2016 Election: To Vote or Not To Vote

[Tyler H]

This post has been created to continue the discourse from  this thread in order for the title to more accurately reflect the content that developed.

[shirgall]

This post has been created to continue the discourse from  this thread in order for the title to more accurately reflect the content that developed.

 

Force is already being used against you. Amelioration of this fact, whatever the course of action, is a personal decision that is difficult to generalize.

[labmath2]

This question instantiates the train problem. Many times when people have asked that problem they have been met with criticism of presenting absurd situations. Now you have it.

 

The train is the government system that is rolling down the track. Do you vote (pull the lever) to change the outcome even if that means making others into victims? Do you abstain and let the train barrel down on its prospective victims (maybe even including you)? Is there any other course of action?

[Tyler H]

Will Torbald

I'm not talking about the government. I'm talking about Mexico, Islam, and global interests. The first war is at the border, where the barbarians are already sieging the castle, and looting the place with no repercusion. You have a made up refugree crisis where war-age males are being imported from every corner of Africa and the Middle East, with all intentions of taking over once they get in. The third war is an economic war with every intention to destrou American's home economy through the cover of free trade agreements where the only result is the impoverishment of cities everywhere since all the jobs are gone, and all the workers are either replaced with robots, outsourced, or replaced with third world immigrants invaders. All the corporations like Google and Facebook are behind it, Disney, everyone, and all the international banks. Only Trump opposes all three warfronts, and Hillary Clinton wants to make them even worse.

I don't think I said you were talking about the government and I don't think I said the government is the only danger; this is a straw man argument.  

 

 

Force is already being used against you. Amelioration of this fact, whatever the course of action, is a person decision that is difficult to generalize.

 

I would have to argue that this course of action will have specific moral ramifications for people involved in this community.  I want them to be aware of the counter arguments before making that decision.

[RamynKing]

The sticking points as I see them:

 

To preserve or not preserve the West: 

Can the goal of a free society only be pursued within the historic framework of Western values that have been built up and eroded over 1000's of years? 

-Some argue that we don't even have the right to make this decision. We are alive and freely thinking today because of the massive bloodshed our forefathers offered up. So we have now a duty to fight for the chance they gave us. 

-The other side of the coin is to let that fall apart and let the smart people start from scratch and do it right this time. 

 

If the West does matter, is it actually in danger? 

This comes down to a reasoned prediction using the evidence of history.  

-If we can be sure the West will strongly march on indefinitely, the traditional Anarchist boycott of the system is logical, since we have time to make our case and slowly transform our world.

-But if that course becomes a risky gamble with everything on the line, it would seem then logical to take the position of preserving the west however possible, which may include forming temporary alliances with some statists and deists.  

 

 

Does Hillary, Trump, or some form of Abstinence give us the best chance to preserve the west?

-Clinton will continue directly attacking the West. This could lead to a regrettable irreversible plummet toward dystopia, or it could piss new people off enough to actually get a bigger freedom movement going. 

-Trump could fight for the west, and best case, actually restore some freedoms, further enabling Anarchists to make their case in the midst of a restored economy and Western pride. Second best case would be he preserves a sort of stalemate where the conversation at least continues.

He could also become yet another agent of the same political machine, which could be a Trump-card as it were to the ruling-class. His failure could cement growing anti-Western sentiment, making it even harder to make the Anarchist case in the future, and possibly dooming us all to said dystopia.

-Finally, abstaining, boycotting, protesting ect: While this action is a statement of commitment to the NAP, is it a robust, consistent or forward-thinking one?

Is your choice to abstain made in the midst of your supporting of the state in more important ways? For instance, would it not be a better protest to go to jail for tax-evasion?

The founders of the USA, though statists, were also philosophically aligned to the NAP. It could be argued that their dream of limited government was a logical stepping stone toward lack of government. Today that stepping stone has largely been avoided, leaving us with the power-mad monster of the modern state. But does that mean it was the only possible direction? Or can we have a second chance and learn from History? A vote for Trump could mean that we start to inch back to that first stepping stone and use what the founders set up to our advantage this time.

Edited July 18, 2016 by RamynKing

[dsayers]

To vote is to agree that yes, you are a slave. And that everybody else is a slave, which nobody has the right to say.

 

To vote is to believe that you are doing something. But since the throne itself is invalid, those who vote aren't doing anything.

 

The lifeblood of the State is its perceived legitimacy. In other words, it resides within the minds of people. Voting not only doesn't address this, but adds to it by showing others that it's valid by participating.

[WasatchMan]

If you accept anarchy as the only moral system to organize groups of peoples behavior and interactions because it removes the use of force as the means to create and enforce rules, are you really willing to bend your principles for one measly vote out of millions in a electoral college system?

 

To me this would be like giving up your principle not to steal because you see you have a chance at stealing a nickle from neighbor. In other words, if your moral principles are not iron clad, at least have the dignity to not give them up for such a pittance.

 

I find it odd that people create such a moral quandary around voting...  With all due respect, you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Your vote does not change anything, however, I suspect that people get so wrapped around the axle on this issue is because it makes them think they are doing something so they really don't have to go out and actually do something.

[Will Torbald]

 

 

I don't think I said you were talking about the government and I don't think I said the government is the only danger; this is a straw man argument.  

 

 

Other people were saying it was a war against the government, and you replied to them. It's not a strawman, as everything I said in that post is actually occurring.

[Tyler H]

Other people were saying it was a war against the government, and you replied to them. It's not a strawman, as everything I said in that post is actually occurring.

 

Well then I'm confused why you quoted me and not them.  The straw man applied to you misrepresenting my argument not anything you said afterward, which, I admit, I could have redacted from my quote of you in order to be more precise as to what I was referring.

[Anuojat]

To vote is to agree that yes, you are a slave. And that everybody else is a slave, which nobody has the right to say.

 

To vote is to believe that you are doing something. But since the throne itself is invalid, those who vote aren't doing anything.

 

The lifeblood of the State is its perceived legitimacy. In other words, it resides within the minds of people. Voting not only doesn't address this, but adds to it by showing others that it's valid by participating.

So defensively voting for donuld trump is giving support for statism as a whole?

 

How? Do we have evidence that defensive voting not only doesnt work but actually is counter productive?

[luxfelix]

 

Maybe, I don't know.  I am hesitant to think enough has been done since there are so few people who even know what real liberty is. Stef is coming up on half a million subscribers, but I think the FDR Trump coverage where Stef withholds criticism attracts a lot of Trump supporters who are muddying the waters in being able to tell how many philosophically-minded free thinkers are out there.  I think the videos on race will attract people who can think but also attract people who can't and just have their own bigoted opinions.  I guess what I'm saying is that there are so few of us and probably even fewer than we realize.  

 

 

I've thought this might be the case as well, and it relates to the second part below:

 

 

Do you mean allies in philosophical principles or are you talking about the enemy of my enemy is my friend, i.e. making a deal with the devil to postpone Armageddon?

 

I think we need allies who are as dedicated to freedom and voluntarism as we are and a lot of them.  I do not think we can make common cause with people who are the antithesis of what we advocate.

I've created a new topic on voting to continue this conversation here

 

 

That's right, the latter, enemy-of-my-enemy kind of ally.

 

The previous [thread] started with the title "Stefan's constant decay into outright conservatism", citing Trump's rising popularity, patriotism, conservatism, and self-righteousness.

 

Speaking very generally:

 

Whereas, Christians indoctrinate their children, they believe in the separation of Church and State;

 

Whereas, Trump supporters still support government, they believe in the Bill of Rights;

 

Whereas, Patriots support national sovereignty, they believe in defending Western values;

 

Whereas, if allying ourselves with the above, and other such groups of individuals, will serve to ultimately provide the foundations from which to better promote a stateless society, whether through participating in the voting ritual they highly value or otherwise, would it make sense to make an offer? (Presuming, of course, that Armageddon is not the more effective environment for promoting laissez-faire, et al.)

 

Again, it doesn't have to be through voting, yet that is what they want; is there a way in this, or in some other manner (such as promoting the values we have in common and/or the facts supporting their effectiveness), where our goals align?

 

Ma

 

ybe, I don't know.  I am hesitant to think enough has been done since there are so few people who even know what real liberty is. Stef is coming up on half a million subscribers, but I think the FDR Trump coverage where Stef withholds criticism attracts a lot of Trump supporters who are muddying the waters in being able to tell how many philosophically-minded free thinkers are out there.  I think the videos on race will attract people who can think but also attract people who can't and just have their own bigoted opinions.  I guess what I'm saying is that there are so few of us and probably even fewer than we realize.  

 

 

 

Do you mean allies in philosophical principles or are you talking about the enemy of my enemy is my friend, i.e. making a deal with the devil to postpone Armageddon?

 

I think we need allies who are as dedicated to freedom and voluntarism as we are and a lot of them.  I do not think we can make common cause with people who are the antithesis of what we advocate.

I've created a new topic on voting to continue this conversation here

 

[shirgall]

The lifeblood of the State is its perceived legitimacy...

 

Indeed, no one gives money to the Mafia just because they can hurt you, it's also because one believes they can get away with it.

[Tyler H]

So defensively voting for donuld trump is giving support for statism as a whole?

 

How? Do we have evidence that defensive voting not only doesnt work but actually is counter productive?

Voting is an admission by the voter that they think problems with society can and should be solved by pointing guns at people; the intent of the voter and the identity of the candidate is irrelevant.

 

I don't particularly care for the argument for effect in this debate but I'll offer up the fact that the American state has only grown since it's inception as evidence.  Assuming defensive voting is voting to prevent the initiation of force used against you, and as the state grows it increases its ability and perceived legitimacy to initiate force against you, then I would say at the very least it has not worked.  The libertarian party has been involved in the political system for 45 years and very few people have any idea who Gary Johnson is let alone what libertarians stand for.  Pouring money, effort and support into the political system at the cost of everything else that could have been done with those resources can arguably be labeled counter productive.  

 

Regardless of the effect, I'm arguing against voting on the basis of morality.  You can see these arguments in the original thread or for an eloquent summation you can listen to this statement by Wendy McElroy starting at ~40 minute mark.  I really recommend people listen to that; it only takes a few minutes for her to argue the point and it is quite convincing.

[dsayers]

So defensively voting for donuld trump is giving support for statism as a whole?

 

How? Do we have evidence that defensive voting not only doesnt work but actually is counter productive?

There's no such thing as defensive voting. The threats, theft, assault, rape, and murder happen regardless of which way you vote. You have no proof that your vote accomplishes anything. Which is where the onus lies by the way: with those who claim voting accomplishes anything.

 

If I walked up to you and said to you that you could give me $5 or you could give me $10, which would you choose? You would recognize the false dichotomy and tell me to go fly a kite. You wouldn't choose to give me $5 and call it a defensive donation to avoid giving me $10.

 

Statism is not a rational conclusion. Why then is it so widely held? Momentum, pure and simple. The majority of people engage in the rituals and pretend it is valid. As such, to stand up and speak the truth would lead to social ostracism from one's friends and family. There are a lot of people who resist the truth for this reason alone. If those of us who know better continue to play along, we are providing a false signal to these people. If instead we choose not to play and have conversations with those who do and/or those who would question why we don't, we can plant the seeds and offer an alternative. Will all of these seeds flourish? Of course not.

 

Because it only exists in people's minds, every decision you make regarding the State either validates it or invalidates it. In what way would "defensively voting for Trump" invalidate the system?

[Anuojat]

There's no such thing as defensive voting. The threats, theft, assault, rape, and murder happen regardless of which way you vote. You have no proof that your vote accomplishes anything. Which is where the onus lies by the way: with those who claim voting accomplishes anything.

 

If I walked up to you and said to you that you could give me $5 or you could give me $10, which would you choose? You would recognize the false dichotomy and tell me to go fly a kite. You wouldn't choose to give me $5 and call it a defensive donation to avoid giving me $10.

 

Statism is not a rational conclusion. Why then is it so widely held? Momentum, pure and simple. The majority of people engage in the rituals and pretend it is valid. As such, to stand up and speak the truth would lead to social ostracism from one's friends and family. There are a lot of people who resist the truth for this reason alone. If those of us who know better continue to play along, we are providing a false signal to these people. If instead we choose not to play and have conversations with those who do and/or those who would question why we don't, we can plant the seeds and offer an alternative. Will all of these seeds flourish? Of course not.

 

Because it only exists in people's minds, every decision you make regarding the State either validates it or invalidates it. In what way would "defensively voting for Trump" invalidate the system?

 

So if i understand you correctly, voting IS same as giving consent openly to the state? And that voting like trump or say brexit doesnt have any positive effects to curtail state power?

 

I beg to differ that if people vote defensively it send message that only reason to vote is to hold back state powert or to remove it. Whether politicians follow on said promises is one thing, i think sending signals like that can be useful in dire circumstances. If someone theatens to take my freedoms away (let say free speech or freedom of religion) and they put it up for a public vote i would vote "defensily". And i would consider this a necceryry speed bumb as Stef says to buy more time.

 

If one votes and then says he does it defensively to ERASE state power or hold back it. Are you saying that this is totally moot since if he then goes and talks to people about the nature of the state, anarchism, reason ect. He is making his case weaker or moot? Because i dont see how that would be the case.

[Anuojat]

Voting is an admission by the voter that they think problems with society can and should be solved by pointing guns at people; the intent of the voter and the identity of the candidate is irrelevant.

 

I don't particularly care for the argument for effect in this debate but I'll offer up the fact that the American state has only grown since it's inception as evidence.  Assuming defensive voting is voting to prevent the initiation of force used against you, and as the state grows it increases its ability and perceived legitimacy to initiate force against you, then I would say at the very least it has not worked.  The libertarian party has been involved in the political system for 45 years and very few people have any idea who Gary Johnson is let alone what libertarians stand for.  Pouring money, effort and support into the political system at the cost of everything else that could have been done with those resources can arguably be labeled counter productive.  

 

Regardless of the effect, I'm arguing against voting on the basis of morality.  You can see these arguments in the original thread or for an eloquent summation you can listen to this statement by Wendy McElroy starting at ~40 minute mark.  I really recommend people listen to that; it only takes a few minutes for her to argue the point and it is quite convincing.

 I see.

 I will think about this... however it being coersive situation, my stand is that you can vote to curtail state power in dire circumstance like when there public vote on something which directly is threatening you. Or when you have good reason to believe the person you vote for is either erasing state power or holding it back. Now i know we have no guarantee for that besides having trust ins omeone else when it comes to politicians, but i maintain that such actiosn are NOT immoral by maybe naive given a canditates lack of good record at being trutworthy.

 

Also when there literally is no time, (as stef points out) we cant have road to free society destroyed and then imagine we cans till get there with peaceful parenting or reason and evidence.

[powder]

 

Also when there literally is no time, (as stef points out) we cant have road to free society destroyed and then imagine we cans till get there with peaceful parenting or reason and evidence.

I think there is a good reason to not vote and advocate or endorse Trump in any way, besides the moral argument presented by Tyler and Dsayers.  

 

The ruling class is very good at creating and promoting dire end of the world scenarios to get people to reach out to the state to save us all.  They have been doing it for thousands of years.  Every generation is given its apocalyptic scare situation that has to be addressed or else nothing else matters,...  the Nazi's, Communism, Nuclear weapons, Terrorism, Climate Change, Immigration.  

I know that Stef argues that the Trump phenom is unique and that he has to change is position based on new evidence but I see the same pattern repeating throughout history - bring in the K to save the day:  Flavian Caesars, Napolean, Hitler,...  

 

The down side is that like with Hitler anyone associated with him is demonized and dismissed after it gets ugly, the system gets a reboot, and the voice of freedom is lost until the oligarchs feel the pressure and have to do another purge.  

[dsayers]

And that voting like trump or say brexit doesnt have any positive effects to curtail state power?

You tell me. Are you able to identify a way in which "you are my master" diminishes slavery?

 

I beg to differ that if people vote defensively it send message that only reason to vote is to hold back state powert or to remove it.

Nobody knows WHY you're voting. They just go to the polls and see a bunch of people there and assume it must be valid; Why else would everybody do it?

 

Whether politicians follow on said promises is one thing, i think sending signals like that can be useful in dire circumstances.

You don't have the right to tell anybody they have the power to rule over everybody. "dire circumstances" is an arbitrary, subjective standard. It's also a gateway for manipulation. I don't know how old you are, but history is FULL of examples of the State parading one "dire circumstance" after another to distract people from moral analysis. It is intellectual sloth and irresponsible to say that because you are afraid, you will support the slavery of mankind.

 

To that end, why do you not consider things like the slavery of mankind and unilateral theft of the unborn to be "dire circumstances"? If that is truly the standard by which you feel truth should be determined by.

[Wuzzums]

If I walked up to you and said to you that you could give me $5 or you could give me $10, which would you choose? You would recognize the false dichotomy and tell me to go fly a kite. You wouldn't choose to give me $5 and call it a defensive donation to avoid giving me $10.

[Will Torbald]

I'll just summarise my views here since I've said them before in other threads.

 

1: Abstaining from voting is enabling the projected winner through non effective opposition.

1.1- This means that not voting is to say "I am perfectly fine with Hillary Clinton becoming the President of the USA since I did nothing to stop her".

 

2: The enemy of the anarchist is the left, not the right. The right is a necessary half step towards libertarianism, and then anarchism.

2.1- This means that not supporting the right, in this case Trump, is to say "I do not wish to contribute to the gradual turning of policy towards capitalism and liberty".

 

3: The sudden and non gradual elimination of the state creates chaos, violence, and death.

3.1- Which means that opposing all gradient change, and wishing only a sudden end is to say "I am ok with real violence in the world as long as I don't engage in what perceive and assume as political violence through voting".

 

End: If you agree with all 1, 2, and 3 - my opinion of you is that you are delusional, dangerous, and divorced from any end towards liberty in the real world. May your principles embrace you warmly in your grave.

[powder]

You tell me. Are you able to identify a way in which "you are my master" diminishes slavery?

 

Nobody knows WHY you're voting. They just go to the polls and see a bunch of people there and assume it must be valid; Why else would everybody do it?

 

You don't have the right to tell anybody they have the power to rule over everybody. "dire circumstances" is an arbitrary, subjective standard. It's also a gateway for manipulation. I don't know how old you are, but history is FULL of examples of the State parading one "dire circumstance" after another to distract people from moral analysis. It is intellectual sloth and irresponsible to say that because you are afraid, you will support the slavery of mankind.

 

To that end, why do you not consider things like the slavery of mankind and unilateral theft of the unborn to be "dire circumstances"? If that is truly the standard by which you feel truth should be determined by.

dsayers, are you interesting in calling in to the show to have the debate with Stef?  

[jpahmad]

By definition, if voting is "immoral" then you should be able to use force to stop it.  So, start going to voting centers and attack people who are voting.  LOL.

[Tyler H]

This question instantiates the train problem. Many times when people have asked that problem they have been met with criticism of presenting absurd situations. Now you have it.

 

The train is the government system that is rolling down the track. Do you vote (pull the lever) to change the outcome even if that means making others into victims? Do you abstain and let the train barrel down on its prospective victims (maybe even including you)? Is there any other course of action?

I agree, I mentioned it in the original thread (post #45) but I'll reiterate here for those who haven't read through it.  The problem with this trolley is that we don't know what the lever will do: it could kill the one, it could kill the five, or it could blow up the trolley killing everyone on board.  I think the best we can do in this situation is call attention to the danger those on the tracks are in and make clear that the blame lies on the negligent people responsible for the trolley and the criminal who tied up people and put them on the tracks in order to lure people into killing the one man.

 

I believe the best course of action is abstention.

Also when there literally is no time, (as stef points out) we cant have road to free society destroyed and then imagine we cans till get there with peaceful parenting or reason and evidence.

I don't think "literally no time" is an accurate reflection of our current predicament.

 

Either voting reflects the will of the people or it does not (personally, I'm highly skeptical of electronic voting machines provided by people who invest millions in a candidate).  If voting does not reflect the will of the people then obviously there is no reason to abandon principles and lend your support to the atrocities the state will commit under the next president by voting.  

 

If it does reflect the will of the people and if the situation is as dire and urgent as claimed by those in the pro-vote camp, then Hillary will win by such a landslide that the few votes that would have been generated by this community's efforts will not make a difference anyway.  In which case there is no reason to sign onto the legitimacy of the state by voting.

 

If it does reflect the will of the people and the election can be swayed, then it cannot be claimed that the situation is that imminent and disastrous.  In which case there is no reason to abnegate principles by voting.

 

All of this energy wasted on Trump and Hillary when, as far as I know, there has never been such a distaste for both candidates in the history of the country.  Such fertile ground for showing people a new way and the opportunity is squandered on steering them right back towards the state.

[Tyler H]

My comments in bold.

I'll just summarise my views here since I've said them before in other threads.

1: Abstaining from voting is enabling the projected winner through non effective opposition.
1.1- This means that not voting is to say "I am perfectly fine with Hillary Clinton becoming the President of the USA since I did nothing to stop her".
dsayers has already refuted this argument against you in another thread - to add to that: the statement presupposes that Hillary is worse than Trump, that she will win without my vote and that voting is a viable solution to preventing her victory.

 

2: The enemy of the anarchist is the left, not the right. The right is a necessary half step towards libertarianism, and then anarchism.
2.1- This means that not supporting the right, in this case Trump, is to say "I do not wish to contribute to the gradual turning of policy towards capitalism and liberty".
The enemy of the voluntarist is anyone who would initiate force against peaceful people.

 

3: The sudden and non gradual elimination of the state creates chaos, violence, and death.
3.1- Which means that opposing all gradient change, and wishing only a sudden end is to say "I am ok with real violence in the world as long as I don't engage in what perceive and assume as political violence through voting".
I agree that the sudden and abrupt cessation of the state will most likely cause an increase in violence absent a philosophical revolution, however to say that we oppose all gradient change and wish a sudden end because we oppose voting (one example of gradient change) is a straw man argument.

 

End: If you agree with all 1, 2, and 3 - my opinion of you is that you are delusional, dangerous, and divorced from any end towards liberty in the real world. May your principles embrace you warmly in your grave.

You may want to alter the polarity of this verb....

 

 

[Guest Gee]

You have I beleive, a reasonable expectaion of impacting a change in state from less to more free by just ticking a box. Link related.

 

No one has to vote, but it does strike me as virtue signaling to not do so.

[Tyler H]

By definition, if voting is "immoral" then you should be able to use force to stop it.  So, start going to voting centers and attack people who are voting.  LOL.

While I believe in a free society people congregating for the sole purpose of deciding how they will initiate force to achieve their ends will be dealt with like any other gang of criminals, such an action at this time would severely discredit the philosophical movement we are trying to effect.  Highly inadvisable.

[adamNJ]

No

[dsayers]

By definition, if voting is "immoral" then you should be able to use force to stop it.  So, start going to voting centers and attack people who are voting.  LOL.

Strawman. Saying "institutionalized rape is okay" also isn't immoral, but that's not proof that doing so can lead to less rape.

 

I want my brothers and sisters to be free. Not dance for their masters just because it's not immoral to do so.

[jpahmad]

Strawman. Saying "institutionalized rape is okay" also isn't immoral, but that's not proof that doing so can lead to less rape.

 

I want my brothers and sisters to be free. Not dance for their masters just because it's not immoral to do so.

 

I have no idea what you're saying

[WasatchMan]

I am surprised nobody wants to address that giving away your principles for a single vote is like giving up your morality to steal a nickle.

 

It's like saying blowing in a bears face is a form of self defense. It ain't going to help so you might as well keep your dignity.

 

You are as likely to bail out the titanic with a teaspoon as you are to defend your freedom with a vote. Think about it.

[Anuojat]

I think there is a good reason to not vote and advocate or endorse Trump in any way, besides the moral argument presented by Tyler and Dsayers.  

 

The ruling class is very good at creating and promoting dire end of the world scenarios to get people to reach out to the state to save us all.  They have been doing it for thousands of years.  Every generation is given its apocalyptic scare situation that has to be addressed or else nothing else matters,...  the Nazi's, Communism, Nuclear weapons, Terrorism, Climate Change, Immigration.  

I know that Stef argues that the Trump phenom is unique and that he has to change is position based on new evidence but I see the same pattern repeating throughout history - bring in the K to save the day:  Flavian Caesars, Napolean, Hitler,...  

 

The down side is that like with Hitler anyone associated with him is demonized and dismissed after it gets ugly, the system gets a reboot, and the voice of freedom is lost until the oligarchs feel the pressure and have to do another purge.  

So in other words, you do not trust trump any more than any of those others? His character and background are not enough? If so then do you think anyone no matter how good or benevolent will be corrupted or his/her effects stifled? And in the end it will all be same as if hilary got into power. (relatively same)

 

You tell me. Are you able to identify a way in which "you are my master" diminishes slavery?

 

Nobody knows WHY you're voting. They just go to the polls and see a bunch of people there and assume it must be valid; Why else would everybody do it?

 

You don't have the right to tell anybody they have the power to rule over everybody. "dire circumstances" is an arbitrary, subjective standard. It's also a gateway for manipulation. I don't know how old you are, but history is FULL of examples of the State parading one "dire circumstance" after another to distract people from moral analysis. It is intellectual sloth and irresponsible to say that because you are afraid, you will support the slavery of mankind.

 

To that end, why do you not consider things like the slavery of mankind and unilateral theft of the unborn to be "dire circumstances"? If that is truly the standard by which you feel truth should be determined by.

Wait how am i saying "you are my master" by voting a canditate who is for removal or blocking of the increase ins tate power? All i see here is that what i am saying is "all of these people to be in power you are the best". Its a situation of force either way. Hilary gets in power things get worse, muhc muhc worse, trump gets in power things will based on his past record and character improve. And not just improve economically but also give credence to freedom and ideas about freedom and actual standarts in society being more openly accepted.

 

This is why i called it "defensive voting" which you dont agree makes sense; I do jsut because of this reason. If it were a an achocie between trump or freedom id choose freedom naturally. But there is only trump and hilary atm.

 

Voting is an admission by the voter that they think problems with society can and should be solved by pointing guns at people; the intent of the voter and the identity of the candidate is irrelevant.

 

I don't particularly care for the argument for effect in this debate but I'll offer up the fact that the American state has only grown since it's inception as evidence.  Assuming defensive voting is voting to prevent the initiation of force used against you, and as the state grows it increases its ability and perceived legitimacy to initiate force against you, then I would say at the very least it has not worked.  The libertarian party has been involved in the political system for 45 years and very few people have any idea who Gary Johnson is let alone what libertarians stand for.  Pouring money, effort and support into the political system at the cost of everything else that could have been done with those resources can arguably be labeled counter productive.  

 

Regardless of the effect, I'm arguing against voting on the basis of morality.  You can see these arguments in the original thread or for an eloquent summation you can listen to this statement by Wendy McElroy starting at ~40 minute mark.  I really recommend people listen to that; it only takes a few minutes for her to argue the point and it is quite convincing.

 

If voting in the circumstance of coersion is indeed immoral then me holding a gun to your wife and saking which part should i shoot: The head of the toe? Yuo wouldnt be called immoral for saying the toe. And when the state threatens with its existing structure ideas of freedom itsels being spoke in society and pouring in massive amounths of people that have significantly no change in hell of changing to peaceful parenting or lisening to reason... id call that dire situation IF you want a free society or ideas of freedom and reason to be spread around you.

 

I care what works too. And defensively voting to me is legitimate course and NOT an immoral one. I know politics will not se us free, but when state threatens that option that will set us free we must lisen and pay attention if our comittement to freedom and reason means anything at all.

[dsayers]

Wait how am i saying "you are my master" by voting a canditate who is for removal or blocking of the increase ins tate power? All i see here is that what i am saying is "all of these people to be in power you are the best".

You don't see how "you are the best master" is saying "you are my master"?!

 

If it were a an achocie between trump or freedom id choose freedom naturally. But there is only trump and hilary atm.

False dichotomy. You've just revealed that this isn't a conversation because you're coming from a place of presupposing that rulers are valid.

 

How many of the decision that you face in your daily life require Trump or Hillary? THIS is how voting is confirming they are your master: you're not even free in your own mind.

[Tyler H]

My comments in bold.

So in other words, you do not trust trump any more than any of those others? No.  His character and background are not enough? What do you know of his character and background? (i'm generally curious - I only know what I've heard in the media which, I'm sure we can all agree, shouldn't be taken at face value)  If so then do you think anyone no matter how good or benevolent will be corrupted or his/her effects stifled? No one that good or benevolent would want that kind of power nor be able to get anywhere near it without forsaking that benevolence.  And in the end it will all be same as if hilary got into power. (relatively same)  I don't think there's any way to know.  It could be better, it could be worse, or it could be the same.  I'm not going to gamble my integrity on Trump.

 

 

 

Wait how am i saying "you are my master" by voting a canditate who is for removal or blocking of the increase ins tate power? All i see here is that what i am saying is "all of these people to be in power you are the best". Its a situation of force either way. Hilary gets in power things get worse, muhc muhc worse, trump gets in power things will based on his past record and character improve. And not just improve economically but also give credence to freedom and ideas about freedom and actual standarts in society being more openly accepted.

 

This is why i called it "defensive voting" which you dont agree makes sense; I do jsut because of this reason. If it were a an achocie between trump or freedom id choose freedom naturally. But there is only trump and hilary atm.

 

No candidate is for reducing state power; if they are for blocking state power it is only for blocking it in one area in order to expand it in another.  As far as "the lesser of two evils" argument, that is not exclusive to this election.  You do not know that it will be much worse under Hillary - don't get me wrong it will be bad, but you cannot know how much worse, if at all worse, it will be than Trump.  Moving on to Trump's record I'm not sure what you are talking about here.  Trump has never been a politician so he has never had to back legislation in the moment against the pressures of power brokers and lobbyists.  A soundbite on Fox News or CNN with the luxury of hindsight surely cannot count. 

 

 

If voting in the circumstance of coersion is indeed immoral then me holding a gun to your wife and saking which part should i shoot: The head of the toe? Yuo wouldnt be called immoral for saying the toe. And when the state threatens with its existing structure ideas of freedom itsels being spoke in society and pouring in massive amounths of people that have significantly no change in hell of changing to peaceful parenting or lisening to reason... id call that dire situation IF you want a free society or ideas of freedom and reason to be spread around you.

 

I care what works too. And defensively voting to me is legitimate course and NOT an immoral one. I know politics will not se us free, but when state threatens that option that will set us free we must lisen and pay attention if our comittement to freedom and reason means anything at all.

 

Lifeboat scenario that isn't exactly analogous, but I'll bite.  I doubt someone in the position of the gunman is so noble as to abide by your decision.  You can tell the psycho "shoot her toe" and he could blow her brains out anyways.  He's the one with the gun, he's the one willing to use force against peaceful people, he's the one that doesn't really give a wet fart what you want.  He just wants to show everyone his power by making you play the game.

 

Trump can't solve these problems. The state can't solve these problems.  Violence never solves problems. You can demand compliance with your boot on someone's neck, but you have to keep it there forever. The moment you lift it up and look away you've got a larger problem.  

 

 

 

 

I agree, I mentioned it in the original thread (post #45) but I'll reiterate here for those who haven't read through it.  The problem with this trolley is that we don't know what the lever will do: it could kill the one, it could kill the five, or it could blow up the trolley killing everyone on board.  I think the best we can do in this situation is call attention to the danger those on the tracks are in and make clear that the blame lies on the negligent people responsible for the trolley and the criminal who tied up people and put them on the tracks in order to lure people into killing the one man.

 

I believe the best course of action is abstention.

I don't think "literally no time" is an accurate reflection of our current predicament.

 

Either voting reflects the will of the people or it does not (personally, I'm highly skeptical of electronic voting machines provided by people who invest millions in a candidate).  If voting does not reflect the will of the people then obviously there is no reason to abandon principles and lend your support to the atrocities the state will commit under the next president by voting.  

 

If it does reflect the will of the people and if the situation is as dire and urgent as claimed by those in the pro-vote camp, then Hillary will win by such a landslide that the few votes that would have been generated by this community's efforts will not make a difference anyway.  In which case there is no reason to sign onto the legitimacy of the state by voting.

 

If it does reflect the will of the people and the election can be swayed, then it cannot be claimed that the situation is that imminent and disastrous.  In which case there is no reason to abnegate principles by voting.

 

All of this energy wasted on Trump and Hillary when, as far as I know, there has never been such a distaste for both candidates in the history of the country.  Such fertile ground for showing people a new way and the opportunity is squandered on steering them right back towards the state.

 

I'm curious why this post was down voted?  I usually reserve down votes for objectionable material since they lead to censorship (I understand others may not view it this way); I would like to know if there was anything I said in there that would fall into that category so I can correct my thinking or communication skills and apologize if necessary.

[Will Torbald]

My comments in bold.

 

1- It's not a supposition that Hillary is "worse" than Trump, it is a factual assesment of their platforms. One diminishes freedom, the other increases it. It's not about whether your individual vote can stop Hillary, is that if you don't vote, you didn't do anything to stop it. Like being a bystander to a crime, you never said anything nor called anyone. Enabler.

 

2- The left increases that force, the right decreases it, the libertarian minimizes it, the anarchist removes the institution. You see no gradients. Only a Sith deals with absolutes.

 

3- There is no other change through gradation but with voting. The state won't stop, the philosophical revolution is wishful thinking. Migration of third world hordes will perpetuate the left.

[labmath2]

The main argument for voting here is the idea that voting is not itself immoral and that you are doing it in self defense. 

 

Do you accept that voting is a valid way to resolve ideological/social disagreements?

When people vote to have you rights taken away, is that also not immoral? 

In what way is this self defense? Do you often defend yourself from criminals by inviting the least violent criminal into your home? 

How long have you been in the business of voting for the lesser of the evils? Have you voted in every single election you can for the lesser of the evils? If you really have been voting, why do you think we still ended up in this situation? If voting works here, doesn't that support the notion that governments are only bad because there aren't enough people are voting for freedom?