A Rational Choice For November 2nd

[Anonymouse]

there is no emotion in that post at all... as a matter of fact if there was emtion you would see happy or sad faces... but i dont feel emotional at all... i feel that i am doing my civic duty by participating, and i am expressing my views...

anonymouse there is no reason for you to argue with me, you have started to compare voting to shooting someone... calm down, step away from the computer and take a walk around your house...

you put what i write in quotes as if you are about start analysing it, and then we read what you have written and realize that it has nothing to do wiht what you quoted... and i would like to thank you for quoting it, and placing it more then once on a page... so that if someone missed it the first time, they wouldnt miss it the second time and they would end up reading it...

I did not compare voting to shooting someone. I compared government regulation and coercion with shooting someone. Whether I vote or not I am subject to government coercion, whether it is taxes, or simple permits or licenses. Now that your silly argument is addressed, I see you are all too eager to abandon it and now morph into the popular slogan of "it's my civic duty". Wow, aren't you a proud citizen now. Imagine if you had actually paid attention to any of the points I raised in my posts here, now that's a scary thought. And why do you suggest I calm down? Do you have reason to believe I am not calm? And if so, what evidence is there?

[nunechka]

if my argument was silly, then you would not have responded to it... i have not changed any part of my views... as a matter of fact i support voting now more then i did when i wrote my first post about it...

i think you are too serious and you try really hard to convince me... thats why i think you should calm down...

[Anonymouse]

if my argument was silly, then you would not have responded to it... i have not changed any part of my views... as a matter of fact i support voting now more then i did when i wrote my first post about it...

i think you are too serious and you try really hard to convince me... thats why i think you should calm down...

It's not about changing your views, it was in the hope of trying to show that you have no argument, no substance or logic to it. Blind belief in something is not critical thinking, ironically, which you claim to espouse, and I don't.

I am not serious at all, apparently you haven't seen me on these forums long enough. As far as me convincing you, you aren't that special, get over yourself. I have had this discussion about politics before you reared your voter self-esteem self on these forums.

[hyebruin]

as they say in the ghetto...."y'all's a crayzy bunch of peeps"

[Anonymouse]

as they say in the ghetto...."y'all's a crayzy bunch of peeps"

In my case we would need to replace "crazy" with "retawded".

[hyebruin]

In my case we would need to replace "crazy" with "retawded".

we got love for the special folks too! God bless the fast and the slow...and the immobile

[loseyourname]

in california, we currently have 17 measures to vote on of which 16 are propositions... they are very impotant... there is one on casinos being allowed in cities

Just to chime in really quickly, Prop 68 would not allow casinos in big cities. If it passed, it will result in one of two things. Well, three actually. If Prop 70 passes with more votes, then Prop 68 will never take effect. If Prop 68 passes and has more votes than 70, however, then Indian tribes will have 30 days to decide whether or not they will submit to paying a 25% tax on all of their gaming revenue. If they do not, then permits will be issued to 13 existing card-rooms and racetracks to install slot-machines. So the most that can happen is that casinos already in the cities will now be allowed to have a limited number of slots.

[loseyourname]

Democracy sucks just like every other form of government because my saying "no" has no effect. I cannot withdraw my consent because my involvement is forced. That democracy cloaks this force in the lie of "consent by voting" merely makes democracy more fraudulent than other forms of government which are more honest about their usurpation of authority. I prefer an honest tyrant. Him I can shoot.

You'll getting a little off the boat here, buddy. I can say that your family freely chose to come to this country, knowing they would have to obey the laws, and you can reply that no matter where they go, they would be forced to obey some laws, so they really have no choice. Personally, I can't see what the complaint is all about. There are some laws that I don't really like, and that's fine. As I mentioned earlier, I've always been allowed to do whatever it is that I've wanted to do, so I have no complaint personally. On the other hand, there are plenty of things I would like changed. I would like to see unrestricted free trade everywhere in the world. I would like to see Indian tribes able to conduct business under their own laws when conducted on their own land, without taxation or interference of any kind from the US. I would like to public authorities that rely on funding from usage, of the type that Robert Moses used to run in New York, to reduce the reliance on taxation for public services. I'd like the instant legalization of all drugs and the abolition of social security. Now I'm really just naming things I'd like that I'm guessing you'd probably like as well, because I then raise the question - who is doing more to bring about these changes? The man who promotes these causes through elected representatives and the initiative process, or the man that writes dissertations on internet forums? All I'm trying to tell you is that the only thing you're doing is removing what little say you do have. My efforts may not result in much, but on the other hand, they might. Small changes, such as the ones I'm promoting, have been brought about through grass-roots efforts in the past. Clearly unjust laws, such as prohibition and Jim Crow laws, were repealed, and not by people like you that refused to take part in any legislative process.

You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what is law, what is justice, and the difference between governance and government.

I'm guessing that you know what I'm referring to when I use each term. If you continue to insist, then I'll clearly define every word I use. I think we can agree that that won't be necessary.

Ethics is not a matter of pliability, and because some people disagree with ethics, does not mean their "ethics are right". It is not subjective. No one is authorized to rule another unless this other has taken actions that are themselves an attempt to rule others. By agreeing with coercion, you just agreed with the idea of slavery. As Lincoln put it, "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent."

Yes, I know the schtick - ethics is what you say it is, right? I'm every bit the moral absolutist that you are, I just happen to disagree with you on certain matters, what constitutes consent being one of them. Let's take you, for instance. You go to a state school, you drive on publicly-funded roads, if you receive any financial aid, that is money from the government. Presumably you have paid taxes in the past. If you're a citizen, you even applied for citizenship. If that isn't consent, what is?

Because the system is premised on fear, coercion and aggression, and a monopoly of force, it is unethical.

You know, I'm going to agree with you to some extent on this. I do think that fear, coercion, and aggression have historically been used a great deal to force people into submission, in this country as much as in any other. Where I disagree, though, is that this problem is systemic and unalleviable through any means other than the abolition of the system. I just read through the constitution again to make sure, but as far as I can see, fear, coercion, and aggression are not codified into the American government. That tells me that there is a problem with some of the people in power and with certain statutes, both of which can be changed.

Another point to bring up here is human interaction in general. Every living organism on this planet, including humans outside of their own in-groups, interacts according to a pecking order of fear, coercion, and aggression. You might want to criticize the species here more than their government.

Why do you think some people need to be ruled? Therefore the life, liberty and property of certain individuals is wholly at the disposal of the State. That by admitting to this, you are saying that genocides and slavery is okay, because some people need to be ruled.

Sure, buddy, because I said some decisions need to be made for people rather than by people, I've agreed to slavery and genocide. Because, you know, I apparently meant some people need to be enslaved and some people need to be killed. Sure thing.

I think you're mistaking "government" with "governance" again. Every interaction is "governed" by the rules under which the interaction takes place. There is always "governance". Government is an autonomous entity which wields the monopoly on the initiation of force. As has been proven over time, that entity abides no rules on its actions and will subvert any rules to serve its own ends. Only a "government" can therefore create chaos (often misnamed anarchy) by arbitrarily changing the rules which govern other peoples interactions. No other entity can unilaterally change the rules without negative repercussions to its own interactions because no other entity can initiate force with impunity.

Neither can a properly constructed government. There are things to consider here. US government has become progressively less representative for several reasons. One is the appointment process for judges, and the judges themselves, who are supposed to be non-partisan but rarely are. Another, rather major problem, is gerrymandering and closed-primaries, as well as statutes requiring more than a simple majority for legislative action to be passed. Because of all these things, the repercussions for bad government have been greatly reduced. But government, in and of itself, need not be free from repercussion. That is where I disagree with you. It's as simple as that, and if there's any point you want to argue, let this one be it. I think the lack of accountability lies with government as is, you think that it lies with government of any imaginable form.

And to your contention that only government can create chaos: What about Osama bin Laden? What about John Wilkes Booth? What about Bob Woodward? What about Gandhi, Jesus, Marx, and all the Popes of the medieval era?

What are you complaining at me for? It's the same government which you are defending now in this discussion, and it is also the same government which you are voting for, and defending the vote of. And no, elections would not have made a difference between clashes of civilizations and peoples. As I have my American West class now, that is becoming more and more obvious.

Since you didn't answer my questions, I'll ask them again. Do you think the election of Lincoln, and the subsequent civil war, made a difference to the hundred of thousands of dead southerners, and the families who lost them along with virtually the entire economy of the south? Do you think his election made a difference to the slaves who were subsequently freed by him? Do you think the election of Jefferson made a difference to the native inhabitants of the Louisiana territory, who eventually lost every last piece of land they once held in that territory? Do you think the election of Jackson made a difference to the Cherokee nation when Jackson ignored the supreme court and carried forth the order to remove them from Georgia, after which half of the nation died and the rest were left in the dust bowl of Oklahoma? Do you think the election of Roosevelt made a difference to the thousands of farmers that he subsidized?

[nunechka]

well... i just wanted to get out the info... but thanks to loseyourname, we now know exactly what the proposition is...

smarty pants...

[loseyourname]

I just wanted to make sure that people aren't fooled by the campaigners saying that 68 will result in the construction of "huge, Las-Vegas size casinos near schools" and all that crap. It won't result in construction of any kind aside from casinos that are already in existence possibly needing more electrical outlets for all the slots they'd get.