OK, so I finally stopped being a hypocrite (at-least on this one issue) and un-registered to vote.

People's that I've told have responded that my opinion no longer matters, that I now have no right to complain, that I have to be willing to compromise in life, that I have to be willing to work within the system in order to change it.

In reverse order.

Working within the system makes no sense to me. Would a protestant pretend to be a Catholic so that they could infiltrate the Catholic church, work their way up the hierarchy, and eventually become Pope? Would a protestant become a catholic just to try and influence the selection of the next pope? No, they would just do what they've been doing, namely their own thing. Trying to change the Catholic church from within would, if you believe their doctrine to be repugnant, involving faking it convincingly enough that you would be responsible for spreading fallacies which you believe to be pernicious and destructive to other's souls, as well as your own.

Compromise with evil is equally unappealing. Do people insist that I should compromise between food and poison? Do people insist that I should compromise between truth and falsehood? No, but they try and convince me that I should hold my nose and vote for "the lesser evil." Folks, if the "lesser" evil wins than we're still stuck with evil. The "state" is real hell-horror, soul-crushing, flesh-devouring, unadulterated by the slightest taint of good, pure evil. No compromise is possible or desirable with such depraved corruption.

The charge that I no longer have "the right to complain" is just completely silly. For one thing, it's leveled at everyone. If you vote for someone and they lose, then you have "no right to complain" 'cause that's just the rules of the game, and you're being a "sore loser." If you vote for someone who wins and they go back on every one of their campaign promises, you have "no right to complain" 'cause you're one of the cocksuckers that voted for the asshole and put him in office to begin with.

Finally, the idea that my opinion no longer matters. Well, if to make my opinion "matter" I have to vote for someone who promises rank evil, who furthermore is probably going to go back on his word and deliver something even worse, then I'm perfectly happy to have my opinion "not matter."

I call bullshit. The whole rotten system is corrupt and indefensible. I don't believe that one man can vote away the rights of another. I don't believe in the proposition that you may do anything to your neighbor, so long as your gang is bigger than his gang. I don't believe that any crime is justified so long as the perpetrators outnumber the victims. This is the theory upon which representative democracy is based. Some charge that the USA doesn't live up to its ideals. I say, the ideals themselves are depraved.

Fundamentally, democracy is communism. It is the subordination of all individual rights, of all individual values, of all individual property, to the collective will. That's not freedom, that's not justice, it's insanity and I don't want any part of it.

I hope you'll join me this November in staying away from the polls.

6/9/2008 2:35:05 PM

Quote :

"It is the subordination of all individual rights, of all individual values, of all individual property, to the collective will."

it's actually not. it cedes some of those things, but certainly not all.

6/9/2008 2:36:55 PM

Quote :

"Fundamentally, democracy is communism. It is the subordination of all individual rights, of all individual values, of all individual property, to the collective will. That's not freedom, that's not justice, it's insanity and I don't want any part of it."

And what kind of government do you propose we have?

6/9/2008 2:41:35 PM

^^If the majority may take 1% of my property to serve their purposes than I can hardly complain if they take 2%, or 3% or 10% or 70% or 100%. Once admitted, the power to tax is absolute. No objective distinction can be made between any level of taxation and any other except between the presence of taxation and its absence. Property rights are absolute or they are no rights at all. All other individual rights are likewise either valid or invalid. There can be no middle ground.

^ Self-government

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 2:45 PM. Reason : ']

6/9/2008 2:43:30 PM

Quote :

"And what kind of government do you propose we have?"

Anarchist-Capitalist or one of the variants, apparently






[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 2:45 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2008 2:43:33 PM

Are you a member of the Peter Pinguid Society?

6/9/2008 2:45:01 PM

Quote :

"And what kind of government do you propose we have?"

Anarchist-Capitalist or one of the variants, apparently

6/9/2008 2:45:31 PM

Quote :

"No objective distinction can be made between any level of taxation and any other except between the presence of taxation and its absence."

but it obviously has, since countries don't have 100% tax rates.

6/9/2008 2:46:02 PM

He's probably an anarchist that believes in Utopia.

6/9/2008 2:47:49 PM

nature abhors a vacum

6/9/2008 2:51:36 PM

common sense abhors this thread

6/9/2008 2:54:05 PM

Quote :

"nature abhors a vacum"

Are you quoting Ravi Zacharias? I've heard him say that numerous times, but in a different context.

6/9/2008 2:55:11 PM

Quote :

"that I have to be willing to work within the system in order to change it. "

What are you going to do to promote change instead? Mount an armed resistance?

6/9/2008 2:58:48 PM

Quote :

"but it obviously has, since countries don't have 100% tax rates."

Only because taxing people to death leaves nothing more for the taxers to expropriate. The fact that it serves criminal governments' interests to maintain a level of taxation slightly below 100% doesn't mean that, being justified in seizing most of your produce, they aren't equally justified in seizing all of it.

Quote :

"He's probably an anarchist that believes in Utopia."

Great point, because believing that good results can be obtained through evil means, that liberty can be safeguarded by handing over all your rights to arbitrary, unaccountable authority figures, and that your vote makes the slightest difference aren't utopian in the least

Quote :

"What are you going to do to promote change instead? Mount an armed resistance?"

No, taking up arms against the state would be a disastrous setback. It would only solidify state power by driving the frightened sheeple deeper into the arms of their supposed "protectors." War is the health of the state. It is no coincidence that the most extreme expansions of state power have all occured during a time of war.

Fundamentally, all statist criminals are constrained by the amount of legitimacy they can persuade their victims to grant them. It is the twisted logic and morality of statism that must be attacked. When it is defeated, the forms will crumble under their own weight. Etienne de la Boetie observed in his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude

Quote :

"You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows — to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces."

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 3:10 PM. Reason : ']

6/9/2008 3:02:41 PM

Not voting is the same as not caring. If you want your vote to be counted, but don't want to vote for a system-delivered candidate, vote No Confidence.

That way you can declare that the system has failed it's people, and your vote will still be counted and heard.

6/9/2008 3:04:14 PM

^ hand in a libertarian ticket?

6/9/2008 3:06:26 PM

6/9/2008 3:10:41 PM

Voting for a Third party candidate that you do not agree with is no different that voting for a system-delivered candidate that doesn't represent your ideals.

^ That's right Rat. See, even you can be right sometimes. Isn't that the American way?

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 3:23 PM. Reason : -]

6/9/2008 3:19:30 PM

^ yeah. it is.

If we had lot of choices, like they do in many countries, it would be different. But in the next election, no 3rd party has a chance to get anywhere with their agenda. With the electoral college, we're set up systematically as a 2-party system. Something would have to change in order to give 3rd parties a fighting chance.

Voting for a 3rd party in this situation is more voting for 3rd parties than for the party you're voting for. And plus, with no major record to criticize, how can you find anything seriously wrong with the no-chance-in-hell parties?

6/9/2008 3:24:55 PM

Megaloman84's rationale is too real for most people in this thread...they still think they live in the neighborhood of make believe

6/9/2008 3:26:00 PM

Well I hope he gets far with his not voting/not paying taxes shtick, it works very well in the end I hear.

6/9/2008 3:27:57 PM

death and taxes are still certain...the tax rate can fluctuate though

6/9/2008 3:30:05 PM

I disagree. I doubt a third party would do much for the current system except give the two juggernauts ideas to steal and call their own.

6/9/2008 3:32:52 PM

I'm confused. How are we supposed to express dissatisfaction with the people running our government when it's both parties? Turn in a blank ticket?

If I want them to hurt, who do I vote for?

You know, communism is nothing more than a 1-party system.

6/9/2008 3:39:47 PM

Quote :

"I doubt a third party would do much for the current system except give the two juggernauts ideas to steal and call their own."

this isn't necessarily a bad thing

this is probably the best way to change and evolve the current system

it won't change things overnight, but then again, rome wasn't built in a day either

6/9/2008 4:08:22 PM

In my opinion the only way to change the system is to circumvent the system with a vote of No Confidence. This will make it clear to the government that you refuse to check one of their boxes, and instead choose to bring into question the boxes themselves.

However, in case you were wondering, I'm voting for Obama.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 4:26 PM. Reason : -]

6/9/2008 4:24:20 PM

Ah yes, the classic "In my opinion..." argument. Well played sir.

6/9/2008 4:35:58 PM

Quote :

"In my opinion the only way to change the system is to circumvent the system with a vote of No Confidence. This will make it clear to the government that you refuse to check one of their boxes, and instead choose to bring into question the boxes themselves."

Well it's obviously not the only way to change the system... Although I suspect it's the option resulting in the lowest body count.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 4:39 PM. Reason : .]

6/9/2008 4:39:29 PM

If you honestly disagree with me, and feel that you can propose a better alternative, then do so. I do not believe a viable third party is real within our system of government. Either we get enough votes to bring into question the entire structure of our government, or we throw away our votes to a third party that will simply be absorbed into one of the two majors. That, in turn, will only strengthen the current system of government instead of bring it into question, which was the original point in voting for a third party, was it not? (See: Irony)

^ Semantics, but fair enough. My terminology can sometimes sound absolute, but you take my meaning I'm sure.

V I can understand your frustration. If the system is broken, and there is no sign of it being retroactively changed, simply vote for the candidate that might weaken it, with the hope of future change. Unfortunately, I do not share your bleak outlook, and this is where we part philosophical ways.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 4:53 PM. Reason : -]

6/9/2008 4:43:12 PM

I don't know that I have a better solution, not a short term quick turn-around thing. The very nature of our system makes it difficult to change quickly... I can see the value in voting for the candidate that would be worst for the system (ie: weakening the federal government) enough times over enough years to make a revolution a viable option.

6/9/2008 4:48:42 PM

Quote :

"Working within the system makes no sense to me. Would a protestant pretend to be a Catholic so that they could infiltrate the Catholic church, work their way up the hierarchy, and eventually become Pope? Would a protestant become a catholic just to try and influence the selection of the next pope? No, they would just do what they've been doing, namely their own thing. Trying to change the Catholic church from within would, if you believe their doctrine to be repugnant, involving faking it convincingly enough that you would be responsible for spreading fallacies which you believe to be pernicious and destructive to other's souls, as well as your own. "

Case in point, the Republican Party with government from 2001-2006.

Quote :

"If you vote for someone who wins and they go back on every one of their campaign promises, you have "no right to complain" 'cause you're one of the cocksuckers that voted for the asshole and put him in office to begin with. "

Yes, you should have done a better job in vetting your candidates. Part of choosing which candidate to vote for is weighing how likely his agenda is and whether there are ulterior motives there. This can be partly seen by going through candidates' donor lists, to see who has the power in pulling the strings.

Quote :

"Finally, the idea that my opinion no longer matters. Well, if to make my opinion "matter" I have to vote for someone who promises rank evil, who furthermore is probably going to go back on his word and deliver something even worse, then I'm perfectly happy to have my opinion "not matter.""

Your opinion does not matter, although not for the reason you state. Assuming you are a North Carolina resident, you do not vote for who will win the national election, you vote for who North Carolina thinks should win the national election. Therefore, we only vote in the North Carolina election for president, not a national one. Let's say a person was a Kerry voter in North Carolina in 2004. Here is the results for North Carolina in 2004:

Bush 1961166 votes
Kerry 1525849
Badnarik 11731
Other/Write-ins 2261

Let's say that same person decided beforehand not to go. Here is the effect of his decision to not vote on the polls:

Bush 1961166 votes
Kerry 1525848
Badnarik 11731
Other/Write-ins 2261

So that person got in his car, used up gasoline, stood in a line, hurt his productivity on other activities, etc. to shave Bush's winning margin from 435,318 votes to 435,317. You could make the same case for any North Carolina voter in 2004. And the fallacy of the American electoral system is that a candidate receives the same thing if they win a state 85-15 as if they do 51-49. Why is my vote worth less cause I vote in North Carolina instead of voting in some battleground state like Pennsylvania? That is not equality.

So there are only maybe 5 states every presidential election where a person can look at the ballot in front of them and say "my vote matters".

Quote :

"I don't believe that one man can vote away the rights of another."

That's majority rule. Majority rule will always happen in this world regardless of our wishes: it will either happen via the ballot box or via the gun. If you don't agree with that, you can take out your own gun and get enough like-minded people to follow you. People taking out their own guns to officially get rid of their rulers has happened twice in this country's history: once it succeeded, once it failed.


The world has gone in a strange direction this century. You have openly authoritarian states such as Russia and China which have essentially "bought off" their merchant classes, giving them lots of money in exchange for said merchants not caring about the fact they live in an authoritarian society. You have the traditional democracies such as our country and Europe where the state has increased its role significantly in the name of making the country better and this change of thought has happened in most cases on both the left and right. The Democratic Party here has become more socialist over time and the Republican party here has become more fascist over time because each see government as the way and means to achieve their policy goals. I don't know why this has happened, I just know it has, and something must be done about it otherwise it will bring this country closer to ruin. What to do? I'm not sure because there's no worthwhile alternative out there in our country's politics, the two ruling parties have made certain to that.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 5:10 PM. Reason : /]

6/9/2008 4:53:41 PM

Quote :

"So there are only maybe 5 states every presidential election where a person can look at the ballot in front of them and say "my vote matters"."

some states split up their electoral votes by voting areas

more states should probably do this

6/9/2008 5:00:53 PM

Quote :

"If you honestly disagree with me, and feel that you can propose a better alternative, then do so. I do not believe a viable third party is real within our system of government. "

I agree with you entirely.

There's a political scientist whose name I can't remember right now that argues that the effect of having a first-past-the-post political system (i.e. person with the most votes wins, what the U.S. practices), is that there can only be two political parties. He then uses the thought experiment of Tennessee voters today selecting what city should be their capital. The four candidates are Memphis (say they have 45% of the vote), Chattanooga (15%), Nashville (25%), and Knoxville (15%). Memphis is the sole western city of the four and would win because the three eastern cities split their vote amongst themselves. A majority of the votes were cast for an eastern city to be capital, but the western city of Memphis got the most votes due to lack of competition on its side. So the political scientist says what Chattanooga, Nashville, and Knoxville, would do is they would come together to decide which one should win - probably Nashville since it has the largest support amongst the three - and then all three cities would vote for that one candidate.

The U.K. right now somewhat disproves this, as when they do their national elections, they have many parties win, three of which are mainstream in Labour, the Conservatives, and the Liberal Democrats. However, their constituencies are much much smaller than the U.S., allowing for a smaller number of people in one area to get a plurality (for Parliament, the UK elects 646 members of parliament for 61 million people for an average constituency size of 94000; for Congress, we elect 435 congressmen for 312 million people for an average constituency size of 717000). However, in the example of the U.K., it exposes a flaw. In the 2005 elections we were treated to the spectacle of one party grabbing 55% of the seats while only garnering 35% of the national vote.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 5:54 PM. Reason : /]

6/9/2008 5:38:42 PM

If I didn't agree with the fundamentals of the argument, I wouldn't respond, but here goes...

Quote :

"Working within the system makes no sense to me."

Depends on whether you're trying to improve America or replace it.

Quote :

"Would a protestant pretend to be a Catholic so that they could infiltrate the Catholic church, work their way up the hierarchy, and eventually become Pope?"

But could you pretend to be an American without a felony so that you could infiltrate a voting booth, fill in the "none of the above" option, or eventually run for president yourself?

I don't understand your analogy. You don't have to infiltrate or participate in any party at all, only a flexible government process that transcends parties. Voting doesn't have to involve elephants and donkeys, or men of similar worth.

Quote :

"Would a protestant become a catholic just to try and influence the selection of the next pope?"

Who's asking you to take a packaged stance?

You don't have to register with a political party...

Quote :

"Trying to change the Catholic church from within would, if you believe their doctrine to be repugnant, involving faking it convincingly enough that you would be responsible for spreading fallacies which you believe to be pernicious and destructive to other's souls, as well as your own."

What's pernicious about self-government? Destructive to other's souls about individualism?

You laud self-government, yet challenge the American regime as if it fundamentally represented anything different. Mixed capitalism is every bit the result of self-government, but not informed consent, that political parties are. So, too is the apathy that's led to the cesspool in which we find ourselves. Nobody's compelled anyone else to participate, after all!

Yours is a horrible, horrible analogy for the simple reason that it presupposes you have to work outside of America itself, not a political party, to change the system. Voting transcends domestic political divides in America, friend. You may always cast a no confidence ballot or write in a candidate.

Quote :

"Do people insist that I should compromise between truth and falsehood?"

What's the compromise in showing up for the selection and sending a message that the goods suck without selecting from them?

Quote :

"The charge that I no longer have "the right to complain" is just completely silly."

Agreed.

Your right to complain is enshrined in the same freedom that empowers you to tell anyone who says otherwise to "fuck off, eat shit, or go fuck a cheese grater." But, it's the same right being used to level annoying cliches at you, too. My only point is that you can participate without selecting from the heaps of manure on the TV screen.

The system of participation is sound in itself. It's the voters who are wildly (and easily) exploited by wealthy interests into selecting among candidates whose interests do not represent their own. Speaking of, I heard LOLBama is a MUSLIM! OMFGZORS!

Quote :

"Finally, the idea that my opinion no longer matters."

Influence has degrees.

Quote :

"I don't believe that one man can vote away the rights of another."

A common "tyranny of the majority" claim. Please elaborate.

Quote :

"I don't believe in the proposition that you may do anything to your neighbor, so long as your gang is bigger than his gang."

I can see you in an African jungle...with your eyes and ears shut.

Whether you believe in the proposition of "might makes right" or not, it's natural law.

That doesn't condone or forgive anything done by the mighty when they are capable of ethics and reason, though. Given your view, I'm curious how you see the evolution of an anarcho-capitalist system leading to anything different than smaller gangs?

Quote :

"I don't believe that any crime is justified so long as the perpetrators outnumber the victims."

Well that tells us which camp you belong to, then, doesn't it?

Any crime is justified so long as the perpetrators are successful and control the Legal Dictionary. Or have powerful enough attorneys.

Quote :

"This is the theory upon which representative democracy is based."

Connecting the collective will with the ruling class had a lot more to do with it. This is why the whole "corrupt and indefensible" argument--while popular at Cup a Joe--still gets laughed out of serious academic circles. Our government remains defensible. Our leadership does not.

The mechanics to effect change remain in place. (Note: Starting/Joining a Facebook group isn't one of them.) Your quarrel seems to be with unresponsive people who'd rather bitch idly than do anything about our problems.

A National Referendum has never been successfully carried out, but is enshrined in our Constitution. Seems a logical place to start. Just requires being a little less sedentary...

Quote :

"It is the subordination of all individual rights, of all individual values, of all individual property, to the collective will."

I'll need some clarification on these points. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'd like to know how you got from A to B here...

Quote :

"I hope you'll join me this November in staying away from the polls."

Why stay home?

If a plurality vote no-confidence, that'd have to make headlines and bring about transcendent political change.

Truth is, even if 5% did so, the party heads would take serious note. Any more than 10% and all hell would break loose. Why? Because elections remain a capitalist process no different than marketing competing brands of breakfast cereal.

A large enough "no confidence" vote represents a real target market to the political strategist on either side. These people know where the precincts are. They know how to register. They know what day to show up. They just went to the ballot store one November day, browsed the shelf, and left empty handed.

Competitive pressures force the parties' hands in these voters' direction. And if the major parties are unsuccessful at capturing the dissatisfied participants en masse, new market entrants break through and get votes (Reform '92) or make great strides toward bringing their issues to the forefront (Greens '00).

If you don't show up, even to protest the election, why would any political strategist presume you care at all?

Similarly, if the grocer doesn't know you walked down the cereal aisle and left because you didn't find Anarcho-Capitalist Flakes, what would possibly incent him/her to stock it next time?

6/9/2008 7:30:33 PM

Quote :

"Similarly, if the grocer doesn't know you walked down the cereal aisle and left because you didn't find Anarcho-Capitalist Flakes, what would possibly incent him/her to stock it next time?"

You're misrepresenting the electoral system, this is how it really works for those of us that choose to vote:

The grocer knows the customer walked down the cereal aisle, the customer is visibly upset he can't find his favorite brand of cereal, but sees Corn Flakes and Cocoa Puffs. The customer does not like either, but decides to buy the Cocoa Puffs. The grocer is content with this, as the customer is required to pick from either the Corn Flakes and Cocoa Puffs if he wants cereal as he is the only grocery in town and therefore has no need to offer any more choices to the customer.

6/9/2008 7:56:56 PM

Ain't singin' for Pepsi...

Ain't singin' for Coke...

6/9/2008 8:06:49 PM

Quote :

"You're misrepresenting the electoral system, this is how it really works for those of us that choose to vote: "

Selecting "No Preference" on the same ballot you use to "vote" somehow isn't a vote?

I'd love to hear you clear this up for everyone.

Quote :

"The grocer is content with this, as the customer is required to pick from either the Corn Flakes and Cocoa Puffs if he wants cereal as he is the only grocery in town and therefore has no need to offer any more choices to the customer."

First, who gives a shit about the grocer? The collective will comes from the bottom up, not the top down. The government's role is not to prescribe our politics to us like some deranged physician's assistant at Rite-Aid.

Second, that's not true. Bobo Flakes (like Corn Flakes, but with some crazy, made by Schmibertarian, Inc.) sits on a lower shelf nearby. Green Puffs, a store brand made by our hippie grocer, too. Neither are popular, and probably aren't as good as Corn Flakes or Green Puffs, but if our customer wants Cookie Crisps--and has a high degree of brand loyalty--he may, and damn well should, spend his dollar elsewhere.

Emigration is a real thing in the United States, after all. Our grocer has no monopoly.

Or, our customer could also just as easily go home and, as Megaloman84 rightly suggests, "do his own thing" by making an omelet instead. Nobody's required to drink the two party kool aid at the ballot box anymore than they're forced to habitually eat inferior cereal.

6/9/2008 8:39:48 PM

Quote :

"Yours is a horrible, horrible analogy for the simple reason that it presupposes you have to work outside of America itself, not a political party, to change the system. Voting transcends domestic political divides in America, friend."

Yes, but my beef is not with any particular candidate or party, it is with a system that is based on the idea that others, by voting, may deprive me of all my rights and property. That is not a system I ever wish to participate in, for reasons I've already stated. If "liberty and justice" were on the ballot, I wouldn't vote for them, because I shouldn't be forced to wager all my rights, all my property and all my liberty as stakes in a game of democratic Russian roulette. This is a system I heartily wish would break down completely. I believe that if enough people cease participating, it will. I'm not going to physically leave the American continent. I'm not even going to cease complying with statists in matters that involve me trying to stay out of prison and not getting shot, but I'm not going to do anything to make the system seem the least bit legitimate.

Quote :

"If a plurality vote no-confidence, that'd have to make headlines and bring about transcendent political change."

If you want to go for it, I'd have no problem with it. I, for my part, am going to do what I can to make sure the number of people who vote is as small as possible. If a plurality don't even bother to register, and a plurality of those who show up to vote cast empty ballots, that'd really call the "winner's" legitimacy into questions.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 9:19 PM. Reason : forcefulness]

6/9/2008 9:11:35 PM

I don't get how people can seriously argue for an anarchist system, something that has never been successfully accomplished in the history of mankind, nor among most social animals.

It's never going to work, someone has to be in charge to make sure things get done, or no advancement will take place.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 9:27 PM. Reason : ]

6/9/2008 9:27:00 PM

Actually, states are a recent aberration in the history of mankind, dating back, at the earliest, to the beginnings of settled agriculture, about 4% of human existence.

Your statement that humans are social animals and naturally form hierarchies is self-evidently true.

Anarchists who deny this are retards, yes. I am not.

I don't dispute the necessity and expedience of hierarchies.

I dispute the legitimacy of criminality, of the initiation of force against another without just cause.

Some level of criminality will always exist. Still we should act to suppress and contain it rather than institutionalizing it.

6/9/2008 9:36:17 PM

Quote :

"Ain't singin' for Pepsi... Ain't singin' for Coke..."

Sundrop for the win!

6/9/2008 10:22:20 PM

Quote :

"Selecting "No Preference" on the same ballot you use to "vote" somehow isn't a vote? I'd love to hear you clear this up for everyone."

My ballot from 2004 did not have No Preference on it. The only state in the Union that has an official spot for "None of the Above" is Nevada. In 2004, it got 0.44% for the state.

Back to my ballot, it had George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Michael Badnarik. And then it had a write-in spot. Me writing in "No Preference" would not register a vote for "No Preference", it would register as "Spoilt Ballot" or as an undervote for President. The only write-in votes that count according to North Carolina Election Rules are those candidates that register to be counted under the write-in line with the Secretary of State. And in 2004, that was only Ralph Nader, Walt Brown for the North Carolina Socialist Party, and David Cobb for the North Carolina Green Party. (For example, if you write-in a vote for yourself, it still would not count as a vote for yourself according to the people counting the ballots.) According to the official election results for North Carolina from 2004, the number of votes for "No Preference" was zero. Go here to see. http://www.app.sboe.state.nc.us/NCSBE/Elec/Results/main_primary.asp?ED=11xx02xx2004&EL=GENERAL&YR=2004&CR=A

Besides, we already have people that say no preference by deciding not to vote. In 2004, 45% of the North Carolina voting age population did not vote/had no preference. Or if you prefer, in 2004, 36% of the North Carolina registered voter population did not vote/had no preference.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 10:43 PM. Reason : /]

6/9/2008 10:33:19 PM

the vast majority, and i mean vast majority, of people who would vote "No Preference" choose to express their non-preference of either candidate by not voting...how would you drive those people to the poll? its something that no party has been able to figure out over the last few generations if not longer

6/9/2008 10:52:44 PM

^ And to add to TreeTwista's point, there are some politicians that view low turnout as a good thing (easier re-election being a nice side effect of course). Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican Senator that is currently the Senate Minority Leader, is on the record of saying low turnout is a sign that the public cares less about politics, meaning that politicians are doing a good job if there is low turnout.

6/9/2008 10:59:58 PM

on a semi-related point that ties together lack of voter turnout and whether or not thats "doing a good job", i think a lot of the people, myself included, who have been fed up with politicians and the system enough to not even show up to vote, have not said the politicians are doing a good job, but have simply accepted that thats probably just going to be the way that it is, and basically just adapted and moved on

6/9/2008 11:02:20 PM

yo i think conservatives should just sit this election out...then when obama gets elected the country will realize how bad dems are and then repubs can win forever again...then by the time repubs take over i'll be rich so i wont mind

6/9/2008 11:09:29 PM

Quote :

"yo i think conservatives should just sit this election out...then when obama gets elected the country will realize how bad dems are and then repubs can win forever again...then by the time repubs take over i'll be rich so i wont mind"

And what ultra liberal socialist policies will Obama implement? No Child Left Behind, this education bill that increases government control in the classroom that is practically unworkable? A widely expanded Medicaid program? A new federal bureaucracy called the Department of Homeland Security that hampers government efforts in intelligence and disaster relief and is really nothing more than government largesse? Propose an amnesty for illegal workers? Substantial increases in federal spending that just means this country is even further in a financial black hole than it was already? The dollar going to sh*t, hence driving up the price of everything commodity-related?

You're right, it would be an absolute disaster for the country if all that ever occurred and everyone would turn en masse toward the Republicans after such events.

[Edited on June 9, 2008 at 11:43 PM. Reason : /]

6/9/2008 11:26:14 PM

agreed...a repub will win forever after all that

6/9/2008 11:27:26 PM

To sum up:

Quote :

"If you don't show up, even to protest the election, why would any political strategist presume you care at all?"

I'll respond to the rest when I have an answer to this question, or to how or why the political world would tilt your direction as a habitual nonvoter...

[Edited on June 10, 2008 at 1:29 AM. Reason : unless you're completely satisfied with the status quo]

6/10/2008 1:27:48 AM

6/11/2008 2:34:11 AM