If voting works, then ...?

[labmath2]

If voting works here to actually get us closer to the libertarian world, then how should we view voting going forward? 

 

Since Stefan started this channel, his goal has been to promote a more free society. He has gone about doing that in many ways including rejecting voting as a valid means of achieving freedom. If voting in this one election actually moves us closer to freedom (in a noticeable way) where all those other years of action have done little to create a more free society, wouldn't this be evidence of participating in the political being better for achieving a free society than any other method implemented so far?

 

Should libertarians start taking the political process more seriously instead of deriding it for promoting violation of self ownership? Why not actually just advocate a true libertarian candidate the next cycle?

[aviet]

We can achieve more freedom by voting and right now in Northern Europe and the US we have good options to do this. Yes, it goes against anarcho-principles, but anarcho-principles are essentially based on ideal societies and situations; and we do not live in an ideal society or are subject to ideal situations.

The argument has been made here that voting can be an act of self defense in the same way that an act of physical aggression is seen as negating the non-aggression principle.

I think one of the best arguments for voting is Singapore. The country went from a shaky, insecure, post-colonial blip to the second/third richest country in the world in about a generation. In the 80s there was a considerable agitation from a Bernie Sanders-like man who wanted to represent the people who were towards the bottom of Singapore society, i.e. people that had benefited massively from the past 25 years' leadership and lived much better than their various neighbours, but wanted a Sanders free lunch system. If large numbers of the Singapore electorate had decided they were going to fly anarcho- colours by not voting, to the extent that this insurgent Marxist party took power, then the country would have become less free and gone down the same route as India etc.

For me it is about separating ideals and what is practically make my life freer and what is going to improve other people around me to the extend that they will also want a freer society. Ideally I'd like there to be no nuclear weapons, but the US + UK disposing of all of theirs could be one of the simplest plays to bring about a less free world.

 

Should libertarians start taking the political process more seriously instead of deriding it for promoting violation of self ownership? Why not actually just advocate a true libertarian candidate the next cycle?

[A4E]

Internet, which is a huge anarchistic universe, is like a queen on a chessboard today. Voting is thus more of a means under a larger system like the internet, and not a method in and of itself to achieve more freedom.

 

Voting=Hammer

Trump=Experienced honest carpenter

Internet=Architects, engineers, safety courses, realtime honest carpenter slander and mudslinging protection...etc

 

So the hammer is still just a tool that can be abused.

[RichardY]

Sounds like a Job for Bicycle Repairman!!! Jokes aside, voting for Trump is only one small step, though by at least talking about facts and corruption kept from the general public, maybe things will change for the better. "Hopefully" the Nietzschean Superman that is Trump will steer the ship of state away from the course of Venezuela or Nuclear Armageddon and set an example to Europe.

 

I don't think that "just" voting in Europe is going to make any major difference, yes there was Brexit, but the current PM has no balls, regardless what happens though there could be some "psychological benefit", whether it destroys the idea of democracy as a moral system in the UK and Europe in people's minds or decentralises power in principle to the nation and eventually, hopefully to the individual. 

 

The more right wing nationalistic parties in Europe are easily infiltrated and bought out, just like the tea party in the USA. Though some individuals have done some positive things exposing political corruption and abuse. Whether Europe gets its Superman is yet to be seen. Nationalism for native Europeans is not going to work IMO, self Interest is too broad and exploitable a term by special Interests. "We will stand on Principle or we will not stand at all."

 

Don't know anything about Democracy in Singapore, maybe their IQ is much higher over there at least compared to the rest of S.E Asia and Malaysia. Know they have strict litter controls, stark contrast to the rest of the region with piracy and shanty towns.

[D-Light]

Voting for President merely perpetuates the illusion that the average individual actually has any power to affect change in the political world. What will your vote on Election day do? It will help the Electors from your state, district, or territory decide whom they should cast their vote for in the Electoral College. That is, it will help them do this IF the voting machines aren't rigged and the tallies from each machine are correct and IF the people in your state are roughly evenly split between the two major parties or strongly support a third party candidate. Even once this occurs, the votes will only inform the Electors who they SHOULD vote for in some cases:

 

Arkansas, Arizona, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire,

New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia

 

and only who they Really, Really Should (Obligated to) vote for (there's a nominal fine if they don't) in others:

 

Alabama, Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland,

Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon,

South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming

 

If you live in one of the US Territories, you don't get to pretend like your voice matters once the candidates have been selected.

 

So, go ahead and cast your vote next Tuesday if it will make you feel empowered. Just realize that unless you're an Elector in the Electoral College, it won't REALLY matter in who is selected for Figurehead Slave Master of the USA at all. It's all just one big Puppet Show to keep the masses pacified for another 2-4 years.

[algernon]

The best indicator of the future, is the past. I've pointed out in multiple instances of voting being ineffective at transitioning towards less state control, and more personal freedom. One thing that multiple people pointed out was that 'BREXIT' happened based on a vote, and that was an example of less government happening through a vote.

 

My argument has always been the Brexit referendum was always just an advisory vote and held no legal standing, and I had serious doubts of it actually happening.

 

And then I see this today - http://www.smh.com.au/world/britains-high-court-deals-blow-to-uk-brexit-hopes-20161103-gshn7w.html

 

When we have an election like Obama/Romney the outcome is not relevant, because the 'choices' are the same. If Trump is truly a wild card, that stands to reduce the state power to a significant degree, he will not be allowed to achieve that.

[dsayers]

Why not actually just advocate a true libertarian candidate the next cycle?

Because there's no such thing as a square triangle. "Political candidate" and "libertarian" are incompatible as one is predicated on the violating liberty.

 

We can achieve more freedom by voting

Freedom is not analog. A person is free or they are not. When they choose to vote, they are telling you that they are not free even within their own head. Voting is an act of fantasy, for all the reasons which I've listed many times. Believing that fantasy can influence the real world (other than signaling to others that the fantasy is real) is wishful thinking at best.

 

voting for Trump is only one small step

You have no way of knowing this. You don't own me with which to try. And we know by his own admission that he is anti-freedom.

 

Voting for President merely perpetuates the illusion that the average individual actually has any power to affect change in the political world. What will your vote on Election day do? It will help the Electors from your state, district, or territory decide whom they should cast their vote for in the Electoral College. That is, it will help them do this IF the voting machines aren't rigged and the tallies from each machine are correct and IF the people in your state are roughly evenly split between the two major parties or strongly support a third party candidate. Even once this occurs, the votes will only inform the Electors who they SHOULD vote for in some cases:

Well put. I just wanted to add that even if all of that were not true, *I* own me and I don't want a master. Political voting is akin to gang rape. I will be forced to have a master. Which I realize at this point in the game is going to happen anyways. It's just that my self-ownership accepting tribe shouldn't be asking for/condoning it.

 

One thing that multiple people pointed out was that 'BREXIT' happened based on a vote, and that was an example of less government happening through a vote.

 

My argument has always been the Brexit referendum was always just an advisory vote and held no legal standing, and I had serious doubts of it actually happening.

 

And then I see this today - http://www.smh.com.au/world/britains-high-court-deals-blow-to-uk-brexit-hopes-20161103-gshn7w.html

Thanks for the link. Just wanted to push back on the claim of "less government." Like freedom, government isn't analog. The people chose one master over another, which is not at all the same as choosing freedom.

[RichardY]

My argument has always been the Brexit referendum was always just an advisory vote and held no legal standing, and I had serious doubts of it actually happening.

 

And then I see this today - http://www.smh.com.au/world/britains-high-court-deals-blow-to-uk-brexit-hopes-20161103-gshn7w.html

 

When we have an election like Obama/Romney the outcome is not relevant, because the 'choices' are the same. If Trump is truly a wild card, that stands to reduce the state power to a significant degree, he will not be allowed to achieve that.

 

If Trump gets elected, even if he does nothing because X politician or Special Interest won't allow him to, he still has a microphone to speak to the World, whether people listen or not is up to them.

 

Having an impact on 242 Million people on the basis of one vote is obviously not going to have much of an impact (though if its a nice day why not vote anyway on the basis that candidate Clinton is pure evil or if you care about politics do a youtube video on not voting instead) especially if Bond Villian Soros pushes a button that deletes votes for Trump. But there is still voting in smaller countries which have a large impact like Iceland, they have a small enough population that could be brainwashed/reasoned with that if enough libertarians focused there or on other small enough states/countries it could have an effect, if Anarcho-cap is reasonable.

 

The Brexit thing like the protests against the Iraq war was/is a complete farce, but if people vote for something outright and its not delivered, then its just further discredited exposed the system/fraud. What the real figures were on Brexit who knows, it was probably rigged, the MSM was certainly biased, but still got an out vote. 

 

More importantly, what would be effective instead of voting or not voting?

[algernon]

Thanks for the link. Just wanted to push back on the claim of "less government." Like freedom, government isn't analog. The people chose one master over another, which is not at all the same as choosing freedom.

 

I agree with you, and even though my term was technically incorrect, less government, just like a little pregnant, is a phrase most people understand. Less involvement, less regulations, less taxes, or whatever it might be which equals less burden.

[RichardY]

You have no way of knowing this. You don't own me with which to try. And we know by his own admission that he is anti-freedom.

Conversely you don't know that by not voting for Trump and by allowing  one extra vote (if the election isn't rigged which it probably is) to go to Hillary someone defending child abuse is a step in the right direction either.

 

Votes are just approval whether they are ignored or respected,  think what you will.

 

I'm unsure why an Alpha male has to continually state that he is not owned, is there anybody on the forum who actually wants to own Dsayers, why be fearful of collateral damage to yourself when the other candidate is pure Evil or just say you have more important things to do then vote when you have microscopic influence on the process.

 

Too important to others to take 5-10 minutes to vote or talk much longer about voting, I could understand that.

[dsayers]

Conversely you don't know that by not voting for Trump and by allowing  one extra vote (if the election isn't rigged which it probably is) to go to Hillary someone defending child abuse is a step in the right direction either.

You poison the well with your use of the word "allowing" here. What I know is that I'm not owned by others. One way I demonstrate this is not pretending that somebody could own me by asking them to.

 

I mean, you're admitting that you understand that elections are rigged, but admonishing me for not playing along. Does this not inspire any cognitive dissonance?

 

I'm unsure why an Alpha male has to continually state that he is not owned

So no feeling ill at ease as a bunch of people who accept property rights push for violations of property rights, but discomfort in the face of somebody reminding them that the ritual by which they demonstrate this is fantastical? This is an indication of bias confirmation.

[D.D.]

What I know is that I'm not owned by others. One way I demonstrate this is not pretending that somebody could own me by asking them to.

Do you have a United States of America birth certificate? If so, didn't someone ask the State to own you? Without the birth certificate, you would have less access to "regulated freedoms" like earning income on the value you provide to someone, even though the State reminds you of the leash through taxation, etc.

 

I pay taxes. It could be argued that by doing so I agree with theft by the State and support it's ownership of myself and others. I pay taxes because the State will use force to get their taxes from myself and others. Meanwhile I work at undermining the State, even if that means using it's own weapon or befriending it's enemies.

 

Life is not Black-and-White but grey. Not using violence to defend yourself because you have a principle called NAP will get you killed. Your enemies are counting on you holding to your values while they use violence against you. That's your weak spot.

 

None of this means I agree with the State.

[dsayers]

Do you have a United States of America birth certificate? If so, didn't someone ask the State to own you?

So reality is altered because people got together to wish it to be so?!

 

I pay taxes. It could be argued that by doing so I agree with theft by the State and support it's ownership of myself and others. I pay taxes because the State will use force to get their taxes from myself and others.

Where coercion is present, choice is not. How many times have I said this I wonder?

 

Not using violence to defend yourself because you have a principle called NAP will get you killed.

Now you're just making stuff up. Force used to defend yourself is not violence and nobody said anything about not defending yourself. I've debunked the "self-defense" claim of voting many times. Here is one example. Trying to enslave 300 million people is a not proportionate response to any level of coercion used against you. It is the escalation and creation of a new debt to the tune of about 300 million to one.

[Jot]

Do you have a United States of America birth certificate? If so, didn't someone ask the State to own you? Without the birth certificate, you would have less access to "regulated freedoms" like earning income on the value you provide to someone, even though the State reminds you of the leash through taxation, etc.

 

I pay taxes. It could be argued that by doing so I agree with theft by the State and support it's ownership of myself and others. I pay taxes because the State will use force to get their taxes from myself and others. Meanwhile I work at undermining the State, even if that means using it's own weapon or befriending it's enemies.

 

Life is not Black-and-White but grey. Not using violence to defend yourself because you have a principle called NAP will get you killed. Your enemies are counting on you holding to your values while they use violence against you. That's your weak spot.

 

None of this means I agree with the State.

It has been how many years since UPB came out;? and still lots of people do not understand that UPB has nothing to say about violence but with its initiation...

[D.D.]

Looks like I have some more learning to do before jumping into the arena.

Thanks for your input, especially your link dsayers.

 

UPB is something else for me to fully understand.

[dsayers]

Looks like I have some more learning to do before jumping into the arena.

Thanks for your input, especially your link dsayers.

You're very welcome. And don't be afraid to hash this out here as you're learning. You don't want to learn a bad foundation and then build upon it. One tip of advice if I may: Your 2nd to last post in this thread didn't seem very curious at all. Here, you seem much more curious and open-minded. I for one appreciate that very much. Could you elaborate on which parts you're struggling with or which pieces of feedback you found to be helpful or challenging?

[powder]

Looks like I have some more learning to do before jumping into the arena.

Thanks for your input, especially your link dsayers.

 

UPB is something else for me to fully understand.

excellent response

[RichardY]

I mean, you're admitting that you understand that elections are rigged, but admonishing me for not playing along. Does this not inspire any cognitive dissonance?

 

Votes are just approval whether they are ignored or respected,  think what you will.

 

 

So no feeling ill at ease as a bunch of people who accept property rights push for violations of property rights, but discomfort in the face of somebody reminding them that the ritual by which they demonstrate this is fantastical? This is an indication of bias confirmation.

No where does it say I own a share of someone else's property by voting.

[dsayers]

No where does it say I own a share of someone else's property by voting.

Saying, "I choose you to rule over 300 million people" is pretending to own those 300 million people. Pretending to be able to bind 300 million people without their consent. You're right, your vote doesn't say you own a SHARE of somebody else's property; It says you own ALL of it.