The Truth About Voting

[Grudgie]

The Truth About Voting

[Grudgie]

True News 6: The Truth About Voting Part 2

[Nemo]

I have not had time to watch those videos linked in.  But I can comment on them, regardless if they say voting is a smokescreen for the masses to think they matter or the way to get true change and responsive government.

My comment is-- If you do not vote, you can not Bich.  It may only be a tiny touch, but a million of them must be given more attention than a thousand.

Nemo

[JohnyMac]

I think to not vote means that you are detached from what is going around you. I voted "write-in" today on about 25% of the candidates because I didn't support any of the people running- However, I voted.

I tend to vote someones principles first. Then second is how I feel about "the" issues. Today I voted a mixed bag of DEM's, GOP's, independents and yes write-ins. I feel good about the effort MrsMac and I did to vet each candidate.

 

[special-k]

“If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.” ~ Emma Goldman

[Nemo]

Who is that guy making those videos.  What are his credentials to give him any basis for those arguments.  He has given me nothing to remotely give any credibility to.  Sorry, this one loses.

I can scream, holler, jump up and down while ranting and raving.  Does that give me credibility or does it make most who see me think I am a loon.  Thats where he is with me.

Nemo

[Grudgie]

Is there anything you disagree on specifically? Calling him a loon doesn't rebut anything he said. I'm a novice at debate but I will try and clear up anything you don't understand.

He is Stefan Molyneux. Irish born Canadian. Majored in history in University. Has been an entrepreneur for 20 years. Worked in the software industry. Gave it up to start Freedomain radio, the largest philosophy radio show in the world. 33 million Youtube chanel views. Has authored several books that deal with anarchy, ethics, and relationships which he makes available for free. He advocates peaceful parenting that will lead to a more rational society.

You have to be on your toes when criticizing Stefan. He has been debating people on anarchy and freedom for years and can spot a contradiction in your argument a mile away which you can watch on his channel. He knows his shit.

He advocates the non aggression principle. That is, the initiation of the use of force is immoral. Therefore, a government is immoral. If you support the existence of a state, you are supporting the initiation of force on other people. When we vote, we are voting on who gets control of the gun in the room.

[Grudgie]

If you do not vote, you can not Bich.

The problems in this country arose from the rulers who rule this country. And those rulers were voted into power by voters. Voting has been an integral part of American government since its founding, and since its founding it has become progressively bigger and more powerful. You elected these guys into office. You gave the destructive power of the state to a few individuals in Washington DC. It's your mess. If anything, it is the non-voter who has the right to bitch. Not the voter.

Because to not vote, is to vote. None of the above. Period. And there are by far more non voters than voters.

[Nemo]

And if no one voted?  Of course, except those who were seeking office?  They would get to determine their own limits and extent of their powers.  So the people who get to determine who controls the gun in the room are the ones who A: decide they want to be the control persons and B: decide what constitutes aggression.  Because no one makes any decisions except them, there is no contradiction to that and anything they want is accepted and within the rules.

Example:

Killing someone because they chose to do nothing is acceptable.   Because the voter has decided that killing is not aggression but doing nothing is aggression.  And of course aggression is not permitted and any non-aggression is permitted and supported.

Nemo

[Grudgie]

I said earlier that more people don't vote by far than people who do and I am pointing out that I was wrong. I was remembering a stat I had heard from somewhere. Upon further reading, there are around 200000 eligible voters in the USA. 131000 Americans voted in the 2012 election. However it is different for midterm elections where typically, under half of the eligible population votes.

And if no one voted?  Of course, except those who were seeking office?  They would get to determine their own limits and extent of their powers.  So the people who get to determine who controls the gun in the room are the ones who A: decide they want to be the control persons and B: decide what constitutes aggression.  Because no one makes any decisions except them, there is no contradiction to that and anything they want is accepted and within the rules.

Example:

Killing someone because they chose to do nothing is acceptable.   Because the voter has decided that killing is not aggression but doing nothing is aggression.  And of course aggression is not permitted and any non-aggression is permitted and supported.

Nemo

If the government can arbitrarily change the rules and murder people (which they... already do. Look up the statistics on democide), that just shows the insanity of having a government.

[Burt Gummer]

Oh grudgie when talking democide statistics you have to subtract all those killed by elected governments, because they obviously voted for that, which would be suicide...











 

[Nemo]

I said earlier that more people don't vote by far than people who do and I am pointing out that I was wrong. I was remembering a stat I had heard from somewhere. Upon further reading, there are around 200000 eligible voters in the USA. 131000 Americans voted in the 2012 election. However it is different for midterm elections where typically, under half of the eligible population votes.

And if no one voted?  Of course, except those who were seeking office?  They would get to determine their own limits and extent of their powers.  So the people who get to determine who controls the gun in the room are the ones who A: decide they want to be the control persons and B: decide what constitutes aggression.  Because no one makes any decisions except them, there is no contradiction to that and anything they want is accepted and within the rules.

Example:

Killing someone because they chose to do nothing is acceptable.   Because the voter has decided that killing is not aggression but doing nothing is aggression.  And of course aggression is not permitted and any non-aggression is permitted and supported.

Nemo

If the government can arbitrarily change the rules and murder people (which they... already do. Look up the statistics on democide), that just shows the insanity of having a government.

Insanity?  Possibly but you are imposing a moral part of it.  Like I noted in another thread here, you want morality, go see the Pope.  For reasons acceptable to it, the government has decided and general population accepted, that morality is not necessary.

You want to impose the moral requirement on governmental activity, do it.  But to add those requirements you must be involved.

Nemo