jason_ Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Just vote in self-defense. Force is being used against you. Voting to remove the force doesn't violate the NAP. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Saying lesser of two evils acknowledges both as evil. To vote for one is to give permission for that evil. That which is immoral in practice is unethical in proposition. As such, political voting is unethical at the very least. It is personally green-lighting aggression. Just vote in self-defense. Force is being used against you. Voting to remove the force doesn't violate the NAP. Political voting does nothing to protect anybody. It only serves to dignify the rulers' claim of ownership over you (and others). Somebody who politically votes is not free even in their own mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algernon Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Regarding the topic of voting, I usually post this video as it makes the point quite clear - https://youtu.be/vb8Rj5xkDPk?t=11s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Political voting does nothing to protect anybody. It only serves to dignify the rulers' claim of ownership over you (and others). Not if you vote for someone who is going to remove the force and dismantle the government. A libertarian candidate for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fezjones Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 i just dont think it matters either way. there is a case for abstaining from voting instead of going for the lesser of two evils, because the state can spin voting as a contractual agreement for whatever the state chooses to do. when you vote its not like you submit a one page write up for why you voted. when the state claims they have the consent of the govern, they have no clue as to the limits of what the governed have consented to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_ Posted February 7, 2016 Author Share Posted February 7, 2016 Not if you vote for someone who is going to remove the force and dismantle the government. Hi Jpahman, So as to use the broken instrument to fix the broken instrument? Hi Guys, Political voting does nothing to protect anybody. It only serves to dignify the rulers' claim of ownership over you (and others). Somebody who politically votes is not free even in their own mind. Regarding the topic of voting, I usually post this video as it makes the point quite clear - https://youtu.be/vb8Rj5xkDPk?t=11s Is voting a futile act? Will indeed the outcome be basically the same? I believe these to be two fair questions. In my experience the answer to both is yes. For Pete's sake! the current president's campaign slogan was hope and change. I didn't vote for him and I'm happy for it. Now I can honestly say I didn't believe his bullshit -- even though I was tempted; which is different from when I didn't vote for Bush -- at 18 years old -- but voted for the lesser of two evils candidate. Would Al Core have prevented us form invading the Middle East? Maybe the narrative would have been different, but what about the outcome? It doesn't matter which bullshitter one votes for, things will be more or less the same as long as the power structure is in place. It's corrupt from top to bottom. By withholding the vote, we can see who actually wants this system to keep functioning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted February 7, 2016 Share Posted February 7, 2016 Not if you vote for someone who is going to remove the force and dismantle the government. The ability to describe a unicorn is not proof of its existence. Not that one person could undo the perverse incentives that the thousands of other politicians wish to preserve and grow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 The ability to describe a unicorn is not proof of its existence. Not that one person could undo the perverse incentives that the thousands of other politicians wish to preserve and grow. I'm not saying they (the libertarians) are not lying. I don't know. Maybe someone like a Ron Paul would do nothing and maybe he would actually work to remove legislation. There is only one way to find out. But, if someone like that were to get elected in the future, that means that the majority of the population would approve of such measures as removing legislation. So, it's just one end of the equation. The other end of the equation is of course teaching about the non-aggression principle. Hi Jpahman, So as to use the broken instrument to fix the broken instrument? Broken? It depends on what the instrument is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AncapFTW Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 I'm considering doing a write-in for "leave it open" or "no one" or something like that. Maybe if enough people do it, at least the media will hear about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason_ Posted February 8, 2016 Author Share Posted February 8, 2016 Okay, I thought more on this topic and in my earlier post, as well as some of the other's posts, I think I was over-simplifying the situation in a detrimental way. Sure, voting one way or the other is not going to change the overall arch of the system, but it could be very important to vote for the candidate who promises to less harm. For example, large issues like the military industrial complex and the educational (indoctrination) system will chug along relatively unchanged, but a president who espouses socialist policies could cause otherwise productive people to drop out of industries such as pharmaceuticals or other medical technologies. If the world ended up with a pandemic, those people who decided not to apply their talent because of government control could have produced a cure or vaccine. While I believe the Jones Plantation analogy is fair and useful, in the translation to voting in the real world system -- like all analogies applied to the real world -- it falls down. Individuals voting just don't have the impact that an individual in an operation the size of a plantation does. Perhaps it's best to continue spreading libertarian thought, engaging in debates, and applying the principles of liberty in ones own life, and vote in self defense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted February 8, 2016 Share Posted February 8, 2016 Perhaps it's best to continue spreading libertarian thought, engaging in debates, and applying the principles of liberty in ones own life, and vote in self defense. You can also vote to defend someone else. Like the 1%. There is no way that voting to keep someone from being stolen from is a bad idea. It is immoral to vote for the initiation of theft, however, it is moral to vote to defend yourself or someone else from theft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B0b Posted March 17, 2016 Share Posted March 17, 2016 Is it better to vote for a Mussolini, a Hitler or refrain from voting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 How does anyone here know if the votes are even counted? Are if they are counted whether the result is ignored? If they are counted and the result is used to place a particular person into a particular "office", does that person have any accountability in abiding by campaign promises? If he chooses to abide by them, does he have any power to affect change? Since the system is fundamentally set up to harvest the productivity of the human capital in a particular geographical region, aren't elections analogous to cows on a ranch voting for better living conditions? The ranchers will provide the cows enough food and medicine to make sure they are turned into bigger steaks, but it has nothing to do with the preference of the cows. In all likelihood, the outcome of the 2016 presidential race was decided years ago and will follow a script that has been written by the owners of Ranch USA. In the script for Ranch USA, the human capital is encouraged to make their support for the system that harvests them known to the harvesters as it gives them valuable feedback about where the fences need reinforcement. So, by all means vote and brighten the day of a kleptocrat. I would avoid standing in line to do so, unless you really enjoy standing in lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B0b Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 In all likelihood, the outcome of the 2016 presidential race was decided years ago and will follow a script that has been written by the owners of Ranch USA. You think that Trump was the candidate that the system chose years ago? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornetto97 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 it pains me reading this, because it sounds like the majority of you live in a country where your choice to vote is at least upheld. In the land down under (Australia) it's compulsory to vote, even if you don't actually choose a candidate and cast what they refer to here as a 'donkey vote'. Now on the issue i do think that voting in modern big government democracy is an illusion of choice and is one of the last remaining, though very thin and brittle, illusions of political choice, and representative democracy. Special interests have ruined it all and it's an essential reason why the state didn't take very long at all to grow both in USA, Australia and pretty much every liberal democracy there is and has been, or ever will be for that matter. Now voting as an institution is highly immoral in Australia, because you will get a nice fine if you don't cast a vote when you are legible to do so. But given the choice, i really wouldn't see the point as aforementioned special interests taint representative democracy to its core, and also in the USA you have the ridiculous 2 party system. But in Australia we have a nice any party welcome sort of system, with a vast array of small parties, so if one was to be staunchly libertarian, not accept political donations from the 1%, be based on voluntarism, Austrian economics all the good stuff, then I would accept that and cast my vote for them as oppose to a 'donkey vote'. My reasoning is quite simple, it's either we toil to spread the word of a stateless society based on voluntarism, and universal morals in an already sinking civilization or, if the choice arises we can spread such principles on a relatively more afloat civilization, where we aren't using buckets to stop the massive waves of water from sinking it. You see where we are now we have to reverse such indoctrination from government education, show them the virus that is slowly choking society, tell them about universal morals, snap them out of their zombie like following of multiculturalism, among a myriad of other things, then once that is done we have the excruciating task of reviving in them the word 'anarchy' (gasp). But honestly we are a massive - Bernie Sanders fever, wave of socialism sweeping across Europe, mainstream media, Keynesian economics, military industrial complex - leap away from any staunch libertarian party gaining majority type of momentum. I believe that a twentieth century style mass political turmoil is heading our way once again, and i really don't see voting for such a party as stopping this cycle. right now spreading these ideas is the most efficient way to give life boats to the passengers of this sinking ship. so to conclude yes given the right circumstances voting for a party closely aligned to the principles of Ancapism, so as to limit the work needed to get from the status-quo to a truly stateless society, is moral. However if it's the lesser of two evils like let's say ted cruz and Hilary then no, because either way you will be supporting someone who will expand the state and thus continue immoral state programs, and be fundamentally 'evil'. *EDIT... Upon reflection i just realised some fallacies in my argument that i just can't ignore, Firstly is that if i accept that the state always grows in any liberal democracy then voting in a staunch libertarian party will inevitably get us back to the status-quo, furthermore if i accept that the state is immoral then no party that will still essentially be a state can be moral by those standards, so essentially if you know a chronic illness will kill you then it is illogical to say that it is better to accept treatment as oppose to a cure, when one is available of course. Further-further more is that if (as i believe) it is essential to convince people there is something ghastly immoral about the state, and the current organising of society, in order to have any chance of reviving the word anarchy in them, then a status-quo where there is voluntarism and a free market, with very limited government, will scarcely be the climate where you'll have a chance of convincing people the current situation is wrong and thus the chance to guide them along anarchic principles. It's like telling someone to eat because they're hungry when they staunchly believe they aren't hungry. So in conclusion no it is more efficient to continue spreading the word around, instead of just restarting the cycle essentially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B0b Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 The problem Cornetto is that there is absolutely zero guarantee that spreading the word around has more effect than voting for a candidate who promises slightly less socialism. Maybe small changes in the way a country is run can have a greater impact on people. We cannot tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornetto97 Posted March 21, 2016 Share Posted March 21, 2016 The problem Cornetto is that there is absolutely zero guarantee that spreading the word around has more effect than voting for a candidate who promises slightly less socialism. Maybe small changes in the way a country is run can have a greater impact on people. We cannot tell. Yes, however if you vote for the candidate who is less 'socialist' in that they don't grow the welfare state, don't impose their high taxes on business, it'll inevitably happen, either way, you are inevitably going to have increased coerive influence, be it higher taxes, trade tarifs, higher business tax, restrictions on licensing for business, property tax. The reason why we still have such things is still constant - the state. These will always happen, as long as we have a state, we will have bought political influence, becasue the state has a monopoly on force. Another reason is fiat money. Fiat money will always have two constants, ever increasing unfunded liabilities, and ever increasing inflation, and they have two constants, respectively, increased taxes for the next generations, and stealing the wealth of the current generations. The way this ties in is, when you have a monopoly control over the money supply and you can constantly print fiat money, you're going to always get special interests pouring money info politics, and you're going to always get politicians spending at will on every single ridiculous program you can think of. Becasue the state has no money it steals money and it prints money, it is the perfect one two punch of power, so whether they be social democrats, conservative, middle sitting, centre left, it doesn't matter because the aforementioned by-products of a state will still be constant. So the people must learn this otherwise they'll continue to flock to the votong booths, and cast their votes unbeknownst to what the value of their vote actually is, and what these constants of state power, which they support with their vote actually means for their livelihood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B0b Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Let me summarize. If we vote for the less socialist, then we will in the end end up with higher taxes, therefore more socialism. I do not understand your reasoning. How can we exclude that a more liberal (as in liberalism) candidate, a bit like Reagan or Thatcher, will one day emerge and get good results? If such opportunity arises, it would be a shame not to make it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cornetto97 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Yes i do agree that a more classical liberal cadidate such as raegan or thatcher will be a net positive, however in hostory where has it inevitably ended? USA reverted back to what we see now, an economy slowly crumbling apart under the weight of fiat currency, high taxes, so to has the uk, the 'basic tax rate' is 20%, if you earn anywhere from 31,785 pounds to 150,000 pounds you are taxed at 40%. Let's look at a recent example of chile. Chile broke out of their communist regime of allende, and in the 70s were under pinochet a military dictator who turned to milton friedman and the austrian school of economics in chicago because his central control on the economy was not working. He adopted the ideas of austrian economics, privatised multiple state assets from allende's communist party, privitised education, and saw his economy slowly pull itself out of a rut with classical liberalist free market ideas. Their country was one of the wealthiest - and still is - south american economies. Long story short pinochet held a vote, it became a democracy, still mostly keeping with the free market liberalist ideas from pinochet. Now do you know where they are? They're back with a democratic socialist, who ran her campaign on a platform for free governmnet education, fighting wealth inequality, all the things that grow a state. So maybe it will be better for a small portion of time but it historically has always reverted back to an ever increasing state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 You think that Trump was the candidate that the system chose years ago? The controllers of the perception matrix most refer to as reality are likely not so out of touch with the psychological motivations of the herd that they would institute a static as opposed to a dynamic system. So Trump may be one of a number of potential "nominees" that could be tested and confirmed or rejected depending on that data that is harvested as a result of the media generated for/against Trump. Ditto Bernie, Hillary, Cruz, et al. The owners will milk the herd whether the pumps are diesel or solar powered. The number of unchallenged assumptions involved in this political farce is mind-numbingly staggering, yet most of the commentary leads me to believe that people are emotionally invested enough to believe they have a choice and their choice will somehow make a difference. Perception is the only thing of value to the controllers. People maintain the idea that the system is legit and even though they may grumble about taxes, they ultimately trust the system to sort itself out. Voila! Welcome to another eight years of violation and pillage under the wise and faithful leadership of Trum-hillar-nie-cruzio. The only thing any of the psychopaths behind the curtain fear is apathy. The kleptocrats will take notice when no one shows up at the polls, not before. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosencrantz Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 See how long you can have a free society when there is a major terrorist attack every week. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 See how long you can have a free society when there is a major terrorist attack every week. I don't follow. Terrorist attacks are retaliation for State action. What would they be retaliating against in the absence of the State? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 I don't follow. Terrorist attacks are retaliation for State action. What would they be retaliating against in the absence of the State? I think it's because the recent terrorism is about the desire to impose sharia law (which certainly is a form of state) by subduing the [future] dhimma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosencrantz Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Terrorist attacks are retaliation for State action. No, they are based on Muslim ideology. The Muslims do what they are told to. Nothing more, nothing less. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 No, they are based on Muslim ideology. The Muslims do what they are told to. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, by contrast, US Marines are free thinking individuals who carefully weigh the ramifications of their orders prior to executing them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Of course, by contrast, US Marines are free thinking individuals who carefully weigh the ramifications of their orders prior to executing them. While US Marines are obligated to follow lawful orders, they are also told they must disobey unlawful orders. The demonization of Lt. Col. Oliver North for not disobeying his orders is still in the memory of career military. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosencrantz Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Of course, by contrast, US Marines are free thinking individuals who carefully weigh the ramifications of their orders prior to executing them. Compared to moderate rebels, IS terrorists and the like, US marines are paragons of virtue and rationality. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 Compared to moderate rebels, IS terrorists and the like, US marines are paragons of virtue and rationality. Smedley Butler thought otherwise. This site has become an echo chamber of mainstream narrative and programming. I should just don a NASA t-shirt and a Make America Great again ball cap while I sit quivering with indignation in my Barcalounger as Jeanine Pirro entreats me to "Bomb them." The difference in logic and consistency would be statistically insignificant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosencrantz Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I should just don a NASA t-shirt and a Make America Great again ball cap You forgot that we mainstream sheeples watch The Right Stuff and Apollo 18 24/7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 You forgot that we mainstream sheeples watch The Right Stuff and Apollo 18 24/7. I hear Dancing w/the Stars is a perennial favorite, along with American Idle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B0b Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 I don't follow. Terrorist attacks are retaliation for State action. What would they be retaliating against in the absence of the State? How do you know that Muslim people do not want states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shirgall Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 How do you know that Muslim people do not want states? It's pretty clear that they do, since Sharia is a recipe for a state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gee Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 This site has become an echo chamber of mainstream narrative and programming. If it's valid, it's valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretzelogik Posted March 24, 2016 Share Posted March 24, 2016 If it's valid, it's valid. Who is responsible for conferring the stamp of validity on the material that emanates from the MSM? If it's a tautology, it's a tautology... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts