Is there any such thing as "the right to v*te"? Can there be any such thing? Or is it just a figment of the imagination?
In the past week or so I sure saw a lot of people talking about this supposed "right".
There is no such thing as a right to govern other people. Any act of governing others is archation-- it violates their natural human rights in several ways. No one can have the right to archate.
To v*te is to endorse using political violence, through government and its "laws", against others. Do you really have a right to do that?
Sure, it is possible you might only be endorsing using political violence against those who are endorsing the use of political violence against you-- in self-defense. And some people might think it's preferable to use defensive political violence instead of using defensive violence of other kinds, such as shooting those who are threatening you in a credible way.
But is it really better? I'm not sure. I'm not even so sure it ever works, in the long-run.
I sympathize with the claim of defensive v*ting, even if I don't completely buy it.
I won't condemn anyone who feels the need to v*te. Even though it sure seems like an endorsement of the "system" and a pledge to go along with whatever results from the election. After all, democracy, like all politics, is "winner take all"; "win/lose". It's "American Roulette". Why play a rigged game you can't win, even if you believe you have the right to do so?
_______________
Reminder: I could still really use some help.
Voters need to be slaughtered by the billions because they are the genesis of widespread evil and refuse to cease their violence.
ReplyDeleteIt's that simple.
Bringing people out of ignorance is harder than slaughtering them, but it has a better chance at producing a different result.
ReplyDeleteAlso, if you slaughter billions, I hope you consider at least composting them. When you think about it, the world really is just a giant compost pile.
The optimum fix for the statism problem is to explain it in very clear simple terms to everyone in a way that anyone can understand and appeal to their nature to be free in order to initiate a popular demand of change from serfdom to a state of freedom and liberty.
DeleteBut people are brainwashed selfish idiots who reject peaceful coexistence. Thus reasonable peaceful resolution is impossible.
The next step is to neutralize them by whatever means necessary and available. Considering that we're dealing with billions of people, that means the use of force, WMD's.
So, how do you kill several billion violent statists with WMD's?
Make them kill each other? Their system is already very well developed to produce large scale violence.
So, how do you start WW3?
"To v*te is to endorse using political violence, through government and its 'laws'"
ReplyDeleteIf a mugger holds a gun to my head and says "I'll let you decide whether I take all $50 from your wallet or just the $20 bill," no, me saying "just the $20 bill" is not "endorsing" the mugging.
Your claim is basically analogous to "driving on a government road is an endorsement of government roads."
"Do you really have a right to do that?"
Voting is indicating a preference. It is speech. If I don't have a right to state my preferences, let's dispense with the fairy tale that I have any rights at all.
If v*te results were only applied to those who v*ted, I would agree. But those who v*te in favor of a "tax" (a mugging)-- even a cheaper one-- aren't the only ones who end up paying. Those who v*ted against it pay just the same.
DeleteIf a mugger holds a gun to my head and says "I'll let you decide whether I take all $50 from your wallet or just the $20 bill," no, me saying "just the $20 bill" is not "endorsing" the mugging.
It's not endorsing it, but it is legitimizing it. It's saying it's OK to take the $20 (even if you'd rather he didn't) as long as he takes the same from everyone.
Now, like I say, I can't blame you for trying to save your own money by "stating a preference", but I wonder if there aren't more effective ways.
...let's dispense with the fairy tale that I have any rights at all.
I thought we had already done that last week.
Voting is an open declaration of approval support and demand of the terms and conditions of government and election process. It also qualifies as a contractual agreement. It is essentially joining a violent gang.
DeleteGovernments primary claim to legitimacy is based on constituency, voters. Who could they claim to represent if no one voted?
It's not just an expression of preference or speech. It is a criminal act.
If a mugger holds a gun to my head and says "I'll let you decide whether "I take all $50 from your wallet or just the $20 bill," no, me saying "just the $20 bill" is not "endorsing" the mugging."
False equivalency. Voting is like him advertising his violence service, and you delivering your checkbook, credit cards, keys to your home and cars, your wife and children, and a list of requests on how to best violate your wife and little girl, which neighbors to kill and what stuff to take.
Not voting while still being subject to the state is like being one of the neighbors who gets robbed by the violence service professional.
Your mugger scenario is like the violence service guy asking you if you want him to take the jewelry or plastic dog bowl. The answer is to kill the mugger or violence service guy because that's your property. Then go kill the asshole who hired him. Then return to your peaceful life.
voting isn't joining.
Deletehence, two separate words, with two distinct meanings.
participating is not conceding.
each different tactic is not a strategy, nor do any tactics imply acceptance of slavery. please consider the full dynamic range of robust alternatives that can be applied against the multiplicity of interests of the opponent.
"Voting is an open declaration of approval support and demand of the terms and conditions of government and election process. It also qualifies as a contractual agreement"
Deletehow so?
not following the reasoning.
can you explain each causal link?
@ sofa
DeleteI get your argument; I am being forced into this BS, so I might as well have a say in it.
Start by defining representative government. Representative government is a system of social organization with a claim to legitimacy based on a constituency, voters. It is to say that government has legitimate authority to force edicts on everyone/everything within a geographical area by popular demand of for and by the people who live there. If no one voted, there would be no legitimate claim to of or by the people. There would be no one to represent, and therefore no claim of legitimate authority.
An election is not only demanding said system, but also giving your recommendation as to which of the leaders chosen for you that you prefer. By voting, you are supporting and agreeing to the terms and conditions of the election process and system of government, recognizing the winner as your legitimate leader.
...or think of it like this; You're given a small list of leaders to choose from who have been chosen for you. If you vote, there is 100% chance that you are demanding government, and a +/-50% chance that 'your' guy will be leader. Regardless of who wins or what they say/promise/do, you are still voting for government.
You are not forced to vote in the USA. You have a choice as to whether or not to condone/support/demand/engage/participate. You're not forced to vote, just forced into obedience to the state, forced into obedience to your neighbors who demand your servitude.
Not voting is saying that I do not approve, that it's not of for or by me. Voting is nothing more than demanding slavery upon yourself and others.
If it were any other group of people, any other violent religious cult, how would you rationalize it? Say 40% of your village joined a cult, chose a leader, then hired armed thugs to hunt people around town and made them abide by their cult dogma. Would you vote for their leaders on the basis that you're forced into their BS anyway? No, you'd say "This is absolute bullshit, totally unacceptable.", then start thinking of ways to circumvent or fight them.
"Not voting while still being subject to the state is like being one of the neighbors who gets robbed by the violence service professional."
DeleteI think of it as being forced to buy fuel, tires, and insurance for a car I don't own and don't want, but that I might be able to use on some future Tuesday when the date is divisible by "Sasquatch".
Government: Choose from the following;
DeleteA - Eat shit
Candidate A: Turd on white
Candidate B: Turd on wheat
Constituent A: Yay shit! Turds on white!
Constituent B: Yay shit! Turds on wheat!
Libertarian: Fuck you! Steak!
"Not voting is saying that I do not approve"...
Deletewell, not voting - is not voting.
not approving is not approving.
approving is not voting.
voting is not approving.
hence, two distinct words with separate meanings.
neither means the other.
no logical tie has been established that either causes the other.
no logical tie has been established that either is the result of the other.
...
and I agree: "Fuck you! Steak!"
The comment about taking $50 versus $20 resonates with me. Currently, I am not voting. One of the last elections I voted in was one in which I was convinced I could help the cause of liberating us, in this case, from the tyranny of a government that tells me I cannot ingest what I want when I want. To the rest of the country, and even somewhat to those of us in Calitopia, we believed we were making cannabis legal. However, when I really started studying both propositions on the ballot, I saw that the main difference between the two was the amount of taxation that the king would receive. I have had a medical marijuana license for a while now and while I think it's stupid that I have to have the king's court's permission to ingest something (especially something that comes from a natural plant), it was the best thing for me, being that I could buy whatever I chose in a relatively safe environment.
ReplyDeleteThe propositions voted on not did not so much legalize cannabis, but regulated and taxed it, i.e., added layers of government control. Thus, I now have an over 10% tax added to the bill at my local cannabis dispensary.
However, the propositions' text was not all in vain--one proposition asked that any cannabis dispensary not following direct orders from the king's court (however the court chooseth to interpret those orders on a particular day, no doubt), would have all DWP services cut off. Thus, a dispensary could have no water and power, if the king's court doth please it so. This shocking comment, buried deep in the text of the proposition, was perhaps a feeler put out to those who believe that such shenanigans should be okay to apply also to individual residences who do not follow the king's court's orders. I'm sure that many were okay with this rhetoric, but I was not. I voted no on both props, although I am very much for true legalization of cannabis, as if it should have ever been illegal. A lot of good it did, of course. My local cannabis dispensary says that the laws now are so confusing that they seem to change every day, as edicts come down from on high, with whatever pleaseth the king and his court that morning. One result of the proposition that passed is that lots of little companies that supplied edibles and such were put out of business, being that they did not exactly follow the king's edicts and it would cost too much for them to comply. Also, much as with the ban on certain sizes of soft drinks in NY, all edibles were required to contain not more than a certain amount of THC, as if we were all too stupid to figure dosage out for ourselves.
When marijuana was being legalized in several states, I was arguing that it should not be legalized, but decriminalized.
DeleteLegalization means permissible by the state. It also means controlled/regulated and taxed by the state, which means coercion and punishments for managing your marijuana how you want.
Decriminalization means government stays out of it, which means no coercion/force, no regulation, no taxes, ...which means availability soars and the artificially influenced price scale drops significantly to something comparable to tomatoes.
Marijuana laws are based on the false belief that you need permission, guidance and coercion from the state.
"I thought we had already done that last week."
ReplyDeleteI do have to say, in all seriousness, that that was an elegant comeback :D
I've been a voter, and I've been a purposeful non-voter. I've seen persuasive tactical/strategic arguments for both, and persuasive moral/philosophical arguments for neither.
Government is systematic violence. It answers everything with coercion/violence. That's wrong, unethical.
DeleteSupporting government is supporting violence. That's unethical, wrong.
"Voting is a primary tool for tyrants, they need the blame shifted from themselves to the willing accomplices in the population for the crimes they’ve committed and those uncommitted up to the time they resume their nefarious tasks of threatening, fining, kidnapping, maiming and killing selected Helots who happen to slide into the sight the government machine has focused on its latest rapine project." ~ Bill Buppert
ReplyDelete