

...The moment they touch that switch though, they are an accomplice.

 

 

Interesting....

[DCLugi]

Does collective voting actually affect the outcome?

[thebeardslastcall]

Does collective voting actually affect the outcome?

Not usually. You get a statist politician either way even if it happens to be enough to get a different person in office, because the 'alternative' person isn't fundamentally different in a way that matters.