2016 Election: To Vote or Not To Vote

[dsayers]

The Emperor protects, dsayers.

You have no proof. Meanwhile, one can easily see that threatening everybody, stealing from the unborn, assaulting, raping, and murdering many is not protection. It's the very things you're claiming protection from and it's happening on a much larger scale AND with perceived legitimacy.

[Tyler H]

FDR + Trump = 347% increase in viewership over one year.

Or FDR + Trump - philosophical anarchy = an influx of conservatives and minarchist libertarians

[Guest Gee]

Or FDR + Trump - philosophical anarchy = an influx of conservatives and minarchist libertarians

 

Oh my, the barbarians are at the gates!

You came to FDR as a philosophical anarchist I assume?

You have no proof. Meanwhile, one can easily see that threatening everybody, stealing from the unborn, assaulting, raping, and murdering many is not protection. It's the very things you're claiming protection from and it's happening on a much larger scale AND with perceived legitimacy.

 

The implication being we must have a proof for every choice we make? Please don't tell me this is how you actually live.

[rosencrantz]

Sometimes you have to just let them crash so that they can start to rebuild.

 

 

[aviet]

Or FDR + Trump - philosophical anarchy = an influx of conservatives and minarchist libertarians

In your opinion, in what time-frame do you think it would be feasible to create an anarchist world or society?

 

And, do you think it will be created by stepping stones?

[Tyler H]

Oh my, the barbarians are at the gates!

You came to FDR as a philosophical anarchist I assume?

I didn't say anything negative about the conservatives or minarchist libertarians coming, only that I thought they were responsible for the influx.  I think I'm done engaging with your straw man arguments and needless sarcasm.

In your opinion, in what time-frame do you think it would be feasible to create an anarchist world or society?

And, do you think it will be created by stepping stones?

I don't know.  That's like asking an abolitionist when slavery will be overcome.  I don't know how to get there other than saying as loud as I can to as many people as I can that it is wrong and here are the reasons why. 

[Guest Gee]

I didn't say anything negative about the conservatives or minarchist libertarians coming, only that I thought they were responsible for the influx.  I think I'm done engaging with your straw man arguments and needless sarcasm.

I don't know.  That's like asking an abolitionist when slavery will be overcome.  I don't know how to get there other than saying as loud as I can to as many people as I can that it is wrong and here are the reasons why. 

 

Fair enough mate, I think you're best suited to rebut yourself.

[dsayers]

The implication being we must have a proof for every choice we make?

Strawman. The explication being that you made an objective claim 1) without knowing whether it was true 2) despite evidence that it's false 3) despite reason that reveals you were repackaging huge, certain aggression as protection against a chance of much smaller aggression.

[aviet]

I don't know.  That's like asking an abolitionist when slavery will be overcome.  I don't know how to get there other than saying as loud as I can to as many people as I can that it is wrong and here are the reasons why. 

 

Are you adverse to voting for the Libertarian Party as a course of action on the way to your goals.

[powder]

Are you adverse to voting for the Libertarian Party as a course of action on the way to your goals.

really?  

[Guest Gee]

Strawman. The explication being that you made an objective claim 1) without knowing whether it was true 2) despite evidence that it's false 3) despite reason that reveals you were repackaging huge, certain aggression as protection against a chance of much smaller aggression.

 

Strawman again? Mate, you've turned into Mark Rubio.

 

Re. I've made an objective claim.

Learn your memes. Besides this though, cool your jets mate, you can't offer an clear definition of what agression is.

 

Re. Everything else.

Meh, decisions are made under uncertanity. Learn you some prospect theory and get off your high horse telling people to pull their heads out of their asses.

[dsayers]

Are you adverse to voting for the Libertarian Party as a course of action on the way to your goals.

Libertarian Party is a self-detonating idea. You cannot use slavery to free people. You cannot push a brick wall over. You cannot cure cancer by first becoming a cancer cell. And so on. Saying "a course of action on the way to your goals" poisons the well by begging the question that political activism can effect political change.

 

Strawman again? Mate, you've turned into Mark Rubio.

 

...

Learn your memes. ... cool your jets mate...

 

...get off your high horse

No arguments here. Just lots of deflection. Maybe if you wave your arms about enough, people won't notice that you're trolling. You cannot stick with anything you've said sometimes even within the same post.

 

decisions are made under uncertanity.

So you are certain that the emperor protects, but when provided with evidence that this is not true, suddenly it is certain that nothing is certain. Got it.

[shirgall]

Libertarian Party is a self-detonating idea. You cannot use slavery to free people. You cannot push a brick wall over. You cannot cure cancer by first becoming a cancer cell. And so on. Saying "a course of action on the way to your goals" poisons the well by begging the question that political activism can effect political change.

 

I made a try for it when I ran for office, but I treated the situation as a way to get out the message and teach people more than it was for actually winning. I brought my opponent to tears in her Willamette Week interview, but I don't relish that.

[Guest Gee]

 

 

Graham:

Decisions are made under uncertanity.

 

Dsayers:

So you are certain that the emperor protects, but when provided with evidence that this is not true, suddenly it is certain that nothing is certain. Got it.

 

-------------

 

You use the term strawman alot but I don't think you know what it means.

 

And gibs me dat precise definition of agression!

[aviet]

Libertarian Party is a self-detonating idea.

 

I'm not sure what your main interests are, but I think corporal punishment in the home may be one.

 

If, say, a President Trump, made corporal punishment in the home an offence punishable by a minimum of one year in prison, what would you think and feel?

 

And to add a rollback of government, what would you think and feel if he ended social security?

[Tyler H]

Are you adverse to voting for the Libertarian Party as a course of action on the way to your goals.

I think the problem with the libertarian party is the the same as with the government as a whole.  As soon as they are large enough to decide who gets the power, evil people will do whatever it takes to get their support.  I believe we have to convince people to stop handing out power.  

[shirgall]

I think the problem with the libertarian party is the the same as with the government as a whole.  As soon as they are large enough to decide who gets the power, evil people will do whatever it takes to get their support.  I believe we have to convince people to stop handing out power.  

 

I agree.

 

I was once membership director for a state party. The problem with the Libertarian Party is that once it gets access to the ballot, and of a size that can start attracting funds, it tends to be an attractive target for being co-opted by LINOs that want to use those powers for their own personal ends. When that happens the organization devolves into internecine warfare in parliamentary procedure, judicial committees, rules committees, and worse. We had to have a set of rules that met the Secretary of State's requirements for certain procedures, had to meet public laws on notification and mail ballots, and yet were too small to get state funding of our elections and conventions (and many of us had enough pride to say we wouldn't accept that money if we had).

 

Where's the leaders, you ask? Well, who wants the thankless task of leading people who don't wish to be lead? Our leaders burned out from being attacked by every side to any dispute. It's a party, so anyone can associate with it. Any barriers placed in the way of association are decried as counter to the spirit of libertarianism. As a result, there's no guarantee that a "big L" Libertarian Party will, in fact, completely espouse and understand "little l" libertarian philosophy. Instead it is a magnet for the disaffected.

 

Years later, I look back on a lot of the people I fought side by side with and am often astounded by their transformations. They are out there supporting Bernie or the Greens just as much as others from that era are supporting Gary Johnson. I'm pretty discouraged by it all. Even so, as colossal wastes of time go, there are worse things.

 

For the record, I'll also take a shot at some questions that were aimed at @dsayers, I do not support a penalty for corporal punishment, but I do support those that received such treatment seeking some sort of reconciliation with their parents, or independence from them if they cannot get it. Frankly, those people were wronged and many can ascribe physical and mental damage to their treatment. I don't support social security, even though I've been paying into it since 1984.

[dsayers]

I made a try for it when I ran for office, but I treated the situation as a way to get out the message and teach people more than it was for actually winning. I brought my opponent to tears in her Willamette Week interview, but I don't relish that.

There was a time in my life when I probable would've done the same thing. I'd wager you wouldn't do such a thing today out of principle. Every little bit helps and it takes all sorts. I have no problem with people seeing the truth and wanting to try SOMETHING to take steps forward. I'm just doing my part as somebody who has taken that many more steps towards freedom to encourage other to CONTINUE to take those steps. Instead of stopping at a point where they'll stagnate. Does that make sense?

 

I'm not sure what your main interests are, but I think corporal punishment in the home may be one.

 

If, say, a President Trump, made corporal punishment in the home an offence punishable by a minimum of one year in prison, what would you think and feel?

 

And to add a rollback of government, what would you think and feel if he ended social security?

What I think and feel has no bearing on the truth. The fact is that we do not have the capability of giving people that which we don't have to give. We don't have the right to condone human slavery and subjugation. Your post assumes that somebody in the position of president of the United States has the power to enact these things. They don't. And just because they say they will, they don't have to. These points keep getting brought up over and over. If they're not convincing, please point out how/why. What is the null hypothesis that Trump both could and would do these things?

 

What if every person who would vote in a presidential election instead told one friend, made one facebook post, one YouTube video, one article about property right, their validity, where they come from, etc. We would come much closer to ending child abuse than we would by getting Trump elected. We would bring people closer to the understanding that the throne is invalid. Both immediately by clarifying property rights, and again down the road as the people we saved from child abuse grow up not speaking the language of aggression.

 

I vote for being free in my own mind. Which means I will not dignify these psychopaths any more than is required for self-preservation's sake.

 

And gibs me dat precise definition of agression!

Translation: "I'm going to deflect, move the goalpost, and put words into your mouth unless you give me something else to deflect from, move the goalposts away from, and misrepresent." Your entire post was just more deflection from the challenges. I only bother dignifying them to provide others with the resources to cut through similar bullshit in the conversations they have with people who lack integrity in their lives.

[Guest Gee]

Translation: "I'm going to deflect, move the goalpost, and put words into your mouth unless you give me something else to deflect from, move the goalposts away from, and misrepresent." Your entire post was just more deflection from the challenges. I only bother dignifying them to provide others with the resources to cut through similar bullshit in the conversations they have with people who lack integrity in their lives.

 

SWJs always project.

[aviet]

These points keep getting brought up over and over. If they're not convincing, please point out how/why. What is the null hypothesis that Trump both could and would do these things?

I agree with the principles you argue for, but it doesn't seem that they are feasible in current times. There was no room for due process in brutal pagan societies. If a daughter of a tribal leader falsely accused you of rape, your head would likely come off. We only have room for due process now because of a long and painful period of evolution. Right now, as you allude to in your post, there are problems in the Western world with acts such as physical and psycho-emotional child abuse. These people are not philosophically evolved enough to even understand your arguments, never mind think about adopting them. In the US, the National Institute for Mental Health says that 1.6% of people have borderline personality disorder in a given year, there are a couple percent of other mental disorders that make people fundamentally incompatible with anarchy, 1% of people in jail, ~48 million with an 85 IQ or lower, four cities in the top ten for homicides in the world, 10 million families without a farther etc. These people are not qualified to live in a voluntary society. And that's just the US. Many people in the world probably aren't even able to understand that they don't understand your arguments.

 

This is not an argument against your principles, just that I would feel extremely uncomfortable living in a untested anarchist society with the quality of people (many of whom are essentially unreformable) we have who don't believe in your principles.

 

Then there is the fact that many people profess principles, but do not follow through. I know a self-described AnCap who has also said while an AnCap that he would love to know how to hack Bitcoin, is a grand-master of coercion and extremely selfish. Of all the people I know he'd actually be the person I'd be most worried about living in an anarchist society.

 

 

 

What if every person who would vote in a presidential election instead told one friend, made one facebook post, one YouTube video, one article about property right, their validity, where they come from, etc. We would come much closer to ending child abuse than we would by getting Trump elected. We would bring people closer to the understanding that the throne is invalid. Both immediately by clarifying property rights, and again down the road as the people we saved from child abuse grow up not speaking the language of aggression.

If we make that my route-a, my route-b would still be to vote from Trump, if I was eligible. I think building a wall would be a good way to stop child abuse pouring into the US. Its not a perfect solution, but neither is the situation of millions of people entering the country from the most violent countries in the world.

[Gavitor]

As an anarchist why would I vote for someone to be my ruler when I don't accept the premise that someone can be my ruler?

[Will Torbald]

As an anarchist why would I vote for someone to be my ruler when I don't accept the premise that someone can be my ruler?

 

Because the people who aren't anarchists are going to elect bad rulers until the end of time. At current time, they're going forward with electing someone who will make your life worse through immigration, war, economic instability, and terrorism. It will feel really nice when you don't vote, and really bad when the left continues its path towards destruction.

[jpahmad]

 Which means I will not dignify these psychopaths any more than is required for self-preservation's sake.

 

 

Exactly!  Vote Trump for self-preservation's sake.

As an anarchist why would I vote for someone to be my ruler when I don't accept the premise that someone can be my ruler?

 

I'm starting to become convinced that sentences like these are virtue signals for anarchists.  

 

Here is the truth:   You can actually cast a vote in a corrupt system and still be free in your own mind.  Free as a bird!  It is possible.  

[powder]

Because the people who aren't anarchists are going to elect bad rulers until the end of time. At current time, they're going forward with electing someone who will make your life worse through immigration, war, economic instability, and terrorism. It will feel really nice when you don't vote, and really bad when the left continues its path towards destruction.

Those are just assertions.  No one knows the future nor can they predict it with any accuracy and history is full of examples of the people looking to saviors, like Hitler, coming in to rescue the nation only see things turn out, well, not so good.  

 

Because we cannot possibly know what will happen we cannot make choices based on potential consequences, only principles.  

[dsayers]

Exactly!  Vote Trump for self-preservation's sake.

Assertion. Nobody is threatening you if you don't vote Trump. You have no logic, reason, or evidence that voting Trump will make ANY difference.

 

You don't preserve yourself by erasing yourself for the sake of your abusers.

 

Oh. Forgot to add that by telling somebody that they can rule over all of us, it's not about self at all. It's about making sure everybody else is suffering as much as you. Again, you don't have the right to tell anybody they can rule over me.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Assertion. Nobody is threatening you if you don't vote Trump. You have no logic, reason, or evidence that voting Trump will make ANY difference.

 

You don't preserve yourself by erasing yourself for the sake of your abusers.

 

Turnips. You have NO reason to eat any other vegetables. 

 

You don't preserve yourself by using magic marker because magic marker is erasable. 

[shirgall]

Assertion. Nobody is threatening you if you don't vote Trump. You have no logic, reason, or evidence that voting Trump will make ANY difference.

 

You don't preserve yourself by erasing yourself for the sake of your abusers.

 

Oh. Forgot to add that by telling somebody that they can rule over all of us, it's not about self at all. It's about making sure everybody else is suffering as much as you. Again, you don't have the right to tell anybody they can rule over me.

 

Voting for Trump is not self-erasure for me. My state is so incredibly left-leaning I only register as a protest vote. Obviously not voting has not deterred anyone in the slightest. The question is which pointless activity provides me the most value, the moral self-licensing of a protest vote or the moral self-licensing of a non-vote.

[RamynKing]

Before this thread I was convinced that voting Trump in this particular election was a necessary evil. But some of the ideas expressed here, along with watching the political climate unfold over the past week, have definitely given me pause.  It does seem like Hillary's imminent failure as president would be just the nightmare younger people need to wake up to the fact that the left is not their savior. This would definitely push a great many fence-sitters into searching for new answers. Whereas a Trump presidency could possibly become such a legendary circus (because the elite can easily engineer this) that we'd have to wait for a new lefty paradigm to come and save the people and then be given a proper chance to completely fail before our next window where people's minds are fertile again for anarchy. 

 

Now that would be my bet if an alternate turn of events didn't also seem plausible. One in which a Hillary presidency actually ends the West as we know it, plunging us into a dark age where the fight becomes about restoring democracy within the state rather than ending the state. That seems a tragic leap backward. And rather than Trump becoming a harmful farce, maybe he, combined with congress, ends up at least producing a stalemate where free speech still exists, so we can continue using the internet to spread good philosophy etc. 

 

So as far as predicting outcomes that are good for me in this scenario, I'm stumped.

 

As far as the morality of strategic/defensive voting, the prison analogy does come back to mind. I apprecited Tyler's posting of the Stefan and Wendy McElroy Roundtable (@40min). Their basic point is that if we are in a prison, we can eat the food to live, and try to a dig a hole and escape wherein me might kill a guard in self defense, but going beyond that would be putting our stamp of approval on the system itself.

 

But is there there not a more subtle way to look at it?  For instance, if you act like a good upstanding prisoner in order to gain the favor of the guards, do they not grant you more autonomy, which you can then use to dig a bigger hole so you can ensure your escape when you finally betray them, and maybe fit a few more bodies through there on the way out?

 

If you are expected to vote on a new top-killer within a violent system you find yourself imprisoned in, and you vote for the one who will use his killing power in ways that obstruct your escape even a little less, how is that violating your principles? Either way, a killer is going to be elected, and if one of them turns out to be a Hitler, as they are wont to do, it doesn't mean you approve of that Hitler personally.

[dsayers]

Voting for Trump is not self-erasure for me. My state is so incredibly left-leaning I only register as a protest vote. Obviously not voting has not deterred anyone in the slightest. The question is which pointless activity provides me the most value, the moral self-licensing of a protest vote or the moral self-licensing of a non-vote.

Could you elaborate please? I am curious. I do not see how telling somebody they can rule over you is self-licensing or not self-erasure. Can you flesh this out for us?

 

I would also push back on the idea that you can protest something by participating in it. They don't see your motivation. All they see is that you accept them as your masters and the system as valid as a whole. "They" being not only the psychopaths, but your peers who might be on the fence and/or only going with the flow. If I'm right, then this would be a behavior that has the opposite effect of one's stated goals.

 

This is why the overall lack of integrity in this thread saddens me. People are downvoting and obfuscating, offering no rigorous refutations. They're repackaging the behavior as noble and righteous by tacking on well-poisoning descriptors like defensive and protest. It doesn't seem like a two-sided conversation, but rather emotional defensiveness to the degree of being willing to harm others, if only by way of reputation in their own mind. It hasn't been very productive.

[Tyler H]

Voting for Trump is not self-erasure for me. My state is so incredibly left-leaning I only register as a protest vote. Obviously not voting has not deterred anyone in the slightest. The question is which pointless activity provides me the most value, the moral self-licensing of a protest vote or the moral self-licensing of a non-vote.

From that stance I think it's also important to take into consideration that the pointless activity of a protest vote comes with opportunity costs (even if only a couple of hours) that the non-activity of abstention does not. In other words I think whether or not a non-vote is pointless depends on what you do in its stead.

[shirgall]

Could you elaborate please? I am curious. I do not see how telling somebody they can rule over you is self-licensing or not self-erasure. Can you flesh this out for us?

 

Because, empirically, doing both things has absolutely zero effect on the slide towards socialism for me. I'm already under the threat of force, so it's a pragmatic choice, not a moral one.

From that stance I think it's also important to take into consideration that the pointless activity of a protest vote comes with opportunity costs (even if only a couple of hours) that the non-activity of abstention does not. In other words I think whether or not a non-vote is pointless depends on what you do in its stead.

 

Mail ballot here in Washington. The effort is trivial.

[Tyler H]

Before this thread I was convinced that voting Trump in this particular election was a necessary evil. But some of the ideas expressed here, along with watching the political climate unfold over the past week, have definitely given me pause.  It does seem like Hillary's imminent failure as president would be just the nightmare younger people need to wake up to the fact that the left is not their savior. This would definitely push a great many fence-sitters into searching for new answers. Whereas a Trump presidency could possibly become such a legendary circus (because the elite can easily engineer this) that we'd have to wait for a new lefty paradigm to come and save the people and then be given a proper chance to completely fail before our next window where people's minds are fertile again for anarchy. 

 

Now that would be my bet if an alternate turn of events didn't also seem plausible. One in which a Hillary presidency actually ends the West as we know it, plunging us into a dark age where the fight becomes about restoring democracy within the state rather than ending the state. That seems a tragic leap backward. And rather than Trump becoming a harmful farce, maybe he, combined with congress, ends up at least producing a stalemate where free speech still exists, so we can continue using the internet to spread good philosophy etc. 

 

So as far as predicting outcomes that are good for me in this scenario, I'm stumped.

 

As far as the morality of strategic/defensive voting, the prison analogy does come back to mind. I apprecited Tyler's posting of the Stefan and Wendy McElroy Roundtable (@40min). Their basic point is that if we are in a prison, we can eat the food to live, and try to a dig a hole and escape wherein me might kill a guard in self defense, but going beyond that would be putting our stamp of approval on the system itself.

 

But is there there not a more subtle way to look at it?  For instance, if you act like a good upstanding prisoner in order to gain the favor of the guards, do they not grant you more autonomy, which you can then use to dig a bigger hole so you can ensure your escape when you finally betray them, and maybe fit a few more bodies through there on the way out?

 

If you are expected to vote on a new top-killer within a violent system you find yourself imprisoned in, and you vote for the one who will use his killing power in ways that obstruct your escape even a little less, how is that violating your principles? Either way, a killer is going to be elected, and if one of them turns out to be a Hitler, as they are wont to do, it doesn't mean you approve of that Hitler personally.

Thank you for taking the time to post RamynKing. In regards to your last statement I think that yes it doesn't mean you approve personally, but no matter your express intent you have presented that "Hitler" with a voting slip stamped with your seal of approval. I guess the way I see it is that the presence or absence of my vote is meaningless, so why lend my perceived support to a system of coercion I vehemently oppose?

[dsayers]

Because, empirically, doing both things has absolutely zero effect on the slide towards socialism for me. I'm already under the threat of force, so it's a pragmatic choice, not a moral one.

I accept that political voting is an amoral behavior. I don't see how voting either way is more pragmatic than not voting. As Tyler H pointed out, there's opportunity costs. My efforts in this thread will contribute more to freedom than any political vote could. So why vote instead of using that energy to help others understand that accepting subjugation and modeling the giving of permission to subjugate others is not productive? Because casting any vote works against this by legitimizing all of it.

[shirgall]

I accept that political voting is an amoral behavior. I don't see how voting either way is more pragmatic than not voting. As Tyler H pointed out, there's opportunity costs. My efforts in this thread will contribute more to freedom than any political vote could. So why vote instead of using that energy to help others understand that accepting subjugation and modeling the giving of permission to subjugate others is not productive? Because casting any vote works against this by legitimizing all of it.

 

I don't see casting a vote as legitimizing. Popular support for an argument does not address its validity.

 

As for our efforts in these forums having an effect... I really don't see that either.

[Tyler H]

Popular support for an argument does not address its validity.

Agreed, but could the fact that your average lemming believes it does factor in at all?