bigbusa Posted September 7, 2016 Posted September 7, 2016 In all honestly you showing up to vote has little impact. Collectively yes. this being said, if you care enough to complain about who gets elected after the fact, then you should vote. My moto is: If you don't vote, I don't want to hear you complain.
Tyler H Posted September 7, 2016 Author Posted September 7, 2016 So if I refuse to participate in a system that enforces the will of the majority upon the minority at the point of a gun then I have no right to decry said system? Participate in the violent status quo or shut the f**k up?
thebeardslastcall Posted September 7, 2016 Posted September 7, 2016 My moto is: If you don't vote, I don't want to hear you complain. My new moto is: If you do vote, I don't want to hear you complain. 1
bigbusa Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 My new moto is: If you do vote, I don't want to hear you complain. I see where you and Tyler are coming from. But how else do you expect to change this system ?
thebeardslastcall Posted September 11, 2016 Posted September 11, 2016 I see where you and Tyler are coming from. But how else do you expect to change this system ? We don't, that's kind of the point. Change the people and the societal changes follow. Abuse is abuse and you can't change that, but if you teach people to stop being abusers, then you don't have to change abuse, because you don't need a cure for a disease you never cause. You don't need a cure for heart disease if everyone is eating and living a healthy lifestyle. 2
Tyler H Posted September 17, 2016 Author Posted September 17, 2016 Yeah, I think the system can only be changed by changing the minds of the people in that system. This means relentlessly putting forward the arguments until everyone whose mind can be changed is changed. It's slow, but it can't be forced on people because then we're just another state. People will be more likely to accept reason and peaceful solutions if that is their template from childhood; which is why there is such a large focus on parenting in this community. Donald Trump may be a less shitty president than Hillary, but it's not like the US is going to fall into sharia law if she gets in. Every four years people lose their minds about the apocalypse around the corner if their guy doesn't get in, but no matter who wins the slow slide towards collapse continues and will continue because the country is in a hole it can't climb out of without significant hardship. No one is coming to save us - speak the truth to the people around you and you'll be the one who was right when it all comes crashing down. I think this constant media tsunami of PC culture and race/gender baiting puts us in a fog that there are more people like that than there actually are. That's what the media does, they try to sway the public by augmenting or fabricating what's popular or foreboding. Free speech isn't going anywhere and when the people are sick of the narrative they'll elect a Trump; that may be this time around, it may not, but I don't think our (philosophical anarchists) approach should change. Speak the truth, don't let them pull you into fighting over giant douches and turd sandwiches. Let's get out and vote! Full episode 1
adamNJ Posted October 29, 2016 Posted October 29, 2016 I have changed my mind, I think you should vote. I used to repeat to myself the mantra, 'if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal', But this election cycle I can't say that. For the first time we are presented with a non-establishment candidate that isn't bought and paid for by special interests before the campaign begins. 3 1
Tyler H Posted November 1, 2016 Author Posted November 1, 2016 I have changed my mind, I think you should vote. I used to repeat to myself the mantra, 'if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal', But this election cycle I can't say that. For the first time we are presented with a non-establishment candidate that isn't bought and paid for by special interests before the campaign begins. So it's better if special interests stop buying politicians and just become them? DT is one of those special interests; how is the problem of special interest groups influencing policy ameliorated by the removal of a middle man? This is the second time I've brought this up in this thread, please forgive me if I missed the counter argument. 3
errorspending Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 Thanks for all of your posts Tyler! They helped me stay resolute in not voting It's been a very confusing time for me with Stef, someone who I agree with about virtually everything, starting to support political action. I don't see where it ends. If Trump gets in and he does do some positive things for the country, won't that just reaffirm for most people that political action is valid and the way forward? I would imagine this could make anarchy even more of a hard sell. If all it takes is conservative business men funding their own campaigns, instead of career politicians, to begin supporting political action, then this could trickle down to many levels of government. Should I support a mayor for my city if he self funds and is conservative (among other positive atributes)? I don't see where this stops. Seems so strange to flip from a principled approach to the argument from effect, when as you've pointed out, the effects cannot even be known. 2 2
shirgall Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 I just voted for Donald J. Trump and didn't even need to crawl over breaking glass. I had to drive to the mall where the drop-off box was. And there was junk food tempting me there. Tender, crispy, salty, sweet, greasy junk food. With soda!
errorspending Posted November 8, 2016 Posted November 8, 2016 Part of me still wants to vote for Trump simply because Stef and Mike advocate for it. They've built up so much credibility over the years that I worry I'll look back on this a see it their way...
Tyler H Posted November 9, 2016 Author Posted November 9, 2016 Thanks for all of your posts Tyler! They helped me stay resolute in not voting It's been a very confusing time for me with Stef, someone who I agree with about virtually everything, starting to support political action. I don't see where it ends. If Trump gets in and he does do some positive things for the country, won't that just reaffirm for most people that political action is valid and the way forward? I would imagine this could make anarchy even more of a hard sell. If all it takes is conservative business men funding their own campaigns, instead of career politicians, to begin supporting political action, then this could trickle down to many levels of government. Should I support a mayor for my city if he self funds and is conservative (among other positive atributes)? I don't see where this stops. Seems so strange to flip from a principled approach to the argument from effect, when as you've pointed out, the effects cannot even be known. One thing I learned early on from Stef is that when the correct decision is unclear we use our principles as a guide. Hopefully now that the apocalypse has been averted a return to philosophical principles and longterm avenues to a free society will be forthcoming. Part of me still wants to vote for Trump simply because Stef and Mike advocate for it. They've built up so much credibility over the years that I worry I'll look back on this a see it their way... Remember, Stef has been clear that the focus on Trump was plan B. People didn't listen when he advocated bringing the message of freedom to the people in your life and not accepting their support for the initiation of force against you. This is how we are freed, not through Trump. Do that and you will have done more for freedom than granting the power to initiate force to someone you hope will do less evil.
errorspending Posted November 10, 2016 Posted November 10, 2016 I caved...I was in the chat room talking to people about voting last night and I went in at the last moment and voted. I knew that if Hillary got in I would regret not voting for Trump, which I didn't feel at all about previous elections. The main issue for me was this - through voting, am I supporting the initiation of force against all of the citizens who did not vote for Trump? But as Stef has said many times, you can't have a truly principled approach to a situation with coercion already present. There will be someone who rules over us regardless. It doesn't make sense to me to ask what the principled approach is to choosing between a bunch of people getting raped or a bunch of people getting pillaged. It seems voting must always be a merely pragmatic decision, and it doesn't lessen our ability to advocate for no state. In previous cases the benefit of either side could not be reliably assessed, but I do think Stef and Mike made a reasonable case that this time the benefits to one side were significantly less murky.
luxfelix Posted November 10, 2016 Posted November 10, 2016 Remember, Stef has been clear that the focus on Trump was plan B. People didn't listen when he advocated bringing the message of freedom to the people in your life and not accepting their support for the initiation of force against you. This is how we are freed, not through Trump. Do that and you will have done more for freedom than granting the power to initiate force to someone you hope will do less evil. When Hillary lost, I was able to speak with a friend of a friend about the core issues underlying government as force (as well as r v K, etc.). Edit: Maybe more Hillary supporters will be open to alternative ideas?
Tyler H Posted November 17, 2016 Author Posted November 17, 2016 When Hillary lost, I was able to speak with a friend of a friend about the core issues underlying government as force (as well as r v K, etc.). Edit: Maybe more Hillary supporters will be open to alternative ideas? Was this not possible prior?
shirgall Posted November 17, 2016 Posted November 17, 2016 Was this not possible prior? I was certainly afraid to talk to people because of their probable reaction. My test cases were certainly met with scorn and derision with a select few. Who volunteers for that crap very often?
luxfelix Posted November 19, 2016 Posted November 19, 2016 Was this not possible prior? What I mean is that the people I've spoken with have become more receptive to an alternative -- even if this is moreso a result of the bandwagon effect than intellectual curiosity, there are many paths to the red pill. The intense feelings people have expressed over the elections is not necessarily an obstacle; the personalizing of politics have broken the ice of apathy, and when they feel hurt that their candidate did not win, I've offered my help to cross the icy river.
Recommended Posts