The Case Against Political Voting

[Gavitor]

This was all covered in the article.

K from your article...

 

 

This raises the question: "If we have no reason to suspect our vote has any influence on the outcome, where is the harm?" Pascal's wager if you will. The very reason why I put as much effort as I do into trying to convince others not to vote is because there is very real harm done when one votes. It occurs first within the mind of the vote themselves. First of all, by participating in this game that was inflicted upon them, they are not resisting their enslavement, they are accepting it! Secondly, there is an opportunity cost associated with voting. I'm not referring to the time it takes to go to the polls and flip a switch. No, I'm talking about the time spent pretending to address a problem in a way that demonstrates that the voter doesn't even understand what the problem is.

 

For the most part I agree with this. However what are your thoughts on giving my vote away? What if someone was willing to pay me for my vote, would it be wrong to sell it if it's useless to me?

 

Saying that by participating you are not resisting your enslavement, isn't necessarily true. I can participate and be a hindrance to those who think they can enslave me. Participation does not necessarily mean I accept it. It's like knocking the pieces off a chess board, I'm technically participating but not in the way that's intended. And since I don't accept the rules I just do whatever I want while still "participating".

 

Not everyone votes to address a problem, people vote for any number of reasons. I can waste my time doing any number of things and normally I'd be doing anything other than voting. However If I give my vote away or sell it how is that any different to donating/selling my time?

 

 

What then is in fact the problem? As I see it, the lifeblood of the state is its perceived legitimacy.

 

I agree. However voting is completely irrelevant to this. people give the state perceived legitimacy by arguing for its existence, not by voting. Remember that not every government allows people to vote in the first place and yet those very governments are still perceived to be legitimate.

 

At the end of the day whether I vote or not will not change my stance on government being illegitimate and I will continue to argue against it.

 

 

Voting actively contributes to this perceived legitimacy, signaling to others that you find it to be a valid proposition.

 

I disagree, whether you vote or not doesn't change what people think or perceive. Most already accept it as valid whether you show up or not.

 

You do know that most people aren't swayed by reason and evidence right? Given that many won't change their mind either way, why worry bout what such people think in the first place?

[RichardY]

Is it even possible to make an argument for or against voting, is the whole issue just a case of strategy. Should probably get some person to change their name to "none of the above" might do quite well at elections. 

[labmath2]

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!

Is voting for Trump in line with your principles or are you doing it for the potential consequences?

 

By this reasoning (a focus on consequences), isn't every election important if you can determine that one candidate is worse than another?

[powder]

1. Yes.

2. I didn't make the "one is worse than the other" argument - I made arguments as to why Trump is different and unprecedented.

unprecedented compared to what?  There are many examples of leaders that were outside of the norm or status quo, usually didn't turn out so good.  That darn ring of power.  

[dsayers]

@Gavitor: You don't own me. This means your vote is imaginary. So you can't give it away. Pretending it's real (participating) does not resist your enslavement, it plays along with it. Pretending it's real is accepting that it is real in action. Pretending it's real doesn't hinder those that need you to believe it's real... You could literally go down your post and plug this in and it refutes every challenge you've offered.

[Gavitor]

@Gavitor: You don't own me. This means your vote is imaginary. So you can't give it away. Pretending it's real (participating) does not resist your enslavement, it plays along with it. Pretending it's real is accepting that it is real in action. Pretending it's real doesn't hinder those that need you to believe it's real... You could literally go down your post and plug this in and it refutes every challenge you've offered.

I was expecting better from you dsayers, I'm disappointed.

 

I already agreed i don't own you, so why are you repeating yourself?

 

Why can't I give my vote away? I can perform the action of voting regardless of what the vote is for. If someone wants me to perform said action and is willing to pay me to do so do you have a problem with that? If so why?

 

You say that playing along doesn't resist your enslavement, that's true. However by continuing to live in said society we have to play along anyways or the result is death. This means paying taxes and not resisting police. Those are also playing along, are you suggesting that people not do those either? Or have you found a way to deal with the gun in the room that I haven't been made aware of?

 

You also completely skipped over this

 

 

However voting is completely irrelevant to this. people give the state perceived legitimacy by arguing for its existence, not by voting. Remember that not every government allows people to vote in the first place and yet those very governments are still perceived to be legitimate.

 

Your statement doesn't refute or challenge this in any way.

[dsayers]

I was expecting better from you dsayers, I'm disappointed.

I didn't read beyond this appeal to insecurity. Maybe your energies could be better spent looking into why you think this passes for an argument, is a valid way to communicate with another human being, and how valid your position must not be if it requires you to approach communicating it by not approaching it at all.

[Gavitor]

I didn't read beyond this appeal to insecurity. Maybe your energies could be better spent looking into why you think this passes for an argument, is a valid way to communicate with another human being, and how valid your position must not be if it requires you to approach communicating it by not approaching it at all.

 

Yea in hindsight I shouldn't have made that comment. I apologize.

[labmath2]

1. Yes.

2. I didn't make the "one is worse than the other" argument - I made arguments as to why Trump is different and unprecedented.

Yes its based on principles or yes its based on cosequences?

[eggmunkee]

Yes its based on principles or yes its based on cosequences?

 

Usually when someone answers singularly to a either-or they are indicating that both are true or false, so his decision would be both based on principles and on consequences.