TheAuger Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 I believe that voting for government office is an act of acquiescence and supplication to the state and makes voters semi-culpable accomplices in the crimes of the power-structure. I haven't voted in the past few election cycles. However, I see no conflict in participating in the Iowa Caucuses because it's not a government election for an actual government office. I caucused in 2012 and 2008 for Dr. Ron Paul. So, if you were able to participate in the Iowa Caucuses, and you did decide to participate, who would you vote for? Why would you participate (or not)? For what reasons would you vote for a particular candidate? I haven't even swallowed my pride and registered with either major party yet, but here are a few things I've been thinking about. Bernie Sanders has an outside chance of beating Hillary Clinton in Iowa. I believe she will be the eventual nominee, but every time she struggles in successive primaries, like New Hampshire where Sanders leads, it will burn more and more of her campaign resources. I wouldn't consider this vote an endorsement of Sanders, but an anti-Hillary vote. We are in real trouble if either candidate is elected to office. What do you think? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ia/iowa_democratic_presidential_caucus-3195.html If I decided to participate in the other criminal gang's meet-up, then things would be over much sooner. The Republicans have only one round of voting, whereas the Democrats have two. The candidate that most closely aligns with my views is Rand. Cruz talks a good limited government game, but I'm aware of some of his connections with some unsavory establishment groups. Trump is Trump. I wouldn't vote for any of the other Republican candidates. Please share your thoughts with me. If you want to criticize my decision to caucus, great! But please supply reasoned evidence for your views.
wdiaz03 Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 It seems to me that voting is like playing the powerball (which was 900 million last time I checked) when you vote is like you are trowing a dollar or two into the black hole of the lottery.Gives you the illusion that you are tilting the scales on your favor but good luck with those odds.
algernon Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 I would simply challenge you to find something better to do with your time. How does the saying go? - If voting actually changed anything or made a difference, it would be illegal. If I thought voting made a difference, and my $1 in the powerball jackpot actually mattered, I would certainly vote for the most destructive person I thought could possibly win. I am hoping the good and virtuous people of this landmass called America can rise from the ashes like a Phoenix, which can only be achieved after the self destruction. This is not a rhetorical question, can you give me an example of a government ever willingly giving up power or authority? Something in a substantial way. Anytime I think of voting, I cannot help but remember this video - https://youtu.be/vb8Rj5xkDPk?t=11s
non-statist Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 I would not participate. The political process is not the best way to improve our society or increase liberty. Economic policy and foreign policy have not changed at all. I like Ron Paul and a Rand Paul presidency would be a step in the right direction, however, your time is best spent elsewhere.
grithin Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 Let's seeRand has no chance, he's a soft baller when it comes to statists (see recent The View appearance), and he's already shown to be a sell out (see Mitt deal).Cruz is a tactician (see his use of micro-politicing services), and there is no telling whether he is a plant or what his real motives are.Trump is the best option. He's the most likely candidate, and he has a long available history that shows a rather consistent character.Now, I'm not going to vote. I'm not registered - I gave up after 2008 with Ron Paul. But, I was curious about Trump, so I read a few of his books, watched his Scotland golf hearing with the government there, watched a few speeches of his at his university, and from what I gather, he's a pretty logical, moral, business man. PS. On the notion of does voting matter: usually not. But, this may be a special case.
non-statist Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 Another point I want to make is that local and state elections are more important because those are issues that directly affect your everyday life. You are more likely to make a change at the local or state level as opposed to the national level. I advocate nullification and secession. Read up on Tom Woods for nullification. Hans-Hermann Hoppe advocates secession. Mises also emphasized secession. https://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/ http://en.liberpedia.org/Nationalism_and_Secession
st434u Posted January 10, 2016 Posted January 10, 2016 The odds say Cruz will win the republican Iowa caucus. I think Trump has a good chance of winning the whole thing, but odds favor Hillary.
shirgall Posted January 11, 2016 Posted January 11, 2016 I actually was a delegate for Ron Paul in the last presidential run, and it was kinda a waste of time except that I got to teach a few freedom-minded people about parliamentary procedures.
Recommended Posts