The Anarchists's Guide to Voting

[jpahmad]

My argument for voting. I think it's a great video, and if not logically sound for some reason, at least a great jump off for discussion about this important matter for all of us. Please critique and offer feedback. Much appreciated everyone!

 

 

[dsayers]

At 1:22 you say that if nobody votes, the politicians will just go away as if this is the anarchist's position. I think this is a misrepresentation. An anarchist is simply somebody who accepts that humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories.

 

At 3:09, you say that people who don't vote are voting for something. I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that inaction is action.

 

I think the premise is flawed. The title itself is a contradiction in ideas. You literally CAN'T create a guide that would assist an atheist in choosing a deity.

 

The video description says "How an anarchist ought to vote if voting in a democratic society." Ought is a pretty big claim. My chief issue though is with the phrase "in a democratic society." Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Unless you assume the claim that I am owned by somebody else is valid, it seems paradoxical to me. Since this assumption is not axiomatic, I feel as if you've skipped over a step.

[AncapFTW]

At 1:22 you say that if nobody votes, the politicians will just go away as if this is the anarchist's position. I think this is a misrepresentation. An anarchist is simply somebody who accepts that humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories.

 

At 3:09, you say that people who don't vote are voting for something. I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that inaction is action.

 

I think the premise is flawed. The title itself is a contradiction in ideas. You literally CAN'T create a guide that would assist an atheist in choosing a deity.

 

The video description says "How an anarchist ought to vote if voting in a democratic society." Ought is a pretty big claim. My chief issue though is with the phrase "in a democratic society." Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Unless you assume the claim that I am owned by somebody else is valid, it seems paradoxical to me. Since this assumption is not axiomatic, I feel as if you've skipped over a step.

You could, however, create a guide to help Atheists get understand religious people and systems, or help them find a religion, assuming it doesn't include a mandatory belief in deities.  Buddhism for example doesn't require you to believe in deities.

 

Now imagine that a national religion was going to be forced on everyone, or that everyone would be forced to choose a religion.  Such a guide could be useful.

 

Of course, if that were the case, Pastafarianism would become really popular, but that's a different topic.

[Livemike]

As long as people in general vote they are saying that democracy can be expected to deliver results.  This leads others to believe that people in general believe voting is an effective way to change society.  Voting is relatively cost-free even in the US where they make it delibately incovenient.  As long as people believe that people believe that voting is effective they are unlikely to use other means of resistance.

This is because other forms of resistance rely on other people deciding to resist at the same time.  Ask Irwin Shiff how effective a one-man tax refusal is.  What is needed is something called a "Schelling point" something that people decide on without consulting each other.  A natural point where resistance forms because people believe others will join in at that time and place.  When people stop voting it indicates that they do not believe that voting is the way to create change.  This means that they are open to the idea that other ways are the best way.  As long as they keep voting they are saying that voting isn't worthless and therefore more expensive means of resistance aren't the only way to go.  As long as they believe that, and believe others believe that, they are unlikely to engage in active resistance.  That's because they implictly indicate that they have another option, that is cheaper and less risky.  They will also believe others believe this.  

When people stop voting it indicates that they don't believe that voting is capable of needed reforms, or any reforms.  That means they are more open to the idea of other means, and are more likely to engage in them.  Since the voting figures are public it also means they know others are likely to engage in other resistance activities, and so they can be more confidence of gaining the critical mass needed for such actions to work.  They also know that others know this creating a positive feedback loop.

 

Legitimacy in the eyes of the people is what appears to keep the State in power, but in fact it's not.  What keeps the State in power is the believe that the rest of the population thinks the State is legitimate.  Imagine you were in Soviet Russia and you thought that you were the only one who thought that the State was a murderous parasitic leech on the throat of the Russian people.  Would you say so or would you see it as a futile gesture of resistance, leading only to your death?  Now imagine you thought 1% of the people agreed with you, would you speak out?  How about 10%? Probably still no, but 50%, 75%?  That's makes it a lot easier.  Telling people you don't believe their lies is effective because it undercuts the primary myth that support the State, the myth of inevitablility.

 

Not voting doesn't just send the message that you don't believe the State is good, it sends the message that you don't believe it's lies about being able to influence it.  It tells the State, and everyone else, that you know the game is rigged and it's not worth your time.  Which implies that you're looking for a new game, without the old players.

[jpahmad]

At 1:22 you say that if nobody votes, the politicians will just go away as if this is the anarchist's position. I think this is a misrepresentation. An anarchist is simply somebody who accepts that humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories.

 

 

 

Yeah, I was referring to people who push the "don't vote" strategy.  I suppose it might be a misrepresentation.  Although I've had anarchist tell me that not voting will expose the state for what it is and then people will just stop paying taxes or something.

 

 

 

 

 

 

At 3:09, you say that people who don't vote are voting for something. I am curious as to how you came to the conclusion that inaction is action.

 

 

You're right, inaction is not action.  But does not voting signal anything to others?  Does it not send an explicit message of some kind?  For example, if everyone just didn't vote in this election, is that not some kind of statement?

 

 

 

 

 

I think the premise is flawed. The title itself is a contradiction in ideas. You literally CAN'T create a guide that would assist an atheist in choosing a deity.

 

 

Yeah, I was trying to be provocative in the title.  I wanted some "click bate."  Maybe it wasn't a good idea

 

 

 

 

The video description says "How an anarchist ought to vote if voting in a democratic society." Ought is a pretty big claim. My chief issue though is with the phrase "in a democratic society." Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Unless you assume the claim that I am owned by somebody else is valid, it seems paradoxical to me. Since this assumption is not axiomatic, I feel as if you've skipped over a step.

 

"in a democratic society" means simply a statist society where they have democratic elections. 

 

Honestly, I probably skipped over many steps.  I'm not even sure if it is logically sound or not.  I was more or less thinking out loud and through a video essay.  I know it's risky to publicly proclaim "oughts", especially on a philosophy forum, but I'm a bit obsessed with the topic and would rather have embarrassment and resolution that constant cognitive indecision on the matter.  Dsayers, take my thought for what their worth and discard the stuff that doesn't make sense.  I'm hoping that someone will just correct me and perhaps build on a line of reasoning that I started.  Maybe I was on to something and went astray, maybe my whole premise is flawed and the whole thing should just be thrown out.  Either way, I done so much thinking and defending and re-hashing and analyzing that I'm just utterly mentally exhausted for now.  

 

I'm gonna give it a break and think more about this perhaps at another time.  Thanks again for your criticism and suggestions.  BTW, I corrected something in my previous post about the morality of voting.  It should be appearing on the threads soon.

[luxfelix]

[Followed from https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/47257-trump-fascination/page-2]:

 

The quote, "the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King" comes to mind.

 

If this helps to communicate to people in a way that straightforward logic fails, then perhaps there is value in meeting our audience at the theaters of their choosing, to perform to their hearts where their minds have gone numb? 

[dsayers]

You're right, inaction is not action.  But does not voting signal anything to others?  Does it not send an explicit message of some kind?  For example, if everyone just didn't vote in this election, is that not some kind of statement?

No. You just said yourself that inaction isn't action. Think of the millions of different behaviors you COULD be engaging in right now. Notice how you're NOT engaging in ALL of them except one or two right now? According to you, not only could we derive millions of messages from this, but they would be explicit. This is logically impossible.