"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.

[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.