12 Reasons Why I Think Trump Should Win The Presidency

[vahleeb]

Full disclaimer: I am not an American citizen, thus I have no right to vote. If I had, I'd most likely vote for Trump now even as a third party candidate.

 

I have put together this very lengthy article which I am linking below trying to explain my convictions. I would absolutely welcome feedback from anyone who disagrees with any of my reasons.

 

I especially encourage undecided voters and people who don't vote on principle to give it a read.

 

https://bukman.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/20160313-i-want-donald-trump-to-win-the-presidency-and-heres-why/

[sb23rd]

I have a few questions.

 

How do you know your vote reflects your convictions?

 

If I don't vote and want to be left alone will the 'elected' comply with my wishes?

[dsayers]

Full disclaimer: I am not an American citizen, thus I have no right to vote.

Nobody has the right to initiate the use of force. I read the title as "12 Reasons Why I Think Trump Should Be Allowed to Own 300,000 people.

[wdiaz03]

Full disclaimer: I am not an American citizen, thus I have no right to vote. If I had, I'd most likely vote for Trump now even as a third party candidate.

 

I have put together this very lengthy article which I am linking below trying to explain my convictions. I would absolutely welcome feedback from anyone who disagrees with any of my reasons.

 

I especially encourage undecided voters and people who don't vote on principle to give it a read.

 

https://bukman.wordpress.com/2016/03/13/20160313-i-want-donald-trump-to-win-the-presidency-and-heres-why/

 

Great article 

[vahleeb]

@sb23rd: I'm not sure I understand the question "how do you know your vote reflects your convictions". I'd say, because you cast it, or even because you don't cast it. Whatever action you take with regards to voting can only reflect you convictions (unless you're possessed or something).

 

I think the question that you are really asking is wether or not the outcome of the voting process or the voting process itself would reflect your convictions and then the answer is no. Voting and democracy is just the latest thing to justify state violence and just like divine right before it, it is an invention of a caste of people looking to wrestle the power away from another caste of people (in this case the lesser nobility from the greater nobility) and they used the power of the mob to do it. I think if you take the time to read through my article you will come to understand that I am by no means an advocate of the state. And I could spend 12 hours straight just disagreeing with separate Trump statements, heck, I'm the guy who almost went on a rant when he fired Carolla during a season of The Apprentice, but I try and touch on the article as to why that is useless to do (I think it's reason nine).

 

That having been said, within the current system and for the current time, I still think Trump is the best option for all of us (and I'm a EU citizen) for the reasons I have outlined in the article. I take full heed of Stefan's advice to "not vote, or to vote in self-defense" when coming to the conclusion I came to.

 

@dsayers: I'm not sure what you mean by your statement, but I'd welcome if you wanted to elaborate.

[jpahmad]

Nobody has the right to initiate the use of force. I read the title as "12 Reasons Why I Think Trump Should Be Allowed to Own 300,000 people.

 

Here is my logical proof that voting does not violate the NAP.  Let me know if there is something wrong with the logic.  I'm open to throwing the whole thing out if it is flawed.

 

[AncapFTW]

Nobody has the right to initiate the use of force. I read the title as "12 Reasons Why I Think Trump Should Be Allowed to Own 300,000 people.

Million, not thousand, but that makes sense. My parentscouldn't understand why I would vote in the primaries. I told them it was basically the same as asking me if I wanted broccoli or boiled cabbage (both foods that make me want to vomit) for supper. neither option is acceptable, so why should I have to choose. If they demand I vote in the election, I'll probably write in "leave position open".

[vahleeb]

Hi jpahmad,

 

I agree that when regarded from the point of view that you approach in the video, your conclusion is spot on. However, I think most people here object to voting as a violation of the non-agression principle (at least if I have understood correctly where dsayers and AncapFTW seem to be coming from) because by wilfully participating in an action that furthers the interests of the state then you are implicitly supporting said state regardless of the outcome of the elections, especially so if your choice ends up to be meaningless. If "everyone you get to vote is bought and paid for" then that is absolutely true, your choice would be invalid no matter what and just through participation you would be furthering the statist agenda. But (@dsayers & @ AncapFTW) I think I have gone to great lengths in the article to point out why Trump might actually not fall into the "bought and paid for" category which should (at least in my opinion) change the data of the problem.

 

Going back to the video, it's probably because you took such a long time to make it (as you state), but you end up sort of contradicting yourself when it comes to Person A just thinking about forcing Person B (I know it's almost a tangential matter to the core point, but still). At one point (early) in the video you deem it to be moral (while most likely attempting to say that it is not immoral), while later you refer to it as having no moral value. Personally I think the second stance is the correct one.

 

Also in the video, you seem to say that a person that goes and hires a hitman to off someone has not breached morality and they're just an asshole and nothing more. I don't think you're right about that because, by your logic, you have to shift all moral agency on the hitman in order to absolve Person A. But the hitman's very definition is that he kills people for money. Yes, he is profoundly immoral, so much so, that he has turned it into a profession. He obviously has moral agency for any murder he undertakes, because he could always stop killing people, but it's not like the hitman will analyse everything on a case by case basis (not an efficient hitman, anyway). I think it's arguable that, in a sense, the hitman can be regarded as a tool/robot and thus shift some of the moral agency back onto Person A.

 

Tangent: for a cool movie about hitmen and these kinds of choices and also an excellent dark comedy try Grosse Point Blank from 1998 (John Cusack, Dan Aykroyd, Minnie Driver), I personally love this movie.

 

As far as where I'm coming from, it was long before I realised the value of the NAP and of voluntarism (before I even knew they existed) I had become opposed to the utilitarian nature of the democratic system. So, I'm thinking, if I could see that the "best form of political statehood" is ultimately evil so long before I could realise that the state itself if evil, then why not use this gateway to expose people to the fact that the state is evil?

 

If democracy can fail (from effect - which is always the argument that people who don't reason from first principles respond to) and do so resoundingly in America (not just as it has done throughout history in Germany and in Eastern Europe) then shouldn't anarchists want to facilitate that? If the political establishment is the source of the cancer (the minarchist position) then shouldn't we want to help expose that to the world? Isn't it easier to convert someone who's already 95% of the way there rather than someone who is only 10%? If we're going to invade Germany (as somebody who's smarter than me has said) should we not use their roads in the process?

[Pelafina]

Nobody has the right to initiate the use of force. I read the title as "12 Reasons Why I Think Trump Should Be Allowed to Own 300,000 people.

Advocating and voting for Trump to be president can be viewed as self defense against the threatened use of force of Hillary or Sanders.