Is this community anti-voting?

[AlexZoo]

I was in the chat room, and was shocked that the majority of people 'lol'ed me when I put value on my vote. I thought at the start that they wanted to sabotage me putting into practice the things I learned from Stefan's videos as it resembled the line of thinking of those that dismiss Stefan's videos (passiveness). I labelled them as liberals, but found that those of majority in the chat room were supportive. I am totally confused as I expected to find people looking at each and every way to make a change however large or small, and not find those efforts to be meaningless. I can understand seeing the minor value it contains but not to see it as something to abstain from.

 

Can someone clarify to me the stance commonly seen from people in this community in regards to voting?

[shirgall]

Voting is great so long as it never imposes unchosen positive obligations. For example, only the people who vote for a tax have to pay it. Then it's not coercion.

 

If you go into an organization and that organization states that the procedural rules for deciding things directly require that all members accept, support, promote, and comply with decisions made under those procedural rules, then those rules are not unchosen positive obligations. That is a far cry from the supposed social contract and our ability to leave the country if we don't like what Congress does, for example.

[AlexZoo]

I was telling a guy from Manchester that I wanted to vote for exiting the EU, and he laughed and so did everyone else. I am not bothered by the laugh, but the thought that voting is pointless and that they won't vote and laugh at my efforts to exit the EU. As if they wanted to passify me. 

[Existing Alternatives]

“Community” can’t be pro- or anti- anything, it is merely a group of people brought together by some commonality. Most people’s individual opinions here will probably sway against voting. Voting is generally considered an endorsement of the state.

 

I am curious, how do you envision “putting into practice the things you learned” by voting? And how is using that time instead to improve yourself and your immediate surroundings and relationship being passive?

[Cuffy_Meigs]

I was telling a guy from Manchester that I wanted to vote for exiting the EU, and he laughed and so did everyone else. I am not bothered by the laugh, but the thought that voting is pointless and that they won't vote and laugh at my efforts to exit the EU. As if they wanted to passify me. 

UK General Elections generally involve endorsing one candidate whose views are indistinguishable from the other runners and which I despise. A case of "choose your rapist".

 

However if there can ever be an exception then it is surely the EU referendum. This will probably be the only occasion in my life that I will have the opportunity to vote for LESS government (regardless of whether this actually comes to pass). Even if people disagree with you, I don't see why they would laugh.

[Carl Green]

Not much point in asking individual members what the opinions of all the other members are. I think you'd be better off starting a poll and using that to get your answer.

[dsayers]

I am totally confused as I expected to find people looking at each and every way to make a change however large or small

Are we talking about political voting or making changes? The two are not synonymous. Government is predicated on the initiation of the use of force. Participating in that, however remotely, is not a beneficial use of one's time. People engage in political voting for the way it makes them feel. They're lying even to themselves if they believe they are making any meaningful difference in the world, save to perpetuate mankind's enslavement.

[ValueOfBrevity]

I was telling a guy from Manchester that I wanted to vote for exiting the EU, and he laughed and so did everyone else. I am not bothered by the laugh, but the thought that voting is pointless and that they won't vote and laugh at my efforts to exit the EU. As if they wanted to passify me. 

Voting is coercive under government systems, therefore no one here can support it and claim to support individual liberties. On the other hand, if you're voting for less government, you are doing something productive (though not effective).

 

Also, you cast a tie breaking vote in a system that doesn't produce ties. 

[david.molyneux]

I would suggest that voting has merit among small groups of people, wherein everyone can be heard, provided that all have agreed to comply with a majority decision. In a larger "group", i.e. a voting populace as we think of it today, that's not possible, and I would refer you to shirgall's answer above.

[regevdl]

I was in the chat room, and was shocked that the majority of people 'lol'ed me when I put value on my vote. I thought at the start that they wanted to sabotage me putting into practice the things I learned from Stefan's videos as it resembled the line of thinking of those that dismiss Stefan's videos (passiveness). I labelled them as liberals, but found that those of majority in the chat room were supportive. I am totally confused as I expected to find people looking at each and every way to make a change however large or small, and not find those efforts to be meaningless. I can understand seeing the minor value it contains but not to see it as something to abstain from.

 

Can someone clarify to me the stance commonly seen from people in this community in regards to voting?

 

That's terrible that they used their energy to laugh and feel superior rather than try to articulate their position with actual arguments. 

 

I have gone back and forth with myself on voting.  I don't think it's immoral however the campaign, election process makes my stomach churn so does my vote enable that, etc....those sort of conundrums. 

 

But...  heard Tom Woods (he also has a podcast and is sharp as a whip on economics) say that if he was in a concentration camp and was given a vote to change the guards or get out or somehow improve the conditions...he would.  

 

So there is a lot to be said but I think voting can be beneficial.  I live in a small self-governed village and our local parliment is voluntary.  You can nominate yourself and the community votes.  no one gets paid for their position...although people still use the power to benefit themselves...so that doesn't go away even in a small scale voluntary society.  But you don't have to pay overhead and pensions for these people and you can always run against them.  

 

But when it gets to big centralized planning elections and campaigns..it's a whole other monster we are dealing with. 

 

However, to some extent the game is rigged.  That is provable and evident.  however, especially in this election, I find it uniquely exciting and worthy to vote because the votes ARE what's exposing the corruption and bias and rigging in the system. Which is a VERY useful tool, voting, in this case.  It might be the first domino in a long line of dominos to break down the entire methodology of society and decision making and choosing leaders, etc but.... I think it's a necessary step. 

[regevdl]

Voting is coercive under government systems, therefore no one here can support it and claim to support individual liberties. On the other hand, if you're voting for less government, you are doing something productive (though not effective).

 

Also, you cast a tie breaking vote in a system that doesn't produce ties. 

I tihnk it's a bit of a stretch to say voting itself is coercive.  There is no direct punishment/negative repurcussion if you don't do it.  Unlike if I don't pay my taxes....there will be strong negative repurcussions to the degree that almost guarantees my compulsion to pay my taxes without resistance.  

 

 

It's a false equivilancy to put voting in that category of coercive behavior.

 

Voting to change the conditions of a coercive entity, the state, in a rigged system has no more or less influence on the existance of that system than not voting.  

 

They don't count how many people abstained from voting and say..well gee... more people DIDN'T vote so we will interpret that as them not wanting a state at all and therefore we will give up our salaries that are paid through force and violence. And even if no one voted, the state would still remain intact...why...because if we vote or not....they take our money to fund themselves.  so voting is the lowest on the list of coercive action.... and why dealing with the taxation is theft argument is far more useful in breaking down the blood-sucking government entity.

 

 So if an immoral, coercive entity exists that gives people the tiniest of opportunity to voice their preferences (as long as the preference of 'state go bye bye' doesn't exist) then the vote can be useful but not sufficient and will never be sufficient to total human liberty. 

 

But...it HAS greatly improved lives up to this point if you look back in history with the sociological structors of class systems and monarchies and such to a voting democracy, etc.... I think we have more refining to do and still make the case for a free society of course.