Thursday, November 17, 2022

You do you, but...

You might have the desire to v*te. You might have the ability, the opportunity, and the power to v*te. One thing you don't have is the "right" to v*te.

That's because such a right can't exist-- the very idea is in conflict with rights. To imagine you have the "right" to impose government or politicians or legislation on others is to deny the existence of rights.

If you are in a situation where you believe you need to v*te in self-defense, there are other, more effective ways to defend yourself. Ways that don't guarantee "collateral damage".

V*ting in "self-defense" is like firing randomly into a crowd and hoping you hit the bad guy who is violating you. Sure, it's possible you might get him, but the odds are overwhelmingly against it. If enough people join you in firing randomly into the crowd, your chances of success go up. So do your chances of harming the innocent.

Yes, if you know your target-- say a bad ballot proposal that threatens to violate your liberty-- and enough of you get together to v*te against that one thing and all of you leave the rest of the ballot blank, you could credibly claim that you v*ted in self-defense. 

But what if your side loses? Will you comply? If not, why not skip the unnecessary step?

You are almost always going to be outnumbered because [Unfortunate Truth #1]. People respond to promises that they won't have to be responsible. And bad guys run the election system from top to bottom and they count the v*tes. The game is rigged and by now you ought to know it.

I get it. I used to think liberty might be won-- or protected-- by v*ting for the less bad candidate, too. But then I observed and learned from my observations. That new information caused me to change my mind.


If I've earned your support, consider subscribing or donating.


  1. Voting is speech. It's indicating a preference among offered alternatives. The voter didn't create the system offering those alternatives. He's just saying what outcome he'd prefer.

    So yes, you have a right to vote. Unless you don't have a right to speak, that is.

    1. V*ting is not mere speech. Consent of those your v*te affects is what makes the difference, just like consent keeps sex from being rape. I do not consent for you to v*te to impose a politician on me.

    2. Really? I require your consent to speak because you fantasize that me speaking "affects" you?

      That's even dumber than "there's a magic bubble that makes it OK for me to use other people's property without their permission."

    3. Suppose there's a witch trial, and after evidence is presented, the town will vote on whether to burn the "witch" or set her free. Do you have a "right" to vote to burn the witch? Is doing so "just speech"?

      Don't like that analogy? All right, suppose you're voting on whether to enslave red-haired people or brown-haired people. Still "just speech"?

      As a further observation, resorting to words like "dumber" tends to suggest strongly that insults are all you have going for you.

    4. What makes you think I "don't like that analogy?"

      Expressing a preference is speech, no matter the preference. The preference may be wrong and evil, but it's not aggression to express it.

  2. Well, someone is going to get the job. Everyone has the opportunity to look at the applicants. If it's obvious that one will be more destructive to a prosperous and healthy society than the other, then, I hope for the least destructive to win. The big problem right now, and how long has it been going on? Is the outright theft of elections. Trump was either The Best President America has seen in decades or the Least Crappy, IDK, but he made changes that benefited all of America.
    The theft of that election made me think. I've been wondering how is it possible that such failures as Maxine Waters, Sheilla JakkSun Lee, John McCain,