The Case Against Political Voting

[dsayers]

Here is an article I've been meaning to write ever since I figured out how political voting cannot be considered self-defense.

[Donnadogsoth]

As a Christian I recognise that my rights come from God as a result of my being made in God's image.  I do not own myself, but rather God owns me.  My Constitutional rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, among others, are derivative rather than original or logically deducible.

 

You will say that you do not recognise God, the Constitution, or rights in general, and that is fine, but you are at the disadvantage of trying to apply your atheistic, materialistic morality to me.  Neither I nor you own ourselves and so when I speak I am using lent property, which I will surrender upon death to its original Owner.

 

Trump, if he is not a liar, will save the country's jobs from being devoured by internationalist free trade, will stem the tide of unwanted alien immigration, and will annihilate the orthodox Moslem threat in the Middle East.  Unless one believes he is a liar and refrains from voting for him on that basis, not voting for him means that one wants the attack on economy, on identity, and on security to continue.  If one values these things, not voting for Trump November 8th is suicide.

[Tyler H]

Nice article man.  

[Wuzzums]

Voting means I'm selling you into slavery.

Not voting means someone else is selling you into slavery.

There is no third option.

 

So who do you trust more?

Would you rather have me sell you into slavery or a fat pink haired gender fluid cretin sell you into slavery?

[powder]

Voting means I'm selling you into slavery.

Not voting means someone else is selling you into slavery.

There is no third option.

 

So who do you trust more?

Would you rather have me sell you into slavery or a fat pink haired gender fluid cretin sell you into slavery?

Isn't this assuming that your vote will matter, that the results will be accurate and not tampered with, that the system works the way the rulers tell you it does, that the politicians are being honest, that they will follow thru...?  

[powder]

that is a good article dsayers, thanks for doing that.  I am not clear on this point:

 

There was a time when I was convinced that voting was the initiation of the use of force. It was explained to me that because the people being voted for can refuse to initiate the use of force, that the act isn't immoral. Condoning something is not the same as being culpable for it. 

 

Isn't the act of voting more than just condoning?  isn't it granting authority, giving licence, delegating rights that the person voting does not have themselves?  If someone asks someone else to murder another person for them, and the hired killer decides not to go thru with it, isn't the person who gave them the go ahead morally responsible for that action?  

[rosencrantz]

In a state of nature you only have property rights if you can defend your property.
In a society you can only have property rights if the society recognises property rights and is willing to adher to them.
Importing people that neither have concept of property rights nor are willing to follow them is suicide for Western societies. You can be principled all day long, but living in a society that looks like Rio or Lagos means that nobody around you gives a hoot about abstract principles.
In that sense, voting that your society remains predominantly white is rational.

[pretzelogik]

So, these individuals who identify themselves as "government" and will cage people for having a plant, shoot someone for driving while black, bomb brown people (fuck no, not brown ELITE people) all over the world and are funded through extortion and intimidation will be absolutely above board when it comes to counting votes?  And when the votes are tallied will honor the political promises that were made during the campaign when they have a history of lying about everything else?

 

Somehow the idea of being concerned about the outcome of an election makes it seem like the poor chumps pulling the levers actually have some influence over politicians.  I have zero evidence that voting changes anything, and a 200 years plus program of theft and oppression that says that it doesn't.  Oh, except single mothers - they control everything. 

 

Politics, like the news,  is a stage managed show.  It sells advertising.  It creates reality (perception management). Donary Trumton will occupy the PR spokesperson, mascot position of Gain/TIde - Coke/Pepsi for a time while the people who actually set the agenda continue with their plans that have been set in motion long before Jefferson was pissing his diapers.

[S04]

Thanks a lot for the article, dsayers. It definitely gave me some new input.

 

I’m still trying to figure out what to think about voting. I’m just trying to bring some of my thoughts evoked by the article to the table and am curious as to what I can learn from your feedback on this. 

 

To me Voting is clearly not the deployment of force. Otherwise I would morally be justified to use force against voters. It could be argued that voting merely encourages the use of force. Whether the force will then be deployed or not is not up to the voter but to the politicians and the agents of the state. So voting can not be considered to be self-defense in that sense. However couldn’t you argue that voting can be used to encourage someone to use force in order to defend you from whatever the alternative would be? Isn’t this bringing back the argument from self defense through the backdoor?

 

I see that trying to legitimize immoral actions and creating opposite moral categories for human beings is completely hypocritical and destructive. The perceived legitimacy of the state is what keeps us from a free society as dsayers pointed out. What I haven’t fully understood yet is the following. How is someone who votes agreeing to the implicit premise of voting that the winner of the vote has the legitimate power to rule? How is that someone accepting their enslavement rather than resisting it as dsayers wrote in his article? I do get where you are coming from, but I am still far from convinced.

 

In the current world we live in the state is commonly accepted and legitimized. I think we can agree, that If that wasn’t the case, there would be no voting. People would just stop this madness right away. So I think that voting is rather caused by this acceptance and not the other way around. I guess that if only 10% participated in voting, while the majority still accepted the premise of voting, there would still be a state. I do see that a high participation is encouraging and a low participation is discouraging the common narrative of the legitimacy of the state to some extent, but I do not see how you can say that each voter has accepted the premise of voting. With the Brexit vote for example someone who actually wants to get rid of the state could help to eliminate some proportion of the state with just one vote…

 

 

On a little side note:

 

I happen to jump around quite a lot between the new stuff Stefan puts out and the older content. I think that on some topics you can observe quite a change of view over the years, especially concerning voting. Just today I watched „The Truth about Voting“ from back in 2008. It seems to me that Stef went from „voting is useless and somehow pathetic“ to „if voting can somehow rescue Western Civilization by keeping incompatible cultures out, I’ll take it“. To be clear, this is merely my perception and I’m not saying that Stefan actually has these views right now. I’m not quite sure what his stand is today, but it would really interest me if you could point me to a podcast where he clarifies his current stand or even the evolution of his thoughts on voting from back in the day.

[Donnadogsoth]

So, these individuals who identify themselves as "government" and will cage people for having a plant, shoot someone for driving while black, bomb brown people (fuck no, not brown ELITE people) all over the world and are funded through extortion and intimidation will be absolutely above board when it comes to counting votes?  And when the votes are tallied will honor the political promises that were made during the campaign when they have a history of lying about everything else?

 

Somehow the idea of being concerned about the outcome of an election makes it seem like the poor chumps pulling the levers actually have some influence over politicians.  I have zero evidence that voting changes anything, and a 200 years plus program of theft and oppression that says that it doesn't.  Oh, except single mothers - they control everything. 

 

Politics, like the news,  is a stage managed show.  It sells advertising.  It creates reality (perception management). Donary Trumton will occupy the PR spokesperson, mascot position of Gain/TIde - Coke/Pepsi for a time while the people who actually set the agenda continue with their plans that have been set in motion long before Jefferson was pissing his diapers.

 

Yes, pretzel, everything is hopeless, thanks for reminding us of that.

[powder]

 

 

On a little side note:

 

I happen to jump around quite a lot between the new stuff Stefan puts out and the older content. I think that on some topics you can observe quite a change of view over the years, especially concerning voting. Just today I watched „The Truth about Voting“ from back in 2008. It seems to me that Stef went from „voting is useless and somehow pathetic“ to „if voting can somehow rescue Western Civilization by keeping incompatible cultures out, I’ll take it“. To be clear, this is merely my perception and I’m not saying that Stefan actually has these views right now. I’m not quite sure what his stand is today, but it would really interest me if you could point me to a podcast where he clarifies his current stand or even the evolution of his thoughts on voting from back in the day.

I would like to hear how he unpacks that as well

[dsayers]

My thanks to the people who are helping this to be a meaningful conversation.

 

You kind of answered your own question Because they do not have such authority to give, the attempt to give it is purely imaginary.

In order for a behavior to be immoral, it has to be binding upon another without their consent. The act of voting isn't binding upon anybody and therefore is amoral. Another point that would address your hired hitman scenario (assuming the hitman went through with it) is that person A can never be more responsible for person B's actions than person B is. With the caveat of course that where coercion is present, consent cannot be. For a more detailed explanation of this, here is the video that convinced me.

Isn't the act of voting more than just condoning?  isn't it granting authority, giving licence, delegating rights that the person voting does not have themselves?

 

As you rightly pointed out, your vote has no influence on the behaviors of the politicians and the agents of the State.

Whether the force will then be deployed or not is not up to the voter but to the politicians and the agents of the state... However couldn’t you argue that voting can be used to encourage someone to use force in order to defend you from whatever the alternative would be?

I argued exactly this in the article and I think this answers your own question here.

How is someone who votes agreeing to the implicit premise of voting that the winner of the vote has the legitimate power to rule? How is that someone accepting their enslavement rather than resisting it...

 

In the current world we live in the state is commonly accepted and legitimized. I think we can agree, that If that wasn’t the case, there would be no voting. People would just stop this madness right away. So I think that voting is rather caused by this acceptance and not the other way around.

 

With the Brexit vote for example someone who actually wants to get rid of the state could help to eliminate some proportion of the state with just one vote…

Asking the State to solve the problem is not taking a step towards "getting rid of the State." There is nothing you can achieve with violence that you cannot achieve without violence except violence itself. You do more to get rid of the State by not voting on principle because you would be demonstrating your values with your behaviors.

 

Having a different perspective is not synonymous with being unaware! This is a false dichotomy. And presumptive as I do not think anybody participating on these boards are unaware that FDR's position is that Muslims will destroy "Western Civilization" and that Trump can stop this (paraphrasing). Which does nothing to address the topic at hand, which is that political voting is antithetical to the acceptance of property rights.

There appears to be a general lack of awareness as to what is on the line and the stakes of the next several months for the future of Western Civilization as a whole.

 

"What is on the line and the stakes of the next several months" is unknowable. We DO know however the ways in which fiat currencies are debased, empires implode by declaring war on their own citizenry, etc. Meaning that even if your implication is accurate, the State either created that environment or has been powerless to stop it.

If you ask me, the perpetual false flags, problems too big for people to have any power against without guns pointed at their heads, so give the State more power, stop and frisk, steal and kill whatever they feel like without consequence IS the destruction of any "civilization" worth preserving.

 

The attacks being referenced are both tragic and problematic. The State is not a scalpel in the hands of a steady, caring individual. It is a nuclear bomb in the hands of a psychopath. We've see the way the so called war on terror has not stopped terror, has spread terror, and has been used as an excuse to kill innocent people the world over. People do not want terror so those who wish to utilize it have to fight against EVERYBODY who would stand in their way. The State only kills innocent people who could stand in their way, ties the hands of the rest of the people who could stand in their way (the State hates competition), and arms/trains the very people who need to be stopped.

 

Pretending you have the power to hand over the ownership of all of your neighbors will not stop this. Political voting is antithetical to the acceptance of property rights.

[Tyler H]

You should watch discussion we just recorded with Paul Joseph Watson that will be released tomorrow.

 

There appears to be a general lack of awareness as to what is on the line and the stakes of the next several months for the future of Western Civilization as a whole.

 

The conversation they just had pretty much spells it out.

 

 

Do you mean a general lack of awareness in this thread, this community, or the country?  If you mean this thread or community then I will put forward my own perception which differs from yours, let me know what you think.

 

It appears to me that there is not a lack of awareness vis-à-vis what's on the line, but the viability of Trump as the solution, that we (those who reject the state based on moral and philosophical principles) have the ability to significantly influence the election, and that influencing the election is the best use of our time in furthering the cause of freedom.  This could be a projection of my own perspective or perhaps a misunderstanding of the content I've been reading on the boards but I don't think anyone dismisses, belittles, or overlooks the crucial problem of unfettered immigration combined with a welfare state and the license to influence policy.

 

Trying to use the state to solve problems has unforeseen consequences.  The election is just another government program and voting for a candidate is condoning the use of force to impose our will against the minority; the very thing we stand against.  Are we to forsake these principles on the basis of fear? Should we become christians and statists on the arguments of Pascal and Rawls?

 

Would I prefer a Trump presidency to a Clinton presidency? Absolutely, especially with the possibility of Supreme Court appointments, but I won't give my sanction to the state.  We can't make people free through violence and I won't pretend we can.

 

I will listen to the show you mentioned and let you know if the arguments made therein alter my thinking, and if not I will do my best to formulate why.

[powder]

You should watch discussion we just recorded with Paul Joseph Watson that will be released tomorrow.

 

There appears to be a general lack of awareness as to what is on the line and the stakes of the next several months for the future of Western Civilization as a whole.

 

The conversation they just had pretty much spells it out.

Where is this general lack of awareness about the stakes?  How is it so different from the dire situations faced by previous generations?  Do you think that the people facing World Wars, Communism, and Nuclear annihilation during the cold war were not made to feel the same:  "OMG, something has to be done now or there won't be a future?"  

[jpahmad]

If someone threatens to put me in jail if I don't pay for their tank which they will use to blow up children, should I just go to prison?

[powder]

If someone threatens to put me in jail if I don't pay for their tank which they will use to blow up children, should I just go to prison?

who is someone?

[Wuzzums]

Isn't this assuming that your vote will matter, that the results will be accurate and not tampered with, that the system works the way the rulers tell you it does, that the politicians are being honest, that they will follow thru...?  

I never assumed politicians are honest, which is why I care so much about Trump getting elected.

(after Trump gets elected and builds a wall I expect a personal apology from you)

 

Are you a US citizen by any chance? I think you are by the way you talk about understanding the stakes. I'm from an ex-socialist state  and you have no idea what you're dealing against. Almost 3 decades have passed since the fall of communism in my country and it's still prevalent in every aspect of life.

 

Socialism/communism is not an ideology, it's a disease. It poisons the mind and turns neighbours, families and friends against each other. It spreads in the host body exactly like cancer, feeding off of it until the host dies, however unlike cancer it's also capable of spreading from person to person. There is no cure and history has taught us the only viable treatment is complete extermination. Are you up to the task? I'm not and I know you're not too. So why are you so content with just sitting by and watching your world burn?

 

 

 

Would I prefer a Trump presidency to a Clinton presidency? Absolutely, especially with the possibility of Supreme Court appointments, but I won't give my sanction to the state.  We can't make people free through violence and I won't pretend we can.

 

Explain to me how you not voting leads to your preferred Trump presidency.

[jpahmad]

who is someone?

 

anybody.  some crazy dude.

[labmath2]

As one of the people who thinks this whole election thing is a mistake, i will apologize if i turn out wrong. In fact i will donate $10 dollars for every policy Trump has proposed that he delivers as promised (not some watered down version of it).

 

Here is what i ask in return, if Trump wins and he turns out to be a disaster, then you should never advocate for voting of any sort for the rest of time.

[dsayers]

In keeping with the Bomb in the Brain series' call to understand WHY people believe what they believe, take a step back, look at each post in this thread, and ask "does this make any effort to address the topic at hand?" Then see if you can spot the correlation between these posts  

[Wuzzums]

As one of the people who thinks this whole election thing is a mistake, i will apologize if i turn out wrong. In fact i will donate $10 dollars for every policy Trump has proposed that he delivers as promised (not some watered down version of it).

 

Here is what i ask in return, if Trump wins and he turns out to be a disaster, then you should never advocate for voting of any sort for the rest of time.

Deal !

[Gavitor]

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3434/the-case-for-donald-trump-call-in-show-september-28th-2016

 

Have fun everybody! Send your comments, hate mail and marriage proposals to [email protected]!

 

I listened to what you said, and I'll vote for Trump. Not because Trump is a maybe (he is), not because I have faith in voting or government (I have absolutely none). But you made a very good case and if nothing else I'll donate my otherwise worthless vote to you and Stef for all the good you have done.

 

If you really want to make that gamble Mike I'll throw my chips in with yours. And if Stef is willing to stake his reputation on this I don't think its too much for me to vote this one and only time. Like I said consider it a donation on top of what I normally give you guys.

 

But answer me this, assuming he is able to buy us more time. What are we going to do when the inevitable finally catches up with us? You can only buy so much time and given this very problem has happened multiple times throughout history (points to "the truth about Rome") I'm not so sure this problem can be averted by even a divine Trump. Regardless I'd like your thoughts on this.

 

Like I said in my comment on Stef's birthday video. You guys keep bringing the truth and I'll keep supporting you.

 

As far as pissing people off and challenging their views / confronting them, I've been doing that long before I ever even heard of you guys and will continue to do so. (Though its probably why I don't have any friends)

[Matthew Moran]

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3434/the-case-for-donald-trump-call-in-show-september-28th-2016

 

Have fun everybody! Send your comments, hate mail and marriage proposals to [email protected]!

 

23 minutes in and great so far! Good point about if he were such a power hungry sociopath, why did he wait until 70 to run for president? His statement over the years that he didn't want to run, but would if he felt he had to, is consistent with his actions now running at the end of his life.

 

Loving it!

[Pelafina]

Spooner said voting was a form of self-defense

 

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=spooner%20voting%20self%20defense&oq=spooner%20voting%20self%20defense&aqs=chrome..69i57.3624j0j7

[Tyler H]

Spooner said voting was a form of self-defense

 

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=spooner%20voting%20self%20defense&oq=spooner%20voting%20self%20defense&aqs=chrome..69i57.3624j0j7

 

 

Thanks for posting this. I had forgotten about Spooner's arguments.  I keep going back and forth on the validity of self defense in regards to voting.  I think this ambivalence is the source of my opposition to the position taken by some on the boards.  I think the arguments Spooner makes are cogent, but I can't shake the idea that voting in self defense is more like throwing a grenade into a crowd of people containing some bad actors and less like rudimentary forms of self defense where the victim is obvious and the aggressor is known.  Whether you save yourself is unknown; whether you hurt innocents or assailants is unknown.  There are too many variables to make a principled decision.  We know that the institution of majority rule by force is immoral, so why participate in it unless you have a reasonable expectation of actually protecting yourself?  Conversely, I will concede this current election cycle could qualify as such an occasion for many people.

 

 

 

 

http://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3434/the-case-for-donald-trump-call-in-show-september-28th-2016

 

Have fun everybody! Send your comments, hate mail and marriage proposals to [email protected]!

 

 

Mike, I think I know where you are located, why crawl through broken glass to vote in a state that is almost certainly a lock for one candidate?  I could understand a swing state, but why take part in a process that we recognize as evil when the outcome is in all likelihood predetermined?

[algernon]

For the anarchist who think that *this* election is different, and Trump stands a chance of changing the system in a meaningful way in order to buy more time for us to change people's mind over to the freedom loving anarchist side, what empirical evidence do you have of that being possible?

 

I'd like to see examples in recent history of any politician shrinking the size of the state.

 

In my opinion, voting is giving your tacit approval of the system, and if everyone stopped voting the system would be recognized as corrupt.

[dsayers]

I listened to what you said, and I'll vote for Trump. Not because Trump is a maybe (he is), not because I have faith in voting or government (I have absolutely none). But you made a very good case and if nothing else I'll donate my otherwise worthless vote to you and Stef for all the good you have done.

This is the problem with viewing people as teams, whether it's the local school football team, nations, etc: Is that you risk missing the bad that comes from your team and the good that comes from the other. One of the things I enjoy about my tribe being rational thinkers is that usually, they will challenge me when I'm wrong and are open and appreciative of being challenged when they're wrong.

 

It doesn't matter how much good somebody has done. You don't own me.

 

Good point about if he were such a power hungry sociopath, why did he wait until 70 to run for president? His statement over the years that he didn't want to run, but would if he felt he had to, is consistent with his actions now running at the end of his life.

"Had to" is an absurdity in that it's just not possible to have to. The test for sociopathy does not include age. Whether one person is a sociopath or not has no bearing on the validity of self-ownership.

 

You don't own me and Trump can't own me.

 

Why are the pro-voters not addressing this point I wonder?

[Donnadogsoth]

"Had to" is an absurdity in that it's just not possible to have to. The test for sociopathy does not include age. Whether one person is a sociopath or not has no bearing on the validity of self-ownership.

 

You don't own me and Trump can't own me.

 

Why are the pro-voters not addressing this point I wonder?

 

Pro-vo here, I already addressed it; you ignored me.

 

"Had to," like all statements of morality, is IF/THEN.  IF Trump wants to see the country saved, THEN he should run for President.

 

IF you want to see Hillary "own you" THEN you should stay home on your self-satisfied anarchist butt on November 8th.

[algernon]

IF you want to see Hillary "own you" THEN you should stay home on your self-satisfied anarchist butt on November 8th.

 

Ownership is a mindset - "He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark mustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

 

own·er·ship

ˈōnərˌSHip/

noun

noun: ownership; plural noun: ownerships

the act, state, or right of possessing something.

 

If you play the game, you win or you lose, either way you're apart of their game. You may have to live in the corrupt casino, but you certainly don't have to play their rigged games.

 

I do find it interesting how the rep system here works, you up/down vote based on if you agree with someone? I must have been doing it wrong all this time.

[Tyler H]

23 minutes in and great so far! Good point about if he were such a power hungry sociopath, why did he wait until 70 to run for president? His statement over the years that he didn't want to run, but would if he felt he had to, is consistent with his actions now running at the end of his life.

 

Loving it!

I actually wasn't convinced by this statement; he never would have been able to win before now. Trump's successful candidacy is a product of the right being buttf*cked by their representatives for so long. He recognized the opportunity and jumped on it.

I do find it interesting how the rep system here works, you up/down vote based on if you agree with someone? I must have been doing it wrong all this time.

 

Yeah, it's often absent any explanation or justification as well, which shows they aren't interested in helping you out of error, they just didn't like what you said. It reminds me of censorious SJWs screaming away facts.

 

IF you want to see Hillary "own you" THEN you should stay home on your self-satisfied anarchist butt on November 8th.

 

I down voted this because calling someone self-satisfied without evidence for making principled arguments and having integrity to follow through on those conclusions through action (or inaction) is either an attempt to make them self attack or level them in the eyes of whoever you think that's going to impress and should be discouraged in this community. We are here to search for truth and help each other through error, not denigrate and level each other to win arguments or feel morally superior.

[Gavitor]

Thanks for posting this. I had forgotten about Spooner's arguments.  I keep going back and forth on the validity of self defense in regards to voting.  I think this ambivalence is the source of my opposition to the position taken by some on the boards.  I think the arguments Spooner makes are cogent, but I can't shake the idea that voting in self defense is more like throwing a grenade into a crowd of people containing some bad actors and less like rudimentary forms of self defense where the victim is obvious and the aggressor is known.  Whether you save yourself is unknown; whether you hurt innocents or assailants is unknown.  There are too many variables to make a principled decision.  We know that the institution of majority rule by force is immoral, so why participate in it unless you have a reasonable expectation of actually protecting yourself?  Conversely, I will concede this current election cycle could qualify as such an occasion for many people.

 

 

I think this is less about self defense and more about throwing a wrench in their machine and hoping it slows it down.

 

For the anarchist who think that *this* election is different, and Trump stands a chance of changing the system in a meaningful way in order to buy more time for us to change people's mind over to the freedom loving anarchist side, what empirical evidence do you have of that being possible?

 

I'd like to see examples in recent history of any politician shrinking the size of the state.

 

In my opinion, voting is giving your tacit approval of the system, and if everyone stopped voting the system would be recognized as corrupt.

 

He pointed out that Trump is different from politicians , he even lists specific examples of how hes different and that's why at best hes a maybe.

 

He doesn't think trump will shrink the state as so much hopes he will slow its growth.

 

In my opinion voting is irrelevant however I see no harm in trying it if there's even the slightest chance for benefit. You miss all the shots you don't take after all. And Mike has pointed out why there is at least some chance.

 

This is the problem with viewing people as teams, whether it's the local school football team, nations, etc: Is that you risk missing the bad that comes from your team and the good that comes from the other. One of the things I enjoy about my tribe being rational thinkers is that usually, they will challenge me when I'm wrong and are open and appreciative of being challenged when they're wrong.

 

It doesn't matter how much good somebody has done. You don't own me.

 

"Had to" is an absurdity in that it's just not possible to have to. The test for sociopathy does not include age. Whether one person is a sociopath or not has no bearing on the validity of self-ownership.

 

You don't own me and Trump can't own me.

 

Why are the pro-voters not addressing this point I wonder?

 

When did I ever say I own you? If you dont think that it's legitimate than why does it matter to you whether people vote or not in a system that is largely nonsense to begin with?

 

We did challenge him and he made a good point. This isn't so much about supporting the state and is more about taking a chance when a small opportunity has presented itself. As Stef has pointed out if nothing else trumps presence has caused people to doubt the mainstream information they receive more so than ever before. This benefits us greatly as it opens people up to thinking because now they can't just take everything they hear on tv at face value.

 

Just to be clear, I see NO VALUE WHATSOEVER in voting! Since my vote has no value to me and Mike does see value in it because he wants to take a chance (and hes given his reasons why), I see no harm in giving him something that has no value to me. Me voting is basically giving Mike a second vote.

 

I think the outcome is the same regardless so I see no harm in giving him that. Hence why I asked what the plan is when the inevitable comes.

 

As far as owning you, you can tell everyone they don't own you all day. I never asserted that I did nor did I state I was giving anyone else permission to. If you own yourself you are always free to resist those who claim ownership over you. You think that by voting we are legitimizing the state, the thing you ignore is that the state was legitimized by its millions of supporters (people who actually argue for it) long before we were ever born. We push back against them by making reasoned arguments for why it shouldn't exist in the first place. Voting in and of itself is completely irrelevant to that fact.

 

Like I said earlier, if in their arrogance they have opened themselves up to letting us throw a wrench in the gears why not give it a go? Worst case scenario its a miss and best case we stall it, So why not use the opportunity? If your vote has no value then what is the harm in gambling with monopoly money?

[Gavitor]

I didn't say "at best Trump is a maybe" just to be clear - what I said can be summarized as at worst Trump is a maybe - unlike any major politician in modern history.

 

I also never said that I don't think Trump will shrink the side of the state, but Stefan pointed out that worst case it wouldn't grow to the degree it would under Clinton.

 

I do think Trump would drastically shrink the size of the state in various sectors and removing a big chunk of illegal immigrants from the welfare rolls would be a big start.

 

Thanks for the kind words and feedback!

The "at best Trump is a maybe" was me speaking, sorry for the misunderstanding. It's still always good to be clear, thanks for doing so.

 

Also I apologize for my mistake on your thoughts.

[Donnadogsoth]

I already referred to the false principle (self ownership), and do not recommend sacrificing the country for the sake of false principles.

[dsayers]

When did I ever say I own you? If you dont think that it's legitimate than why does it matter to you whether people vote or not in a system that is largely nonsense to begin with?

 

We did challenge him and he made a good point. This isn't so much about supporting the state and is more about taking a chance when a small opportunity has presented itself. As Stef has pointed out if nothing else trumps presence has caused people to doubt the mainstream information they receive more so than ever before. This benefits us greatly as it opens people up to thinking because now they can't just take everything they hear on tv at face value.

 

Just to be clear, I see NO VALUE WHATSOEVER in voting! Since my vote has no value to me and Mike does see value in it because he wants to take a chance (and hes given his reasons why), I see no harm in giving him something that has no value to me. Me voting is basically giving Mike a second vote.

 

I think the outcome is the same regardless so I see no harm in giving him that. Hence why I asked what the plan is when the inevitable comes.

 

As far as owning you, you can tell everyone they don't own you all day. I never asserted that I did nor did I state I was giving anyone else permission to. If you own yourself you are always free to resist those who claim ownership over you. You think that by voting we are legitimizing the state, the thing you ignore is that the state was legitimized by its millions of supporters (people who actually argue for it) long before we were ever born. We push back against them by making reasoned arguments for why it shouldn't exist in the first place. Voting in and of itself is completely irrelevant to that fact.

 

Like I said earlier, if in their arrogance they have opened themselves up to letting us throw a wrench in the gears why not give it a go? Worst case scenario its a miss and best case we stall it, So why not use the opportunity? If your vote has no value then what is the harm in gambling with monopoly money?

This was all covered in the article.

[RichardY]

I'm not entirely sure how Government can own you, as most Anarchists seem to say Government does not exist, Parliament or Congress is just a building etc. Maybe Hillary Clinton could own me or you, be decked out in black leather in a sadomasochistic kind of way. Trump though seems more interested in "owning" "Miss Universe" or at least retaining ownership, but who knows maybe in the middle of the night as President he wakes up and decides to "Press the Button!!!!", besides he sometimes wears a baseball construction cap like the President on The Deadzone. Hillary on the other hand hey no problem The Middle East was "probably" pretty shitty anyway, now after most semblances of civilization have now been blown away on her watch I'm sure she'll "Fix it" now. "I'm with her" (Not really) "Yes we can".

 

Could be renting my soul from God I guess, some direct terms from the man might be nice though. I do feel though that kind of like off the movie Armageddon there is some Truth in Anarchists sitting on their butts "its time to embrace the horror", force does seem to obliterate truth.