For me, this is the most important election of my life. Therefore, this is probably one of the most important posts I've ever made on this site. And hey, it's not even Chuck Palahniuk related.
Today is Election Day. This was the longest election campaign in our history, and its impact and consequences on the country can be huge. Simply put, it's a monumental occasion. So all of you need to go out and cast your ballot today. Go vote! I won't lie, I'm voting for Barack Obama. I've been a supporter of his since I first read about him over a year ago. I've even donated to his campaign. This isn't about Obama though. It's not about McCain. It's about you. So don't waste the opportunity this country has given you.
Here is a link with voting information.Here is an easy way to find your closest polling station.
(it links to Barack's page, but that's only because they made it so easy to figure out)
Finally, I want to include a video that you should all watch. Yes, it's lame, but it's about the big concern that there may be a lot of voter suppression going on today. This video will warn you of the underhanded tactics some political operatives may use to try and steal the election. It gives tips on how you can avoid problems at the polls.
That's it! If you'd like, you can share you experiences at the booths in this thread. I'd love to hear people's recollections of the day.
how is this the longest election in our history? it's the same four years since the last one.
speaking of which, wasn't the last election supposed to be the most important ever?
I'm going to vote just to get the free starbucks coffee.
I got up an hour earlier this morning to go vote before work. I thought they opened the polls at 5AM but it wasn't the case when I walked to the front of my voting place and saw I was 30 minutes early. When I went back I got in line before the doors opened and was the tenth person in. I am wearing an "I voted" sticker as we speak.
i don't really get that either, the longest in history?
either way there will be a black man (hopefully) or a woman in a prime position so it is historic that way(i'm sure nobody realizes this already)
btw. WAY TO GO FRANK!
If you follow punditry, it really has been the longest election season. Most news coverage on elections begins in earnest about six months before the primaries, but this season really started at least a year, year and a half prior to that because of all the speculation about the mess Bush left behind. So yes, longest election season ever.
they say with surprise, are you a democrat or are you a republican? that's the way you vote. they say it like "That is of course just the way you vote in any situation you dumb ass". like you dont have a choice. but what if your party favor is a stark idiot and you have to vote but you cant vote in THAT favor?
this is definitely the closest watched election of my thus far life. and i still dont know which way ima rock it (<----whatever the fizzle that means). i'll know when i get to that booth here in approx three hours.
-kabol
they had a thing on the news last night saying how my county was the most pivotal in the state, and if it falls like it did in 04, will be the most pivotal in the country!
it almost made me proud enough to go out and vote.
Honestly if you look at the candidates, it's hard to feel the motivation to vote.
You have New McCain that sucks balls, compared to the awesome McCain of 4~8 years ago, who has scary ass Palin nipping at his heels, in her pumps. Then you have Lovely Obama who speaks a good speech, but an agent of change that votes 96% with his party line and has never been outspoken against his party on a major issue...not very change worthy in my opinion.
Hence I'm voting for the crazy black chick, McKinney, simply so the green party gets enough votes to make a viable third party option some time in the future. And if she wins, I'll probably shoot myself for my own bad strategery.
This election has been the most important in my history, important enough to get me to the polls and actually vote for local issues.
i just voted for the black man and i broke the machine, i guess its true about that shit not being able to handle a big turnout, people behind me were not happy.
I was told to ride my motorcycle to my polling place, or at least wear my gear, to demonstrate that bikers are a legitimate voting block with important issues. But i live a block away form my polling place, and I'm not walking around in a helmet.
It only took me ten minutes to vote. We had paper ballots. I am sorry for the people who did not get stickers, but i'm jealous of you who got free coffee.
I stood in line for 2 & 1/2 hours to vote today, AND I got a sticker. I didn't want any of the free stuff, but I'm sending it to school with my boy tomorrow so he can get extra credit in Civics.
There was some old douchebag who sounded just like Earl Pitts* walking around telling all the Democrats to go home and come back tomorrow when it was their day to vote. He did this pretty much the whole time, working the crowd.
Well, I did my part. And while my commonwealth went predictably red despite my vote, my county and the country didn't. I've never been more pleased and proud to participate in our democracy. In my view, it's vital that we begin to recover from several years of disasterous economic and foreign policy. These things won't be healed overnight, and sure, some things won't get fixed at all.
History--along with the impending political realities of the present--impose terrific constraints on what any president or party can do. And even if Obama is another FDR, he'll still have flaws and he'll make plenty of mistakes. But none of these things provide an ample excuse for apathy toward the process.
What he will be able to do-- especially with the possibility of a second term-- is going to be history-making and substantial.
Beyond that, the symbolic value for inclusiveness in race relations at home and improving our stature in several ways abroad amount to an incredible bonus. It's nothing less than a momentous time.
When we have private roads, it will be between you and the landowners how fast you will be allowed to operate your automobile/private property upon their private road.
That's Yay Voluntaryism!
I wish I had a camera so you guys could see the crap I have on my shirt right now. I printed off a little sign that says:
WE HAVE
(Voluntaryist emblem)
NO RULERS
...and people ask me about it and I explain freedom, and how electing a leader does not make you free.
you ever see that movie Rustler's Rhapsody? Where andy griffith's daughter tries to break that horse and she gets dragged around the whole desert for like 3 days? I don't know why that made me think of that.
Not voting, refusing to be ruled, is "about you" far more than consenting to their process.
Choosing to participate in the process is every bit as much "about you" as choosing to abstain would be. The consequences are about much more than the individual vote and voter (or non-voter, as the case may be), but the personal impetus to participate, or not, equally speak volumes about the individual.
The United States of America is a very privileged and safe place to practice the blessings of liberty, including the right to declare oneself an anarchist or "voluntaryist" or whatever. But you should probably realize that you're not a sovereign unless you have a war chest full of gold, your own territory (even if it's an island), and your own army to defend it. As soon as you have those things, you'll see how difficult it is to create a country that people will want to live in voluntarily. You'll have the choice of becoming a despot, an autocrat, with the hubris to believe that you can always make the best choice for everyone else, including what to do for the sick and the old.
When you fail enough times, either you'll be overthrown, or you'll wish to share the burdens of state with people more substantial than your lackeys. You might even invent a form of government that enables all the citizens of your island country to feel equally invested in the process, allowing them to chose their own "rulers" through a process so democratic that the "ruler" is more like a servant to many masters than a master to many servants. And that's precisely the vast and ambitious experiment our country has been invested in for well over 200 years.
When I go and vote, I'm not choosing who will be my master. I'm casting my bid for the best public servant. And I'm mindfully and gratefully acknowledging my situatedness in American history.
Choosing to participate in the process is every bit as much "about you" as choosing to abstain would be.
How so? If I participate, I legitimize the system by acknowledging it as just. If I abstain, I don't recognize it, and cannot be held responsible for its wrongdoings.
I noticed you called it, “the” system, where I properly refer to it as “their” system. Time for an analogy: If myself and ten friends held an election and claimed the winner to be the new king of whatever, your lack of participation means you never consented to be ruled by our king. But if you agree by voting, you’ve committed yourself to the fact that our system would be just, and thus, you may be ruled based on the outcome. It’s a social contract that you enter into.
Now, if you don’t participate, then we can’t rule you, period. You never consented. Now let’s say 100 of my friends and I hold this election and still want to control you. Still, your gang is bigger than ours. But what if it’s a thousand? A million? Ten million? At what point do you call this fiction of a system, “the” system? I don’t care how many people want to legitimize what you call ‘the’ system, I still see it as a hoax, the illusion of a choice, and I refuse to be a part of it.
If you believe my analogy to be faulty, I ask that you show me the difference. The fact that the thing that calls itself government now forces us into the system even if we don't participate doesn't make their act of violence legitimate.
Just because a majority of people claim otherwise does not make it true. But it does create a delusionary truth. It's the consensus theory of truth. Truth is just the opinion enough people share to solidify in the minds of many that a notion is fact.
Quote:
The consequences are about much more than the individual vote and voter (or non-voter, as the case may be)...
...only because people claim it to be.
If I said, “Me and my friends will commit violence unless against everyone who does not participate in our system, so you now have a duty to”…does not mean I have a right to commit violence just because people did not vote otherwise. You can try and lay it on the conscience of the non-voter of either my system or yours, but either way, unless somebody consented to the process, they have no obligation to be bound to it.
Quote:
but the personal impetus to participate, or not, equally speak volumes about the individual.
Yes. It says they are either lazy, don't care, or don't consider the system legitimate. It's convenient enough to believe all abstainers belong to the first two categories, and I believed it as well until recently, but in the past few weeks I've come to side with the third category.
How this came about: I accepted the fact that all government is the monopoly placed on violence. Therefore, to use government as a tool is to use violence as a means to an end. I find this immoral and unethical. Therefore, even though someone (like Ron Paul) my claim to seek office to simply not use that violence, it does not justify the fact that the violence is there, waiting to be utilized. So I can't justify voting for someone to be given the power to utilize that violence.
I realize my lack of recognition of the system alone changes nothing, however, if I spread the message, eventually people will stop recognizing this force for evil as a "necessary evil". This is how every great change began, when people stopped recognizing it as justifiable to stone adulterers, when people stopped believing it justifiable to own slaves. Society had to change before the laws did. That is another reason why I don't propose using the system to change the laws. If society is not there yet, nothing will happen. Again, the law is just the will of the majority, or something like it depending on the constructs of the republic. But there is no reality to 'social justice', as society is comprised of individuals unable or unwilling to recognize themselves as such, passing their actions' moral implications off to 'just doing my job' mentality.
If an act is immoral, 'just doing my job' is no excuse. So I decided not to ‘just do my job’. I won’t be a part of it.
This gets into a great discussion of the pros and cons of utilitarianism. And although I consider myself a consequentialist, I wouldn’t call it utilitarianism, cause I think people who claim to act in the best interests of other people are full of it. Everyone always satisfies their ego first. This does not mean people are greedy, selfish bastards, but they won’t help other people unless it satisfies them to do so. That being said, I have rules of moral conduct by which I live which you could call ‘rule utilitarianism’ yet, I don’t like the U-word being used to describe humans, since I think none of them fit the label.
One of the most noted arguments against utilitarianism goes something like this:
If there’s 20 Indians, and the general says, “Billie, kill one, or else I’m going to kill them all,” the utilitarian wouldn’t think twice about killing one to save nineteen. But I would object to murder of any sort. Instead, I’d say kill the general. But if you can’t, don’t kill anyone. Refuse to participate. It’s a realization that there is only a lesser evil if you chose one. Say no to evil always, and it will eventually be defeated. But humanity has yet to do that. What incrementalism the geist of history produces.
A great example everyone probably knows of the choosing neither to kill scenario is exemplified in the last scene of The Dark Knight, when the dudes on the boat have the option of killing the others to save themselves. They believe they’ll all die if one of them does not act. But nobody acts…and they all survive. Granted, this is because B-Man was bringing the bug with Joker at the time, but still, had they acted, it would have been blood on their hands just the same. I don’t act. I know the consequences. I know McBama will still try to rule me. And sometimes I will not non-cooperate to avoid a cell or a bullet. But I’m going to take a few steps away with other like minded individuals and see where it leads me. If you’re truly comfortable where you are, then by all means stay there. If not, you are welcome to join us.
Quote:
The United States of America is a very privileged and safe place to practice the blessings of liberty, including the right to declare oneself an anarchist or "voluntaryist" or whatever.
Or whatever. I love how my philosophical distinction is in quotes, btw. Makes me feel special.
America is safe to practice the blessings of liberty? Really? I can think of a hundred ways to get arrested on my own property without harming anyone else. Liberty, or the illusion thereof?
You can claim some deluded utilitarian justification for these victimless crime laws, call them for the good of mankind or whatever you want, but don't confuse them with liberty.
It’s Stockholm syndrome to believe that because the gang in control does not exercise the most ruthless methods of governance against you that they are somehow virtuous people. They’re not. They rule by force. If they were not violent people, they would not take violent jobs. The exceptions are non-violent people being in control, like Ron Paul, but like I said, even supporting him is legitimizing the system, saying that power is okay, that the power is manageable.
Quote:
But you should probably realize that you're not a sovereign unless you have a war chest full of gold, your own territory (even if it's an island), and your own army to defend it.
How's that?
Sovereign: Independent, not ruled by any state.
Do you mean sovereign: Monarch, the ruler or permanent head of state.
I am not, nor do I wish to be the second definition. I fight to become the first.
Quote:
As soon as you have those things, you'll see how difficult it is to create a country that people will want to live in voluntarily.
I don't want those things. I just want to be free and Giggan.
Quote:
You'll have the choice of becoming a despot, an autocrat, with the hubris to believe that you can always make the best choice for everyone else, including what to do for the sick and the old. (emphasis added)
1. I said I don't want those things.
2. No man can rightly claim authority over another man. So to claim I would believe those things goes against the foundations of my philosophy's most basic tenants.
Granted, history is filled with examples of men violating their duties when entrusted with power, which is again, why I do not legitimize institutionalizing violence for use by anyone.
Perhaps we speak a different language, defining liberty and sovereign differently. For me, liberty is wholly negative liberty (protection from force). If you mean liberty to be positive liberty (access to), I do not define such as liberty because first someone’s negative liberty must be violated in order to grant positive liberty, thus it is oxymoronic. But I could be wrong, you may not mean positive lib.
Quote:
When you fail enough times, either you'll be overthrown, or you'll wish to share the burdens of state with people more substantial than your lackeys.
I still don't want to rule others.
Burdens of the state? I do not wish for their to be a state to have burdens. And I don’t feel they have them now, they’re the gang in control. I’m sure Al Capone would have told you there are burdens to being him, but I feel that’s just the cognitive dissonance of a guilty conscience talking. Free people who claim no authority over others have no reason to feel cognitive dissonance because every action they partake in is a just, voluntary action.
Quote:
You might even invent a form of government that enables all the citizens of your island country to feel equally invested in the process, allowing them to chose their own "rulers" through a process so democratic that the "ruler" is more like a servant to many masters than a master to many servants.
Again, goes against the basic tenants of my philosophy. They are not free within the system if they are not free from the system. Otherwise, this is called a false dichotomy. The democracy you suggested in the first clause is similar to what we have now, and again, I oppose such a system and will not give it my consent.
"If I seem to take part in politics, it is only because politics encircle us today like the coil of a snake from which one cannot get out, no matter how much one tries."
-The Gandhi
Quote:
And that's precisely the vast and ambitious experiment our country has been invested in for well over 200 years.
Correct!
Which is why I suggest something new.
Freedom has never been tried. Why not? Also, claiming freedom is a theoretical concept that ‘doesn’t work’ while still within an unfree system, that’s base rate fallacy.
Quote:
When I go and vote, I'm not choosing who will be my master.
Master: one who is in a position of authority.
Do the people you vote for have authority over you? Yes.
Okay, so how are you not voting for a master? Do we also define 'master' differently?
Quote:
I'm casting my bid for the best public servant.
Servant: one who serves another.
Do politicians ever count? Has a politician, through politics ever not used violence to get their way? That would be service. But they're using violence, so it ceases to be service. It then becomes violence. I don't approve of pre-emptive violence, well intentioned or not.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-CS Lewis
Quote:
And I'm mindfully and gratefully acknowledging my situatedness in American history.
Just so I don't seem like I'm shitting on every progress and evolution of man, I'll acknowledge that the united states system is superior to the feudal system, was superior to whatever barbary came before that, etcetera. But this nation is ingrained with and brainwashed into the mentality, like every other culture in the world at every time, that the system you have right now, is the most just and fair system available to man. In france, obviously they do whatever they do their way because the collective impulse is that it works better than what americans do. In slovakia, they do whatever they do because the collective impulse is that their system works best for them, better than the french of united states system, etcetera. Everyone always believes they are right. For centuries, as the treatment of slaves got better, people really gave themselves a pat on the back. Throughout history, some level of barbary has always been accepted as necessary and only through centuries of miniscule change have any great progresses and liberations been made. For this reason, I strive to never let society blind me into believing what we have is just, true, or dare they call it free. Until a (wo)man has total negative liberty, and until society interacts only on a peaceful, voluntary basis, will I accept what is called the status quo. I do not accept it now. I do not accept the masters who institutionalize the violence inherent in the system. And I do not accept society's claim that I have any sort of duty to conform to what they claim to be a moral obligation. I am a free man. If I conform to avoid being thrown in a cage, I will know the reason. If I do not conform, I will know the consequences and accept the attacks of society's force of arms standing. I demand a change, and not politically rhetorical bullshit that every single one of those people promise me, for I will be the change. No one else will do it for me, nor do I expect them to. But I will chose freely to do it myself, and I invite others to join with me.
"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years"
-Lysander Spooner
I realize I can toot my own philosophical horn all day, and in one post no one is going to have a revelation and all of the sudden believe me to be right and heed my words. I'm not expecting that no matter how right I may believe myself to be (and you believe yourself to be), but I do have faith that when the right seeds are planted, logic allows them to sprout every time. I believe this is why progress is slow, but steady through the history of humanity.
Comments
how is this the longest election in our history? it's the same four years since the last one.
speaking of which, wasn't the last election supposed to be the most important ever?
I'm going to vote just to get the free starbucks coffee.
And for all of you non-Americans:
www.iftheworldcouldvote.com
I got up an hour earlier this morning to go vote before work. I thought they opened the polls at 5AM but it wasn't the case when I walked to the front of my voting place and saw I was 30 minutes early. When I went back I got in line before the doors opened and was the tenth person in. I am wearing an "I voted" sticker as we speak.
I Baracked the vote.
i don't really get that either, the longest in history?
either way there will be a black man (hopefully) or a woman in a prime position so it is historic that way(i'm sure nobody realizes this already)
btw. WAY TO GO FRANK!
If you follow punditry, it really has been the longest election season. Most news coverage on elections begins in earnest about six months before the primaries, but this season really started at least a year, year and a half prior to that because of all the speculation about the mess Bush left behind. So yes, longest election season ever.
It's the longest election campaign, I think that's what's meant here. EDIT: Yes, what Monkey said!
Way to go guys, we're watching with great interest from the other side of the pond!
Certainly feels like the longest election anyway.
I absentee'd a couple days ago. I voted Democrat for the first, and possibly the last, time in my life.
they say with surprise, are you a democrat or are you a republican? that's the way you vote. they say it like "That is of course just the way you vote in any situation you dumb ass". like you dont have a choice. but what if your party favor is a stark idiot and you have to vote but you cant vote in THAT favor?
this is definitely the closest watched election of my thus far life. and i still dont know which way ima rock it (<----whatever the fizzle that means). i'll know when i get to that booth here in approx three hours.
-kabol
..
edit
Nathaniel, lighten up. Monkeywright got what I meant.
Oh, and I added the word "campaign" to my post, so it now reads longest election campaign.
Everyone can relax now.
longest erection pain
they had a thing on the news last night saying how my county was the most pivotal in the state, and if it falls like it did in 04, will be the most pivotal in the country!
it almost made me proud enough to go out and vote.
Nate, you're not voting on purpose?
Honestly if you look at the candidates, it's hard to feel the motivation to vote.
You have New McCain that sucks balls, compared to the awesome McCain of 4~8 years ago, who has scary ass Palin nipping at his heels, in her pumps. Then you have Lovely Obama who speaks a good speech, but an agent of change that votes 96% with his party line and has never been outspoken against his party on a major issue...not very change worthy in my opinion.
Hence I'm voting for the crazy black chick, McKinney, simply so the green party gets enough votes to make a viable third party option some time in the future. And if she wins, I'll probably shoot myself for my own bad strategery.
This election has been the most important in my history, important enough to get me to the polls and actually vote for local issues.
i just voted for the black man and i broke the machine, i guess its true about that shit not being able to handle a big turnout, people behind me were not happy.
I voted. I wrote in Michael Bloomberg. If felt good not having to vote for a candidate already picked for me.
I voted for California issues. Nothing new to me about the presidency, just blah. The lesser of two evils again.
Which one is that Mirka?
Guess.
Brakka Obama?
I was told to ride my motorcycle to my polling place, or at least wear my gear, to demonstrate that bikers are a legitimate voting block with important issues. But i live a block away form my polling place, and I'm not walking around in a helmet.
Voted. I didnt get a sticker though.
I didn't get a sticker either, but I did get free Starbucks!
naw, i voted. i just said all that to be a stinker.
I was gonna vote... but then I got high.
It only took me ten minutes to vote. We had paper ballots. I am sorry for the people who did not get stickers, but i'm jealous of you who got free coffee.
I stood in line for 2 & 1/2 hours to vote today, AND I got a sticker. I didn't want any of the free stuff, but I'm sending it to school with my boy tomorrow so he can get extra credit in Civics.
There was some old douchebag who sounded just like Earl Pitts* walking around telling all the Democrats to go home and come back tomorrow when it was their day to vote. He did this pretty much the whole time, working the crowd.
*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Pitts_(radio_character)
Pitt's Off!
The actual fictional Earl Pitts is funny. This guy was just annoying.
didnt get a sticker or coffee
i got in and out
Well, I did my part. And while my commonwealth went predictably red despite my vote, my county and the country didn't. I've never been more pleased and proud to participate in our democracy. In my view, it's vital that we begin to recover from several years of disasterous economic and foreign policy. These things won't be healed overnight, and sure, some things won't get fixed at all.
History--along with the impending political realities of the present--impose terrific constraints on what any president or party can do. And even if Obama is another FDR, he'll still have flaws and he'll make plenty of mistakes. But none of these things provide an ample excuse for apathy toward the process.
What he will be able to do-- especially with the possibility of a second term-- is going to be history-making and substantial.
Beyond that, the symbolic value for inclusiveness in race relations at home and improving our stature in several ways abroad amount to an incredible bonus. It's nothing less than a momentous time.
Not voting, refusing to be ruled, is "about you" far more than consenting to their process.
¡Libertad!
Do you speed by stopped school buses as well?
I speed THROUGH stopped school buses and the brainwashed children therein. YAY VOLUNTARYISM!
I snort speed whilst ignoring all posted speed limits!
I removed the brakes on my car just so I could go faster!
Don't tell me what I can and can't do to my privately owned property!
"their" rights end at YOUR bumper!
or as i like to call it "The Chrome Horn!"
When we have private roads, it will be between you and the landowners how fast you will be allowed to operate your automobile/private property upon their private road.
That's Yay Voluntaryism!
I wish I had a camera so you guys could see the crap I have on my shirt right now. I printed off a little sign that says:
WE HAVE
(Voluntaryist emblem)
NO RULERS
...and people ask me about it and I explain freedom, and how electing a leader does not make you free.
i'd make a competing t shirt that said
WE HAVE
(picture of sloppily constructed shed. made out of boards all of different lengths)
NO RULERS!
And then they shake their heads and smile, looking at you like you're a idealistic young college kid whose spirit has yet to be broken...
you ever see that movie Rustler's Rhapsody? Where andy griffith's daughter tries to break that horse and she gets dragged around the whole desert for like 3 days? I don't know why that made me think of that.
Nate is an arachno-capitalist!
Choosing to participate in the process is every bit as much "about you" as choosing to abstain would be. The consequences are about much more than the individual vote and voter (or non-voter, as the case may be), but the personal impetus to participate, or not, equally speak volumes about the individual.
The United States of America is a very privileged and safe place to practice the blessings of liberty, including the right to declare oneself an anarchist or "voluntaryist" or whatever. But you should probably realize that you're not a sovereign unless you have a war chest full of gold, your own territory (even if it's an island), and your own army to defend it. As soon as you have those things, you'll see how difficult it is to create a country that people will want to live in voluntarily. You'll have the choice of becoming a despot, an autocrat, with the hubris to believe that you can always make the best choice for everyone else, including what to do for the sick and the old.
When you fail enough times, either you'll be overthrown, or you'll wish to share the burdens of state with people more substantial than your lackeys. You might even invent a form of government that enables all the citizens of your island country to feel equally invested in the process, allowing them to chose their own "rulers" through a process so democratic that the "ruler" is more like a servant to many masters than a master to many servants. And that's precisely the vast and ambitious experiment our country has been invested in for well over 200 years.
When I go and vote, I'm not choosing who will be my master. I'm casting my bid for the best public servant. And I'm mindfully and gratefully acknowledging my situatedness in American history.
Down goes Frazier! Down goes Frazier!
,
How so? If I participate, I legitimize the system by acknowledging it as just. If I abstain, I don't recognize it, and cannot be held responsible for its wrongdoings.
I noticed you called it, “the” system, where I properly refer to it as “their” system. Time for an analogy: If myself and ten friends held an election and claimed the winner to be the new king of whatever, your lack of participation means you never consented to be ruled by our king. But if you agree by voting, you’ve committed yourself to the fact that our system would be just, and thus, you may be ruled based on the outcome. It’s a social contract that you enter into.
Now, if you don’t participate, then we can’t rule you, period. You never consented. Now let’s say 100 of my friends and I hold this election and still want to control you. Still, your gang is bigger than ours. But what if it’s a thousand? A million? Ten million? At what point do you call this fiction of a system, “the” system? I don’t care how many people want to legitimize what you call ‘the’ system, I still see it as a hoax, the illusion of a choice, and I refuse to be a part of it.
If you believe my analogy to be faulty, I ask that you show me the difference. The fact that the thing that calls itself government now forces us into the system even if we don't participate doesn't make their act of violence legitimate.
Just because a majority of people claim otherwise does not make it true. But it does create a delusionary truth. It's the consensus theory of truth. Truth is just the opinion enough people share to solidify in the minds of many that a notion is fact.
...only because people claim it to be.
If I said, “Me and my friends will commit violence unless against everyone who does not participate in our system, so you now have a duty to”…does not mean I have a right to commit violence just because people did not vote otherwise. You can try and lay it on the conscience of the non-voter of either my system or yours, but either way, unless somebody consented to the process, they have no obligation to be bound to it.
Yes. It says they are either lazy, don't care, or don't consider the system legitimate. It's convenient enough to believe all abstainers belong to the first two categories, and I believed it as well until recently, but in the past few weeks I've come to side with the third category.
How this came about: I accepted the fact that all government is the monopoly placed on violence. Therefore, to use government as a tool is to use violence as a means to an end. I find this immoral and unethical. Therefore, even though someone (like Ron Paul) my claim to seek office to simply not use that violence, it does not justify the fact that the violence is there, waiting to be utilized. So I can't justify voting for someone to be given the power to utilize that violence.
I realize my lack of recognition of the system alone changes nothing, however, if I spread the message, eventually people will stop recognizing this force for evil as a "necessary evil". This is how every great change began, when people stopped recognizing it as justifiable to stone adulterers, when people stopped believing it justifiable to own slaves. Society had to change before the laws did. That is another reason why I don't propose using the system to change the laws. If society is not there yet, nothing will happen. Again, the law is just the will of the majority, or something like it depending on the constructs of the republic. But there is no reality to 'social justice', as society is comprised of individuals unable or unwilling to recognize themselves as such, passing their actions' moral implications off to 'just doing my job' mentality.
If an act is immoral, 'just doing my job' is no excuse. So I decided not to ‘just do my job’. I won’t be a part of it.
This gets into a great discussion of the pros and cons of utilitarianism. And although I consider myself a consequentialist, I wouldn’t call it utilitarianism, cause I think people who claim to act in the best interests of other people are full of it. Everyone always satisfies their ego first. This does not mean people are greedy, selfish bastards, but they won’t help other people unless it satisfies them to do so. That being said, I have rules of moral conduct by which I live which you could call ‘rule utilitarianism’ yet, I don’t like the U-word being used to describe humans, since I think none of them fit the label.
One of the most noted arguments against utilitarianism goes something like this:
If there’s 20 Indians, and the general says, “Billie, kill one, or else I’m going to kill them all,” the utilitarian wouldn’t think twice about killing one to save nineteen. But I would object to murder of any sort. Instead, I’d say kill the general. But if you can’t, don’t kill anyone. Refuse to participate. It’s a realization that there is only a lesser evil if you chose one. Say no to evil always, and it will eventually be defeated. But humanity has yet to do that. What incrementalism the geist of history produces.
A great example everyone probably knows of the choosing neither to kill scenario is exemplified in the last scene of The Dark Knight, when the dudes on the boat have the option of killing the others to save themselves. They believe they’ll all die if one of them does not act. But nobody acts…and they all survive. Granted, this is because B-Man was bringing the bug with Joker at the time, but still, had they acted, it would have been blood on their hands just the same. I don’t act. I know the consequences. I know McBama will still try to rule me. And sometimes I will not non-cooperate to avoid a cell or a bullet. But I’m going to take a few steps away with other like minded individuals and see where it leads me. If you’re truly comfortable where you are, then by all means stay there. If not, you are welcome to join us.
Or whatever. I love how my philosophical distinction is in quotes, btw. Makes me feel special.
America is safe to practice the blessings of liberty? Really? I can think of a hundred ways to get arrested on my own property without harming anyone else. Liberty, or the illusion thereof?
You can claim some deluded utilitarian justification for these victimless crime laws, call them for the good of mankind or whatever you want, but don't confuse them with liberty.
It’s Stockholm syndrome to believe that because the gang in control does not exercise the most ruthless methods of governance against you that they are somehow virtuous people. They’re not. They rule by force. If they were not violent people, they would not take violent jobs. The exceptions are non-violent people being in control, like Ron Paul, but like I said, even supporting him is legitimizing the system, saying that power is okay, that the power is manageable.
How's that?
Sovereign: Independent, not ruled by any state.
Do you mean sovereign: Monarch, the ruler or permanent head of state.
I am not, nor do I wish to be the second definition. I fight to become the first.
I don't want those things. I just want to be free and Giggan.
1. I said I don't want those things.
2. No man can rightly claim authority over another man. So to claim I would believe those things goes against the foundations of my philosophy's most basic tenants.
Granted, history is filled with examples of men violating their duties when entrusted with power, which is again, why I do not legitimize institutionalizing violence for use by anyone.
Perhaps we speak a different language, defining liberty and sovereign differently. For me, liberty is wholly negative liberty (protection from force). If you mean liberty to be positive liberty (access to), I do not define such as liberty because first someone’s negative liberty must be violated in order to grant positive liberty, thus it is oxymoronic. But I could be wrong, you may not mean positive lib.
I still don't want to rule others.
Burdens of the state? I do not wish for their to be a state to have burdens. And I don’t feel they have them now, they’re the gang in control. I’m sure Al Capone would have told you there are burdens to being him, but I feel that’s just the cognitive dissonance of a guilty conscience talking. Free people who claim no authority over others have no reason to feel cognitive dissonance because every action they partake in is a just, voluntary action.
Again, goes against the basic tenants of my philosophy. They are not free within the system if they are not free from the system. Otherwise, this is called a false dichotomy. The democracy you suggested in the first clause is similar to what we have now, and again, I oppose such a system and will not give it my consent.
"If I seem to take part in politics, it is only because politics encircle us today like the coil of a snake from which one cannot get out, no matter how much one tries."
-The Gandhi
Correct!
Which is why I suggest something new.
Freedom has never been tried. Why not? Also, claiming freedom is a theoretical concept that ‘doesn’t work’ while still within an unfree system, that’s base rate fallacy.
Master: one who is in a position of authority.
Do the people you vote for have authority over you? Yes.
Okay, so how are you not voting for a master? Do we also define 'master' differently?
Servant: one who serves another.
Do politicians ever count? Has a politician, through politics ever not used violence to get their way? That would be service. But they're using violence, so it ceases to be service. It then becomes violence. I don't approve of pre-emptive violence, well intentioned or not.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-CS Lewis
Just so I don't seem like I'm shitting on every progress and evolution of man, I'll acknowledge that the united states system is superior to the feudal system, was superior to whatever barbary came before that, etcetera. But this nation is ingrained with and brainwashed into the mentality, like every other culture in the world at every time, that the system you have right now, is the most just and fair system available to man. In france, obviously they do whatever they do their way because the collective impulse is that it works better than what americans do. In slovakia, they do whatever they do because the collective impulse is that their system works best for them, better than the french of united states system, etcetera. Everyone always believes they are right. For centuries, as the treatment of slaves got better, people really gave themselves a pat on the back. Throughout history, some level of barbary has always been accepted as necessary and only through centuries of miniscule change have any great progresses and liberations been made. For this reason, I strive to never let society blind me into believing what we have is just, true, or dare they call it free. Until a (wo)man has total negative liberty, and until society interacts only on a peaceful, voluntary basis, will I accept what is called the status quo. I do not accept it now. I do not accept the masters who institutionalize the violence inherent in the system. And I do not accept society's claim that I have any sort of duty to conform to what they claim to be a moral obligation. I am a free man. If I conform to avoid being thrown in a cage, I will know the reason. If I do not conform, I will know the consequences and accept the attacks of society's force of arms standing. I demand a change, and not politically rhetorical bullshit that every single one of those people promise me, for I will be the change. No one else will do it for me, nor do I expect them to. But I will chose freely to do it myself, and I invite others to join with me.
"A man is none the less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years"
-Lysander Spooner
I realize I can toot my own philosophical horn all day, and in one post no one is going to have a revelation and all of the sudden believe me to be right and heed my words. I'm not expecting that no matter how right I may believe myself to be (and you believe yourself to be), but I do have faith that when the right seeds are planted, logic allows them to sprout every time. I believe this is why progress is slow, but steady through the history of humanity.