2016 Election: To Vote or Not To Vote

[Tyler H]

I'll keep it brief.

 

If Trump gets in, I expect him to use his massive microphone and spotlight to turn up the public pressure on those who oppose the policies people expect him to implement.

 

If one tweet from DJT and the spotlight that brings can destroy your political career - people are going to suddenly be more reasonable and accountable to the voters.

 

Trump's already signaled his intentions to employ this strategy by announcing that he intends to personally fund Super PACs against Cruz and Kasich.

 

In politics it's easiest for politicians to just go with the money flow of the lobbyists and corporate interests - but what if Trump changes that?

 

If nothing else, it'll be interesting to watch a bunch of terrible people stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

...or maybe none of Trump's signature issues will see the progress the voters expect.

 

If Trump's not able/willing to enact the will of the people who vote for him - nobody in the world will be able/willing to do so and it further highlights why democracy will always fail.

 

A Trump candidacy and presidency is all new information and I'm quite curious how things will play out.

This helps me better understand the motives for the support, thank you Mike. I am interested in seeing this play out as much as anyone, even if only to see Clinton in an orange jumpsuit. I would prefer, in fact be a bit relieved, if Trump wins. However the thought process in my head is that if I were to vote, I would be lending my sanction to the evils of the state with no perceivable change in the outcome of the election. I doubt that if everyone in this community voted for Trump it would have any difference, but what I think it would do is compromise our integrity and values. I agree that there is an argument to be made for self defense because we are forced to live within a coercive system in order to participate in society, but when the outcome is so intractable and cost of support so high... I cannot justify it to myself. That is why I'm arguing this position. I will continue to listen to podcasts on the subject to see if there is something Stef has said that will address this. I understand you are incredibly busy and being asked to revisit arguments that you've already spent countless hours on must be frustrating. Thank you for taking the time.

[dsayers]

Saying something is an argument from effect is not an argument.

It serves to reveal that somebody is jettisoning morality for subjective reasons.

 

If Trump's not able/willing to enact the will of the people who vote for him - nobody in the world will be able/willing to do so and it further highlights why democracy will always fail.

 

A Trump candidacy and presidency is all new information and I'm quite curious how things will play out.

We already know why violence will always fail. It's NOT new information. Nor is it a permission slip for ANYBODY to pretend as if they own everybody else and/or that Trump/Hillary/anybody could own somebody else.

 

 

you are to stupid for me to interact with.

*too

 

no ability to differentiate between 99% tax and 1% tax, or between communism and minarchism

All statism is minarchism. Because they think the government should ONLY do what THEY think it should. All minarchism is statism. Because it rejects that people cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. People who are being institutionally stolen from are not free. Stealing a candy bar is still stealing, even if it's not stealing a car.

 

[powder]

 

...or maybe none of Trump's signature issues will see the progress the voters expect.

 

If Trump's not able/willing to enact the will of the people who vote for him - nobody in the world will be able/willing to do so and it further highlights why democracy will always fail.

 

 

Right, which is why I argue that having FDR's voice backing Trump's ascension to the throne will see it lose its credibility as a voice for freedom, as it is very likely indeed that things will not get better no matter who sits on it.  

 

Besides, call me a conspiracy theorist but my study of the oligarchs and their methods make me more inclined to believe this stuff than the idea that political leaders are in charge of changing the world:

 

By the time you become the leader of a country, someone else makes all the decisions. You may find you can get away with Virtual Presidents, Virtual Prime Ministers, and Virtual Everything. - Bill Clinton

 

The real rulers of Washington are Invisible and exercise power from behind the scenes.- Justice Felix Frankfurter - US Supreme Court Justice

 

"Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men's views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the United States, in the field of commerce and manufacture, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it." Woodrow Wilson

 

"We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the world - no longer a Government of free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson 

[Gavitor]

This helps me better understand the motives for the support, thank you Mike. I am interested in seeing this play out as much as anyone, even if only to see Clinton in an orange jumpsuit. I would prefer, in fact be a bit relieved, if Trump wins. However the thought process in my head is that if I were to vote, I would be lending my sanction to the evils of the state with no perceivable change in the outcome of the election. I doubt that if everyone in this community voted for Trump it would have any difference, but what I think it would do is compromise our integrity and values. I agree that there is an argument to be made for self defense because we are forced to live within a coercive system in order to participate in society, but when the outcome is so intractable and cost of support so high... I cannot justify it to myself. That is why I'm arguing this position. I will continue to listen to podcasts on the subject to see if there is something Stef has said that will address this. I understand you are incredibly busy and being asked to revisit arguments that you've already spent countless hours on must be frustrating. Thank you for taking the time.

I agree with you on not voting because its pointless however I've been thinking about it and what Mike said and I don't think this is about voting. Trump is basically doing what the average statist says to do, if you don't like it become president and change it. This will reveal one of 2 things, either its not possible dealing a massive blow to statists everywhere while simultaneously revealing the illusion of choice that is voting and democracy. Or he does become president and continues to push the boundaries as an unwelcome outsider. Basically Trump is invading their space and seeing how far he can go before they reveal their true colors to everyone. Either the powers that be will double down on maintaining their charade or they will stop being covert and become overtly tyrannical in some form.

 

Basically what happens is rather inconsequential (though beneficial if he actually is able to stop the savages from flooding the country) because just by running he has revealed how full of shit the media is and as he continues to get closer to the presidency while rallying support from the common folk it will become more apparent to everyone what a sham the political system and government are in the first place.

[LancierDombre]

If you happened upon a gang rape, would you say that the person is getting raped anyways, so might as well cheer the rapists on?

 

False analogy. If you happen upon a gang rape, you have the option to call for help, or possibly intervene right then to stop it.  You don't have a realistic chance of stopping the election or ending the state this year.  If we're going to go with the rape analogy, this would be more like getting some say in whether or not your rapist is HIV positive or not.

 

Also, if you really think that voting is the equivalent of cheering on a gang rape then aren't you in some way morally obligated to intervene - perhaps even with force?  If you are so sure you are right about this, I think it would behoove you to at least protest the election publicly.  Show up at your local polling place on election day with a sign that says "voting = gang rape" and take your case to the people.  Heck, you might even get some media attention.

 

Translation: I accept that the State created this problem, so I'm going to turn to the State to fix it.

 

Do you have a better idea?  I am open to suggestions.  Maybe starting an anti-voting protest movement is the way to go.

[dsayers]

 

False analogy. If you happen upon a gang rape, you have the option to call for help, or possibly intervene right then to stop it.

Am I not calling for help? How could you stop it? It's a GANG rape! You're outnumbered.

 

Also, if you really think that voting is the equivalent of cheering on a gang rape then aren't you in some way morally obligated to intervene - perhaps even with force?

Voting/cheering on a gang rape isn't the initiation of the use of force. Also, "morally obligated" is irrational. Morality identifies whether or not a behavior is binding upon another and/or whether consent is provided. The only obligations that are "moral" are those that are voluntarily created.

 

Do you have a better idea?  I am open to suggestions.  Maybe starting an anti-voting protest movement is the way to go.

A better idea than cheering on gang rape? Yes I do! Accepting that people cannot exist in different opposing moral categories and therefore rape is immoral. Accepting that since rape is immoral, to cheer it on or legitimize it in any way would be evil. And then speaking accordingly. Which is a protest movement by the way. Look at the number of downvotes I've racked up from people who cannot mount a rational counterpoint to justify their emotional NEED for cheering on rape to be tantamount to ending rape somehow.

 

This is also not an argument.

 

Making simple assertions is not an argument.

 

Boring.

When you say that you are willing to overlook morality for arbitrary reason X (simple assertion), THAT is not an argument. So anything offered up to reveal this doesn't HAVE to be an argument. Not that you adhere to this standard you insist others live by since "boring" isn't an argument.

 

Here's a question for non-voting people - and I'm legitimately curious about the answer.

 

If you lived in the UK - would you have voted on the EU Referendum?

 

If so, why? If not, why not?

 

I just want people making their decisions based on accurate information.

"non-voting people" is poisoning the well if not begging the question. If there's house on fire across the street and I don't blow on it because I know that it will have no effect, I'm not an anti-putting-out-fire person. If I accept that rape is immoral, for me to not cheer it on doesn't make me a non-cheering-on-rape person.

 

The question is a distraction. It matters not whether persons X, Y, and Z would or would not have done A, B, or C. Voting doesn't work. Violence doesn't achieve one's stated goals. You do not own other people and nobody can. These are objective claims whose truth value are true. When you champion political voting you are brushing these aside for an arbitrary, subjective purpose.

 

[WasatchMan]

If you lived in the UK - would you have voted on the EU Referendum?

 

If so, why? If not, why not?

 

I just want people making their decisions based on accurate information.

 

I would not have voted.  Why? Because I don't consent to be governed, therefore I would prefer not to have to vote and in anyway portray consent, and I understand numbers, therefore I know that the actual consequences of me to vote is so small that it does not even come close to override my preference not to vote.

 

To put this in perspective, 1 leave vote would have constituted 0.00000574% of the leave vote.  Furthermore, even though it appears to be a somewhat close vote, your 1 leave vote would have constituted 0.00007878% of the amount of votes that the leave vote beat the remain vote.  Are we really going to sell out our preference not to participate with an immoral system for these numbers?

[Tyler H]

Right, which is why I argue that having FDR's voice backing Trump's ascension to the throne will see it lose its credibility as a voice for freedom, as it is very likely indeed that things will not get better no matter who sits on it.  

I've had this concern as well.  

 

 

 

Somehow reporting facts and making arguments discredits a philosophy show. OK then.  No one said that.  What is believed to be of concern is what is left out, the arguments against the state that are withheld.  Not the seen, but the unseen.

 

This is also not an argument.

 

Making simple assertions is not an argument.

 

Boring.

 

I never understand what anybody means by "support." Here's facts and arguments - do with them what you will.  There were a lot of arguments that could've been made to the shafted Sanders supporters after the endorsement of Clinton, but all that was offered up was Trump.  However valid the material, the arguments that were not made signal the show's support of Trump - not just the show providing facts and arguments that in themselves are supportive of Trump.

 

I don't see the massive cost of pushing a button in a little room. When you're under coercion, ethics don't apply.  If a crazy man holds a gun to your head and demands that you strangle a hobo or he'll shoot you - whatever choice you make is not immoral.  You're in a state of coercion and the crazy man would "own" the death of the hobo if you strangled him to save your own life. Replace the crazy man with the political establishment and the crazy man's gun with massive taxpayer funded unvetted immigration from terrorist nations. If you push a button in a tiny room, you're hardly the immoral agent in the interaction and these sociopaths "own" any immorality present in the difficult situation. Plus I don't think anybody will have PTSD from simply pushing a tiny button in a local rec center compared to hobo strangling at gunpoint - but hey, what do I know!  The cost is your fractional share (post #48) in responsibility for the crimes committed by an official you've helped elect.  If you've seen the crazy man over and over tell people "kill him or I kill you", and after they've killed the target the crazy man still kills them - would you still do it?  I say to the crazy man "fuck you, do it yourself".  In other words, when the outcome is going to be the same, why bloody you're hands even if you can justify it morally?  If you do something immoral just because you can justify self defense, without the knowledge that the action will succeed in defending yourself - is it still justifiable?

 

The way you phrase it, driving on a government road would be "sanctioning the evils of the state."  What did I say that supports this claim?

 

Paralyzing yourself and withdrawing from society will not lead to freedom.  Agreed.  I'm not going to go live in Bir Tawil or Antarctica. Was there an argument made to how not voting is withdrawing from society? For the first 10 years the opposite argument held firm in this community.

 

If this election was Jeb Bush vs. Hillary Clinton that would certainly be a different situation - but Trump has many qualities which make him truly unique. Those unique qualities reopen the argument as Trump is an unprecedented case. There is a very good case to be made that if it's possible for a politician to be different, Trump is the lightening strike once in a generation figure who could be "that guy." Or maybe Trump won't be "different" once he gets in power. I'd like that new information and am curious about how things play out.

 

I can more than understand why people wouldn't want to vote - pretty much all the arguments Stefan made in The Truth About Voting video years ago. That being said when a unique situation comes up - such as Brexit or Trump's unique candidacy - it's not begging bought off politicians to throw you a few scraps, it's a different situation and that must be acknowledged. If you think it's the same situation, you're simply wrong and acting on bad information. It's important to make all life decisions based off accurate information -  which (not) oddly enough is one of the main purposes of the show.  

 

Here's a question for non-voting people - and I'm legitimately curious about the answer.

 

If you lived in the UK - would you have voted on the EU Referendum?

 

If so, why? If not, why not?  Not having researched it enough to be an "informed voter" I can't say, but I will say (as I've stated before with Shirgall) that I have a different stance on voting vis-a-vis specific policies and ballot measures; where the outcome can be reasonable known to either increase or decrease coercion directly.  I cannot say the same for handing over the power to initiate force on the grandest scale to individuals with unknown motives.

 

I just want people making their decisions based on accurate information.

[DCLugi]

Am I not calling for help? How could you stop it? It's a GANG rape! You're outnumbered.

 

Voting/cheering on a gang rape isn't the initiation of the use of force. Also, "morally obligated" is irrational. Morality identifies whether or not a behavior is binding upon another and/or whether consent is provided. The only obligations that are "moral" are those that are voluntarily created.

 

A better idea than cheering on gang rape? Yes I do! Accepting that people cannot exist in different opposing moral categories and therefore rape is immoral. Accepting that since rape is immoral, to cheer it on or legitimize it in any way would be evil. And then speaking accordingly. Which is a protest movement by the way. Look at the number of downvotes I've racked up from people who cannot mount a rational counterpoint to justify their emotional NEED for cheering on rape to be tantamount to ending rape somehow.

 

When you say that you are willing to overlook morality for arbitrary reason X (simple assertion), THAT is not an argument. So anything offered up to reveal this doesn't HAVE to be an argument. Not that you adhere to this standard you insist others live by since "boring" isn't an argument.

 

"non-voting people" is poisoning the well if not begging the question. If there's house on fire across the street and I don't blow on it because I know that it will have no effect, I'm not an anti-putting-out-fire person. If I accept that rape is immoral, for me to not cheer it on doesn't make me a non-cheering-on-rape person.

 

The question is a distraction. It matters not whether persons X, Y, and Z would or would not have done A, B, or C. Voting doesn't work. Violence doesn't achieve one's stated goals. You do not own other people and nobody can. These are objective claims whose truth value are true. When you champion political voting you are brushing these aside for an arbitrary, subjective purpose.

 

What is your stance on paying taxes and using government services? Do you think that these legitimize state authority? If you're the victim of a crime and under the current regime the police are your only choice of action would declining this forced service be the moral thing to do?

[jpahmad]

Am I not calling for help? How could you stop it? It's a GANG rape! You're outnumbered.

 

Voting/cheering on a gang rape isn't the initiation of the use of force. Also, "morally obligated" is irrational. Morality identifies whether or not a behavior is binding upon another and/or whether consent is provided. The only obligations that are "moral" are those that are voluntarily created.

 

A better idea than cheering on gang rape? Yes I do! Accepting that people cannot exist in different opposing moral categories and therefore rape is immoral. Accepting that since rape is immoral, to cheer it on or legitimize it in any way would be evil. And then speaking accordingly. Which is a protest movement by the way. Look at the number of downvotes I've racked up from people who cannot mount a rational counterpoint to justify their emotional NEED for cheering on rape to be tantamount to ending rape somehow.

 

When you say that you are willing to overlook morality for arbitrary reason X (simple assertion), THAT is not an argument. So anything offered up to reveal this doesn't HAVE to be an argument. Not that you adhere to this standard you insist others live by since "boring" isn't an argument.

 

 

 

 

 

dsayers, you're a complete hypocrite.  You pay your taxes.  You do have a choice not to pay your taxes (Al Capone didn't pay taxes for quite a while).  But you do it in order to avoid the consequences that you deem undesirable.  Why not just go to jail and take one for the team?  Why not get paid in cash only?  Why not join some black market racket?  You cannot say the voting to avoid a personal negative consequence is bad, but paying taxes to avoid a personal negative consequence is good.  It's a contradiciton.

[shirgall]

Indeed, paying your taxes only reinforces their belief they are justified in charging them, and encourages them to charge more. "They didn't revolt yet!"

[luxfelix]

On that note, has anyone here heard of people getting away with not paying taxes by using some arcane corporate/admiralty law loop hole (or otherwise?)? 

 

As far as I know, the only people who can get away with dismissing taxes are those people with state connections.

 

Related: http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-dictators-free-themselves-but-they-enslave-the-people-charlie-chaplin-5-30-58.jpg

[Gavitor]

 

Here's a question for non-voting people - and I'm legitimately curious about the answer.

 

If you lived in the UK - would you have voted on the EU Referendum?

 

If so, why? If not, why not?

 

I just want people making their decisions based on accurate information.

 

No because I haven't seen any compelling evidence that voting works as intended, and the eu going for a second referendum because Britain voted "incorrectly" would further support that voting doesn't matter.

 

Again I have NO FAITH in voting or politics. The majority wanted Bernie and they gave it to Hillary. Since Bernie is a sell out I don't get why they just didn't let him win it so they can keep their voter base intact. Now a large number of people won't vote at all because they saw first hand their vote doesn't mean shit with this "super delegate" nonsense. (and no I'm not a Bernie supporter)

 

At the end of the day the electoral college has final say whether you get the popular vote or not.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not saying you shouldn't vote. If you have any faith in the system whatsoever then vote for Trump. I just don't see how Trump being different magically makes the voting system different.

 

I agree and accept that Trump is different, its everything else that's the same... And if it hasn't worked for years why would it start now?

 

I hope I'm wrong and peoples vote does count and trump wins, I just haven't seen any evidence that it will. We won't know till they decide who becomes president.

 

I compared voting to praying. I don't pray because I know its pointless, I feel the same way about voting.

 

At the end of the day even if you win they still have final say and can reverse the outcome if they want. Them putting together a second referendum because the last one didn't go their way is further proof of that.

[WasatchMan]

How are people conflating paying taxes which is mandatory (under threat of force and imprisonment) with voting which is completely voluntary with no negative consequences for you not voting? I can see there is some room for discussion here, but lets not go full retard yet...

[powder]

 

 

 

 

 

I can more than understand why people wouldn't want to vote - pretty much all the arguments Stefan made in The Truth About Voting video years ago. That being said when a unique situation comes up - such as Brexit or Trump's unique candidacy - it's not begging bought off politicians to throw you a few scraps, it's a different situation and that must be acknowledged. If you think it's the same situation, you're simply wrong and acting on bad information. It's important to make all life decisions based off accurate information -  which (not) oddly enough is one of the main purposes of the show.

 

 

Trump is unique compared to what?  Clintons, Bushes?  So what?  Martin Luther was very unique in his campaign to take on the Holy See.  Napoleon was unique compared to the royal families that ruled at the time.  The USA was unique in how it got started, we know how that turned out.  

 

Brexit was not unique and has no guarantee of granting more freedom.  Countries like Ireland had referendums to join the EU and they just kept at it until they got the result they wanted.  I lived in Quebec during the referendum years, they just kept at it until they got their majority vote.  

[Tyler H]

On that note, has anyone here heard of people getting away with not paying taxes by using some arcane corporate/admiralty law loop hole (or otherwise?)? 

 

As far as I know, the only people who can get away with dismissing taxes are those people with state connections.

 

Related: http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-dictators-free-themselves-but-they-enslave-the-people-charlie-chaplin-5-30-58.jpg

Yeah on that zeitgeist movie there were a couple of ex-IRS agents who after finding out there wasn't actually a valid law to uphold the income tax quit and stopped paying - not sure how feasible that is if it's true. Do some googling you'll find some stuff, but keep in mind they don't give a shit and will still throw you in prison.

[LancierDombre]

Am I not calling for help? How could you stop it? It's a GANG rape! You're outnumbered.

Are you crying for help? If so what does helping look like to you? I'm looking for specific actions here.

 

Voting/cheering on a gang rape isn't the initiation of the use of force.

Hold the phone, I haven't accepted the assertion that voting is even remotely equivalent to "cheering on" a gang rape and you haven't offered up any arguments to back up such an equivalency.  So please either put up or shut up as far as this emotionally manipulative language is concerned.

 

A better idea than cheering on gang rape? Yes I do! Accepting that people cannot exist in different opposing moral categories and therefore rape is immoral.

I'm loosing track of your analogies here.  Are you saying that the rape is in the voting or the resulting state policies?  If the former, you're going to have to explain that one to me as I'm clearly not as sofisticated as you are.  If the latter, okay, I've accepted that the state is not in a different moral category.  Now what?  None of that changes the fact that we're being offered the chance to give a little bit of input into the state's operations, that it costs almost nothing to give such input, that there is no implicit or explicit requirement that your input be given enthusiastically, and that you loose no moral authority in the eyes of the overwhelming majority of the population for voting.

 

If you honestly believe that there would be no differences between a Clinton, Trump, or Johnson presidency or that there is no way of knowing, that's another discussion and I can certainly understand why you wouldn't see it as worth our time thinking about.  However, if you think that any one of these three potential presidents would help you get to your ultimate goal of a free society more than the others and you pass up the opportunity to influence the outcome of the election, that just tells me you're not actually serious about getting anything done.  It would tell me that this is just a vanity project for you.

 

 

Accepting that since rape is immoral, to cheer it on or legitimize it in any way would be evil. And then speaking accordingly. Which is a protest movement by the way. Look at the number of downvotes I've racked up from people who cannot mount a rational counterpoint to justify their emotional NEED for cheering on rape to be tantamount to ending rape somehow.

Have you ever considered that maybe they're downvoting you because they see you as being the one unable to provide a rational argument and that maybe you're the one acting out of emotional need?  Maybe a need for attention or to feel superior to others?

 

Take a step back for a moment and realize that if you're incorrect in equating voting to cheering on a rape gang, you're accusing everyone who disagrees with you of something truly awful.  Think about it.

[jpahmad]

How are people conflating paying taxes which is mandatory (under threat of force and imprisonment) with voting which is completely voluntary with no negative consequences for you not voting? I can see there is some room for discussion here, but lets not go full retard yet...

 

What do you mean by "mandatory"?  I'm guessing you mean that bad things will happen to you if you don't pay taxes.  This is not true.  There are plenty of people who make an effort to conceal their income so they don't have to suffer the consequences of not paying taxes.  Furthermore, in my mind, bad things will happen if I don't vote for Trump.  I may be wrong, but that's where I, and other people on this forum are coming from.  There is no difference in principle.  None.  

[WasatchMan]

What do you mean by "mandatory"?  I'm guessing you mean that bad things will happen to you if you don't pay taxes.  This is not true.  There are plenty of people who make an effort to conceal their income so they don't have to suffer the consequences of not paying taxes.  Furthermore, in my mind, bad things will happen if I don't vote for Trump.  I may be wrong, but that's where I, and other people on this forum are coming from.  There is no difference in principle.  None.  

 

You can split hairs if you'd like but don't waste both of our time by not acknowledging the vast difference between the choice to pay taxes and the choice to vote when it comes to consequences and the use of force.  One you have to go way out of your way spending your own time, resources, and anxiety - taking a large risks that you will not go to jail and all of your possessions taken, the other you have the complete voluntary choice to be 0.00000076118% of the choice for who becomes your ruler.

[jpahmad]

You can split hairs if you'd like but don't waste both of our time by not acknowledging the vast difference between the choice to pay taxes and the choice to vote when it comes to consequences and the use of force.  One you have to go way out of your way spending your own time, resources, and anxiety - taking a large risks that you will not go to jail and all of your possessions taken, the other you have the complete voluntary choice to be 0.00000076118% of the choice for who becomes your ruler.

 

So you are not talking about principle then.

[WasatchMan]

So you are not talking about principle then.

 

Yes, yes I am.

[Guest Gee]

How are people conflating paying taxes which is mandatory (under threat of force and imprisonment) with voting which is completely voluntary with no negative consequences for you not voting? I can see there is some room for discussion here, but lets not go full retard yet...

 

Covered this like 4 pages ago. Reading is good.

*too

 

Yeah, the effort I put into posts exponentially decreases the more I post. I'm subconciously telling myself something, I'm sure.

 

All statism is minarchism. Because they think the government should ONLY do what THEY think it should. All minarchism is statism. Because it rejects that people cannot exist in different, opposing moral categories. People who are being institutionally stolen from are not free. Stealing a candy bar is still stealing, even if it's not stealing a car.

 

All statism is minarchism.

Communism is statism.

Therefore communism is minarchism.

 

Obvously, this logically implies North Korea is a minarchist society.

Freedom isn't analog. You're either free or you're not.

 

You will like this one.

 

Freedom isn't analog. You're either free or you're not.

Stealing a peice of candy is a violation of freedom.

Murdering people is a violation of freedom.

But freedom isn't analog so punishment can not be analog. It is either violated or it is not and so the violation is either punished, or it is not.

Therefore you must punish someone for stealing a peice of candy exactly the same way as you punish someone for murder.

 

Were I advocating an argument that can be so easily shown to imply these obsurdities, I would re-evaluate my premises.

[labmath2]

What do you mean by "mandatory"? I'm guessing you mean that bad things will happen to you if you don't pay taxes. This is not true. There are plenty of people who make an effort to conceal their income so they don't have to suffer the consequences of not paying taxes. Furthermore, in my mind, bad things will happen if I don't vote for Trump. I may be wrong, but that's where I, and other people on this forum are coming from. There is no difference in principle. None.

The difference lies in your responsibility. When you hand over your property to defer negtive consequences, you are responsible for your cowardice (or self preservation). When you vote for/support a political candidate, you are responsible for their election. This goes beyond just personal negatives.

[WasatchMan]

Covered this like 4 pages ago. Reading is

Yup and it was still being discussed on the page I posted it. Graham, I don't come on here for trolling asshole comments and that seems to be all I get from you. I would like to ask that you no longer respond to me.

[Guest Gee]

Yup and it was still being discussed on the page I posted it. Graham, I don't come on here for trolling asshole comments and that seems to be all I get from you. I would like to ask that you no longer respond to me.

 

So long as you agree to not reply to my posts or post in any thread I start, you have yourself a deal.

[luxfelix]

Yeah on that zeitgeist movie there were a couple of ex-IRS agents who after finding out there wasn't actually a valid law to uphold the income tax quit and stopped paying - not sure how feasible that is if it's true. Do some googling you'll find some stuff, but keep in mind they don't give a shit and will still throw you in prison.

 

It is quite the rabbit hole. 

 

Overall, it looks like the proverbial nail that sticks out; if everyone stopped paying taxes, than it is likely that there would not be enough prison space for everyone. I don't know what the critical mass/prerequisites for that scenario's success would be.

 

 

 

I compared voting to praying. I don't pray because I know its pointless, I feel the same way about voting.

 

 

Interesting side note:

 

Apparently prayer has a measurable effect on brain scans. If prayer and meditation are not too dissimilar to compare, than studies on the health benefits of meditation can also be looked at to provide support for claims of people whom claim prayer/meditation help them (even if not for their reasoning as to why).

[jpahmad]

The difference lies in your responsibility. When you hand over your property to defer negtive consequences, you are responsible for your cowardice (or self preservation). When you vote for/support a political candidate, you are responsible for their election. This goes beyond just personal negatives.

 

When you hand over your property because of self-preservation, you are not responsible for what the money funds.  But when you vote for a candidate out of self-preservation, you're totally responsible for what the candidate does?  Hmm.  Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Yes, yes I am.

 

 

Watch this video.  You're making the same argument as the guy in the red shirt asking the question:

 

[shirgall]

It is quite the rabbit hole. 

 

Businesses wouldn't let employees stop paying withholding, lest the business gets hauled into tax court and loses their ability to conduct business or a significant portion of it fighting the case.

[labmath2]

When you hand over your property because of self-preservation, you are not responsible for what the money funds.  But when you you vote for a candidate out of self-preservation, you're totally responsible for what the candidate does?  Hmm.  Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

There is a fundamental difference between the two, immediate threat of violence and no ambiguity about the nature of the threat. With taxes, the threat is immediate and you know what that threat looks like. Its easy to see what self defense would look like with taxes (shooting at state agents who want to kidnap you for refusing to hand over your money). With voting the threat is not immediate and there is ambiguity about the nature of the threat (3rd world immigrants coming here is an abstract threat). What would self defense look like with voting?

[Tyler H]

When you hand over your property because of self-preservation, you are not responsible for what the money funds.  But when you you vote for a candidate out of self-preservation, you're totally responsible for what the candidate does?  Hmm.  Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

 

 

Watch this video.  You're making the same argument as the guy in the red shirt asking the question:

 

To be fair, he didn't say "totally".  

 

With taxes there is far less choice, and far more knowledge of the consequences, than there is with voting.  Should this not be taken into account when determining the justification for self defense?

[Tyler H]

Wow, is that really Michael Moore? What happened?

[jpahmad]

To be fair, he didn't say "totally".  

 

With taxes there is far less choice, and far more knowledge of the consequences, than there is with voting.  Should this not be taken into account when determining the justification for self defense?

 

If I decide to vote Republican every time there is an election because I truly believe that the world would soon come to an end as soon as a democrat gets in office, then you can say I'm an idiot.  You can say I'm brainwashed.  You can say I don't know the facts.  But you can't say that I'm breaking my principles.

[luxfelix]

Businesses wouldn't let employees stop paying withholding, lest the business gets hauled into tax court and loses their ability to conduct business or a significant portion of it fighting the case.

 

Good point.

 

Do entrepreneurs fair any better?

[shirgall]

Good point.

 

Do entrepreneurs fair any better?

 

Once your organization gets to 50 employees the amount of regulations that come into effect is staggering.

[Tyler H]

If I decide to vote Republican every time there is an election because I truly believe that the world would soon come to an end as soon as a democrat gets in office, then you can say I'm an idiot. You can say I'm brainwashed. You can say I don't know the facts. But you can't say that I'm breaking my principles.

I would say you can't know that with any reasonable amount of certainty in order to justify self defense, especially a "self defense" that will undoubtedly cause the death of innocent children. Now I think you could argue that no matter what you do the same murders and crimes will most likely still be committed, but like I said why take any part whatsoever? Why be at all responsible for giving criminals power?

 

Are we tabling the topic of how taxes are different than voting?