Back to find things have gone from anarchy and peace to Trump?

[algernon]

.

If voting doesn't work how/why did brexit happen? Why is Trump competing with Hilary rather than any other republican that the powers that be would much prefer?

 

 

 

 

How do you define work?

 

Brexit has not happened.

 

The slaves are not going to vote them self off the plantation. You either have to get every slave to conceptualize that they are are free and no one has the legitimate authority to rule them, or no one will be free.

 

Voting for a slightly better master will not help this cause.

[neeeel]

The only fact regarding a potential Trump presidency is no one can forecast it's outcome with certainty. It's unknowable so long as it remains in the future. I'm willing to bet it will not occur, as the smart money has been on Hillary since day one.

 

Seeing the certainty of a consistent argument misplaced on a false savior is utterly surprising to me. I was totally skeptical of the claim that Molyneux had pivoted away from anarchy towards government participation. I see the community has largely followed this pied piper, and I'll keep an eye on how things recover from the misstep.

 

@Gavitor - You may not have read my posts, but I do not want him to win. I was musing that it would be interesting to see how y'all react to a Trump presidency that shows him not to be some messiah.

 

 

neither stef nor mike have put up trump as some messiah. They have made it clear that they think trump is the best chance we have of saving western civilisation. They have stated that they dont know how it will turn out, but that trump is the unknown, and if anything is going to change, its going to change under trump.  If there was some other option , where we ended up with anarchism, or a free society, I am pretty sure they would be pushing that option, rather than trump.

 

Of course, you can disagree that trump is the best chance we have of saving western civilisation. But if you do believe it, it makes perfect sense to advocate for voting in this one particular instance. They arent saying voting is great, or that they support voting per se, or that statism is really the way to go , or anything like that. 

 

its insanity to put principles before reality. If your house is burning down with your kids in it, your next door neighbour has all the water, and you go "well, if I take all his water, I will be stealing, that would be against my principles, therefore, I am just going to let my house burn", that would be crazy. 

[thecurrentyear]

How do you define work?

 

Brexit has not happened.

 

The slaves are not going to vote them self off the plantation. You either have to get every slave to conceptualize that they are are free and no one has the legitimate authority to rule them, or no one will be free.

 

Voting for a slightly better master will not help this cause.

Not an argument. Not that it has to be. But just in case you thought you had made one.

[dsayers]

I don't think it is at all difficult to work out what Stef will do if Trump gets in and turns out as bad as usual politicians. You'll see a bright crisp new video appear on YouTube titled something like "I was wrong about Trump." He won't pull any punches and will totally eviscerate the guy.

While I accept that Stef has the integrity to do such a thing, this likely will not happen. This is the problem when one speaks in vague language like "save western civilization." By what measure? He mentions freedoms, but we don't actually have those, so how would one measure when something that is absent gets "taken away"? So no definition of what western civilization is, no explanation as to why it deserves to be saved even if it could be, no method by which to measure the outcome. We will still be slaves and knowing this going into it is the reason NOT to vote, even if it weren't just fantasy and won't influence anything. It's about being free in one's own mind. Something that begging somebody else for solutions cannot accurately describe.

 

neither stef nor mike have put up trump as some messiah.

While that may be true, "crawl on broken glass" is an exaggeration to say the least.

[Gavitor]

The only fact regarding a potential Trump presidency is no one can forecast it's outcome with certainty. It's unknowable so long as it remains in the future. I'm willing to bet it will not occur, as the smart money has been on Hillary since day one.

 

Seeing the certainty of a consistent argument misplaced on a false savior is utterly surprising to me. I was totally skeptical of the claim that Molyneux had pivoted away from anarchy towards government participation. I see the community has largely followed this pied piper, and I'll keep an eye on how things recover from the misstep.

 

@Gavitor - You may not have read my posts, but I do not want him to win. I was musing that it would be interesting to see how y'all react to a Trump presidency that shows him not to be some messiah.

 

Who said Trump is a savior? Considering he was friends with the Clinton's in the past he could very well be just putting on a show. I say let Trump win and let reality speak for itself.

 

How do you define work?

 

Brexit has not happened.

 

The slaves are not going to vote them self off the plantation. You either have to get every slave to conceptualize that they are are free and no one has the legitimate authority to rule them, or no one will be free.

 

Voting for a slightly better master will not help this cause.

 

People voted for it and it won despite many saying it didn't, whether or not they make good on it is another story entirely.

 

This isn't about people voting themselves off the plantation. I've actually yet to hear of any one actually put forth an option or plan of action that would destroy/remove said plantation in our lifetime.

 

What is your plan for eliminating "rulers/masters" or freeing yourself from them?

 

neither stef nor mike have put up trump as some messiah. They have made it clear that they think trump is the best chance we have of saving western civilisation. They have stated that they dont know how it will turn out, but that trump is the unknown, and if anything is going to change, its going to change under trump.  If there was some other option , where we ended up with anarchism, or a free society, I am pretty sure they would be pushing that option, rather than trump.

 

Of course, you can disagree that trump is the best chance we have of saving western civilisation. But if you do believe it, it makes perfect sense to advocate for voting in this one particular instance. They arent saying voting is great, or that they support voting per se, or that statism is really the way to go , or anything like that. 

 

its insanity to put principles before reality. If your house is burning down with your kids in it, your next door neighbour has all the water, and you go "well, if I take all his water, I will be stealing, that would be against my principles, therefore, I am just going to let my house burn", that would be crazy. 

 

What is the principle people are using regarding this situation, I'm curious to hear from both sides.

[neeeel]

 

What is the principle people are using regarding this situation, I'm curious to hear from both sides.

 

the principle is, voting is initiation of the use of force, and therefore a violation of the NAP , or something along those lines

[Weeds]

I am quite new to Stef/FDR but had found him while pursuing the topic of anarchy so I specifically chose videos of his that reflected that topic and I would agree that there appears a stark contrast between the words he spoke then and now. Something that sparked a little suspicion within me, I'll admit.

I would, however, like to push a theory as to why the change.

 

He is a father. A psychological difference between men who are and are not fathers is how they react to danger/stress. Bachelors are more likely to be pumped with adrenaline (fight or flight) in contrast to fathers who are more likely to pump oxytocin (collect and protect).

 

The reason I think Stef was initially involved with this election is the same reason he was so distressed about "the internet takeover"; a threat to truth and the freedom of communication (not just the beloved tools of a philosopher, but that of a functional and thriving community). I'd imagine his focus was not on Trump (or Clinton), but rather on the truth and that which opposes it. The presidential candidates, representing certain aspects of society that we wish to grow or stunt, are being misrepresented by the mainstream media which is being exposed for their collusion with the democratic party (the State).

 

Collect and protect is the preservation of the community. By voting for the candidate that the mainstream media is opposed to (and is not being funded by the State as far as we know) we let each other know that we are uniting against the common threat of all. Once the community is safe(ish?), we can refocus on our individual needs.

 

Thoughts?

[algernon]

 

 

 

People voted for it and it won despite many saying it didn't, whether or not they make good on it is another story entirely.

 

This isn't about people voting themselves off the plantation. I've actually yet to hear of any one actually put forth an option or plan of action that would destroy/remove said plantation in our lifetime.

 

What is your plan for eliminating "rulers/masters" or freeing yourself from them?

 

 

No I'm sorry, Brexit has not happened, maybe we can revisit this subject if it does, but at this point it was only a non binding advisory referendum, it was not a legally binding vote that will actually force them to leave.

 

Let me put it to you like this, why is Cannabis becoming legalized in so many places across the US? People do not respect that law, and use it anyway. Once the system loses legitimacy it cannot continue in that regard.

 

Why do so many people take plea bargains instead of jury trials? If everyone exercised their right to a jury of their peers the justice system would collapse over night, 97% of people never see a jury, they plea bargain because the stakes are so high "Go to jail for a year, or risk the trial and we'll put you in prison for 50!"

 

There are plenty of ways to educate people, to legally cause the system to collapse. Go educate people on jury nullification, make them realize their legal right to decide what laws are just. What happened if everyone in your town rejected a certain law as moral, say drug laws, and everyone knew about jury nullification? It would be impossible to ever put anyone in a cage due to that law, they ask for jury trial, and only one person out of 12 has to decide it's unjust.

 

I used to get out of jury summons, now I would love to serve on a jury, I want to be selected. No victim, no crime, pretty easy to decide the outcome.

 

The majority of people have to decide they want to be free and they can be, it just takes education. Voting for your freedom is the opposite of being free.

 

I do not think voting is initiation of force, because only the person with the gun is responsible for initiation of force. If every gun holder with a badge decided to quit, the politicians would not be able to initiate any force, they certainly wouldn't do it them self. Hillary would just be a mean old grandmother in her mansion that no one comes to visit. 

[dsayers]

the principle is, voting is initiation of the use of force, and therefore a violation of the NAP , or something along those lines

No. Political voting is an act of fantasy and therefore not binding upon others. Also, somebody being told they're allowed to steal doesn't, they are free to not steal and therefore the person telling them it's okay is not responsible.

 

The principle is that you cannot be free in your own mind if you welcome a master. You cannot contribute to a US presidential vote if you are not in the electoral college. Voter fraud is more prevalent than ever, as is rigging what constitutes a legal vote, etc. No single person has the power to effect everything. The US legal system is 3 branched. The US is smaller than "the west" and not necessarily indicative of it. "The west" isn't necessarily something worth preserving... This has been addressed far too many times to misrepresent it as the outdated idea of "it's just immoral."

 

its insanity to put principles before reality. If your house is burning down with your kids in it, your next door neighbour has all the water, and you go "well, if I take all his water, I will be stealing, that would be against my principles, therefore, I am just going to let my house burn", that would be crazy. 

Principles ARE reality. What is insanity is putting forth a teddy bear as if it's representative of a grizzly bear. In order for your analogy to fit, instead of water, it would have to be gasoline, which upon dousing the fire, accelerates the fire, consuming everybody else in the process. However, even that wouldn't be a perfect fit because as indicated above, it's an act of fantasy, and the people being nodded to are free to decline.

 

Political voting is like attending a child's make believe tea party and telling yourself that you are saving the world. Only instead of having tea, what you're pretending to do is enslave hundreds of millions of people, but it's for a good cause!

[neeeel]

 

 

Principles ARE reality.

 

Lol, no. In no way are principles reality. principles are concepts, ideas. Gravity is reality. Gravity isnt a principle. 

[theunbeholden]

If we accept property rights and turn to an institution that is predicated on the violation of property rights, we have no hope of spreading philosophy.

 

 

Minimizing the power of the govt institution seems logical to me, we'll get less intrustion on property rights. How else does one do that if not through the political process? Complaining or spreading philosophy is one way but ignoring a very real possibility through a populist candidate is like rejecting a gun when all you have is your fists. And yes Trump will minimize Washington's power with his proposed ethics reform, responsible workforce attrition, put the people responsible for the war crimes & other crimes behind bars, reduce legal theft by reducing regulations, simplifying the tax code and reducing taxes across all income brackets, and build a wall which will stop the immigrants that are violating the NAP (either indirectly through welfare, taking low-skilled work or directly through gangs & drugs). I haven't seen a good argument for not voting, unless you can somehow turn most people into a libertarian & remove this govt before the end of the election. But even then I wouldn't argue for strict libertarian principles so as not to dilute the middle class and culture with the MNC's & third world low-skilled migrants that we have difficulty competing with.

 

 

No. Political voting is an act of fantasy and therefore not binding upon others. Also, somebody being told they're allowed to steal doesn't, they are free to not steal and therefore the person telling them it's okay is not responsible.

 

.... as indicated above, it's an act of fantasy, and the people being nodded to are free to decline.

 

Political voting is like attending a child's make believe tea party and telling yourself that you are saving the world. Only instead of having tea, what you're pretending to do is enslave hundreds of millions of people, but it's for a good cause!

 

Nice rhetoric. If voting is fantasy, pascal's wager indicates that it won't hurt to vote and see for oneself? If by fantasy you mean election promises being unenforceable: http://www.rbs2.com/elecprom.pdf   (eventhough as part of a contract, a offer can be a promise and voting for that party or candidate is the acceptance, such an exchange could very well be binding)

The thing is, a man of the freemarket like Trump takes responsibilities seriously. If the election system becomes fairer based on popular vote and not the electoral college, if politicians are held accountable for not fulfilling their promises within the time frame they specified, if we no longer use easily rigged electronic voting machines (Diebold), if the National Election Pool weren't the main organizations conducting exit polls and if third parties will be allowed into the debate without the ridiculous restrictions in place now then surely you wouldn't be saying that.

[Weeds]

I also have a question for all who claim consistency as an anarch; do you pay taxes?

 

If you do not, then by all means don't vote!

 

If you do, then isn't it your responsibility to govern the money you contributed to the State (to the best of your abilities)?

[dsayers]

I also have a question for all who claim consistency as an anarch; do you pay taxes?

Debunked far too many times to be taken seriously. People are pointing a gun at you to pay your taxes. There is no such threat to vote in most places.

 

Minimizing the power of the govt institution seems logical to me, we'll get less intrustion on property rights. How else does one do that if not through the political process?

You cannot think of a way to live without the mafia other than filling out forms the mafia provides?

 

ignoring a very real possibility through a populist candidate is like rejecting a gun when all you have is your fists.

Assertion and false analogy. If a gun is available when a gun is needed, you pick it up and pull the trigger. You're pointing to a candidate, so there's voter fraud/electoral college, betrayed campaign promises, other branches of government... the list goes on of steps between picking up your proverbial gun and discharging a proverbial round.

 

And yes Trump will...

What proof do you have of what ANY person WILL do? Your list contained items no one person COULD do.

 

build a wall which will stop the immigrants that are violating the NAP

Wall? lol If you want to pay for a wall, go for it. That doesn't mean you get to steal from me and my unborn child to pay for it. Which by the way, neeeel, is a principled conclusion and an accurate description of reality.

 

Walls don't stop people from initiating the use of force. Especially not one that is predicated on the initiation of the use of force. You're just spewing platitudes, offering up wishful thinking and appeals to emotion as if they're rational arguments.

 

If voting is fantasy, pascal's wager indicates that it won't hurt to vote and see for oneself?

1) There's no if; You cannot actually enslave 300 million people.

2) People who are capable of thought and tasks such as putting 2 and 2 together and/or looking at empirical evidence are able to understand the outcome without pretending to enslave 300 million people.

3) The enslavement of 300 million people is not a fantasy worth indulging.

4) "won't hurt" is not an accurate way of describing somebody accepting an illegitimate master.

 

I'm actually angry right now at the level of lack of integrity you're bringing to me here. You don't own me. Got it?

[Jaeger]

I also have a question for all who claim consistency as an anarch; do you pay taxes?

 

If you do not, then by all means don't vote!

 

If you do, then isn't it your responsibility to govern the money you contributed to the State (to the best of your abilities)?

Taxation is theft not a contribution.  Congress spends the stolen money not the President,  and they seem quite content to go along with the globalist.  I think the best we can get with a Trump presidency will be gridlock.  I think we will see a lot of government shut downs again like we did in the 80's and 90's as there will be real opposition verses the controlled opposition we have now in congress.  If Trump does get the presidency I only hope there is enough Republicans that will support him to stop the overturn of the any veto he will have to perform.  He will have the ability to enforce the current immigration law and undo any executive orders signed by past presidents. 

 

I like Trump and think he will be a better master than Hillary but in the end I think I will be the best master for myself.  I don't need or want a master.  

 

 

“Beat and cuff your slave, keep him hungry and spiritless, and he will follow the chain of his master like a dog; but, feed and clothe him well, - work him moderately - surround him with physical comfort, - and dreams of freedom intrude. Give him a bad master, and he aspires to a good master; give him a good master, and he wishes to become his own master.” 

― Frederick Douglass

Now that being said I do live in a very "red" state and have the luxury of not voting for Trump who will win the electoral vote most handsomely here in Texas.  If I lived in a swing state I would be mighty tempted to vote for Trump as a good master is better than a bad one.

[A4E]

I guess this thread is an ok place to link to this guy. He has many informative things to say, and makes a case for why it would be a good idea to vote Trump.

 

[Weeds]

 

"Debunked far too many times to be taken seriously. People are pointing a gun at you to pay your taxes. There is no such threat to vote in most places."

 

I understand that taxes are theft. I am not arguing that. :}

What I am asking any anarchist who practices the NAP, tho.. is if you are not taking the steps to defend yourself (a daunting and exhausting task within the system we have), then you are allowing yourself to be stolen from. If given a choice by the thief what your money funds, is your response "the money is no longer in my possession and no longer my responsibility" or "I would rather this life-altering debt be used in favor for the slaves that bite the hand that feeds them... not the ones who want heavier shackles"?

"I who want to be free cannot be because all the men around me do not yet want to be free, and consequently they become tools of oppression against me."

[dsayers]

allowing yourself to be stolen from.

Allow denotes consent. Stolen from denotes lack of consent.

 

The point was that where coercion is present, choice is not. Taxes are stolen under threat of violence. No such threat is in place regarding political voting. Therefore voting and paying taxes are not comparable.

 

If you are a person of integrity and are interested in finding the truth rather than making your prejudice fit, you will withdraw your debunked claim so that an honest conversation may begin/continue.

[Weeds]

"Taxes are stolen under threat of violence. No such threat is in place regarding political voting. Therefore voting and paying taxes are not comparable."

 

They are in symbiosis within the system that has been set up, tho. :}

So, if you are being stolen from no-matter-what but have a choice as to whether less or more is being stolen from you would your reaction be "let my environment choose my fate" or would you voice an opinion?

 

"If you are a person of integrity and are interested in finding the truth rather than making your prejudice fit, you will withdraw your debunked claim so that an honest conversation may begin/continue."

 

This conversation revolves around Stef, not me. :}

If you would rather nit-pick my wording/set-up/framing, rather than ponder on the questions I present, than do not engage me further with a response and this conversation will be no more.

To assume that this topic was ever honest is insulting to anyone involved. If ELD was earnestly in pursuit of truth than this concern would have been directed to Stef

( call-in show?? :} )

 

~all else is speculation~

[dsayers]

So, if you are being stolen from no-matter-what but have a choice as to whether less or more is being stolen from you would your reaction be "let my environment choose my fate" or would you voice an opinion?

False dichotomy. Also, the idea that you have a choice to be stolen from less is illusory. It's a test to see how many people still accept their enslavement.

 

This conversation revolves around Stef, not me. :}

No, this conversation revolves around your assertion that taxes and voting are comparable. Because it has been debunked and you're just moving the goalposts, trying to make your prejudices fit, you reveal to me that I can save my energy.

[Weeds]

Taxation is theft not a contribution.

 

 

I assumed that everyone in this community knew that taxes are theft so I did not bother specifying. Would "stolen contribution" be appropriate or do you have an even more accurate suggestion that wont "squirrel" readers? I'd rather not make the same mistake twice.. :}

 

Congress spends the stolen money not the President, and they seem quite content to go along with the globalist. I think the best we can get with a Trump presidency will be gridlock. I think we will see a lot of government shut downs again like we did in the 80's and 90's as there will be real opposition verses the controlled opposition we have now in congress. If Trump does get the presidency I only hope there is enough Republicans that will support him to stop the overturn of the any veto he will have to perform. He will have the ability to enforce the current immigration law and undo any executive orders signed by past presidents.

I'll be responding to this in greater detail after I do a little more research but I have a suspicion that those in Congress may not all be so clean and I speculate that Trump's supreme court would be... effective.

 

I like Trump and think he will be a better master than Hillary but in the end I think I will be the best master for myself. I don't need or want a master.

My concern is not with those who choose to govern themselves. My concern is with those who choose not to. They want a master? That's their choice. If they asked me what master they should have, then I will suggest the least criminal of the two. (Are you familiar with the show 'Adventure Time'? There is an episode about a goblin kingdom, post-tyrant. It does an entertaining job of getting this point across)

 

Now that being said I do live in a very "red" state and have the luxury of not voting for Trump who will win the electoral vote most handsomely here in Texas. If I lived in a swing state I would be mighty tempted to vote for Trump as a good master is better than a bad one.

Your use of the word "luxury" has.me.curious- Have you ever experienced life outside of a "red" state? Or the US? :}

[thecurrentyear]

 the idea that you have a choice to be stolen from less is illusory. It's a test to see how many people still accept their enslavement.

 

Says who? What is your evidence for this assertion? Is there any advantage or penalty for there being more or fewer votes cast? Not as far as I can tell. I am a bit angry at your manipulative non-argument here. It is meant to bully principled people into a fearful state wherein they will not cast a vote for an improvement--however small--to their enslaved state. They are enslaved as much (or as little) as you are, yet you try to handcuff and handicap them with your sophistic rhetoric. For shame. 

[Weeds]

I can save my energy.

Practice makes perfect. :}

 

(edited)

ps-

 

If you change your mind and decide to use your energy to truly engage, and not merely skim the surface of a conversation, please do. I welcome the opportunity to speculate further into the "why" of Stef's change.

 

I suggest pretending that your daughter has a gun to her head. The outcome depends on how you answer my previous questions because what is really being stolen from you is an investment in the future.

 

(will your answer actually makes a difference? Who knows. But no matter the outcome, your choice will say much about you as a person)

[D-Light]

As I see it there are two sides to the question:

 

To vote for Trump: He's the last best hope of staving off the apocalypse that is sure to come if Hillary Clinton is elected.

 

To not vote: Voting is ineffectual, but even if it weren't, the dreaded consequences if Hillary is elected are greatly exaggerated, and supporting the charade of legitimacy of a representative democracy lacks integrity when there is little if any meaningful effect one may have on the system by voting.

 

Pragmatically, If voting is effectual, one must weigh the cost/benefit of securing the lesser of two evils over adherence to the principle of not supporting tyranny by lending any credence to it through voluntary participation.

[dsayers]

I am a bit angry at your manipulative non-argument here. It is meant to bully principled people into a fearful state wherein they will not cast a vote for an improvement--however small--to their enslaved state. They are enslaved as much (or as little) as you are, yet you try to handcuff and handicap them with your sophistic rhetoric. For shame. 

It's easier to pick on a smaller target that you do not fear. I get it. But the truth is the people that are bullying principled people into a fearful state; The people who are trying to handcuff and handicap are the ones that create false flag scenarios to get those otherwise principled people to abandon their principles to engage in acts of fantasy while telling themselves they're making a difference. By the by, for completeness's sake, I point out that your verbiage was poisoning the well, begging the question, and appeals to emotion.

 

Are you angry because you don't own me? Or because somebody told you it was okay to pretend to as long as it's for a reason you agree with and you fell for it? The latter is not a principled conclusion, so I would challenge you to provide the evidence that somebody that would condone slavery is a principled person.

 

What is my evidence that somebody choosing to call the thief that victimizes them legitimate is not choosing less theft? I don't even know how to explain it. People who "choose less theft" don't ask to be stolen from. Don't ask for others to be stolen from.

[Jaeger]

I assumed that everyone in this community knew that taxes are theft so I did not bother specifying. Would "stolen contribution" be appropriate or do you have an even more accurate suggestion that wont "squirrel" readers? I'd rather not make the same mistake twice.. :}

You are probably correct in assuming that.  I have a bad habit of stating the obvious some time.  I was triggered.  See FreedomToon's video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MACnJi4GIGY

 

 

I'll be responding to this in greater detail after I do a little more research but I have a suspicion that those in Congress may not all be so clean and I speculate that Trump's supreme court would be... effective.

I do agree Trump's supreme court nominees will be way better than what Hillary will choose.  Hopefully he will have support of his fellow Republicans in the Senate.  

 

My concern is not with those who choose to govern themselves. My concern is with those who choose not to. They want a master? That's their choice. If they asked me what master they should have, then I will suggest the least criminal of the two. (Are you familiar with the show 'Adventure Time'? There is an episode about a goblin kingdom, post-tyrant. It does an entertaining job of getting this point across)

I'm not familiar with the show.  However based on the your description it sounds like something I would enjoy.  I saw that you PM me the link so I will give it a watch.

 

 

Your use of the word "luxury" has.me.curious- Have you ever experienced life outside of a "red" state? Or the US? :}

I grew up in California.  I lived in Hawaii 88-92 then move back to California late 92 but to late to register to vote.  Moved to Utah in 94 then back to California in 2001 then Virginia in 2002 and Texas 2006.  In Virginia and California(80's and 90's)  I would consider them swing states.  Virginia still is, California is not.  I always felt like my vote mattered in those states.  Utah, Texas and Hawaii I don't think it matters.  Utah and Texas would go Republican and Hawaii Democrat.  I guess what I was trying to convey was that as someone who is new to anarchism and lives in Texas, it is real easy for me not to vote and live by my principles as others would vote in the better candidate anyways.  Same would be true if I lived in Hawaii as it wouldn't matter as others would vote in the candidate I don't want,  So I wouldn't feel guilty for not voting.   Now if I lived in Virginia and didn't vote I would feel guilty if Hillary won or very relieved if Trump did.

 

I have been battling in my mind about voting for the last year or so and haven't firmly placed myself in any camp.  I swing from "I'll vote in self defense", like I did in the primary's for Trump, to "I will never vote as it is immoral".  At this point I think I'm somewhere in the middle.  Voting is the use of force and should only be done in self defense.  Self defense should only be used if I'm threaten.  I don't feel threatened at this time.  Even if I don't vote Hillary will never win Texas.  Now if there was something else on the ballot like a vote on a raise on city properties taxes then I would feel threatened and justified in voting.

 

Now the argument of about we own ourselves.  I'm not so sure since we have a gun pointed at our heads and are required to hand over a portion of our income.  So if not slaves then at least serfs. That is what makes me think of the quote by Frederick Douglass  I posted above.  Texas over all has been a good master so I can think about being free.  While if I lived in Hawaii I would want to live in a red state.  If I lived in Virginia the I would feel I had a chance to get a good master so then I can think about being free.

[DaVinci]

Interesting conversation. 

 

I could be in over my head here, but it seems to me that voting in this election could been seen as the flag pole scenario where you have to break a window to not fall to your death. 

[algernon]

Says who? What is your evidence for this assertion? Is there any advantage or penalty for there being more or fewer votes cast? Not as far as I can tell. I am a bit angry at your manipulative non-argument here. It is meant to bully principled people into a fearful state wherein they will not cast a vote for an improvement--however small--to their enslaved state. They are enslaved as much (or as little) as you are, yet you try to handcuff and handicap them with your sophistic rhetoric. For shame. 

 

Perhaps that is the problem with a lot of the arguments here, everyone assumes we all bow down to the king equally. I know many people like to use deterministic language "You don't pay taxes, you GO TO JAIL!". Which does nothing but to further enhance the power of the state, because they rule from fear and not from action.

 

There is not equal slavery amongst all of us here, people who wish to put forth the effort and due diligence will be left alone. Case in point, Michael Badnarik - http://www.constitutionpreservation.org/sites/default/files/files-misc/Secret_to_Sovereignty_teaser.pdf

 

Michael is not a philosopher, and he's not even an Anarchist, he's fine with the state existing as it's original form kept in check by the Constitution. There are some obvious logical flaws with that line of thinking, but I would assuredly say he is less enslaved than most.

 

Yes, freedom is NOT free, because there are evil people that want to enslave you, but people with the right amount of determination and intelligence absolutely can fight the powers of the state, while using the rules of the government against itself and win.

 

If we're going to sit here and talk about government, wasting time and energy talking about praying voting for the next savoir president, why not talk about Common Law, Jurisdiction, courts of record and suing over jurisdiction? Not just suing the government body that transgresses, but suing the actual individual for lack of jurisdiction. Do you know how you keep the city ordnance person at bay? When they come to ticket you for lack of permit you sue them personally. You can do this, you can win, all of the current laws exist on the books for the people subject to those laws, and the people subject to those laws are those who subject them self to it. You can legally fight the system, within the system if you so choose..

 

See, all of this is too difficult to learn, it takes time, you have to represent yourself in court when the slave masters come around and try to enslave you, it takes actual work, it is magnitudes easier to bow down, complain about it, and pull that lever for the next master, hoping he will just partially set you free.

[dsayers]

it seems to me that voting in this election could been seen as the flag pole scenario where you have to break a window to not fall to your death. 

Except the part where nobody's life is on the line and the act is one of fantasy. Now that I mention it, they're not at all comparable!

[Weeds]

Interesting conversation.

 

I could be in over my head here, but it seems to me that voting in this election could been seen as the flag pole scenario where you have to break a window to not fall to your death.

I know of typically independent voters, none voters, and democrats who are treating this election much like that scenario. The majority of the population do not want to go to war or have their loved ones sent to war. Its one thing to be stolen from at gun point and another to be torn away from those you love. What good is it if you are mentally free but have no one to share the experience?

[dsayers]

The majority of the population do not want to go to war or have their loved ones sent to war. Its one thing to be stolen from at gun point and another to be torn away from those you love. What good is it if you are mentally free but have no one to share the experience?

Appeals to emotion. I for one am not interested in WHY you would pretend to be able to enslave me.

[DaVinci]

Except the part where nobody's life is on the line and the act is one of fantasy. Now that I mention it, they're not at all comparable!

 

What is an act of fantasy? Voting? Also, how do you know nobody's life is on the line?  Even in the flag pole scenario death isn't the only possible outcome from the fall. Physics, gravity, friction, momentum, etc could create an outcome of severe injury, but not death, right? Isn't the person hanging upside down trying to prevent all potential injuries up to and including death? 

[Anuojat]

Except the part where nobody's life is on the line and the act is one of fantasy. Now that I mention it, they're not at all comparable!

 

Dsayer have you wathed all (or atleast some of) the truths about hillary clintons private plans and positions?

I would say peoples lives are on the line in this election far more so than trump, in fact the comparison of danger of nuclear /covert war and 10-34 million violance prone low iq population being nationalized is perfect analogy of falling down splat on the concrete vs bursting trough the wall with trum and sustuining few cuts and shards.

 

And before you claim (if you were to since ive seen you do it few times) that  there is no guarantee that trump is going to enact any of these policies (aka be honest) or is unable to one simply has to look at mans character and background for such trust in competance and historical evidence of peopel who did rein in the power of thes tate or/an also completely gave new leash on conversations in society. We do that with doctors, writers, bussnesses, teachers, philosofers and others all the time. There is no 100% guarantee theyll succeed or be honest but we dont care about 100% guarantee with any of them.

[dsayers]

Dsayer have you wathed all...

I don't have to watch anything to accurately determine that you don't own me and therefore trying to transfer ownership of me is an act of fantasy. It's like saying you reject 2+2=4 if I don't have a calculator. Except that in my experience, if I was then to produce a calculator, the goal posts would get moved. Because this isn't a conversation about what is true.

[RichardY]

Come see the violence inherent in the system!" HELP HELP I'm being repressed!!

 

[DCLugi]

While I accept that Stef has the integrity to do such a thing, this likely will not happen. This is the problem when one speaks in vague language like "save western civilization." By what measure? He mentions freedoms, but we don't actually have those, so how would one measure when something that is absent gets "taken away"? So no definition of what western civilization is, no explanation as to why it deserves to be saved even if it could be, no method by which to measure the outcome. We will still be slaves and knowing this going into it is the reason NOT to vote, even if it weren't just fantasy and won't influence anything. It's about being free in one's own mind. Something that begging somebody else for solutions cannot accurately describe.

 

While that may be true, "crawl on broken glass" is an exaggeration to say the least.

You are interested in others being free in their own mind and therefor use this forum to express that. Stef and other Trump supporters are counting on his win to allow that to continue. Imagine that you're unjustly in prison and are planning an escape. The old guard was terminated. There are 2 new applicants for his shift. One of them has the reputation of being strict and watches your every move while the other listens to his iPod and is less concerned. To ease tensions in the prison the Warden allows the inmates to vote on the winning applicant. Now, you don't know if these reputations are true and you can't count on the Warden listening to the inmates and you already know that the prison is corrupt. Do you vote?