Propaganda and Political Voting

[dsayers]

https://steemit.com/anarchism/@dsayers/propaganda-and-political-voting

 

When my father got hitched to my mother, he married into a stereotypical redneck family. Drunk, violent, family beaters mostly. He inflicted the conclusion upon me that drunks try to get other people to drink with them. Though he didn't share his methodology with me, I think he was right. Humans are a social species. It is comforting to know we are not alone in our addictions, our underlying abusive pasts, the dysfunctional world we live in... and our delusions.

 

Humans are universality machines. Even in the womb, we find ourselves in an unfamiliar place, with the biological imperative to survive, thrive, and multiply. It is paramount then that we be able to accurately identify items in our environment. Mistake a grizzly bear for a teddy bear and chances are your lack of discernment will not survive natural selection. Part of this is learning the ways in which our environments are static. Everybody fell down when learning to walk. Imagine instead that we lived in a world where gravity could fluctuate. Things that we take for granted such as balance might not be possible to master. Because of the consistency of gravity, that is one less thing our senses do not have to account for while providing for our survival moving forward.

 

Occam's Razor declares that the explanation that requires the least amount of assumptions is usually the more accurate explanation. While not a proof, this tends to bear out. Since I've learned to process the trauma of my past and start to think rationally, I've often found it's easy to see through the obfuscation by looking for the contradictions and double-standards. This is something that plagues so many people because almost all of it is inflicted on children as early as possible, in an attempt to override their natural scrutiny and drive for universalization of ideas.

 

Ever wonder why you've never seen a bumper sticker that asserts that 2+2=4? Such a thing is not necessary because we learn this is true from a very early age. Imagine there was somebody who needed for you to believe that 2+2=5. Simply claiming as much would not be sufficient. They would need a great deal of propaganda to successfully convince anybody of such a thing, let alone large swaths of the population. Propaganda that is rooted in ideas such as improving your life or avoiding harm. We've all seen bumper stickers that say things like "Jesus saves" or "Support Our Troops." Again, while not a proof, the amount of times such things need to be repeated suggests they are not accurate and/or cannot survive without being repeated ad infinitum.

 

Consider political voting now. It is neither normal nor rational for people to wander about, wondering how they can go about achieving their goals with a ruler interfering and telling them what to do. Yet if you look around, you will even find people on the other side of the globe thinking about United States political candidates. There is much propaganda abound, such as "Vote or Die!" and "If you don't vote, you're voting..." or my least favorite: "I'm voting for X to avoid Y." The sheer scale by which this is repeated should be enough to give anybody pause. "Why is it so important to other people that voting be engaged in and legitimized?" I often wonder.

 

I expect it is because as social creatures, we do not want to feel alone in our delusions. It's easier to sacrifice a child to the volcano when all your neighbors pretend it's okay too. For if you were to protest, you might me the next person tossed into your demise. Nobody who intends to vote or would tell you to vote has any reason to suspect that by doing so, they will be making any changes in their own life. In fact, I would argue they spend so much time and energy on such things for the express purpose of avoiding taking on the responsibility to apply their energies to things they actually have control over, such as improving themselves.

[Wuzzums]

Why is convincing a group mainly formed of anarchists and libertarians (from all over the world) not to vote in this particular US election so important to you?

[rosencrantz]

You only have the possiblity to work on yourself because you live in a predominantly white society. If that composition changes the insights you have won don't account for much. That's what this election is about. 

[Tyler H]

You only have the possiblity to work on yourself because you live in a predominantly white society.

 

I think it's far less to do with race and more to do with IQ. The freedoms the west once enjoyed allowed the natural consequences of individuals' decisions to accrue to those individuals. The initiation of force flipped the script and created the current idiocracy. Dividing IQ by race is an arbitrary distinction that will only serve to enrage those who do not have the intellectual capacity or necessary information to understand what you are talking about.

 

 

Why is convincing a group mainly formed of anarchists and libertarians (from all over the world) not to vote in this particular US election so important to you?

Misallocation of resources, sending the wrong message about the efficacy of political action, reinforcing hero-worship, (for some) substituting difficult conversations in your personal life with a stroll to the polling station and an anonymous tally.

 

 

 

This isn't directed at anyone, but for me, personally, it's incredibly discouraging to see a bunch of people who agree the state is evil getting hard-ons over a candidate who will undoubtedly do evil, even if it is less evil than the alternative. Think Trump will do less harm than Hillary? Cool, no argument there, but don't act like he's the second f*ckin' coming.

[algernon]

I had a thought when I saw a bumper sticker or maybe it was a sign... "I support Trump". That makes logical sense for most people to say, those invested in the system, they support Trump or they support Hillary, because they believe in and support the State.

 

That leads me to my thought, someone who recognizes the state as evil and immoral - would they vote for someone and say they don't support them? "I voted for Trump, but I don't support Trump". That doesn't make logical sense, I think if you vote for someone you have to support them, that is after all what your vote is doing, showing your support and hoping your vote somehow actually counts in a meaningful way to bring that person into "authority".

 

"I support Trump", therefore "I support the state". Your not voting for him to win a reality TV show, or open a new business, the vote is specifically to help him join the ranks of The State.

 

The argument could be made that someone like Trump has the potential to do a lot of good, help a lot of people, slow down the destruction of the country. Couldn't that same argument be made I could help a lot of people if I went and stole 10% of Trump's wealth and distributed it to the needy? I could make a huge, meaningful impact in the lives of many many people, all the while "barely" harming anyone else.

[RichardY]

Why be interested in the "political process"? Entertainment, pure blood sport, it is blood that be demanded and it is blood that shall be paid. To most Anarchists it is disgusting, something that should not happen.

 

Who's going to or willing to bleed the most or make others bleed? Who knows. Trump by far seems unwilling to be any less of a man than he is, by far the most able to endure, despite a clearly stacked deck and age. So its thumbs up from me.  "Hail Emperor those who are about to die Salut you!".

 

Strategically though one person voting, not going to make much difference, though if Clinton wins, Hello "Syrian Refugees",  the Internet probably more controlled. Maybe if there was some kind of coordinated effort to persuade people of having less to ideally no imposed force on voluntary adult transactions things might change for the better, plus the peaceful parenting. Though the Nietzschean self improvement thing sounds like it could be equally interesting for a while.

[dsayers]

I like your post, algernon. I'm also glad that you brought focus to the word support. It's another one of the things I've been thinking alot about lately. It's another one of those words that have been bastardized. Kind of like how taxation is supposedly fair and righteous, even to people who grasp that theft is not. Most people, when they use the word support, mean that they agree with or worse, follow. The former is passive, while the other unthinking. Whereas support sounds calculated and active. I digress.

 

Why is convincing a group mainly formed of anarchists and libertarians (from all over the world) not to vote in this particular US election so important to you?

1) This does not address the topic of propaganda.

2) Why are my efforts to encourage my brothers and sisters to think and/or live consistently in accordance with their stated goals important to you? (tu quoque)

3) You poison the well when you say anarchist and libertarian. Political voting is incompatible with both of these ideas, so it matters not if people who would engage in political voting would/could otherwise be described with these labels.

4) Voting is a decision, not voting is the origin. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with those who would deliberately deviate from the origin. They would need to make the case. I've even been so kind as to offer, in several places, multiple null hypotheses. Such as demonstrating that somebody else can own me, that a vote makes a difference, that who sits on the throne impacts our lives relative to other throne-sitters, that validating the throne encroaches freedom, and that pretending something that is imaginary is real does not suggest that it is real. I have yet to see anybody tackle any of these. I have yet to see them even try

[Gavitor]

Another thread on basically the same subject? Regardless I made some points in the other thread that you haven't responded to. I'd like to hear your thoughts. (if you did respond and are awaiting approval then disregard the comment about not responding.)

Dividing IQ by race is an arbitrary distinction that will only serve to enrage those who do not have the intellectual capacity or necessary information to understand what you are talking about.



Think Trump will do less harm than Hillary? Cool, no argument there.

How is dividing IQ by race an arbitrary distinction?

 

Some people think he could do good, do you think no possible good could come from trump becoming president? If so could you share why you think that's the case?

[Wuzzums]

Misallocation of resources, sending the wrong message about the efficacy of political action, reinforcing hero-worship, (for some) substituting difficult conversations in your personal life with a stroll to the polling station and an anonymous tally.

 

 

 

This isn't directed at anyone, but for me, personally, it's incredibly discouraging to see a bunch of people who agree the state is evil getting hard-ons over a candidate who will undoubtedly do evil, even if it is less evil than the alternative. Think Trump will do less harm than Hillary? Cool, no argument there, but don't act like he's the second f*ckin' coming.

 

And where exactly should I allocate my resources to better the world?

[rosencrantz]

I think it's far less to do with race and more to do with IQ. The freedoms the west once enjoyed allowed the natural consequences of individuals' decisions to accrue to those individuals.

 

Cold climate selected for a high IQ. Which is why Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Slavs, Europeans have a higher IQ compared to the rest of the world. Manorialism selected for a nuclear family, individualism, and outgroup orientation which is why the concept of freedom could take hold in Western Europe and not in China, Japan, Korea or Eastern Europe. 

[Wuzzums]

3) You poison the well when you say anarchist and libertarian. Political voting is incompatible with both of these ideas, so it matters not if people who would engage in political voting would/could otherwise be described with these labels.

 

Let me rephrase my question:

 

Why are you, an atheist, preaching to a room of atheists that god does not exist therefore they shouldn't go to christmas parties?

Why are you, an anarchist/libertarian, so bothered with what other people do with their lives?

[dsayers]

Let me rephrase my question:

 

Why are you, an atheist, preaching to a room of atheists that god does not exist therefore they shouldn't go to christmas parties?

Why are you, an anarchist/libertarian, so bothered with what other people do with their lives?

1) This does not address the topic of propaganda.

2) Why are my efforts to encourage my brothers and sisters to think and/or live consistently in accordance with their stated goals important to you? (tu quoque)

3) You poison the well when you say anarchist and libertarian. Political voting is incompatible with both of these ideas, so it matters not if people who would engage in political voting would/could otherwise be described with these labels.

4) Voting is a decision, not voting is the origin. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with those who would deliberately deviate from the origin. They would need to make the case. I've even been so kind as to offer, in several places, multiple null hypotheses. Such as demonstrating that somebody else can own me, that a vote makes a difference, that who sits on the throne impacts our lives relative to other throne-sitters, that validating the throne encroaches freedom, and that pretending something that is imaginary is real does not suggest that it is real. I have yet to see anybody tackle any of these. I have yet to see them even try

 

...since you put forth doubling down as acceptable discourse. Only my contributing shows how your question is 1) deflection, 2) manipulation, 3) disingenuous, 4) begging the question. AND I answered your question within that already, making your doubling down also reveal that you're not listening to that which you don't agree with (bias confirmation).

[powder]

Another thread on basically the same subject? Regardless I made some points in the other thread that you haven't responded to. I'd like to hear your thoughts. (if you did respond and are awaiting approval then disregard the comment about not responding.)

How is dividing IQ by race an arbitrary distinction?

 

Some people think he could do good, do you think no possible good could come from trump becoming president? If so could you share why you think that's the case?

anyone claiming they know what is good for other people is, well, usually running for office, or cheering for the one running that is going to give them what they want.  good is relative.  it is good for the thief and his family to steal.  the only thing that matters is what is right and wrong, that is why we have philosophy.  

[Wuzzums]

 

1) This does not address the topic of propaganda.

No shit. I'm not interested in talking about some other subject other than the one I started with you.

 

 

2) Why are my efforts to encourage my brothers and sisters to think and/or live consistently in accordance with their stated goals important to you? (tu quoque)

Because I am interested in the "why". I am bothered by you hiding your reasons behind rationale rather than coming out and saying how you honestly feel. Countless times I and many others here have explained to you why we support Trump yet you never addressed the reasons once. Nobody here is having a discussion on whether or not voting is immoral on a philosophical level, except for you. Guess what, taxation is equally immoral (if not more so). Where are all your posts and articles on how people paying taxes are fueling the oppressive system?

 

3) You poison the well when you say anarchist and libertarian. Political voting is incompatible with both of these ideas, so it matters not if people who would engage in political voting would/could otherwise be described with these labels.

 

I am not going to have a discussion with you on what labels apply to what. I was merely using those terms as generalization. Also see the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

 

 

4) Voting is a decision, not voting is the origin. Therefore, the burden of proof lies with those who would deliberately deviate from the origin. They would need to make the case. I've even been so kind as to offer, in several places, multiple null hypotheses. Such as demonstrating that somebody else can own me, that a vote makes a difference, that who sits on the throne impacts our lives relative to other throne-sitters, that validating the throne encroaches freedom, and that pretending something that is imaginary is real does not suggest that it is real. I have yet to see anybody tackle any of these. I have yet to see them even try

 

Intellectual babble on a discourse nobody is having except you. I'll humor you, though.

Yes, people can own you, once you have initiated force and taken a life you relinquished self ownership of yourself and are subject to the whims of others (see UPB).

Yes, a vote makes a difference. Back in my university years there had to be at some point some administrative changes, 101 people turned up to vote. It was a 50/50 tie so they decided to redo the vote. I was the 101st guy and didn't cast a vote in the first round. Whether or not voting makes a difference IN POLITICS is debatable, in the free market it's the only thing that matters.

The United States are not imaginary, they might not exist as a tangible object but they are not imaginary. The fact that I know god is imaginary does not enable me to walk through church walls or make me impervious to decapitations, praise Allah.

 

Did it ever occur to you that people don't "try" to tackle your points because you're exhibiting the same behavior when they bring up their arguments? Speaking only for myself, of course.

[powder]

that's a good post Wuzzums

[Gavitor]

anyone claiming they know what is good for other people is, well, usually running for office, or cheering for the one running that is going to give them what they want.  good is relative.  it is good for the thief and his family to steal.  the only thing that matters is what is right and wrong, that is why we have philosophy.  

 

I said

 

 

Some people think he could do good

 

Where did i say anything about knowing what is good for others?

 

People think that charities can do good, is it wrong for them to support said charities?

 

You said

 

 

 the only thing that matters is what is right and wrong, that is why we have philosophy.

In what sense? Morally?

 

 

Guess what, taxation is equally immoral (if not more so). Where are all your posts and articles on how people paying taxes are fueling the oppressive system?

 

I brought this up in the other thread and no one has addressed it.

[dsayers]

I am bothered by you hiding your reasons

I didn't read beyond this poisoning of the well. I have answered your question twice.

 

The irony here is that both you and Gavitor are expressing the exact curiosity the article is meant to invoke. Why not point that scrutiny at all the people the world over who won't shutup about how useful and necessary voting is? Why pretend to ask one voice providing a counterpoint? Bias confirmation?

[Tyler H]

How is dividing IQ by race an arbitrary distinction?

 

Cold climate selected for a high IQ. Which is why Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, Slavs, Europeans have a higher IQ compared to the rest of the world. Manorialism selected for a nuclear family, individualism, and outgroup orientation which is why the concept of freedom could take hold in Western Europe and not in China, Japan, Korea or Eastern Europe. 

I retract this statement and apologize.  I'm still mulling over some concepts in my head but I believe you guys are right and I am wrong; it's not an arbitrary distinction since so much of IQ appears to be driven by evolutionary factors effecting the races differently.

 

 

 

Some people think he could do good, do you think no possible good could come from trump becoming president? If so could you share why you think that's the case?

 

No possible good? I think that claim would be terribly difficult to back up.  I think he will do some good, in fact I think he will be a pretty good president (by statist standards), however I am forever skeptical of government power and the use of violence to solve social problems even when the intention is good.  We have no way of knowing what he will do with presidential power once he attains it, and even of the things that appear "good" we may not realize the unseen costs until much later.  

 

 

And where exactly should I allocate my resources to better the world?

 

Wherever you choose, as long as you don't impose your will on others by force.  Even in a free market people will argue over the correct allocation of resources and mistakes will be made, but no one will be able to force their opinions and the misallocation will not be exacerbated and hidden by government violence.  You asked why we care to speak out about this topic and those were some of my reasons/opinions.  

[Tyler H]

People think that charities can do good, is it wrong for them to support said charities?  

Charities don't use force, if they did they would be called welfare.  

 

 

I brought this up in the other thread and no one has addressed it.

 

There is disagreement here on the board but I argue that taxation is different than voting because there is an outlined and known risk of evading taxes, on the contrary no one forces you to vote.  I don't think unknown consequences of the opposing politician's policies is equal to going to jail for not paying taxes, especially when the effect your vote has is so inconsequential.

Also I believe you're right that taxation is more immoral because the agent of evil is forcing someone who holds morality as a value to participate in immorality or face persecution.  More immoral for the tax collector, not the victim.  This is what makes voting so muddy, you can claim self defense if the politician is going to lower your tax burden, but at what cost? His other policies may include the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.  That's why I equate voting as self defense to using a hand grenade in a crowd of people.  Maybe I should refine it to a crowd of people in the dark where you can hear some gunshots and you just lob a grenade in that direction.  

 

The gun of the state is a fickle bitch that often goes off in your face.

[jpahmad]

 I don't think unknown consequences of the opposing politician's policies is equal to going to jail for not paying taxes, especially when the effect your vote has is so inconsequential.

 That's why I equate voting as self defense to using a hand grenade in a crowd of people.

 

On the one hand a politicians actions have unknown consequences.  On the other hand voting for a politician, thus enabling him to act, has very real consequences (exploding a grenade in a crown of people).  There seems to be a contradiction here.

Either the consequences of political action are unknown, or the consequences are bad (exploding grenades).  Which one?

[Tyler H]

On the one hand a politicians actions have unknown consequences.  On the other hand voting for a politician, thus enabling him to act, has very real consequences (exploding a grenade in a crown of people).  There seems to be a contradiction here.

Either the consequences of political action are unknown, or the consequences are bad (exploding grenades).  Which one?

Unknown negative* consequences, sorry.  It's an important distinction, thank you for pointing it out.  Do we agree that problems solved through the initiation of force almost always have unforeseen negative consequences?

Or perhaps foreseen, but almost always negative in the long run.....

[Gavitor]

Charities don't use force, if they did they would be called welfare.  

 

 

 

There is disagreement here on the board but I argue that taxation is different than voting because there is an outlined and known risk of evading taxes, on the contrary no one forces you to vote.  I don't think unknown consequences of the opposing politician's policies is equal to going to jail for not paying taxes, especially when the effect your vote has is so inconsequential.

Also I believe you're right that taxation is more immoral because the agent of evil is forcing someone who holds morality as a value to participate in immorality or face persecution.  More immoral for the tax collector, not the victim.  This is what makes voting so muddy, you can claim self defense if the politician is going to lower your tax burden, but at what cost? His other policies may include the murder of hundreds of thousands of people.  That's why I equate voting as self defense to using a hand grenade in a crowd of people.  Maybe I should refine it to a crowd of people in the dark where you can hear some gunshots and you just lob a grenade in that direction.  

 

The gun of the state is a fickle bitch that often goes off in your face.

Whether you're being forced to do something or not doesn't change the fact that the gun is pointed at you and you are participating regardless. You can opt out of eating food given to you by a captor but I don't think anyone would hold it against you for eating said food. Whether you vote or not is entirely up to you, I won't hold it against you regardless of what you choose. I do think Mike made a good case for why you should take the chance.

 

The grenade is gonna get thrown at the crowd regardless, if there was a chance that you could change its trajectory would you not take that chance?

 

The negative consequences are the standard... so technically you have nothing to lose. Its like getting a coupon/voucher at a casino, worst case scenario you leave with nothing which is what you started with and were gonna have. However there is the chance you could leave with some money, why wouldn't you take that chance when there is no downside to doing so?

 

And just to be clear, if you don't want to take that chance for any reason I fully support your right to do so. I just personally see no reason not to.

 

 

Do we agree that problems solved through the initiation of force almost always have unforeseen negative consequences?

 

Yes. However if you know that negative consequences are gonna happen regardless why wouldn't you take a chance if there is even the slightest possibility for a positive consequence?

[jpahmad]

 Do we agree that problems solved through the initiation of force almost always have unforeseen negative consequences?

 

 

In a causal universe, doesn't every action have both negative and positive consequences?  Furthermore, what's negative for one person could be positive for another.  I'm not trying to annoying, but I thought I would just point that out.  Otherwise, yeah, I would say that the principals of not stealing or murdering evolved for the purpose of limiting social problems and enabling the species to flourish.

[dsayers]

Whether you're being forced to do something or not doesn't change the fact that the gun is pointed at you

The fact that a gun is NOT being pointed at you changes the fact of whether it is forced or not. You cannot claim that a gun is being pointed at somebody if it is legal to not vote.

 

You can opt out of eating food given to you by a captor but I don't think anyone would hold it against you for eating said food.

Voting isn't self-nourishment.

 

The grenade is gonna get thrown at the crowd regardless, if there was a chance that you could change its trajectory would you not take that chance?

NO! Getting involved makes you culpable in your analogy. You cannot control the destruction, therefore you are deliberately harming innocents.

 

The negative consequences are the standard... so technically you have nothing to lose.

Except your ties to reality, your own personal freedom inside your own head, clean hands in not trying to control other people...

 

Its like getting a coupon/voucher at a casino, worst case scenario you leave with nothing which is what you started with and were gonna have.

Except that your coupon/voucher has no bearing on anybody but you.

 

However there is the chance you could leave with some money, why wouldn't you take that chance when there is no downside to doing so?

There is not a chance you're going to leave with any gain other than the BELIEF that you've done SOMETHING. It's akin to praying except that praying doesn't implicate other people.

 

This was some very far-reaching sophistry that only references ideas that sound good on paper, but have been soundly refuted already. There is a reason you're reaching for analogies that don't fit instead of addressing real arguments. You don't own me. It's being repeated because you claim to accept that while continuing to speak and behave as if you don't.

[Gavitor]

The fact that a gun is NOT being pointed at you changes the fact of whether it is forced or not. You cannot claim that a gun is being pointed at somebody if it is legal to not vote.

 

Sure I can, because as long as you live in a statist society the gun is ALWAYS being pointed at you. Legality is irrelevant, they can change that on a whim and often do.

 

 

 

NO! Getting involved makes you culpable in your analogy. You cannot control the destruction, therefore you are deliberately harming innocents.

 

Except your ties to reality, your own personal freedom inside your own head, clean hands in not trying to control other people...

There is not a chance you're going to leave with any gain other than the BELIEF that you've done SOMETHING. It's akin to praying except that praying doesn't implicate other people.

 

 

If something is beyond my control then what does it matter if I get involved or not? If there is a chance to change the outcome why not take it if the outcome is already going to be negative regardless? That's literally saying that I'm responsible for the planet being destroyed by trying to stop the meteor that's gonna hit.

 

Now in the second 2 sentences you say that my actions are ineffective and akin to praying, if that's the case what difference does it make?

 

Either voting is effective or ineffective. It cant be both at the same time. So which it is? If its ineffective you are literally arguing with people to not do something that affects no one.

[dsayers]

Sure I can, because as long as you live in a statist society the gun is ALWAYS being pointed at you.

I can't tell if you're being obtuse or if context is actually lost on you. You seem to dispense with it both when making analogies that don't fit and taking analogies that do fit and focusing on ways that they don't.

 

If the gun is always being pointed at you, can you just go and rape somebody and say you were forced to do it? No, because the gun pointed at you wasn't being held by somebody saying go rape or I'll hurt you. The gun IS being pointed at you by somebody saying pay your protection money or I'll hurt you. The gun is NOT being pointed at you by somebody telling you to vote or they will hurt you.

 

I make this point for the benefit of others that get tripped up by this. I have no interest spending more time engaging in somebody who consistently demonstrates that they are output only and only feign curiosity.

[Wuzzums]

Wherever you choose, as long as you don't impose your will on others by force.  Even in a free market people will argue over the correct allocation of resources and mistakes will be made, but no one will be able to force their opinions and the misallocation will not be exacerbated and hidden by government violence.  You asked why we care to speak out about this topic and those were some of my reasons/opinions.  

 

So I shouldn't vote, i.e. force my will onto others (your words), but I should let others force their will onto me.

You are delusional.

I cannot hold my behavior to a higher moral standard than the behavior of others towards me.

I recommend you read UPB by Stefan Molyneux, it's free. 

[Tyler H]

So I shouldn't vote, i.e. force my will onto others (your words), but I should let others force their will onto me.

You are delusional.

I cannot hold my behavior to a higher moral standard than the behavior of others towards me.

I recommend you read UPB by Stefan Molyneux, it's free.

 

What I said about not using force was only in reference to the freedom of your choice in regards to where you allocate your resources, nothing else.

 

Resorting to ad-hominem attacks and sarcasm only speaks to your emotional attachment to this issue. This is no longer a debate.

[Wuzzums]

This is no longer a debate.

 

I declare myself the winner, then.

Praise Allah.

[Gavitor]

If the gun is always being pointed at you, can you just go and rape somebody and say you were forced to do it? No, because the gun pointed at you wasn't being held by somebody saying go rape or I'll hurt you. The gun IS being pointed at you by somebody saying pay your protection money or I'll hurt you. The gun is NOT being pointed at you by somebody telling you to vote or they will hurt you.

 

I make this point for the benefit of others that get tripped up by this. I have no interest spending more time engaging in somebody who consistently demonstrates that they are output only and only feign curiosity.

 

Are you equating voting with rape? Are you saying that voting is effective? Because rape certainly is effective.

 

You point out that the gun IS being pointed at me for protection money so you understood exactly the context in which I made the comment and supported the point I made about the gun always being pointed at me. Go back and read my original statement on this , actually I'll make it easy for you

 

 

Whether you're being forced to do something or not doesn't change the fact that the gun is pointed at you

Thanks for proving my point.

 

You refused to answer my question on whether you think voting is effective or ineffective. Why?

 

I ask because you are contradicting yourself when you say it is both effective and ineffective at the same time.

 

You cannot say that it affects other people or gives people permission or legitimizes actions and then turn around and say that its like praying which is completely ineffective.

 

My stance on voting has NOT changed... I said

 

 

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.

 

I literally point out that I have NO FAITH in voting (ie its ineffective) and this is why I don't give 1 fifth of a half eaten shit whether someone votes or not. I sure as hell have no control over the people who call themselves government. But if someone wants to try I say go right ahead.

 

I've been consistent with this the whole time and you are literally preaching to the quire... Why you feel the need to tell an atheist not to pray is beyond me. Getting upset at someone who shouts at the sky in an attempt to make it rain is equally silly.

 

They dont care who votes or not, they are gonna do what they want to regardless. You are nothing more than a number to them and its not like they sit down and go " oh look Henry is ok with x". Like they need your permission in the first place.

 

Other people don't even know if you voted or not so saying that by voting we give them legitimacy is asinine. People think the state is legitimate whether you vote or not. I would argue that they are incorrect but that's besides the point.

 

Also people are more concerned with whether or not you pay taxes than voting. This is evidenced by their continuous focus on Trumps tax records...

 

And speaking of Trump, someone asked what makes him different from every other president. Well to my knowledge no other president has been able to divide anarchists.

 

People have lost boyfriends/girlfriends, friends, family, and pets over this guy and even anarchists are arguing among themselves over him.

 

I find it extremely humorous that people argue about voting and talk about wasted resources and energy when it would be far more efficient to simply let them vote and focus our efforts on ways to actually make progress in removing the state from our lives.

[Tyler H]

Whether you're being forced to do something or not doesn't change the fact that the gun is pointed at you and you are participating regardless. 

If there is a gun pointed at you then everything you do is forced, so I'm not sure what you mean here.  If you mean that because we live in a general state of coercion that everything we do is at the point of a gun I have to disagree.  We are forced to pay taxes and we are forced to obey arbitrary laws, but for the most part we are free to make many choices in our lives.  

 

 You can opt out of eating food given to you by a captor but I don't think anyone would hold it against you for eating said food. Whether you vote or not is entirely up to you, I won't hold it against you regardless of what you choose. 

 

You can't equate eating with voting, food is necessary for survival, voting (currently) is not.  

 

 

I do think Mike made a good case for why you should take the chance.

 

I don't.  Is Trump unprecedented? Yes. Is there a good possibility Trump will be a completely different kind of president? Sure.  What does this have to do with the efficacy and morality of voting?  Nothing.  

 

The state is immoral, and the idea that a majority can enforce it's will on the minority is immoral.  So we know that voting is immoral, but, as victims of the state, voting in self defense can be argued.  So while self defense can be arguably justified, the question for me remains - why take part in an immoral system when your vote will have practically no effect on the outcome?  If whether you vote or not will have no effect on who wins, then the only difference I see between voting and not voting is the fraction of responsibility taken on for the crimes of the official you help put into power (if he wins).  

 

 

The grenade is gonna get thrown at the crowd regardless, if there was a chance that you could change its trajectory would you not take that chance?

 

My point is that you don't know what trajectory is going to cause the most harm to malefactors and the least harm to innocents, and you may inadvertently achieve the opposite of your intention.  Not to mention (I hate this phrase but I'm unaware of another that conveys its colloquial meaning) that once the grenade is in the air wind gusts may alter the trajectory that negate any knowledge you thought you had of where it would land while retaining your culpability for throwing it.

 

 

The negative consequences are the standard... so technically you have nothing to lose. Its like getting a coupon/voucher at a casino, worst case scenario you leave with nothing which is what you started with and were gonna have. However there is the chance you could leave with some money, why wouldn't you take that chance when there is no downside to doing so?

 

The downside is my responsibility in the possible (and likely) growth in government power that has occurred no matter who has been president since the beginning of the republic and the harm that will undoubtedly occur no matter who is elected.

 

 

And just to be clear, if you don't want to take that chance for any reason I fully support your right to do so. I just personally see no reason not to.

 

I can't support your right to vote since I don't recognize the imposition of the will of the majority onto the minority as moral, but I do support your right (for lack of a better term) to self defense.  Conversely, I personally see no reason to vote given our moral position regarding the validity of the entire institution and the efficacy of voting to reduce government coercion and power.   

 

I argue against voting because if I'm right then there are moral implications for people in this community I want them to be aware of.  If I'm wrong nothing changes.  

[Tyler H]

I declare myself the winner, then.

Praise Allah.

[Wuzzums]

 

I declare myself the winner, then.

Praise Allah.

 

You know what's funny? You and dsayers are probably the only ones on this forum people can't have a conversation  with. I'm not sure yet if it's purposeful or myopic.

[dsayers]

You and dsayers are probably the only ones on this forum people can't have a conversation  with.

And by can't have a conversation with, you mean will not be swayed to agree with you without logic, reason, and evidence. Thank you for recognizing this about me. After my acceptance of my own capacity for error, it is my greatest strength. 8)

[Gavitor]

 

why take part in an immoral system when your vote will have practically no effect on the outcome?

 

Whether you take part or not really depends on whether you think its effective or not. If you think its ineffective (it appears you do, I do as well) then whether you vote or not is irrelevant and by the same token so is worrying about whether other people vote or not. It cannot be immoral to take an action that has no effect.

 

 

If whether you vote or not will have no effect on who wins, then the only difference I see between voting and not voting is the fraction of responsibility taken on for the crimes of the official you help put into power (if he wins).

 

This statement contradicts itself, you cannot say that it has no effect and that you are then somehow responsible for an effect that was never there.

 

 

The downside is my responsibility in the possible (and likely) growth in government power that has occurred no matter who has been president since the beginning of the republic and the harm that will undoubtedly occur no matter who is elected.

 

Why are you accepting responsibility for something you say is going to happen regardless? How can you be responsible for something you can't control? This makes no sense to me.

 

I can't support your right to vote since I don't recognize the imposition of the will of the majority onto the minority as moral, but I do support your right (for lack of a better term) to self defense.  Conversely, I personally see no reason to vote given our moral position regarding the validity of the entire institution and the efficacy of voting to reduce government coercion and power.   

 

I argue against voting because if I'm right then there are moral implications for people in this community I want them to be aware of.  If I'm wrong nothing changes.

 

Well that's fine because last I checked I'm certainly in the extreme minority. (being an anarchist and atheist)

 

So when dealing with people who don't play fair do you make it a point to always play fair?

 

Considering that government and the people who support it (which is easily 95%+) have no issue supporting the use of force against you for simply disagreeing, do you still think we should take the high road?

 

If you're right that voting ineffective (If I'm mistaken and you were talking about being right about something else then please correct me) than it cannot be immoral because ineffective actions can't be immoral. If you're wrong and it is effective than its a missed opportunity for a potential positive when the negative is already guaranteed.