Should I vote for Walker in the imminent Wisconsin election?

[theymos]

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?

[1714092532]

1714092532

[1714092532]

1714092532

[1714092532]

1714092532

[justusranvier]

First of all, I tend to think that voting in a government election is somewhat immoral.

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).

[FirstAscent]

Voting is attempting to violently force (indirectly) a group to accept a government that they don't want.

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

[Kluge]

Hariprasad Trivedi (I)



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

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

[ZodiacDragon84]

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.

[justusranvier]

Voting is attempting to violently force (indirectly) a group to accept a government that they don't want.

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

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

[justusranvier]

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

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

[FirstAscent]

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

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.

[justusranvier]

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?

[FirstAscent]

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?

[cbeast]

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.

[justusranvier]

May I suggest broadening your horizons?

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?

[FirstAscent]

May I suggest broadening your horizons?

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

Awwe, an unoriginal solution -- keep crying. You know what physics allows? Physics cause propaganda boxes from RAF planes with non-functioning parachutes to kill children. Physics cause the bullets from NATO troops to kill a group of fellows out cutting wood after physics cause darkness.

I propose we recall physics, then, upon reflection of all the insight your posts in this thread have provided.

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.

[justusranvier]

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.

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.

[FirstAscent]

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.

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

[justusranvier]

Read my posts. I provide a lot of information, and it is in general unique, rather than repeated meaningless mantras.

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".

[FirstAscent]

Read my posts. I provide a lot of information, and it is in general unique, rather than repeated meaningless mantras.

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.

[cbeast]