"I don't vote"... "it's beneath me"??

[blablahblah]

"I don't vote" -- could somebody please explain this attitude which seems very pervasive among An-Caps and Libertarians & Co.?

Seriously, is it a:
"I don't negotiate with terrorists" hunger-strike kind of thing, where you drink poison and hope the other person will die?

Not that I'm trying to get anyone to participate in the democratic process (please, just NO! ), I'm just trying to fully understand how this non-participation mindset is supposed to personally benefit the non-voter.

[1713485426]

1713485426

[1713485426]

1713485426

[1713485426]

1713485426

[1713485426]

1713485426

[1713485426]

1713485426

[Pumpkin]

You can only choose from some very limited options. If they are all bad and there is no good option, then voting is pointless. And even if there is a good option, it's unlikely to ever win.

Politicians bribe voters by promising something for nothing. They fund it through taxes, debt and inflation.

"No debt and no inflation" will never get over 50%.

[blablahblah]

A vote for Fred means "I endorse the system and I want Fred to be my ruler". A vote for Joe means "I endorse the system and I want Joe to be my ruler".

Failing to cast a vote is failing to endorse the system.

OK, so eventually voting gets cancelled altogether and Joe becomes the Supreme Leader. How does that help you?

[nimda]

A vote for Fred means "I endorse the system and I want Fred to be my ruler". A vote for Joe means "I endorse the system and I want Joe to be my ruler".

Failing to cast a vote is failing to endorse the system.

OK, so eventually voting gets cancelled altogether and Joe becomes the Supreme Leader. How does that help you?

Imagine a different scenario: you are a slave on a plantation, and all you need to do to get padded chains is admit that your owner has the right to rule you.

Failing to do so is failing to endorse the system

> The padded chains are disposed of. How does that help you?

You did the moral thing, that's how.

[PurpleTentacle]

Voting is not a democratic process as you state. Democracy means that people participate in decision taking processes in their respective communities.

Voting only gives you the choice of different flavored promises which are rarely realized when a party finally takes power. On top of that it seems that the only way to get rid of a bad government is to wait four years and then vote again for an opposing party which more often than not turns out to be even worse than the previous party.

The truth is that it's not the only way, there's also the process of delegalizing a regime/system which means that you do not support it in any possible way e.g. by not voting, not paying taxes and so on. Of course you also have to be an active member of your local community.

[crumbs]

A vote for Fred means "I endorse the system and I want Fred to be my ruler". A vote for Joe means "I endorse the system and I want Joe to be my ruler".

Failing to cast a vote is failing to endorse the system.

OK, so eventually voting gets cancelled altogether and Joe becomes the Supreme Leader. How does that help you?

Imagine a different scenario: you are a slave on a plantation, and all you need to do to get padded chains is admit that your owner has the right to rule you.

Failing to do so is failing to endorse the system

> The padded chains are disposed of. How does that help you?

You did the moral thing, that's how.

"I'd rather die on my stinking feet than live on my trembling knees"? Oh, teh drama
The problem with your passive unwillingness to vote is it doesn't even offer the theatrics implicit in the above quote.  Your "protest" is functionally no different from laziness & apathy, and is almost guaranteed to be interpreted as such.

[nimda]

The only difference is the slave would be whipped.

[Lethn]

If you gave me an option that I wanted to vote for then I'd vote for it but going up and telling me to choose between having my penis cut off or being anally raped is the most stupid thing I've ever heard of. The only thing I've really liked voting for is referendums because they're actually asking for me opinion instead of telling me to vote for them, not only that, I'm going to put my money in Bitcoin because the only way we'll get them to listen to majority of the population ( not the population that votes which are actually the minority, look up voting statistics and you'll know what I mean ) is by bleeding them dry of any money they have.

People love to make a big deal about voting but the fact is if you have only two parties to choose from realistically and both of them are just as bad then it's not going to make any difference whether you vote or not, here in the UK I'd love to vote for the Pirate Party or Libertarian Party but the way the system works means that I'm forced to pick only the parties that are on the ballot paper and have MP's/Representatives in that area, so if I wanted to vote for someone I liked I'd have to move house.

The democratic process we have now is currently a broken mess really, I'd love to see Direct Democracy spread everywhere because then even if a party everyone hates gets elected you could still have their stupid laws repealed rather than letting them do whatever they want for several years before they get kicked out and another bunch of scumbags replace them.

[crumbs]

If you gave me an option that I wanted to vote for then I'd vote for it but going up and telling me to choose between having my penis cut off or being anally raped is the most stupid thing I've ever heard of.

The problem is when you don't choose, one of the two is certain to happen nonetheless.  Placed in your unfortunate situation, i'd vote for surprise butsecs.

The only thing I've really liked voting for is referendums because they're actually asking for me opinion instead of telling me to vote for them, not only that, I'm going to put my money in Bitcoin because the only way we'll get them to listen to majority of the population ( not the population that votes which are actually the minority, look up voting statistics and you'll know what I mean ) is by bleeding them dry of any money they have.

For such a cynic, you're a hopeless optimist.  If there's one thing that governments know how to do, it's collecting taxes.  They had millennia in which to sharpen their skilz, they're god level.  UR a noob.  Wake up, it's morning.

People love to make a big deal about voting but the fact is if you have only two parties to choose from realistically and both of them are just as bad then it's not going to make any difference whether you vote or not, here in the UK I'd love to vote for the Pirate Party or Libertarian Party but the way the system works means that I'm forced to pick only the parties that are on the ballot paper and have MP's/Representatives in that area, so if I wanted to vote for someone I liked I'd have to move house.

...and since it's not important enough for you to move, you don't, and things go on just as they are.  In the past, revolutionaries did more than pick up and move -- they gave their lives for their ideals.  You don't even  want to load a truck.

The democratic process we have now is currently a broken mess really, I'd love to see Direct Democracy spread everywhere because then even if a party everyone hates gets elected you could still have their stupid laws repealed rather than letting them do whatever they want for several years before they get kicked out and another bunch of scumbags replace them.

I dunno.  How's holding your breath & pouting working out for you?  New freedomz any time soon?

[Lethn]

The problem isn't when you don't choose, you either believe in freedom of choice and expression or you don't, go complaining to me about voting when they've got some choices I actually want, even if I knew the odds I'd still vote for a Libertarian or Pirate MP but the system isn't going to let me. As for being a hopeless optimist you really haven't considered the scenario of a Bitcoin crackdown have you? The knowledge politicians and government employees have about computers and technology is so pathetic that they can't even text without fucking it up completely so seeing them try to attack Bitcoin is going to be hilarious. So what if they try and storm my house to get at the Bitcoins? By the time they even get through the door I'll have put a magnet to it or torched it. Even if they were quick enough to get to my computer and confiscate everything they'd still need my password and I could put all sorts in there to mess with them. Better yet, to piss them off even further, you could organise beforehand having a server in a country that isn't politically friendly to whichever government wants to confiscate the worthless and volatile bits of data and just transfer it to that if you're forewarned of them coming.

As for dying in a revolution? What's the point in that? If you can beat an enemy without even fighting them that's a far bigger victory and you get to enjoy the spoils, you need to go and read some Sun Tzu, so yeah, I'm feeling pretty confident and happy about where I'm going in life right now. if I prefer not to take part in a rigged democratic election then that shouldn't bother you if it's as wonderful as people like you make it out to be shouldn't it? Why does one person saying "go fuck yourself" matter?

[hawkeye]

So many reasons why it's pointless, I'm not sure where to start.   My one vote wouldn't have made a difference where I live, politicians just want to start debt bubbles whichever side they are on, they all want to make property more expensive, they both increase the size and scope of the state to increase their power, I could go on and on...

They all lie to me and my life hasn't been appreciably different under one party than another.  

It's all too much like voting for which cult leader I want to have rule me.  They don't wear all the robes and shit that rulers in the past did but it's still downright creepy cult behaviour.  I just prefer not to have anything to do with it.

EDIT:  oh and I don't want to endorse all the killing they do in other countries.

[hawkeye]

The democratic process we have now is currently a broken mess really, I'd love to see Direct Democracy spread everywhere because then even if a party everyone hates gets elected you could still have their stupid laws repealed rather than letting them do whatever they want for several years before they get kicked out and another bunch of scumbags replace them.

having the majority decide the rules for everyone?  No thanks.  DD is imo a worse idea than what we currently have.

[crumbs]

The problem isn't when you don't choose, you either believe in freedom of choice and expression or you don't, go complaining to me about voting when they've got some choices I actually want, even if I knew the odds I'd still vote for a Libertarian or Pirate MP but the system isn't going to let me. As for being a hopeless optimist you really haven't considered the scenario of a Bitcoin crackdown have you? The knowledge politicians and government employees have about computers and technology is so pathetic that they can't even text without fucking it up completely so seeing them try to attack Bitcoin is going to be hilarious. So what if they try and storm my house to get at the Bitcoins? By the time they even get through the door I'll have put a magnet to it or torched it. Even if they were quick enough to get to my computer and confiscate everything they'd still need my password and I could put all sorts in there to mess with them. Better yet, to piss them off even further, you could organise beforehand having a server in a country that isn't politically friendly to whichever government wants to confiscate the worthless and volatile bits of data and just transfer it to that if you're forewarned of them coming.

As for dying in a revolution? What's the point in that? If you can beat an enemy without even fighting them that's a far bigger victory and you get to enjoy the spoils, you need to go and read some Sun Tzu, so yeah, I'm feeling pretty confident and happy about where I'm going in life right now. if I prefer not to take part in a rigged democratic election then that shouldn't bother you if it's as wonderful as people like you make it out to be shouldn't it? Why does one person saying "go fuck yourself" matter?

If your government is as incompetent as you say, i'm surprised you haven't overthrown it already -- sound like it would be child's play to you.  BTW, learn how magnetz work.  Though spinning HDs indeed use magnetic recording, it's pretty safe to say that putting a magnet next to your 'puter box won't even corrupt the data, much less destroy it.  Don't listen to stupid people spreading silly lies.  If you need to decommission a HD, do it with a nailgun through the HD platters -- that's relatively secure.

The point of dying in a revolution is twofold:  It causes damage to your enemy & galvanized your supporters.  But only if you do it right.  I'm obviously not suggesting you do it -- it's unlikely that you will & i'll probably miss out on the drama anyhow.  

And one person saying "go fuck yourself" is simply cause for more finger-pointin' & lulz if said person gets his wheeener chopped off 'coz he took a stand & didn't vote

[Mike Christ]

I believe we've already been over this; around the same time I asked if you believed it was moral for the state to kill and rob and you'd said, "Yes," to which I called you a sociopathic proxy killer but you didn't understand how someone who believed killing the innocent was moral through supporting the institution which enacts on that force could possibly be a sociopath

I don't know who believes in the things you mentioned personally, but I'm sure the logic follows as two choices for the same thing is not a real vote.  At some point in time, you realize that a voiced vote is meaningless without someone to hear it, whereas a monetary vote (that is, denying money to a service you disagree with) means THE ENTIRE WORLD to that which you're 'voting' for.  Keep this in mind.

Now, let's look at an issue that does not necessarily pertain to government: lets say you really don't like Walmart.  You hate Walmart so much that you decide you will vote against it.  To accomplish this, you voice your opinion to Walmart and pray to your respective deity that they listen to your request--you can even get a coalition to send Walmart voiced opinions about their practices, you could get half the nation on your side--but ultimately, it is up to Walmart to say, "Yeah okay we'll act on your decision," or "No thanks but we'll keep doing what we're doing."  They have the ability to do this because votes of this kind make no change in the physical world; if people continue to buy from Walmart, they will continue to thrive.  A vote of this sort changes nothing.

However: lets say, instead of voting against Walmart by expressing your complaints to them, you instead decide you will no longer fund their actions.  Lets say you convince half of Walmart's entire user base to stop buying from Walmart.  Walmart, unable to keep its doors open, is forced to close down at least some of its stores.  The change you wanted in the world came to fruition, not because your vote was a measly opinion up for consideration, but because you physically altered the existence of the entity for which you sought an end.  Here, we clearly see the difference between a voiced opinion (e.g., a vote), and an action.

Which is all fine and dandy, you might say.  Except when it comes to government, for the second method I mentioned is, literally, illegal.

But returning to the point: to vote with one's voice, or one's ballot, is a pointless practice, which can serve only as an admission, consciously or not, that the voter is indeed in support of an immoral system, in which we are expected to be controlled and to control others, except--and here's the kicker--it is not us who enacts on that control, but a central entity, who is above the very law it creates (of course, based, or not based, on our opinions on how they should run.)  If we acknowledge the idea that the only thing limiting the government is a piece of paper (which is ignored quite often, especially in recent years, thus showing how a constitution, just like a vote, can make no physical change in the real world,) then not only do we see just how rigged the game is (see: Obama and Romney's campaigning budget), but to participate is to acknowledge that one's right to make an actual change in the world is forfeit for one's ability to convince someone else to make an actual change in the world.  A true vote is made with one's dollar.  When the government has guaranteed your vote through force, why bother pretending your opinion matters?

And I'm certain there are several other reasons not to vote but this seems like it gets to the heart of the matter.

[FirstAscent]

A lot of people don't vote, but instead spend their time and energy educating and influencing others how to vote. There's only so much time and energy out there, and sometimes it's more effective used one way vs. another.

[willphase]

However: lets say, instead of voting against Walmart by expressing your complaints to them, you instead decide you will no longer fund their actions.  Lets say you convince half of Walmart's entire user base to stop buying from Walmart.  Walmart, unable to keep its doors open, is forced to close down at least some of its stores.  The change you wanted in the world came to fruition, not because your vote was a measly opinion up for consideration, but because you physically altered the existence of the entity for which you sought an end.  Here, we clearly see the difference between a voiced opinion (e.g., a vote), and an action.

Which is all fine and dandy, you might say.  Except when it comes to government, for the second method I mentioned is, literally, illegal.

so basically what you're saying is that all the special interest lobby groups and their funding of congressmen and presidential candidates... that's the right way to do it?

Will

[Strange Vlad]

It is crucially important to understand that modern electoral democracy has nothing to do with freedom.  Instead, all this "voting" stuff is actually guaranteed to be limiting people's freedom more and more over time.

The government-controlled media and education are trying to brainwash you into believing that democracy is all about freedom, but that's only because the government simply tries to legitimize itself through this illusion of being controlled by the people.

OK, so eventually voting gets cancelled altogether and Joe becomes the Supreme Leader. How does that help you?

This might sound strange coming from an anarchist, but authoritarian monarchy can provide much more freedom than electoral democracy (subject to fair competition, which includes unlimited migration AND right to secede), simply because the Supreme Leader wouldn't have to bribe the average public.

Your "protest" is functionally no different from laziness & apathy, and is almost guaranteed to be interpreted as such.

Our protest is going far beyond avoiding elections.  It also includes avoiding many other government-imposed bullshit, such as taxes, military service, licensing, censorship, prohibition, etc.

So, people with more money should have more 'say' in social affairs?

Of course they should, but it would not look exactly like you imagine it.  Certainly, they would not vote, but rather act in order to spend their worth on influencing status quo as much as possible.

Successful business people already have a lot of say in what people eat, drink, wear, listen to on the radio, watch on t.v, read on the internet, buy in the shops...

Oh really?  Then I am happy enough to be a serious business person, if I am able to choose most of these things for myself.  But some years ago my older neighbors couldn't do so, because USSR decided virtually everything for them.  I guess it's still pretty much this way in North Korea, you can go and see yourself how many serious businesses are there.  Let me guess exactly one.

You also seem to underestimate the importance of a vote telling the people themselves what everyone else thinks.

You, on the other hand, seem to underestimate the importance of a person deciding himself what he (and only he) thinks.

Then again, I really don't understand how you Liptons/An-Caps can think of yourselves as holding some kind of moral high-ground while openly despising any social pressure to conform to the society you live in...

I'd say we can't, as nobody can.  There is no such things moral high-ground, for all morals are derived from practical necessity, which is for our species to survive and adapt to the environment through evolution, which in turn implies variation and natural selection. Variation is anarchy, natural selection is capitalism.  See now?  It all derives from biology.  It's not a matter of opinion, it's fact.

[crumbs]

It is crucially important to understand that modern electoral democracy has nothing to do with freedom.  Instead, all this "voting" stuff is actually guaranteed to be limiting people's freedom more and more over time.

The government-controlled media and education are trying to brainwash you into believing that democracy is all about freedom, but that's only because the government simply tries to legitimize itself through this illusion of being controlled by the people.

Nah.  Relax.  From hipster kids to guys in muddy F150s with gun racks, people chew the same cud & shoot the same shit.  It might 'of been edgy back in the '50s, but now it's as tired & housebroken as the Guy Fawkes mask.

Your "protest" is functionally no different from laziness & apathy, and is almost guaranteed to be interpreted as such.

Our protest is going far beyond avoiding elections.  It also includes avoiding many other government-imposed bullshit, such as taxes, military service, licensing, censorship, prohibition, etc.

How's that different from being a bum?*  Expand.

*Let's see...  Don't vote? Check.  Don't pay taxes?  Check.  Avoid the military all work? Check.  No licence?  Check.  Disregard censorship?  Ignore prohibition?  Drink & swear, check & check.

[ErisDiscordia]

"I don't vote" -- could somebody please explain this attitude which seems very pervasive among An-Caps and Libertarians & Co.?

George Carlin can explain it to you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIraCchPDhk

EDIT: by the way I found the bug in the current version of democracy. In parliamentary elections if 100% of people vote and some party gets 50% of the vote, they get 50% of seats in parliament. If 50% of people vote and 50% of that 50% vote for that party, they still get 50% of the seats. Same with 10%, 5%, 0.1%. At which point does the absurdity become too self-evident?

Proposed fix to bug: give parties a % of seats based on the % of all possible votes. This way if 50% of people vote and 50% of those vote for Party X, the party gets 25% of available seats of parliament. 50% of seats will remain empty in such a scenario. This way, if there is less than 50% participation, formation of government is not possible. This actually takes into account the sentiment of people who don't want to be governed, but who have no way of expressing their preference under the current system.

Or we could just skip all that bullshit and graduate to anarchy, but I guess that's a bit too fast for most people. They like their dehmukracy.

[Strange Vlad]

How's that different from being a bum?*  Expand.

*Let's see...  Don't vote? Check.  Don't pay taxes?  Check.  Avoid the military all work? Check.  No licence?  Check.  Disregard censorship?  Ignore prohibition?  Drink & swear, check & check.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but my dictionary defines "bum" as either backside or a lazy person.  If you meant the latter, you are mistaken, because real bums are those who want to be fed by welfare (stolen from their more competetive neighbors) instead of working.  We, on the other hand, are prepared to rely on no one's but our own work to survive and to prosper, and would rather prefer not being robbed, constrained and humiliated.

If there was freedom to secede, few abuses of power would occur.

YES, that's the point!  And monarchies would be much better off than democracies simply bacause the benefits of centralized decision-making.

Democracy essentially allows opposting factions to take turns in power.

The perfect example of this would be USA: the republicans wage wars, raise budget and prohibit drugs; but the democrats, on the other hand... wage wars, raise budget and prohibit drugs.  Yay, competition!  

As such, it's more efficient for the rulers than the old way which required a bloody battle at each power transfer.

There are many other alternatives: the power can be sold, for example.  Or it can be divided into shares and then publicly offered on the market.

[johnyj]

I feel that those who are weak tends to like vote

[crumbs]

How's that different from being a bum?*  Expand.

*Let's see...  Don't vote? Check.  Don't pay taxes?  Check.  Avoid the military all work? Check.  No licence?  Check.  Disregard censorship?  Ignore prohibition?  Drink & swear, check & check.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but my dictionary defines "bum" as either backside or a lazy person.  If you meant the latter, you are mistaken, because real bums are those who want to be fed by welfare (stolen from their more competetive neighbors) instead of working.  We, on the other hand, are prepared to rely on no one's but our own work to survive and to prosper, and would rather prefer not being robbed, constrained and humiliated.

If your dictionary tells you that bums want to be fed by welfare (stolen from their more competetive neighbors), it's junk, toss it out.  You've been robbed, most likely by a fellow anarcap.  
Neither my dictionary nor reality imply any such thing.  If your similarities to gutter drunks elude you, please see footnote above.

If your mom & dad ask you to cut the lawn, your arguing "I don't care 'bout the damn lawn!  If you want it cut, do it yourself, Ah gots mah freedomz!" simply ain't going to fly -- cut the lawn or GTFO.  The state finds your "don't tax me, brah!" arguments equally lulzy.  

If you'd like to live tax-free, without leaching off your neighbors [governments simply raise taxes to compensate for non-payers -- your neighbors have you to thank for being broke, you steal from them, not the gob'ment], feel free to vote with your feet.  

[hazek]

"I don't vote" -- could somebody please explain this attitude which seems very pervasive among An-Caps and Libertarians & Co.?

This video explains it perfectly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz2ZMYUn3Uk

[crumbs]

[...]
EDIT: by the way I found the bug in the current version of democracy. In parliamentary elections if 100% of people vote and some party gets 50% of the vote, they get 50% of seats in parliament. If 50% of people vote and 50% of that 50% vote for that party, they still get 50% of the seats. Same with 10%, 5%, 0.1%. At which point does the absurdity become too self-evident?

Proposed fix to bug: give parties a % of seats based on the % of all possible votes. This way if 50% of people vote and 50% of those vote for Party X, the party gets 25% of available seats of parliament. 50% of seats will remain empty in such a scenario. This way, if there is less than 50% participation, formation of government is not possible. This actually takes into account the sentiment of people who don't want to be governed, but who have no way of expressing their preference under the current system.

Don't be surprised if your patch doesn't make it -- by your logic, 50% of the user total on this forum need to vote in its favor, and not just those who vote.

Or we could just skip all that bullshit and graduate to anarchy, but I guess that's a bit too fast for most people. They like their dehmukracy.

Nah.  They may not like democracy, they're probably just milking you for the lulz.  If you're not a fan, you're free to fight it, ignore it, or just continue providing lulz with your insightful posts.  
How does that go again?
First they laugh at you, then they laugh at you, and then they pee their pants laughing at you?

[FoBoT]

this write up explains many of your questions, i agree with most of the ideas presented
http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172

[countryfree]

I'm in the group of people who are not allowed to vote, so it's easy for me. I'm not even allowed to register. When you vote, besides making a choice between people you've never met, you also say that you belong to some territory. I guess I could vote where I was born but when I'm going back there, it just doesn't feel like home anymore. And when I talk with people, as I've become so different from all the experiences I've had in many different places of the world, the local people that should be my friends see me as a foreigner.

I don't think I will vote ever again, and yes, it's beneath me, because I don't think I have any connections with the people voting, or the people who want to be elected. Nor most of the time about the issues which are big with either group.

[Strange Vlad]

If your mom & dad ask you to cut the lawn, your arguing "I don't care 'bout the damn lawn!  If you want it cut, do it yourself, Ah gots mah freedomz!" simply ain't going to fly -- cut the lawn or GTFO.

I've chosen "GTFO" long time ago (and I wish i did it even earlier, and will kick my own children out ASAP), and I wish I could do the same with government.  But unlike parents, the government(s) wouldn't simply let me out.  The best thing I could do is emigrate, but outside of my government there are only another governments, most of them are even worse one way or another (especially those which would let me in easily).  That's why the right to secede is probably the most important of my goals as a political activist.

this write up explains many of your questions, i agree with most of the ideas presented
http://fubarandgrill.org/node/1172

Thanks, this is a nice article.  I also agree with most of it, if not all.


P.S.  On my avatar there is this label:  "VOTE NOBODY // Nobody represents the people"
Too bad it has to be scaled down so badly, it's almost unreadable.  I should have probably chosen a better one, but was too lazy to search again.

[crumbs]

If your mom & dad ask you to cut the lawn, your arguing "I don't care 'bout the damn lawn!  If you want it cut, do it yourself, Ah gots mah freedomz!" simply ain't going to fly -- cut the lawn or GTFO.

I've chosen "GTFO" long time ago (and I wish i did it even earlier, and will kick my own children out ASAP), and I wish I could do the same with government.  But unlike parents, the government(s) wouldn't simply let me out.  The best thing I could do is emigrate, but outside of my government there are only another governments, most of them are even worse one way or another (especially those which would let me in easily).  That's why the right to secede is probably the most important of my goals as a political activist.

You already won three internets for staying consistent.  But a problem with your last sentence.  Don't tune out -- this is shorter than it looks

When you decided to GTFO of your parent's, you didn't get to take your room with you -- it was an integral part of your parents' house.  
Your new place [apartment, friend's house] had rules too.  
Just like GTFO of your country will land you in *another* country with lawns to cut.  The analogy holds.

It's hard to tell just what you mean when you say "[your] right to secede," then.  
You admit that your government will allow you to emigrate, what more do you want?  You can't fault it for the world outside of its borders.  No more than your parents are at fault for the world outside their house sucking & the rent being expensive.  Agreed?

Just how exactly do you wish to "secede"?  Keep in mind some very basic concerns:  
When you "own" an apartment, you can't "opt out" of maintenance costs for the building (think tax), nor can you take your walls and ceilings with you if you leave -- those walls are *also other people's walls,* a structural part without which the whole building will fall apart.

Is something like this your idea of "seceding" ?  You want more stuff to take with you?  Otherwise, the world is your oyster!  Earth's taken, not sure about the moon, but the rest of the universe is yours for the taking!  Go forth and live free amongst the starz!

[hazek]

Just like GTFO of your country will land you in *another* country with lawns to cut.  The analogy holds.

Except my parents own their house, no one owns the entire land mass that is named America. Only some psychopaths claim they do, and not just it, but you as well.

[phillipsjk]

Quoted from recent correspondence:

Strategic voting leads to a two-party system like the have in the US.

As long as less than 50% (66% in a two party system) of eligible voters actually vote, the "non-voters" have the power to change the government by voting for a third party. Strategic voting is essentially voting for one of two parties you explicitly don't agree with because you think one is actually worse than the other.

I am of the opinion that people who don't support *any* of the available candidates should mark an X beside all of them. This spoils their ballot (which is technically illegal, but enforcement is tough due to secrecy) but is counted in the statistics released by Elections Canada. If the number of spoiled ballots equaled the number of ballots for the person actually elected, that would send a strong message about the choices people feel they have to choose from. When I checked, less than 1% of ballots are spoiled (may even be 0.1%). That low level can almost be written off as user error.

-james

PS: I decided long ago that I am never voting for a party that advocates strategic voting. The essentially means I never vote Liberal. Though, lately the NDP has been toying with the "strategic voting" message.

With the electronic "voting" systems in the US, I am not sure if it is actually possible to cast a non-vote. I know the Australian e-voting system (with a paper trail!) allows an "informal ballot" (I believe voting is required by law).

[crumbs]

Just like GTFO of your country will land you in *another* country with lawns to cut.  The analogy holds.

Except my parents own their house, no one owns the entire land mass that is named America. Only some psychopaths claim they do, and not just it, but you as well.

Well, your parents may own the house itself, and possibly the rights to the minerals beneath the plot of land they own, but land "ownership" is just a colorful phrase.  The land is subject to all the local (think zoning laws) and federal (can't serve blow to underage hookers).  Finally, the gob'ment can take your land by eminent domain or some other term if you're not in US.  Justlikethat.

As far as psychopathic claims, there are plenty of those going around.

[ErisDiscordia]

Don't be surprised if your patch doesn't make it -- by your logic, 50% of the user total on this forum need to vote in its favor, and not just those who vote.

Voting sucks anyway. I'm just providing the lulz. Want some more?

Democracy via Facebook! Everybody gets to create proposals for law. Just like you can create events and fanpages. Then people get to "like" the proposals. If 50%+ people like the proposal, it gets implemented and everybody has to follow it. PURE direct dehmukracy, none of that representative shit they peddle today. I wonder how long it would take for people to get fed up with having to follow any stupid shit which gets enough likes?

The ways of peeing your pants laughing at duhmukrazy are countless indeed and I shall continue to provide them until the age of bureaucracy collapses upon itself in a glorious blaze of whatever.

[dotcom]

"I don't vote" -- could somebody please explain this attitude which seems very pervasive among An-Caps and Libertarians & Co.?

I vote, not that it matters in the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_WBo4sfmi4

Media and vote-count manipulation are the tools of a plutocratic system based on money and power. Democracy in the modern age is an illusion, and elections a puppet-show.

[crumbs]

Don't be surprised if your patch doesn't make it -- by your logic, 50% of the user total on this forum need to vote in its favor, and not just those who vote.

Voting sucks anyway. I'm just providing the lulz. Want some more?

Democracy via Facebook! Everybody gets to create proposals for law. Just like you can create events and fanpages. Then people get to "like" the proposals. If 50%+ people like the proposal, it gets implemented and everybody has to follow it. PURE direct dehmukracy, none of that representative shit they peddle today. I wonder how long it would take for people to get fed up with having to follow any stupid shit which gets enough likes?

Bah!  You say democracy, i say Mob Rule.  Even the Greeks were smart enough to qualify just who these demos were -- no women, no slaves.  
Think of democracy as a euphemism for "we'll pretend to care about what you think if you pretend to believe us & don't sharpen your pitchforks."  
The powers that be are trying to be polite -- don't spoil it for everyone

The ways of peeing your pants laughing at duhmukrazy are countless indeed and I shall continue to provide them until the age of bureaucracy collapses upon itself in a glorious blaze of whatever.

"A glorious blaze of blazers' sounds pretty apocalyptic.

[phillipsjk]

Which is all fine and dandy, you might say.  Except when it comes to government, for the second method I mentioned is, literally, illegal.

Since 2001, organizing a successful boycott is considered "Economic terrorism." Witness the Occupy Wallstreet protesters being arrested for trying to peacefully close their bank-accounts.

[crumbs]

Which is all fine and dandy, you might say.  Except when it comes to government, for the second method I mentioned is, literally, illegal.

Since 2001, organizing a successful boycott is considered "Economic terrorism." Witness the Occupy Wallstreet protesters being arrested for trying to peacefully close their bank-accounts.

They were charged with "peaceful  closing of bank accounts"   Those arrestors aught to be arrested is what I think!

[phillipsjk]

They were charged with "peaceful  closing of bank accounts"   Those arrestors aught to be arrested is what I think!

Bank of America won't let protesters close their accounts

For some reason the YouTube video is set to "private".

[Strange Vlad]

You already won three internets for staying consistent.  But a problem with your last sentence.  Don't tune out -- this is shorter than it looks

When you decided to GTFO of your parent's, you didn't get to take your room with you -- it was an integral part of your parents' house.  
Your new place [apartment, friend's house] had rules too.  
Just like GTFO of your country will land you in *another* country with lawns to cut.  The analogy holds.

It's hard to tell just what you mean when you say "[your] right to secede," then.  
You admit that your government will allow you to emigrate, what more do you want?  You can't fault it for the world outside of its borders.  No more than your parents are at fault for the world outside their house sucking & the rent being expensive.  Agreed?

Just how exactly do you wish to "secede"?  Keep in mind some very basic concerns:  
When you "own" an apartment, you can't "opt out" of maintenance costs for the building (think tax), nor can you take your walls and ceilings with you if you leave -- those walls are *also other people's walls,* a structural part without which the whole building will fall apart.

Is something like this your idea of "seceding" ?  You want more stuff to take with you?  Otherwise, the world is your oyster!  Earth's taken, not sure about the moon, but the rest of the universe is yours for the taking!  Go forth and live free amongst the starz!

First of all, comparing a house with a state is a bad analogy.  There are millions of houses to rent a room in, and anyone can build a new house if he has enough money.  And there are only about 200 countries, and common people cannot build a new one, no matter how much money they have (spacesteading and seasteading is another topic, in two words: unfairly expensive).

But if you insist on comparing a state with a house, let's speak about 2-family house.  Let's imagine my family owns a large 2-family house, where I live in one half and my parents in another half (not my actual situation, but I bet such families exist).  When time comes, I take a loan and buy my half of the house.  Now that it's mine, I can do what I want with it.  I can change the lock so that my parents wouldn't be able to enter without my permission.  My mom used to insist that I keep my half-house clean and tidy, but now that it's my property I no longer give a flick about her opinion.  I can invite friends and hookers and do what I want in my half unless it doesn't harm anyone outside of it.  Their rules work only on their half, and my rules on my half.  The government, however, insists on its stupid rules over my property even after I buy it.  I can have my own rules over my land, but the government rules take precedence.  And the government feels free to invade my property and demand its "taxes" even though I've already paid for the land.  See the difference?  I'm not allowed to own any land entirely, I can actually only buy a permission to use it subject to it's owner (government) rules.  Which is super-stupid and annoys the hell out of me.  I would agree to pay more to be able to TRULY OWN the land with no strings attached, like in sovereignty over my land.  In other words, I would like to pay as much as needed to take 0.00000006% of my country's land and found a new state within this land.  By the way, I represent 0.0000007% of my country's population and ready to pay for the land 0.0000012% of its GDP, as you see both shares are significantly higher than a portion of land I would be happy to buy.  But of course they won't sell me the land with sovereignty, no matter how expensive.  And no other country will.  That's the point.

Well, your parents may own the house itself, and possibly the rights to the minerals beneath the plot of land they own, but land "ownership" is just a colorful phrase.  The land is subject to all the local (think zoning laws) and federal (can't serve blow to underage hookers).  Finally, the gob'ment can take your land by eminent domain or some other term if you're not in US.  Justlikethat.

See?  You understand it yourself!  Why do you argue then?!  Isn't it outrageous that gov't defines what is 'underage' for example?  People are perfectly adult at 14 or even 13, both physically and mentally.  Why those "government" gangsters push their shit about 18 years old and stuff?!  What happens if people fuck at 17, do they like explode and kill everybody?!  I DARE SAY THAT IT'S OKAY TO FUCK AT 15, now come and jail me, idiots.  What's all this shit about drug prohibition?!  If people are stupid, let them do stupid things and die early, it's better for our gene pool.  Why do adult responsible people get restrained even if we don't even hurt anybody?!  Why weapon ban?!  It's super stupid, how do we even defend ourselves against armed bandits?!  Oh I forgot, it's armed bandits themselves who prohibit guns, isn't it?!  Why do I need to be forced to use those fucking seatbelts?  Let me die in that crash if I'm that car accident, I don't care!  No, I do use seatbelts, but not because of government, but because I actually care for myself, I AM NOT A FUCKING CHILD!  Why do they ban gays?  Okay, they don't ban gays in US or Europe, but here in Russia they do.  I am straight myself, but I've got a few gay and lesbian friends, and some of them were already beaten on the streets.  HUNDREDS OF LGBT CHILDREN COMMIT SUICIDES AND GET KILLED because of those STUPID laws!  And now they force religion on me also!  What if I'm satanist (not really), why should I be OK if they derive their stupid laws from Orthodox Christianity and INSIST that I don't dare say ANYTHING that MIGHT make some of them feel bad?!  So all atheists go to JAIL!!!  You have PRISM in US, we have SORM, pretty much the same shit, why should I be OK with those police dogs eavesdropping my Internetz?!  And they ban websites too, a lot of them.  THIS IS FUCKING IRAN OR WHAT?!  Of course I can use VPN and Tor, but they might ban it too...

DUDE, statism is ugly, ultimate evil, the most dirty thing in the world.  I hate them all so much that I don't hate anything else.  I LOVE THE WHOLE WORLD EXCEPT GOVERNMENTS, because ALL my HATE is just CONCENTRATED AT THEM.

Sorry for emotional post.

[ErisDiscordia]

Bah!  You say democracy, i say Mob Rule.

How about Dem Mob Krazy?

[DoomDumas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bTbLslkIR2k#t=0s

Why would I vote ?

[crumbs]

You already won three internets for staying consistent.  But a problem with your last sentence.  Don't tune out -- this is shorter than it looks

When you decided to GTFO of your parent's, you didn't get to take your room with you -- it was an integral part of your parents' house.  
Your new place [apartment, friend's house] had rules too.  
Just like GTFO of your country will land you in *another* country with lawns to cut.  The analogy holds.

It's hard to tell just what you mean when you say "[your] right to secede," then.  
You admit that your government will allow you to emigrate, what more do you want?  You can't fault it for the world outside of its borders.  No more than your parents are at fault for the world outside their house sucking & the rent being expensive.  Agreed?

Just how exactly do you wish to "secede"?  Keep in mind some very basic concerns:  
When you "own" an apartment, you can't "opt out" of maintenance costs for the building (think tax), nor can you take your walls and ceilings with you if you leave -- those walls are *also other people's walls,* a structural part without which the whole building will fall apart.

Is something like this your idea of "seceding" ?  You want more stuff to take with you?  Otherwise, the world is your oyster!  Earth's taken, not sure about the moon, but the rest of the universe is yours for the taking!  Go forth and live free amongst the starz!

First of all, comparing a house with a state is a bad analogy.  There are millions of houses to rent a room in, and anyone can build a new house if he has enough money.  And there are only about 200 countries, and common people cannot build a new one, no matter how much money they have (spacesteading and seasteading is another topic, in two words: unfairly expensive).

But if you insist on comparing a state with a house, let's speak about 2-family house.  Let's imagine my family owns a large 2-family house, where I live in one half and my parents in another half (not my actual situation, but I bet such families exist).  When time comes, I take a loan and buy my half of the house.  Now that it's mine, I can do what I want with it.  I can change the lock so that my parents wouldn't be able to enter without my permission.  My mom used to insist that I keep my half-house clean and tidy, but now that it's my property I no longer give a flick about her opinion.  I can invite friends and hookers and do what I want in my half unless it doesn't harm anyone outside of it.  Their rules work only on their half, and my rules on my half.  The government, however, insists on its stupid rules over my property even after I buy it.  I can have my own rules over my land, but the government rules take precedence.  And the government feels free to invade my property and demand its "taxes" even though I've already paid for the land.  See the difference?  I'm not allowed to own any land entirely, I can actually only buy a permission to use it subject to it's owner (government) rules.  Which is super-stupid and annoys the hell out of me.  I would agree to pay more to be able to TRULY OWN the land with no strings attached, like in sovereignty over my land.  In other words, I would like to pay as much as needed to take 0.00000006% of my country's land and found a new state within this land.  By the way, I represent 0.0000007% of my country's population and ready to pay for the land 0.0000012% of its GDP, as you see both shares are significantly higher than a portion of land I would be happy to buy.  But of course they won't sell me the land with sovereignty, no matter how expensive.  And no other country will.  That's the point.

Well, your parents may own the house itself, and possibly the rights to the minerals beneath the plot of land they own, but land "ownership" is just a colorful phrase.  The land is subject to all the local (think zoning laws) and federal (can't serve blow to underage hookers).  Finally, the gob'ment can take your land by eminent domain or some other term if you're not in US.  Justlikethat.

See?  You understand it yourself!  Why do you argue then?!  Isn't it outrageous that gov't defines what is 'underage' for example?  People are perfectly adult at 14 or even 13, both physically and mentally.  Why those "government" gangsters push their shit about 18 years old and stuff?!  What happens if people fuck at 17, do they like explode and kill everybody?!  I DARE SAY THAT IT'S OKAY TO FUCK AT 15, now come and jail me, idiots.  What's all this shit about drug prohibition?!  If people are stupid, let them do stupid things and die early, it's better for our gene pool.  Why do adult responsible people get restrained even if we don't even hurt anybody?!  Why weapon ban?!  It's super stupid, how do we even defend ourselves against armed bandits?!  Oh I forgot, it's armed bandits themselves who prohibit guns, isn't it?!  Why do I need to be forced to use those fucking seatbelts?  Let me die in that crash if I'm that car accident, I don't care!  No, I do use seatbelts, but not because of government, but because I actually care for myself, I AM NOT A FUCKING CHILD!  Why do they ban gays?  Okay, they don't ban gays in US or Europe, but here in Russia they do.  I am straight myself, but I've got a few gay and lesbian friends, and some of them were already beaten on the streets.  HUNDREDS OF LGBT CHILDREN COMMIT SUICIDES AND GET KILLED because of those STUPID laws!  And now they force religion on me also!  What if I'm satanist (not really), why should I be OK if they derive their stupid laws from Orthodox Christianity and INSIST that I don't dare say ANYTHING that MIGHT make some of them feel bad?!  So all atheists go to JAIL!!!  You have PRISM in US, we have SORM, pretty much the same shit, why should I be OK with those police dogs eavesdropping my Internetz?!  And they ban websites too, a lot of them.  THIS IS FUCKING IRAN OR WHAT?!  Of course I can use VPN and Tor, but they might ban it too...

DUDE, statism is ugly, ultimate evil, the most dirty thing in the world.  I hate them all so much that I don't hate anything else.  I LOVE THE WHOLE WORLD EXCEPT GOVERNMENTS, because ALL my HATE is just CONCENTRATED AT THEM.

Sorry for emotional post.

Don't apologise for emotional posts -- they make you likable, if anything.  My problem, though, is still with your reasoning & not your emotions.  Let me sweep out some of the chafe first:
Age of consent has  nothing to do with statism & everything to do with social taboos.  Same goes for ostracism & violence against homosexuals.  i haven't lived in Russia for a long time, but i can tell you that i wasn't too worried about statist thugs busting in on me & my 15-year-old GF.  At 16, i was pretty naive  Oh, pointing out that you're a breeder while expressing your outrage at gay-bashing kind'a breaks the flow for me.  Avoid that -- this isn't a dating site, nobody cares.  I also suspect that nobody worth mentioning will care if you're a satanist or not, so just let people guess -- you'll have more fun that way

It's kind of a bummer that people keep putting words in my mouth.  I never suggested that the state was "fair," that all laws were just & logically sound, or that i personally don't break the law, every day, as a matter of course.  Never.  
I simply point out that certain outlooks are ridiculously myopic & intrinsically flawed, and get labeled as "The Enemy" for a thank you.  Good thing the process is so lulzy

Edit: typo
 

[tvbcof]

"I don't vote" -- could somebody please explain this attitude which seems very pervasive among An-Caps and Libertarians & Co.?

Seriously, is it a:
"I don't negotiate with terrorists" hunger-strike kind of thing, where you drink poison and hope the other person will die?

Not that I'm trying to get anyone to participate in the democratic process (please, just NO! ), I'm just trying to fully understand how this non-participation mindset is supposed to personally benefit the non-voter.

The 2000 elections were an eye-opener to me in a number of ways.

 - I've stopped paying almost any attention the the mainstream media who showed their true colors when the chips were down.  They are mostly useful in that they offer the ability to analyze the nature of the propaganda directed toward the masses, and analysis of this can be valuable in understanding policy directions and thus in decision making.

 - I've viewed the supreme court as largely useless political hacks and it has rubbed off an all the courts from there down.

 - Obama really drove the point home that the two parties are very much two heads of the same horse.  Voting for POTUS is truly futile.  I wrote in someone in 2012 and will likely do the same from here forward unless I decide to vote 'against' someone.  In 2012 it was a no brainer that Obama was pre-selected to it didn't matter who I voted for.  His 2012 victory was clearly in the cards as I saw it, and from the first year of his first term.  This because he is either a weak willed sellout or a genuine fascist one or the other of these are the requirements for POTUS at this time.

I do take local elections fairly seriously and feel that it can be the case that we can send good people who can make a difference to represent us in the central government.  DeFazio, Wyden, and Merkley represent me currently, and I feel that they are all mostly fighting the good fight on critical issues of the day (banking, evolution of the surveillance state, transparency, etc.)

I should point out that I am not a Libertarian or an Anarchist.  I label myself a Socialist though there are plenty of points of agreement I have with Libertarians, and I see Anarchy as preferable to Fascism mostly since the pain would not last as long.

[Spendulus]

.....
 - Obama really drove the point home that the two parties are very much two heads of the same horse.  ....

No he did not. 

Obama did not drive that point home, either verbally or by his behavior.

You might believe the two parties are the same but there is no reason to attribute that or proof of it to any given politician.

[Merralea]

It would take a while for me to find the post again, but the most salient argument I've heard against voting amounted to the fact that every time the voter participation rate in a country went below something like 20%, the country was just about guaranteed to have a revolution either in immediate response or pretty shortly thereafter. It's a vote of no confidence, and apparently it does count.

[tvbcof]

.....
 - Obama really drove the point home that the two parties are very much two heads of the same horse.  ....

No he did not. 

Obama did not drive that point home, either verbally or by his behavior.

You might believe the two parties are the same but there is no reason to attribute that or proof of it to any given politician.

You are right.  The most telling thing to me was what happened when the Dems had the house, senate, and presidency.  They went into panic mode and came up with the absolutely most lame and pathetic excuses to not get jack shit done.  So, yes, it was a team effort on the part of various politicians, but Obama was a big part of it.

Obama is ten times more dangerous than Bush/Cheney because so many otherwise good people will just go along with his very troubling programs of building a foundation for totalitarianism and fascism without raising any questions.

[hashman]

"I don't vote" -- could somebody please explain this attitude which seems very pervasive among An-Caps and Libertarians & Co.?

Seriously, is it a:
"I don't negotiate with terrorists" hunger-strike kind of thing, where you drink poison and hope the other person will die?

Not that I'm trying to get anyone to participate in the democratic process (please, just NO! ), I'm just trying to fully understand how this non-participation mindset is supposed to personally benefit the non-voter.

Don't confuse voting for a representative (giving up your political power) with voting for a law, a system, a product, or a verdict (i.e. jury duty) (exercising political power). 

Every time we spend 1 USD we are voting, and each of these votes are more powerful politically than any vote for a representative.  We all vote, and we should all put some thought into our votes otherwise we are most definitely fucked.  Also, unlike the professional elections reality TV show, votes made with dollars and coins are actually counted. 

[LostDutchman]

"I don't vote" -- could somebody please explain this attitude which seems very pervasive among An-Caps and Libertarians & Co.?

Seriously, is it a:
"I don't negotiate with terrorists" hunger-strike kind of thing, where you drink poison and hope the other person will die?

Not that I'm trying to get anyone to participate in the democratic process (please, just NO! ), I'm just trying to fully understand how this non-participation mindset is supposed to personally benefit the non-voter.

I do not know a single person who describes him/herself as a Libertarian who does not vote.

That would sort of defeat the purpose of Libertarianism.

My $.02.

[Strange Vlad]

Age of consent has  nothing to do with statism & everything to do with social taboos.  Same goes for ostracism & violence against homosexuals

Well, as for homosexuals, religions surely played a greater role in the past, but not anymore.  But the age of consent laws coincide with the rise of the modern state (meaning from late 19th to early 20th centuries), not with religions or taboos.  You see, regulating morality is such a strong hook for governments — first they teach us what is moral and what is not, and then they scare us about how OMG awfully immoral would we become without the government to restrict our personal lives.

i haven't lived in Russia for a long time, but i can tell you that i wasn't too worried about statist thugs busting in on me & my 15-year-old GF.  At 16, i was pretty naive

So you had been living in Russia before?  If it was in 90's or early 2000's, you'd find it VERY different if you come here today.  The society is going to shit, and I'm sure it's all because of government.

Oh, pointing out that you're a breeder while expressing your outrage at gay-bashing kind'a breaks the flow for me.

That's the point: most people here are sure that if you don't cheer on the anti-gay policies, then you're certainly gay yourself.  I find it weird, maybe it's because I'm an anarchist who never gives a fuck what people do unless they hurt me or my property, and who wants ather people to stop giving a fuck either.

It's kind of a bummer that people keep putting words in my mouth.  I never suggested that the state was "fair," that all laws were just & logically sound, or that i personally don't break the law, every day, as a matter of course.  Never.  
I simply point out that certain outlooks are ridiculously myopic & intrinsically flawed, and get labeled as "The Enemy" for a thank you.  Good thing the process is so lulzy

Yeah, I see.