Anarchists for Trump...?!

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

My open apologies to all for taking so long to come around to this.

 

[Gavitor]

Thank you for making the video. It's very well said and is a good summation of the divide between anarchists and the evidence for trump.

 

My open apologies to all for taking so long to come around to this.

 

 

No need to apologize, it's not easy to change your views when new evidence presents itself.

 

I too struggled with this as well and also barely came around recently.

 

You get that just because we are using the few options available to us in the moment doesn't mean we have abandoned our principles.

 

I hope more will watch your video as its very well put together and is very concise.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Thank you for making the video. It's very well said and is a good summation of the divide between anarchists and the evidence for trump.

 

 

No need to apologize, it's not easy to change your views when new evidence presents itself.

 

I too struggled with this as well and also barely came around recently.

 

You get that just because we are using the few options available to us in the moment doesn't mean we have abandoned our principles.

 

I hope more will watch your video as its very well put together and is very concise.

 

I had actually changed my mind awhile ago, but I took a long time in coming out and saying anything about it. :/

 

Share the video around if you like it!

[dsayers]

@Dylan in the video: Cannot find an argument against?! How hard have you looked?

 

Null Hypotheses and Political Voting - Even though "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" puts the onus on pro-voters, I've provided a list of null hypotheses that to date, not ONE PERSON has been willing to encroach a single one.

 

I could provide other material, but the lengths I'm willing to go to use logic, reason, and evidence to offset that which wasn't arrived at by those means is diminishing. Likely to my credit. The bottom line is that you don't own me. So you couldn't actually transfer ownership of me even if political voting were anything more than an act of fantasy.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

The house you are in is on fire and there won't be anything to own if you burn down with it.

 

I'm not a pro-voter. I'm working to put the fire out.

[dsayers]

The house you are in is on fire and there won't be anything to own if you burn down with it.

 

I'm not a pro-voter. I'm working to put the fire out.

Not one argument or attempt to address any null hypothesis put forward. Seeing fires where there aren't any and missing the ones you are trying to set is not healthy.

[luxfelix]

@Dylan in the video: Cannot find an argument against?! How hard have you looked?

 

Null Hypotheses and Political Voting - Even though "extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence" puts the onus on pro-voters, I've provided a list of null hypotheses that to date, not ONE PERSON has been willing to encroach a single one.

 

I could provide other material, but the lengths I'm willing to go to use logic, reason, and evidence to offset that which wasn't arrived at by those means is diminishing. Likely to my credit. The bottom line is that you don't own me. So you couldn't actually transfer ownership of me even if political voting were anything more than an act of fantasy.

 

I'm glad you're writing works like these dsayers. They help keep principles front and center when discussing this topic.

 

I am curious as to what has(/have) been the best counter-argument(s) you have come across so far on this matter; or, maybe you can become the first to be willing to encroach upon one of the null hypotheses? 

 

Is there any condition, whatsoever, wherein you would vote, even while knowing full-well the null hypothesis that you don't own me (as well as the others enumerated)?

[dsayers]

I'm glad you're writing works like these dsayers. They help keep principles front and center when discussing this topic.

I would take it a step further and say it helps keep reality front and center. Much of the dissent I experience is the time-honored tradition of praying to a deity to save us despite the fact that the same deity put us here in the first place. At least tossing people into volcanoes had flare (nyuk nyuk).

 

I am curious as to what has(/have) been the best counter-argument(s) you have come across so far on this matter; or, maybe you can become the first to be willing to encroach upon one of the null hypotheses? 

Not sure what you mean. I have yet to see a counter-ARGUMENT or an encroaching of any of the null hypotheses I've put forth. Or do you mean my approach to the null hypotheses others have put forth? Because that hasn't happened either. The closest thing was a recent podcast of Stef's, which I debunked the same night it was released here.

 

Is there any condition, whatsoever, wherein you would vote, even while knowing full-well the null hypothesis that you don't own me (as well as the others enumerated)?

If I received a credible threat of harm in the event that I did not vote. Where coercion is present, choice is not. Kind of like how I pay my protection money only as much as they make me and then I live my values as I'm able.

 

It's so bizarre to me that such things even need to be said in a place like this; The whole reason why voting is not required is because it's more effective not to! If the State threatened people who didn't vote, all we'd see is a big bully. If instead you leave the vote up to the people, but indoctrinate the children to believe gang rape (democracy) is benevolent, then they will rise up in droves, swearing it is a duty and an honor to pick a master, ostracizing anybody who would have the audacity not even to tell them they ought to be free, but just abstaining for any reason! It's SO effective and some of the brightest minds STILL fall for it. And for the same tired reasons that gets trotted out every cycle. It's the definition of insanity.

 

Pardon the rant there. It wasn't aimed at you, luxfelix. Thank you for the thought-provoking questions. It's a refreshing change of pace from [scan for agreement] -> [no agreement found] -> *spew*.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Not one argument or attempt to address any null hypothesis put forward. Seeing fires where there aren't any and missing the ones you are trying to set is not healthy.

 

I haven't addressed your null hypothesis because I'm unable to figure out where it applies to what I've said. I'm not pro-voting. I'm not sure where that isn't clear; I specifically said it in my video.

 

My argument for voting Trump isn't an argument for the validity of voting, it's an act of self defense to protect my tribe. I'm not suggesting that the universal or general concept of voting is valid (it's not because it violates the non-aggression principle), I'm saying that this specific instance is (because the evidence is so overwhelming that it has entered the realm of self-defense).

 

If this is hard to understand, here is an analogy. If someone breaks into my house and points a gun at me and threatens to shoot me, in this specific instance, me shooting him in the face first to stop him is an act of self-defense, and therefore moral. Just because I do this does not mean I support the general concept of shooting people in the face.

 

So going through your article here, I see your 5 null hypotheses:

 

 

 

1) You don't own me. In order to prove voting is valid, one must prove that person A could ever have a greater claim to person B than person B does. If they cannot, they reveal that they couldn't vote even if they wanted to, since voting indicates an attempt to transfer ownership of the populace to a particular ruler.

 

You're right. I don't own you, and I'm not attempting to prove that voting is valid, so this first point doesn't apply to what I've said and written.

 

 

 

2) Your vote contributes to the outcome. This is actually a three part null hypothesis.

A) Politicians have time and again tried to change the rules as to who is allowed to vote, how, and why.

B) With technology at an all time high, voting fraud and the ability to identify it is more prevalent than ever before.

C) The electoral college choose presidents of the United States (POTUS). These bodies are not beholden to the people are are not representative of the popular vote.

 

 

A. They sure have. I don't see how this applies to what I've said.

B. Yup! Again, don't see how it applies.

C. Yup! Again, don't see how it applies.

 

 

3) Any given politician will do what they say, everything they say, and only what they say. There is no apparatus in place to make this so and no consequences for not making it so. 100% of POTUS have deviated from both their campaign promises and the US Constitution.

 

Yup! Even if you don't like the positive reason for voting for Trump, which are his campaign promises, the negative reason for voting for Trump (which is the overwhelming reason to do so) is very strong, which is to make sure Hillary loses. We have a long enough track record of HC to have a pretty good idea on the differentiations between what shes says and what she does--ejaculating bombs, weapons, and threatening nukes omnidirectionally--which further strengthens the argument that a vote for Trump, in this specific election, is an act of self-defense. Again, I'm not validating voting, I'm advocating pointing guns at people who are physically threatening our tribe.

 

Further, no one is, especially no one here, is saying that Trump is going to go out and do everything that he has promised. However, if you look at the track record between what Trump has said and what Trump has done, particularly because he has no experience as a politician, the evidence is large that he is different enough from past presidents to be worth betting on.

 

 

4) What any given politician does is exactly what everybody they purport to rule over wants. Otherwise, voters are condoning mob rule; Pretending to suspend the property rights of their neighbors for no reason other than they were outnumbered. An unprincipled conclusion.

 

Yup! I think I answered this adequately in my answer for #3.

 

 

5) POTUS has the power to do anything they say they will. In the US, the government was established in a three prong check and balance system. It is true that there came a point where both parties and all three branches learned that they all benefited from the entire process being perpetuated and as a result, the lines between these entities have been blurred. Still, it is foolish to think any one person could have the power to do anything a presidential candidate claims they will.

 

Yup! Again, refer to answer in #3.

 

I've noticed in a few posts around the boards now you keep saying that no one is addressing your null hypotheses. I think the answer might be that no one can figure out what they have to do with promoting voting for Trump in this election.

[luxfelix]

I would take it a step further and say it helps keep reality front and center. Much of the dissent I experience is the time-honored tradition of praying to a deity to save us despite the fact that the same deity put us here in the first place. At least tossing people into volcanoes had flare (nyuk nyuk).

 

Nice pun. 

 

Not sure what you mean. I have yet to see a counter-ARGUMENT or an encroaching of any of the null hypotheses I've put forth. Or do you mean my approach to the null hypotheses others have put forth? Because that hasn't happened either. The closest thing was a recent podcast of Stef's, which I debunked the same night it was released here.

 

What I'm getting at, and I imagine you've already done this, is if you've tried arguing from the opposing side (a kind of role-play/mental chess exercise). If you have and still find the null hypotheses still more closely resemble reality, then that can be a good sign that your null hypotheses are solid.

 

From the link (and the links/videos in that link), it sounds like, at least in this community, that the principles outlined by Stef in the past are still in play, however the disagreement follows whether or not the new information of Brexit/Trump warrant the experiment of voting; and/or that there is a practical component for short-term/long-term goals.

 

On one side, the very participation in this experiment is invalid because it either isn't necessary and/or discredits us as advocates for the principles established before; this is probably also why you have yet to find a counterargument since the null hypotheses are inarguable. To the second part, voting could result in a short-term gain/long-term loss (if that).

 

On the other side, the political process is presented as the great test for those principles, a way to reach a larger audience, and a way to keep the game going so as to push the Overton Window in the other direction (by avoiding war, economic collapse, etc. in the short term) toward northern culture (the multiple-generational approach to universal liberty since most people aren't able/willing currently).

 

(Would it be accurate to call it cognitive dissonance, or are both of these views compatible towards the same goal?)

 

If I received a credible threat of harm in the event that I did not vote. Where coercion is present, choice is not. Kind of like how I pay my protection money only as much as they make me and then I live my values as I'm able.

 

It's so bizarre to me that such things even need to be said in a place like this; The whole reason why voting is not required is because it's more effective not to! If the State threatened people who didn't vote, all we'd see is a big bully. If instead you leave the vote up to the people, but indoctrinate the children to believe gang rape (democracy) is benevolent, then they will rise up in droves, swearing it is a duty and an honor to pick a master, ostracizing anybody who would have the audacity not even to tell them they ought to be free, but just abstaining for any reason! It's SO effective and some of the brightest minds STILL fall for it. And for the same tired reasons that gets trotted out every cycle. It's the definition of insanity.

 

Pardon the rant there. It wasn't aimed at you, luxfelix. Thank you for the thought-provoking questions. It's a refreshing change of pace from [scan for agreement] -> [no agreement found] -> *spew*.

 

Provided reports on Hillary's desire for war with Russia are accurate, would that count as a credible threat of harm? (Maybe closer to fear mongering?)

 

I've seen a few discussions on effectiveness of voting and this being a special case; is it that, perhaps, this is not a special case, or even that there is no such thing as a special case? (Nuance or no?)

 

Related in thinking, would one attend a church service as an atheist for the benefits of the community and not the religious teachings?

 

I understand dsayers, thank you for the engagement; I get that these are discussions for mutual benefit and that criticism of a position does not equate ad hominem. 

[dsayers]

What I'm getting at, and I imagine you've already done this, is if you've tried arguing from the opposing side (a kind of role-play/mental chess exercise). If you have and still find the null hypotheses still more closely resemble reality, then that can be a good sign that your null hypotheses are solid.

I'm tempted not to answer this question. I don't think it's fair amid a river of people who would throw me under the bus for pointing out the ways in which they're living contrary to their values for me to do the work for them that they're not willing to do themselves. Nor do I wish to give those I feel have been led astray more reason to stay there. That said, I really appreciate the question. I appreciate its fairness and the challenge to remain consistent with my own values. Namely that one's theories need to be tested and even discarded in the event that they are found to not conform with the real world.

 

I think the most convincing rhetoric one could level in support of political voting is trying to apply the wisdom in using the State amid the otherwise free market. By this I mean the ways in which businesses can use the gun in the room to gain artificial footing ahead of their competitors. Or even for example, the way Trump has boasted of paying no taxes. I think the analogy Stef has used is that if testosterone was permitted in professional sports, then those not making use of it would be outperformed by those who are. Essentially using the gun in the room to inflict your will first to avoid others using it to inflict their will first.

 

There are two reasons why I think this is valid in the first example and invalid in the context of political voting. The first (and most important for anybody who accepts self-ownership) is that those using the State for business/financial gain don't see it as grabbing for a gun. They only see that they live in a world where the State is believed to be valid, so they're making use of it just as an athlete would use testosterone. Secondly, the product "we" are trying to sell is freedom. Reaching for the gun in the room is self-detonating. It is antithetical. It's like hitting a child for hitting somebody.

 

From the link (and the links/videos in that link), it sounds like, at least in this community, that the principles outlined by Stef in the past are still in play, however the disagreement follows whether or not the new information of Brexit/Trump warrant the experiment of voting; and/or that there is a practical component for short-term/long-term goals.

Well the word "practical" here destroys the claim. Imagination can be a fantastic way of envisioning alternative paths to a solution. Treating fantasy as real is very impractical, and is in fact antithetical to our very survival. By that I mean that calling things by their proper names is paramount to our survival (teddy bear vs grizzly bear). Voting to address a problem is like passing up antibiotics in favor of prayer. The moment you pretend that praying will have ANY influence over the problem, your action becomes ineligible for the descriptor "practical." Would you agree?

 

On the other side, the political process is presented as the great test for those principles, a way to reach a larger audience, and a way to keep the game going so as to push the Overton Window in the other direction (by avoiding war, economic collapse, etc. in the short term) toward northern culture (the multiple-generational approach to universal liberty since most people aren't able/willing currently).

This is both cowardly and emulating tyrants. It's basically saying that one is okay with subjugating humanity as long as it's for a good cause. That's how we got here!

 

Provided reports on Hillary's desire for war with Russia are accurate, would that count as a credible threat of harm? (Maybe closer to fear mongering?)

ALL government is a credible threat of harm. It doesn't matter who sits on the throne. We will all continue to be stolen from, threatened to be caged for arbitrary shit, and threatened to be murdered if we try to resist any of it. You render Hillary impotent by taking away the perceived legitimacy of the State. Something one cannot do while pretending the State is valid by playing along with its silly rituals. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

 

I've seen a few discussions on effectiveness of voting and this being a special case; is it that, perhaps, this is not a special case, or even that there is no such thing as a special case? (Nuance or no?)

Not only is this not a special case, but there could be no special case. Because as my null hypotheses remind us, there's no way of knowing what a person will do once they have the ring of power. We do know that everything they claim to do will be coupled by the very institutionalized violence that is the problem. The Milgram Experiments showed us the way power over another corrupts. What human could even be fit to rule? They would have to know what's best for everybody and then inflict it upon them. Isn't inflicting something upon somebody antithetical to what's best for them? Wouldn't the person doing the inflicting be engaging in performative contradiction by exercising their will by preventing others the exercising of their will? There is nothing fundamentally different about Trump. He's a human being, same as all of us.

 

I look forward to your reply

[Slavik]

 

 

 

Provided reports on Hillary's desire for war with Russia are accurate, would that count as a credible threat of harm? (Maybe closer to fear mongering?)

 

I've seen a few discussions on effectiveness of voting and this being a special case; is it that, perhaps, this is not a special case, or even that there is no such thing as a special case? (Nuance or no?)

 

Related in thinking, would one attend a church service as an atheist for the benefits of the community and not the religious teachings?

 

I understand dsayers, thank you for the engagement; I get that these are discussions for mutual benefit and that criticism of a position does not equate ad hominem. 

  Considering Russia, it is not a threat.  Russia is becoming more like a North Korea.  I have been watching Russia for a very long while now, many Russian experts bring up interesting points about their military.

1) Russian GDP is concentrated in Oil/Gas, with prices falling so is their economy (no money for military expenditure)

 2) After War with Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, and sanctions, Russia has placed "reverse sanctions," basically forbidding external products.  This ended with no investments and economy dwindling even further.

3) The reports of new and super war machines, just look at the reports closely, they are in development and most likely will not enter service until G'd knows when if at all (if at all because their military command has rejected many prototypes for being useless) 

The talk of Russia being "evil"  from Hillary camp is a simple tactic to make us hate and fear Russia and associate Trump with it, nothing else.

 

How exactly do you see war with Russia?  It is a nuclear country, we have not even attacked N. Korea, even though N.Korean dictator constantly talks about wiping us out.

[rosencrantz]

Liberty and anarchy are exclusively western tribal traditions. Once whites are in a minority they are gone forever. 

[luxfelix]

I'm tempted not to answer this question. I don't think it's fair amid a river of people who would throw me under the bus for pointing out the ways in which they're living contrary to their values for me to do the work for them that they're not willing to do themselves. Nor do I wish to give those I feel have been led astray more reason to stay there. That said, I really appreciate the question. I appreciate its fairness and the challenge to remain consistent with my own values. Namely that one's theories need to be tested and even discarded in the event that they are found to not conform with the real world.

 

I think the most convincing rhetoric one could level in support of political voting is trying to apply the wisdom in using the State amid the otherwise free market. By this I mean the ways in which businesses can use the gun in the room to gain artificial footing ahead of their competitors. Or even for example, the way Trump has boasted of paying no taxes. I think the analogy Stef has used is that if testosterone was permitted in professional sports, then those not making use of it would be outperformed by those who are. Essentially using the gun in the room to inflict your will first to avoid others using it to inflict their will first.

 

There are two reasons why I think this is valid in the first example and invalid in the context of political voting. The first (and most important for anybody who accepts self-ownership) is that those using the State for business/financial gain don't see it as grabbing for a gun. They only see that they live in a world where the State is believed to be valid, so they're making use of it just as an athlete would use testosterone. Secondly, the product "we" are trying to sell is freedom. Reaching for the gun in the room is self-detonating. It is antithetical. It's like hitting a child for hitting somebody.

 

Thank you for sharing -- and for what it's worth, I'm glad you and others are here and I hope there will be no throwing of people under buses... the resulting delay will make us quite late. 

 

Well the word "practical" here destroys the claim. Imagination can be a fantastic way of envisioning alternative paths to a solution. Treating fantasy as real is very impractical, and is in fact antithetical to our very survival. By that I mean that calling things by their proper names is paramount to our survival (teddy bear vs grizzly bear). Voting to address a problem is like passing up antibiotics in favor of prayer. The moment you pretend that praying will have ANY influence over the problem, your action becomes ineligible for the descriptor "practical." Would you agree?

 

I would agree.

 

This is both cowardly and emulating tyrants. It's basically saying that one is okay with subjugating humanity as long as it's for a good cause. That's how we got here!

 

ALL government is a credible threat of harm. It doesn't matter who sits on the throne. We will all continue to be stolen from, threatened to be caged for arbitrary shit, and threatened to be murdered if we try to resist any of it. You render Hillary impotent by taking away the perceived legitimacy of the State. Something one cannot do while pretending the State is valid by playing along with its silly rituals. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

 

Not only is this not a special case, but there could be no special case. Because as my null hypotheses remind us, there's no way of knowing what a person will do once they have the ring of power. We do know that everything they claim to do will be coupled by the very institutionalized violence that is the problem. The Milgram Experiments showed us the way power over another corrupts. What human could even be fit to rule? They would have to know what's best for everybody and then inflict it upon them. Isn't inflicting something upon somebody antithetical to what's best for them? Wouldn't the person doing the inflicting be engaging in performative contradiction by exercising their will by preventing others the exercising of their will? There is nothing fundamentally different about Trump. He's a human being, same as all of us.

 

I look forward to your reply

 

(We ought to rule ourselves; excepting those times where the trusteeship of infancy, infirmity, or otherwise apply, we confer with chosen council of credible character, and remember to respect the realms of liberty inherit to others in keeping with our oaths.)

 

We are aware that voting is immoral.

 

To those still unaware (incapable or otherwise) whom see voting as valid, and/or those whom do not want the freedom we sell, is it immoral for us to then recommend a political candidate?

 

In another way, if we are doctors telling our patient that they will die of lung cancer if they continue to smoke, but they refuse our warning, can we then recommend that they at least smoke e-cigs instead of cigarettes?

 

This in no way changes the immorality of voting (or the unhealthiness of smoking), but would this way have practical value for either those whom know or don't (or both?)?

[luxfelix]

  Considering Russia, it is not a threat.  Russia is becoming more like a North Korea.  I have been watching Russia for a very long while now, many Russian experts bring up interesting points about their military.

1) Russian GDP is concentrated in Oil/Gas, with prices falling so is their economy (no money for military expenditure)

 2) After War with Ukraine and annexation of Crimea, and sanctions, Russia has placed "reverse sanctions," basically forbidding external products.  This ended with no investments and economy dwindling even further.

3) The reports of new and super war machines, just look at the reports closely, they are in development and most likely will not enter service until G'd knows when if at all (if at all because their military command has rejected many prototypes for being useless) 

The talk of Russia being "evil"  from Hillary camp is a simple tactic to make us hate and fear Russia and associate Trump with it, nothing else.

 

How exactly do you see war with Russia?  It is a nuclear country, we have not even attacked N. Korea, even though N.Korean dictator constantly talks about wiping us out.

 

I've come across conflicting reports -- whether the chance of WWIII is a real possibility or fear-mongering (or somewhere in between), I can not say for sure.

 

I'm aware of the policy of mutually assured destruction which was one of the reasons the Cold War did not result in direct/conventional battles between Russia and America; and, as you've pointed out, Russia may not be as big a threat as during the Cold War.

 

Perhaps a bigger threat than conventional war is the possibility of cyber attacks and utilities failures which can lead to unrest closer to home (etc.)?

[dsayers]

We are aware that voting is immoral.

 

To those still unaware (incapable or otherwise) whom see voting as valid, and/or those whom do not want the freedom we sell, is it immoral for us to then recommend a political candidate?

 

In another way, if we are doctors telling our patient that they will die of lung cancer if they continue to smoke, but they refuse our warning, can we then recommend that they at least smoke e-cigs instead of cigarettes?

 

This in no way changes the immorality of voting (or the unhealthiness of smoking), but would this way have practical value for either those whom know or don't (or both?)?

To be clear, voting is NOT immoral. For two reasons. First of all, it's attempting to transfer ownership of people the voter does not own. So it's an act of fantasy. Secondly because even if everybody in the world tells you it's okay to murder, you are still free to decline. So voting, even if it were not fantasy, would not be binding upon another. It's despicable, but not immoral.

 

Your analogy is not analogous I'm afraid. What a person does to their own body is their choice. Voting is people pretending/trying to bind others. There simply isn't a "better way" to rape. While I appreciate the earnest of your approach, I'm getting annoyed as this is essentially what you're trying to figure out. If a person accepts self-ownership and understands that the State is predicated on the violation of property, then time spent trying to convince others of which master MIGHT whip softer IF you had the capability of choosing one of them is time NOT spent convincing those same people that they own themselves.

 

People who want to defeat Clinton could evaporate the gun in the room. You don't have to choose (the lesser of two) evil. Clinton is only dangerous because of the gun in the room. It's the only reason anybody knows her name. It is the eventuality of such a weapon being available and perceived as legitimate. Wasting time convincing slaves which master might whip softer only keeps that gun in the room as a fixture of the human condition that much longer. We don't have the right and it's a cowardly thing to do for the sake of our imaginary comfort in the present.

[luxfelix]

To be clear, voting is NOT immoral. For two reasons. First of all, it's attempting to transfer ownership of people the voter does not own. So it's an act of fantasy. Secondly because even if everybody in the world tells you it's okay to murder, you are still free to decline. So voting, even if it were not fantasy, would not be binding upon another. It's despicable, but not immoral.

 

Voting is neither moral nor immoral, but rather amoral? (As you said, despicable but not immoral.)

 

Would it be too far of a stretch to then categorize voting as an aesthetic preference (vanilla/chocolate/strawberry), the key difference being the preference of acting in line with reality-based principles (not voting) versus the fantasy of politics (voting)?

 

(The problem, then, is that these preferences have real world consequences when it comes to justifying/legitimizing those actions which do fall into moral categories, such as murder/theft, among those susceptible to being guided by fiction?)

 

Your analogy is not analogous I'm afraid. What a person does to their own body is their choice. Voting is people pretending/trying to bind others. There simply isn't a "better way" to rape. While I appreciate the earnest of your approach, I'm getting annoyed as this is essentially what you're trying to figure out. If a person accepts self-ownership and understands that the State is predicated on the violation of property, then time spent trying to convince others of which master MIGHT whip softer IF you had the capability of choosing one of them is time NOT spent convincing those same people that they own themselves.

 

Thank you for your patience. I see your point for why my analogy doesn't work.

 

People who want to defeat Clinton could evaporate the gun in the room. You don't have to choose (the lesser of two) evil. Clinton is only dangerous because of the gun in the room. It's the only reason anybody knows her name. It is the eventuality of such a weapon being available and perceived as legitimate. Wasting time convincing slaves which master might whip softer only keeps that gun in the room as a fixture of the human condition that much longer. We don't have the right and it's a cowardly thing to do for the sake of our imaginary comfort in the present.

 

Is it that we do have the right to convince self-aware people to vote for one candidate over another (free speech), even though it is not practical (wasting time), encourages harm (government in this case), and reveals cowardice (for avoiding the harder fight of speaking out against the institution of political voting as a whole/seeking safety in numbers of like-minded?), however, we do not have the right to convince self-unaware people (unable/unwilling) since they will then view the institution itself as legitimate?

 

(In other words, those who can recognize voting as fantasy versus those whom can't/won't and will see it as legitimate?)