2016 Election: To Vote or Not To Vote

[shirgall]

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

 

I hear politicians saying "do it because I won" but not touting absolute turnout as a mandate.

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'm not accepting subjugation by voting because my vote makes no difference in my subjugation. It's a whim. A caprice. If it could change something they'd make it illegal because I don't agree with them. Who knows, in four years I could be executed, I could escape, or maybe the pig could learn to sing.

[DCLugi]

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.

This is the way I see it too but I'll throw one last opposing perspective at you. We are currently under aggressive violence looking for the most productive ways out. Two sociopaths give us the option of having our legs broken by sociopath 1 or our head cut off by sociopath 2. Fully recognizing that I'm dealing with sociopaths that may simply ignore my choice and throw me in a vat of acid, I still might voice my preference to have my legs broken given that the aggression is coming either way.

[dsayers]

We are currently under aggressive violence looking for the most productive ways out. Two sociopaths give us the option of having our legs broken by sociopath 1 or our head cut off by sociopath 2. Fully recognizing that I'm dealing with sociopaths that may simply ignore my choice and throw me in a vat of acid

Exactly! You have no expectation that they will do what they said because they're sociopaths. But this isn't what we're talking about here. First of all, the aggression we're under is largely nickle and dime stuff. It adds up for sure, but we have the luxury of paying their protection money and using the rest of our time and resources towards FREEDOM.

 

I'm also glad you said looking for the most productive way out. CLEARLY voting isn't that. In order to solve a problem, you must first understand the problem. The lifeblood of the State is its perceived legitimacy. Meaning it only exists in people's minds. Voting doesn't counteract this and in fact adds to it. The way out is to change people's minds. If you could convince enough of the enforcer class to reject that they exist in a different, opposing moral category, we'd have freedom TODAY without a drop of blood spilled. Hyperbolic, but valid. You won't change people's minds by pretending that 1) your vote matters 2) your vote will contribute to freedom 3) you have the right to volunteer other people for subjugation.

 

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.

shirgall, we need to arrive at an agreed upon standard for determining what is true. When you put forth protest vote, I pointed out that you do not protest something by participating in it. Your only answer to this challenge was a confession that the vote accomplishes nothing and a claim that it is pragmatic. To which I challenged you that if it accomplishes nothing, how is it more pragmatic to doing nothing? Instead of answering THIS challenge, you only offered challenges of your own.

 

Above, to DCLugi, I think I've done a fine job of making the case for how it legitimizes all of it. We know that statism is not a rational conclusion. We know that one of the reasons why it's still alive and well despite being imaginary is momentum of the past. Ostracism is a very real influence and the majority will entice the undecided or unsure or even just those not willing to sacrifice comfort for principle (which would be my description of those who accept property rights but vote). I remember watching a TED talk where they talked about motivation and a recycling campaign experiment that tried posters that showed recyclable litter laying about a bin and another showing a human being making use of such a bin. The latter was more effective because people are more likely to do something if they see other people doing it. We also know that if somebody is unanimously told one thing, they have every reason to believe it. A dissenting voice can be all it takes to instill doubt. Finally, since you accept that voting does nothing, the chances that my speaking out against voting does not in fact do MORE to bring about freedom is such a tiny hurdle, it would be improbable that the claim is false. Which given the above, I don't even see it as a chance to be wrong if my claim were absolute. But it was relative to your claim.

 

If it could change something they'd make it illegal

I appreciate the conciseness and accuracy of this point. Surely you recognize that it only adds credibility to my position, eh?

 

Mate, you've turned into Mark Rubio.

I don't know who that is. Express an idea that actually says something and maybe we can have a conversation

[jpahmad]

Again, you don't have the right to tell anybody they can rule over me.

 Rights don't exist.  

 

It's about making sure everybody else is suffering as much as you. 

You're projecting.  I'm not suffering now.  I want to prevent future suffering.  

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'm primarily interested in preventing immigration.  I want to buy time to convince more people of the nature of government.  If I think Trump is going to slow down third world immigration, then I am going to vote for that.  Do I know for certain?  No.  But I'm betting on it.  Voting is amoral, so I'm assuming your criticizing the strategy, not the morality of the behavior.  

[labmath2]

Many people here seem to take it for granted that voting is Amoral, but i want to challenge that position. Given the structure of the government, who can we actually point to as violating the non aggression principle? If asserting your preference (or giving an order) is not a violation of the NAP even if the thing you prefer (or order) requires the violation of NAP, then most government officials never actually violate the NAP. The two parts of government that actually engage in violence are law enforcement and military. Is it only law enforcement and military officials that are immoral?

 

 

On orders. It is not immoral for me to order your to do something. You are free to disobey my order. Even in an institution where there is threat of force behind the order, as long as the person giving the order is not personally threatening you, he hasn't violated any moral principle. Example, a judge can order you to show for a hearing without violating the nonaggression principle. The order goes, "I order you show up on x day for a hearing or i will order police officers to find and detain you." 

[Tyler H]

Many people here seem to take it for granted that voting is Amoral, but i want to challenge that position. Given the structure of the government, who can we actually point to as violating the non aggression principle? If asserting your preference (or giving an order) is not a violation of the NAP even if the thing you prefer (or order) requires the violation of NAP, then most government officials never actually violate the NAP. The two parts of government that actually engage in violence are law enforcement and military. Is it only law enforcement and military officials that are immoral?

 

 

On orders. It is not immoral for me to order your to do something. You are free to disobey my order. Even in an institution where there is threat of force behind the order, as long as the person giving the order is not personally threatening you, he hasn't violated any moral principle. Example, a judge can order you to show for a hearing without violating the nonaggression principle. The order goes, "I order you show up on x day for a hearing or i will order police officers to find and detain you." 

I may have misunderstood your meaning, but it seemed as though you were arguing two different points.  Please correct me if that's not the case.  

 

I have been advancing the argument that voting does violate the NAP for the reasons you mentioned.  Is it immoral to order someone to kill someone else? Of course.  Given that orders are authoritative commands with the expectation of being carried out, you've set into motion the events that will lead to the initiation of force.  I think the argument against the immorality of voting being put forward in this thread is that of an extremity of self defense - it's not immoral because we are subject to the coercion whether we vote or not, but I disagree.  

 

There is a difference between three guys in a room, guy #1 with a gun to guy #2's head ordering him to kill guy #3, and a similar situation where guy #2 is not in immediate danger.  If guy #1 calls up guy #2 and says "kill guy #3 or I'll kill you", guy #2's legal defense will be far more difficult than in scenario #1.  All other options available to guy #2 in scenario #2 will be taken into consideration, mainly that he could've gone to the police for help.  It matters how much force is applied and how much effort was made to resist or avoid.

 

I think taxes are closer to scenario #1 and voting is closer to scenario #2.  

[jpahmad]

Many people here seem to take it for granted that voting is Amoral, but i want to challenge that position. Given the structure of the government, who can we actually point to as violating the non aggression principle? If asserting your preference (or giving an order) is not a violation of the NAP even if the thing you prefer (or order) requires the violation of NAP, then most government officials never actually violate the NAP. The two parts of government that actually engage in violence are law enforcement and military. Is it only law enforcement and military officials that are immoral?

 

 

On orders. It is not immoral for me to order your to do something. You are free to disobey my order. Even in an institution where there is threat of force behind the order, as long as the person giving the order is not personally threatening you, he hasn't violated any moral principle. Example, a judge can order you to show for a hearing without violating the nonaggression principle. The order goes, "I order you show up on x day for a hearing or i will order police officers to find and detain you." 

 

This is certainly a problem that needs to be thought through.  I tried to do it with one of my videos ("is voting moral") and I think I came pretty close, but the analysis was a little bit incomplete.  Some thing to consider.  If I'm a superior in the army and I order my soldiers to do x, y, or z, am I responsible for that?  I would say I am because there actually is coercion being used against the soldiers if they decide to follow their conscience and not listen to me.  They can be dishonorably discharged.  They can face a military tribunal.  They can go to prison.  So I's say that in the chain of command, from the president on down to the foot soldier, there is coercion, thus making whoever orders the action (the president for example) just as culpable as the people who actually do it.

[dsayers]

 Rights don't exist.  

So you ARE allowed to tell people they can rule over me?!

 

You're projecting.  I'm not suffering now.  I want to prevent future suffering.  

I want people to be free. That's not what I attributed to you. No projection. You don't prevent future suffering by telling people it's okay to subjugate others.

 

I want to buy time to convince more people of the nature of government.

When you participate, you're educating people that government is valid. Again, you are in no position (do you like that better) to tell others they can rule over me, no matter how benevolently you try to package your motivation.

 

who can we actually point to as violating the non aggression principle?

Everybody who binds others without their consent. That is the ruling class, the enforcer class, and every member of the judicial branch that isn't privately hired. I haven't fully fleshed it out, but every State employee that is receiving stolen monies sounds right off the top of my head as well.

[labmath2]

This is certainly a problem that needs to be thought through.  I tried to do it with one of my videos ("is voting moral") and I think I came pretty close, but the analysis was a little bit incomplete.  Some thing to consider.  If I'm a superior in the army and I order my soldiers to do x, y, or z, am I responsible for that?  I would say I am because there actually is coercion being used against the soldiers if they decide to follow their conscience and not listen to me.  They can be dishonorably discharged.  They can face a military tribunal.  They can go to prison (You are not personally responsible for putting them in prison anymore than the victim of battery is responsible for the perpetrator going to prison).  So I's say that in the chain of command, from the president on down to the foot soldier, there is coercion, thus making whoever orders the action (the president for example) just as culpable as the people who actually do it.

 

You need to explicitly spell out why being a superior changes the nature of orders. Again, the person giving the order is not personally coercing you. The military commander says, "Attack that building or i will have you tried for insubordination." This is just another case similar to the judges. There is an institution that allows you to make such statements, which have coercive elements in them, without the speaker personally violating the NAP. 

 

The second aspect which you bring up is one of responsibility. Here is where thing get complicated. If by responsible you mean performing an action which helped create the outcome, then voting is hit. If by responsibility you mean violation of NAP, you need to point out where the violation exists.

[labmath2]

Everybody who binds others without their consent. That is the ruling class, the enforcer class, and every member of the judicial branch that isn't privately hired. I haven't fully fleshed it out, but every State employee that is receiving stolen monies sounds right off the top of my head as well.

 

You have to show the violation of NAP. No one can bind anyone to anything, at least not in anyway that violates the NAP. Merely passing a law or signing a bill cannot actually bind anyone to anything. What makes the bind real is people who would actually initiate violence against you because of someone else's bind. As long as the ruling class never personally rape, steal, assault or murder, nor personally threaten to do so, it will be hard to make the case that they have actually violated the NAP. 

[jpahmad]

So you ARE allowed to tell people they can rule over me?!

 

 I already have right?  According to you, I have already done that with my videos.  No one stopped me yet.  I'm not sure what you mean by "allowed."  No one has used force to stop me from making my videos, so I guess I am allowed.  Some people actually like my videos even.

 

 

I want people to be free. That's not what I attributed to you. No projection. You don't prevent future suffering by telling people it's okay to subjugate others.

 

 

  I never said it was okay to subjugate others.  I don't know what you're talking about.

[powder]

I hear politicians saying "do it because I won" but not touting absolute turnout as a mandate.

 

I'm not accepting subjugation by voting because my vote makes no difference in my subjugation. It's a whim. A caprice. If it could change something they'd make it illegal because I don't agree with them. Who knows, in four years I could be executed, I could escape, or maybe the pig could learn to sing.

If your vote makes no difference then why vote?  Esp. if it is an unprincipled act.  

 

BTW, I do think I and many others have learned a lot about freedom and philosophy on this forum and from FDR over the years.  Your contributions have been impactful for me shirgall, though maybe not the last couple of posts,...  

[jpahmad]

 

When you participate, you're educating people that government is valid. 

 

 

 

I'm really confused by you.  You seem to be pointing to the fact that voting has efficacy.  I thought your whole stick was that voting makes no difference.  Also, I'm not sure I understand your position on the morality of voting.  Does voting have a moral content or not?  Is it a violation of the NAP as far as you're concerned?  I believe you said that it was "amoral" earlier in the thread.  Now, I understand that something not having moral content doesn't mean it is exempt from condemnation.  I get that.  I just want to have a clear undersanding of your stance.  You previously said that you agreed it was "amoral", but then you use language like "you have no right", so it's a little confusing.

[powder]

Is voting not the act of delegating a right for someone to rule, or giving consent to be ruled, a right which no one has?  If so, it is immoral.  

[dsayers]

You don't own me. Therefore you cannot transfer that ownership of me to somebody else. When you vote for Trump, you're going to be communicating that you give Trump ownership of 300 million human beings. Which by extension is to communicate that such ownership is valid, as is your granting of permission. "You've been living in a dream world, Neo."

[Gavitor]

So If I understand correctly you vote because you believe it will somehow change reality?

 

I still don't understand why you want someone to be your ruler.

 

I guess everyone forgot this (perhaps some of you haven't seen it).

 

[shirgall]

shirgall, we need to arrive at an agreed upon standard for determining what is true. When you put forth protest vote, I pointed out that you do not protest something by participating in it. Your only answer to this challenge was a confession that the vote accomplishes nothing and a claim that it is pragmatic. To which I challenged you that if it accomplishes nothing, how is it more pragmatic to doing nothing? Instead of answering THIS challenge, you only offered challenges of your own.

 

Because on the same ballot there is an opportunity to vote against tax measures, and to write in someone's name for those running unopposed (happens a lot when it comes to judges here). It ain't perfect, and I still lose, but I feel like those votes mean more than the ones I do in partisan races.

[Tyler H]

I hear politicians saying "do it because I won" but not touting absolute turnout as a mandate.

I'm sorry I had trouble following this statement for some reason, would you mind rephrasing?

[jpahmad]

You don't own me. Therefore you cannot transfer that ownership of me to somebody else. When you vote for Trump, you're going to be communicating that you give Trump ownership of 300 million human beings. Which by extension is to communicate that such ownership is valid, as is your granting of permission. "You've been living in a dream world, Neo."

 

You didn't really answer any of my questions.  Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't really help me out here

[powder]

So If I understand correctly you vote because you believe it will somehow change reality?

 

I still don't understand why you want someone to be your ruler.

 

I guess everyone forgot this (perhaps some of you haven't seen it).

 

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/igbBItLemsM"frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

you don't understand, Stef says he has changed his position based on new information, but he also does say he stands by the position in the video you link,... wait,...  hmmm,...  I think that is what we are trying to sort out.  

[dsayers]

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't really help me out here

Yes, I knew the pedantry was for the sake of deflection for the sake of preserving bias confirmation. Despite that, your challenges for precision were useful. So I bottom lined it so that others who might actually be curious, open-minded, and not emotionally NEED for voting to be a good idea might benefit. You don't own me. You are not living your values. The end.

 

I didn't look at whether I in fact didn't answer any questions or not. Though I will say it is more important that objective claims made be true than I be compelled to spend my time answering every question whether I consent or not just because somebody asked it. You've balked on numerous falsehoods and obfuscations you've put forward while SAYING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER while using that as a standard to marginalize the input of another. Dude, you really need to look into why you need this so badly.

 

 

I feel like those votes mean more than the ones I do in partisan races.

This was posted in response to my call for a standard by which we can agree upon what is true. As humans have the capacity for error, I must reject perception alone. I feel like not expending the effort when you know it will not accomplish your goal, but it does achieve the opposite of your goal by legitimizing human subjugation is more pragmatic. Will you answer this discrepancy? I'm not trying to hound you, but what if you were wrong?

[shirgall]

I'm sorry I had trouble following this statement for some reason, would you mind rephrasing?

 

I never see politicians claiming the total percentage of people that voted as endorsement for their policies. Instead, they tout the idea that "they won" therefore opposing partisans should comply with their requests.

[jpahmad]

Yes, I knew the pedantry was for the sake of deflection for the sake of preserving bias confirmation. Despite that, your challenges for precision were useful. So I bottom lined it so that others who might actually be curious, open-minded, and not emotionally NEED for voting to be a good idea might benefit. You don't own me. You are not living your values. The end.

 

I didn't look at whether I in fact didn't answer any questions or not. Though I will say it is more important that objective claims made be true than I be compelled to spend my time answering every question whether I consent or not just because somebody asked it. You've balked on numerous falsehoods and obfuscations you've put forward while SAYING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER while using that as a standard to marginalize the input of another. Dude, you really need to look into why you need this so badly.

 

 

You're responses have become unintelligible.  I would suggest trying to speak using everyday vernacular instead of by just stringing together a dizzying amount of platitudes and condescending self-help suggestions for everyone on this board who you debate with.

 

There is no further communication happening here.  We're at an impasse.   

[shirgall]

This was posted in response to my call for a standard by which we can agree upon what is true. As humans have the capacity for error, I must reject perception alone. I feel like not expending the effort when you know it will not accomplish your goal, but it does achieve the opposite of your goal by legitimizing human subjugation is more pragmatic. Will you answer this discrepancy? I'm not trying to hound you, but what if you were wrong?

 

I could easily be wrong, but it makes absolutely no difference on any issues that are not local when it comes to voting. I already pointed out where in local voting it might make a difference where I am voting directly against use of force against me: tax measures and bonds. I don't see how voting against those is a violation of the NAP or any other principle that I hold.

[Tyler H]

I never see politicians claiming the total percentage of people that voted as endorsement for their policies. Instead, they tout the idea that "they won" therefore opposing partisans should comply with their requests.

Oh I see, thank you for rewording. From the viewpoint of the politician, yes, they do not care how they win as long as they win and there are enough people supporting to violently enforce their rule. However, I was noting that while popular opinion does not validate an argument, the average person thinks it does. They believe in democracy and the moral majority and that justice is derived from law when it should in fact be the other way around. So my question maybe should have been to ask if you think the ratio of voters to population percentage factors into the legitimization of the state in the conscious or sub-conscious of each citizen; which I think leads to support for the state as a whole.

[shirgall]

Oh I see, thank you for rewording. From the viewpoint of the politician, yes, they do not care how they win as long as they win and there are enough people supporting to violently enforce their rule. However, I was noting that while popular opinion does not validate an argument, the average person thinks it does. They believe in democracy and the moral majority and that justice is derived from law when it should in fact be the other way around. So my question maybe should have been to ask if you think the ratio of voters to population percentage factors into the legitimization of the state in the conscious or sub-conscious of each citizen; which I think leads to support for the state as a whole.

 

I don't think the average person cares about turnout numbers (consciously or subconsciously) even if they think winning the election means that someone was right. In my mind most people accept that "things are what they are" with a growing fatalism that reminds me of the propaganda about Soviet life. Czar Nicholas I said that Russians were ruled by orthodoxy, autocracy, and nationality (in that order). With most media constantly reinforcing progressive "correct thinking" this sounds awfully familiar, does it not?

[DCLugi]

Exactly! You have no expectation that they will do what they said because they're sociopaths. But this isn't what we're talking about here. First of all, the aggression we're under is largely nickle and dime stuff. It adds up for sure, but we have the luxury of paying their protection money and using the rest of our time and resources towards FREEDOM.

 

 Above, to DCLugi, I think I've done a fine job of making the case for how it legitimizes all of it. We know that statism is not a rational conclusion. We know that one of the reasons why it's still alive and well despite being imaginary is momentum of the past. Ostracism is a very real influence and the majority will entice the undecided or unsure or even just those not willing to sacrifice comfort for principle (which would be my description of those who accept property rights but vote). I remember watching a TED talk where they talked about motivation and a recycling campaign experiment that tried posters that showed recyclable litter laying about a bin and another showing a human being making use of such a bin. The latter was more effective because people are more likely to do something if they see other people doing it. We also know that if somebody is unanimously told one thing, they have every reason to believe it. A dissenting voice can be all it takes to instill doubt. Finally, since you accept that voting does nothing, the chances that my speaking out against voting does not in fact do MORE to bring about freedom is such a tiny hurdle, it would be improbable that the claim is false. Which given the above, I don't even see it as a chance to be wrong if my claim were absolute. But it was relative to your claim.

Excellent. I apologize if this is comes off like a broken record but this is very productive for me.

 

We agree that we want to end cancer. You argue that current treatments are futile and are in fact strengthening the disease. You offer a cure but it requires that all efforts to "treat" the disease be used to implement said cure. Others claim that most are too weak to receive the cure so we need to continue treating until they are healthy enough to be cured. If they stop treatment then they will die before the cure can take effect. You argue that the treatment is part of the disease and to others it's necessary to ready patients for the cure.

[dsayers]

I already pointed out where in local voting it might make a difference where I am voting directly against use of force against me: tax measures and bonds.

When you vote on those, you are submitting to mob rule. YOUR vote might be against it, but you are communicating that the vote and the system offering it is valid. That if it passes, you will pay it because you agreed to go with whatever the group decided. Which says nothing of all the theft your vote is NOT stopping.

 

Also, I'm not sure why you continue to reference morality and the NAP. There is no contention there.

 

There is no further communication happening here.

The battlecry of those with curiosity and integrity no doubt. It wasn't a conversation because I'm communicating as if logic, reason, and evidence is valid, and you're communicating that your preference supersedes it. Oh and I see the questions you claimed I didn't answer. They're the ones I DID answer before, which led to you answering them as you asked them. So it's pretty underhanded to ask a question after I answered it and then claim that I didn't. Why do you need this tactics I wonder?

 

Hit me with your downvote. My rep level continues to go up despite those who need voting to be justifiable jumping on my every anti-voting post instead of offering logical, reasoned, evidence based refutations.

[jpahmad]

When you vote on those, you are submitting to mob rule. YOUR vote might be against it, but you are communicating that the vote and the system offering it is valid. That if it passes, you will pay it because you agreed to go with whatever the group decided. Which says nothing of all the theft your vote is NOT stopping.

 

Also, I'm not sure why you continue to reference morality and the NAP. There is no contention there.

 

The battlecry of those with curiosity and integrity no doubt. It wasn't a conversation because I'm communicating as if logic, reason, and evidence is valid, and you're communicating that your preference supersedes it. Oh and I see the questions you claimed I didn't answer. They're the ones I DID answer before, which led to you answering them as you asked them. So it's pretty underhanded to ask a question after I answered it and then claim that I didn't. Why do you need this tactics I wonder?

 

Hit me with your downvote. My rep level continues to go up despite those who need voting to be justifiable jumping on my every anti-voting post instead of offering logical, reasoned, evidence based refutations.

 

Nice touch with the bunny.  Just one last quick question.  Do you think Molyneux is a statist?

[Tyler H]

So If I understand correctly you vote because you believe it will somehow change reality?

 

I still don't understand why you want someone to be your ruler.

 

I guess everyone forgot this (perhaps some of you haven't seen it).

Still one of my favorites to date.

[Gavitor]

you don't understand, Stef says he has changed his position based on new information, but he also does say he stands by the position in the video you link,... wait,...  hmmm,...  I think that is what we are trying to sort out.  

 

 

Nice touch with the bunny.  Just one last quick question.  Do you think Molyneux is a statist?

No he is not a statist.

 

As to him changing his position his timing couldn't be better.

 

Here is what he said before which still hold true in my opinion.

 

 

Here is why he thinks Trump is different.

 

 

Personally I don't vote because I don't accept the idea of rulers and even if Trump is the savior people believe him to be I have no faith whatsoever that you can join the mafia and turn it into a charity.

[dsayers]

Nice touch with the bunny.  Just one last quick question.  Do you think Molyneux is a statist?

To what end?

 

You know, the irony here is that you would vote for a psychopath who believes somebody could rule over 300,000 people, but you would downvote somebody who accepts property rights and is saying, "Hey, you're contradicting yourself." You're getting behind a hood ornament while trying to find any reason you can to be divided from what should be an ally. Yeah, not at all a waste of time :*(

[Gavitor]

Our thumbnails have improved.

 

Yes they have

 

And so have some of your click baity titles

 

Either way the content is still fantastic, keep up the great work guys.

[shirgall]

To what end?

 

You know, the irony here is that you would vote for a psychopath who believes somebody could rule over 300,000 people, but you would downvote somebody who accepts property rights and is saying, "Hey, you're contradicting yourself." You're getting behind a hood ornament while trying to find any reason you can to be divided from what should be an ally. Yeah, not at all a waste of time :*(

 

Look at it this way, if Trump wins the press will suddenly be anti-corruption and anti-war again, perhaps in greater vigor than ever.

 

Trump said it today in his AMA on Reddit. You can't fixed a rigged system by rehiring the ones who rigged it.

 

Or, maybe, we should look to Peter Baelish:

 

Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, are given a chance to climb. They refuse, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is. 

[jpahmad]

To what end?

 

You know, the irony here is that you would vote for a psychopath who believes somebody could rule over 300,000 people, but you would downvote somebody who accepts property rights and is saying, "Hey, you're contradicting yourself." You're getting behind a hood ornament while trying to find any reason you can to be divided from what should be an ally. Yeah, not at all a waste of time :*(

 

ok, and what am I saying that's different the Stefan?