Bitcoin Forum

There is an election here in Wisconsin on Tuesday for the governorship. The candidates are Scott Walker and Tom Barrett. Normally I would just ignore it all since thinking about it is very unlikely to help me in any way. This time, though, everyone is really excited about the election and people are demanding that I vote, so I feel that it's necessary to either choose a candidate or decide that voting would be incorrect.

First of all, I tend to think that voting in a government election is somewhat immoral. Roughly half of the voters in the election will not get the governor they want, but will be forced to accept the resulting government regardless. Voting is attempting to violently force (indirectly) a group to accept a government that they don't want. Maybe this ethical problem is minor enough to ignore, though. I would have almost certainly voted for Ron Paul if he had won the Republican presidential nomination.

As far as I know, Walker's policies are most correct. He has decreased the size of state government, improved gun rights, and he doesn't seem to be doing anything anti-freedom. However, since I am a student without much USD income (and I will remain a student for several years), I might personally gain more with Barrett as governor.

What are your thoughts?

I would place voting in the category of aesthetics rather than morality but that's because I reserve morality for the things that I have the right to use force to defend myself from (murder, rape, theft, etc).

You lost me right there. Sad. The moment you stop reciting a meme, the more your thoughts will be respected for their originality.

Hariprasad Trivedi (I)

http://www.trivgov.com/images/Hari-Trivedi.jpg

Just look at his face. I think that says it all.

ETA: Whoops -- someone's been letting me talk, again. :x

Only you can make this choice Theymos. No one is holding a gun to your head making you vote. If you wish not to vote, tell people you did to shut them up.

You apparently disagree with theymos but I can't help but notice that you're expressing your disagreement using words like "sad" and "unoriginal" rather than "incorrect" or "illogical". If he is in error perhaps it would be more helpful to point out the specific mistake with logic or evidence rather than just describing your emotional reaction.

Physics is force. The Universe is a process of physics. Live in this universe or go to one where physics does not exist.

Your (most all of you) sad use of the term violence is nothing but moaning about a system that has less violence than any solution I have yet to see proposed.

It is sad. And it does lack originality.

I don't think proving a statement by using a homonym is a valid way to construct a logical statement.

I don't think anything you've said here actually factors in the complexity of the socio-economic system we find ourselves in and the natural dependencies it requires to continue.

That certainly may be the case. If you don't mind me asking can you explain the methodology you used to arrive at that conclusion so that I can learn for myself how to avoid making such mistakes in the future?

A general scan of your posts indicates that you're hung up on proof and logic, as opposed to providing information, other than your general distaste for taxation. Both are rather simplistic ideals in the larger scheme of humanity. May I suggest broadening your horizons?

Walker reminds me of the Vietnam War. The protests then were almost as big as they are now. It's good to see people actually giving a shit about anything.

Sure you can. But I'm not sure what that means.

If being "hung up on proof and logic" means that I care whether factual statements are true or false and that's a "simplistic ideal" should I expand my horizons by believing things that are false?

The bulk of your posts seem to be a request for proof. That is not discussion, but simply a tactic to avoid further trading of information. Your asking for proof does not constitute a refutation of information put forth. Furthermore, you also asked me once what would be required to demonstrate proof to me. I obliged you with an answer indicating that I essentially desired quality discourse, to which you said was not satisfactory.

Regarding taxation: your fanatical fixation on the concept is pointless until you have explored in detail and depth the issues which plague humanity, the environment, and the economy. The subject matter is deep. Explore those concepts, the ramifications of ignoring them and the ramifications of alternative methods to taxation, and then discuss them (in detail). At that point, your position on taxation might be respectable.

What is not respectable is a general denouncement of taxation without deep discussion. Anyone can spread the simplistic memes of their favorite political ideology. It says nothing.

You can't recall physics. That's the point. Just like you can't recall violence against your fellow man by recalling government. But you can increase violence against your fellow man significantly by calling for no government.

Yes, because "quality" can mean anything unless it has been precisely defined and the context made it quite clear that your definition of quality is, "whatever I agree with". Your answer indicated that you reserved the right to refute any fact, not based on it being false, but based on coming from a source you considered to be a "sham organization". You also reserved the right to completely disqualify any statement you classified as a "meme", again with no requirement for it to actually be incorrect.

Your reply was an incredible display of intellectual dishonesty since you basically give yourself latitude to be right regardless of any facts or logic provided because you can disregard anything on purely subjective grounds.

You have no idea how much background information I have provided on said 'sham' organizations, their tactics, and their deceptive practices. Furthermore, if 100 forum members use the term 'Blue suits', say the government is enacting violence against its citizens, then exactly two statements have been made, and no more, regardless of how many times it has been said.

Read my posts. I provide a lot of information, and it is in general unique, rather than repeated meaningless mantras. You can start with this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=84952.0

I see that. You present facts when doing so is supports your position. But on the other hand in this thread you've also shown a willingness to employ logical fallacies when that suits your purpose.

It looks to me like you stick to logic and facts when doing so is convenient and abandon them the instant they don't support your position. Perhaps this is because my horizons just aren't broad enough to see that the physics definition of "force" refers to the exact same phenomenon as the ethical definition of "force".

Well you better go reread the posts again. Kluge used the term 'force' in reference to violence, which is a physical process of force.

You know, that's exactly what the 80,000 Ralph Nader supporters said in Florida in 2000.

For some reason, they changed their mind when their idealistic stupidity meant Bush won.  I think you will agree that their votes did make a real difference, especially to Iraq.

I will be voting to send Walker home tomorrow. I wish I could vote to hang him. Yuck!

So you guys do not vote but then whine about the bad government that use force and violence? This is so fail, so fail.

Can you explain why?

I'm just going to nudge this in here

http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/05/st_essay_voting/

Enjoy

Why.  you work at say Sears hard all day you get paid squat.  Then these public sectors expect it all providing really nothing in return.  They retire in California and the 1st thing these public sector feces do is move to Idaho and Nevada to avoid taxes.  All the while taking home $200K a year in retirement, ripping off taxpayers loading up on overtime in the last 2 years they work.  If you love government so much, why are you on the bitcoin boards?

Yes
1.  Small government is good government.
2.  He's going to win.

Republicans are all about Big Government though.

Why?... The republicans steal all our tax wealth by giving it to their political cronies and allowing them to avoid paying their own taxes. Then they see a public employee making a living wage and try to convince me they are the reason we are broke. Save it for the hillbillies on Fox news.
Voted!

You are a student? How old are you, if you don't mind answering?
I always pictured you as an old fella with grown up kids and all. :)


About voting, it's quite likely that the probability of you winning the lottery is larger than the probability of your vote making any difference at all. I bet you're more likely to die in an accident in the way to the voting center than your vote making any difference. In order words, voting is useless. Democracy is an illusion. Don't waste your time.

On the contrary, democracy is not an illusion. Either vote, or expend your energy educating potential voters on the issues.

Voting IS idealistic. You're more likely to die in a car accident on the way to the polls than you are to change the final result. You spend bus fare, wait in line, present ID, educate yourself about candidates, etc. If you're completely rational, then voting is a bad idea; your average utility will decrease. Even if your values include the welfare of others, there are much more efficient means to achieve it in the same amount of time.

Most people unknowingly vote due to superrationality - they think about what if everyone like them skipped voting. Then the Bad Guys win! If you're willing to go to all that trouble to make an insignificant difference, why then take a step back and vote tactically, and with a one-move-ahead strategy like that? If you're using "if everyone did that" reasoning, shouldn't you vote for whoever you think everyone else should vote for?

It's popular to hate on Nader supporters, but far more people never voted at all, or voted for Bush. Nader supporters didn't ask for a broken plurality voting system - they're just answering honestly. Maybe you should blame a Democratic party that has no intention of fixing the flaw that led to Bush because it keeps them in power too.

I voted for Walker.

I never really considered voting for Barrett. For me, it was a choice between Walker and not voting at all. I just wanted to bring up the possibility that Barrett might be better for me personally even though he's a terrible candidate overall.


I'll be 21 on the 15^th.

Ill buy you a beer on your birthday Theymos!

Hating them would be totally wrong but they tested their "it doesn't matter if Bush or Gore wins" view and when they got Bush, they were yelling about it being a disaster.  In their case, they proved conclusively that voting does indeed matter.

Agreed, whoever both claimed it didn't matter at all AND was upset about one beating the other is hypocritical. However, I think the number of people who intersect BOTH groups is quite small (if existant) and not representative of either Nader or his campaign. FWIW, I was a Nader '08 regional coordinator, I've even met him.

The official Nader position is that there IS a difference between greater and lesser evil. It's still evil, though! We still would have yelled about Gore winning too, just not as loudly.

Thanks. As a government non-union IT worker, I can assure you that your vote is appreciated. IMHO the unions make government employees look bad.

I went into public service answering the call of what can I do for the country, not what the country can do for me. I would even go so far as to say a good number of folks enter civil service with the same intentions. My impressions from the unions have been that government should work exactly the opposite of that. Any time we can cull their power it's a win for the taxpayer.

Now that they are getting rid of unions, I expect that pensions and social security will be eliminated.

Because if you don't even vote when you have the chance you allow other people to choose the government and it's nonsense that you later say "bad government"
Non voting=other votes for you and choose the government for you

It's useless to speak about anarchy and liberal id you guys don't even vote for what YOU want.

Walker has won fair and square. I don't care for his policies, but the people have spoken. No worries, being a rich white man means I will personally benefit from republicans being in power. :)

Not true. My family's industrial real estate has lost 75% of its value in Wisconsin. I would never start a business in Wisconsin.

I am just trying to make lemonade from the lemon we have as gov. It's not easy.
The real sad part is that he won by sheer spending power. That is the most important lesson. You CAN buy elections in America now.

Won't be long.

It doesn't matter what anyone wants or doesn't want. There just isn't any possible way to out all the benefits that people were promised.

If you think Joe Lieberman wouldn't have pressed the button to implode the WTC towers, and then blamed Saddam Hussein and rammed through the PATRIOT Act and sent troops into Iraq and Afghanistan just like Dick Cheney did, you're delusional.  The talking points might have been slightly different, but the result would have been the same.

The choice between Gore or Bush was irrelevant.  The program moves forward no matter who you vote for.

In someone believed even half of that nonsense, they won't be happy with any election result.

And if you don't play in the lottery other people will and somebody else will get the prize instead of you.

Do you really think that's enough of a rationale to justify playing in the lottery?

(btw, "bad government" is a pleonasm)


It's useless to vote. Your vote won't make any difference. Use your time better. (for instance, by supporting projects which may actually have some impact in the amount of freedom we experience)

I have said this before, and I will say it again.

Thank you for your service..

I am a Bitcoiner to the core.

However, I refuse to except fantasy world solutions to complex real world socio-economic problems we face.

+1

Representative democracy is neither. 

And that would still be true even if there were some attempt to make elections legitimate. 

It's nice to be appreciated. Thank you.

Wow dude you're ignorant as all hell.

Broadening horizons? Unoriginal? Ok Mr. Hipster lulz.

Did you know that your penchant for Physics is ironic when viewed through your negative prism of unoriginality and anti-simplicity?

What I mean to say is that physics accepts that in order for a theory to be widely accepted it ought to be "simple", "short" and "elegant" or "beautiful". Hence the term "Beautiful equations".

Things, which are simple, are logical. Logic is, in part, the deconstruction, into smaller parts, of complex socio/economic phenomena. To state that something is "simple" and therefore wrong is anti-physics (irony coming from someone who claims to be speaking in support of Physics).

Honestly my friend... you use big words but your existentialism is lacking in context and content. You are simply ignorant, holding on to false ideas derived out of illogical premises. In other words... you believe things absent evidence and thus appear to be ignorant of your own ignorance.

What have you said here? Explain again, because I do not get it.

Do you want to talk about the socio/economic trajectory of humanity? Or are those words too big for you? Whatever the case, I'm game! Start a thread, and let's have at it. Right now. Start the thread.