A Rational Choice For November 2nd

[nunechka]

so you think everyone is like you, and that people are so smart in ths world that there are no criminals and everybody lives so nicely together, and they all hold hands and sing and dance together every chance they get... and you call me the idealist? i am telling you, time and time again, people vary in every way, there are so many problems in this world, how am i being idealistic? i dont think a "state" is the answer, i dont think no participation in community is the answer either... the reason why we have had so many wars and hatred in thsi world is precisely the reason why we need a controlling body...

we must give in order to recieve... we must help out, we must educate, we must fund the education so that people can become as smart as you...

actually it seems to me that you are fighting somethiing that cannot be faught... you are declaring something a problem when there is no problem with it... collectiveism has been a problem in society because people have taken advantage of it... the state has been a problem because people have taken advantage of it... all things in this world are not perfect, and thats mostly due to the fact that people are not perfect...

i dont think i have ever wanted or will ever want to coers anyone to do anything out of their will... i am against this war in iraq precisly for that reason... i was invited on a political talk show and when they asked me about "deomcracy" in iraq, i told all of them that it is stupid to assume that what works for one person will work for another, and in this case, the larger scale of it is that, what works for the US, or what doesnt, may not work for another oxxxxry, why do we have to force peopple to be like us? i dont believe that we should go to these coun tries and force them to comply with "democracy"...

it is fed in the dumb publics mind that "democracy" answers all the questions... but it doesnt... it hardly works here... we have so many people who take advantage of it that it will never work...

i have been repeating this over and over...

i know you keep answering the question... i keep agreeing with you, but i also try and show you the shortcomings of the argument...

[nunechka]

and you know what anony you write a lot...

[Anonymouse]

so you think everyone is like you, and that people are so smart in ths world that there are no criminals and everybody lives so nicely together, and they all hold hands and sing and dance together every chance they get... and you call me the idealist? i am telling you, time and time again, people vary in every way, there are so many problems in this world, how am i being idealistic? i dont think a "state" is the answer, i dont think no participation in community is the answer either... the reason why we have had so many wars and hatred in thsi world is precisely the reason why we need a controlling body...

What does this have to do with people being like me or being smart? Did I say that there will never be criminals? Criminals always exist. What is your point? The State has killed far more people in the 20th century, some 200 million, and you call individual criminals? How many people have individuals killed acting outside political and State influence? You do the math. As far as stating that the reason wars exist is also the reason we have the State, that is stupid, and shows a gross misunderstanding of politics. Wars exist because of States and empires. Individuals and families don't start wars. War's are started by body politics and States.

we must give in order to recieve... we must help out, we must educate, we must fund the education so that people can become as smart as you...

actually it seems to me that you are fighting somethiing that cannot be faught... you are declaring something a problem when there is no problem with it... collectiveism has been a problem in society because people have taken advantage of it... the state has been a problem because people have taken advantage of it... all things in this world are not perfect, and thats mostly due to the fact that people are not perfect...

Collectivism is a problem because it is premise on coercion. It is not because "people take advantage of it" my most gullible little interweb user. It is not voluntary. In this world, there are only two mods of action, voluntary and coercive. Collectivism is coercive. Under your ideal Statist/socialist state, individuals are not allowed to break from the collectivist spell and stranglehold. If people want to voluntary form collective unions, I'm all for it, but how many of the people want to form volutary collective units? It exists via coercion only, because, as history shows, under socialism people cannot break from collectives. You keep thinking that institutions such as the State are "good" and that people "corrupt it". That is not so, because the State does not exist outside of people, because it is a creation of people, therefore it is a reflection of the dark side of people.

i dont think i have ever wanted or will ever want to coers anyone to do anything out of their will... i am against this war in iraq precisly for that reason... i was invited on a political talk show and when they asked me about "deomcracy" in iraq, i told all of them that it is stupid to assume that what works for one person will work for another, and in this case, the larger scale of it is that, what works for the US, or what doesnt, may not work for another oxxxxry, why do we have to force peopple to be like us? i dont believe that we should go to these coun tries and force them to comply with "democracy"...

Democracy doesn't work period. Just read Plato's critique of it in his The Republic and see how Western civilization rests on the death of two people, who are both victims of the popular will that is espoused by democracy, Socrates, and Jesus.

i know you keep answering the question... i keep agreeing with you, but i also try and show you the shortcomings of the argument...

You have yet to show the shortcomings of my argument, as I have already shown the ethical shortcomings of your argument.

[nunechka]

you write too much, i cant read anymore of this... you win... dont vote... and along with that, dont complain...

if you dont like the way the US is, go and make your own country...

love you!

[Anonymouse]

you write too much, i cant read anymore of this... you win... dont vote... and along with that, dont complain...

if you dont like the way the US is, go and make your own country...

love you!

Oh no, the "love it or leave it plan". The U.S. wasn't always like this. Shows your ignorance of U.S. history and politics. Now run along gullible one.

[nunechka]

its ok... i aint mad at ya... i just think that we dont agree and that is ok... i dont want you or anyone to do something out of their will... you are an independent, smart individual who has the ability to make up your own mind...

i may be a little naive, but i aint stupid... i would appriciate it if you would have some respect for my views, and other's as well, after all you also believe that peopple should be left alone, they should not be told what to do...

so stop telling me what to do, i will vote if i wanna vote, and you can do whatever you want, which is to not vote, you can critiQUE any and all government office holders, and so will i, but dont forget that the only reason why you have this right is because of people voting for that right, and for people being active to keep that right... stop telling me that i am stupid, i know that i am not...

it is silly to think you can just call people names and they will start understanding what you are talking about, and to start think like you... you will never get people to even look at an idea of change if you insult them...

[loseyourname]

If no one voted theoretically, the elector college and any one would have nothing to go on, thus a President will be appointed, although I don't know how 'legitimate' he will be in the eyes of the mythical 'people'. They would most likely vote for themselves, but who would they rule? If the people did not vote, it means they are also choosing not to take part or respect in the authority exercised by the voters.

You'd still have to obey the laws, wouldn't you? Unless you refuse to obey every law written and you never pay any taxes, you're still a part of it, just as much as the rest of it. You're being told what to do, and you're doing it.

I am doing something about it. I am choosing to not vote. By not choosing to vote, I am not voting for the monopoly of violence which we call the State. By not voting I am affirming my belief in the idea that the State equals violence and coercion and tells other people what to do via violence and coercion.

I'll ask again. Do you obey the laws? Do you pay taxes? If you do, you're still a part of the system, like it or not. If you think not voting makes any difference to anyone, you're dead wrong. You keep speaking about the delusions of grandeur on the part of the American masses, but the only one that seems to think he has all the answers is you. You are the deluded one. Refusing to vote is not refusing to be governed. I admire you for sticking to your guns, so let's just leave it at that. It is clear that most of the people on this board don't agree with your brand of ethics. Most seem to agree that others should be told what to do if what they are being told to do is the right thing. There is no internal contradiction in such an ethical system in and of itself, just as there is no internal contradiction in your system of individual self-governance, even though under that system some people will still impose their will on others.

This assumption goes back down to the basics of believing voting changes things, which it doesn't. Voting is only deemed for government, not the absence of it. I have already explained that voting doesn't change anything, for if it did, it would be illegal, as Biafra of the Dead Kennedys said. No matter how you vote and for what, the government always gets elected.

And you're trying to paint the rest of us as simplistic? Because government always exists after the vote, the vote cannot change anything? That's one thing that the vote cannot change.

You seem to be comfortable with the idea of others telling you what to, or you telling others what to do. If you accept the initial proposition, then you accept you are stupid, and you need to be ruled. If you reject that then you are stating that you, by voting, are making sure your neighbor is ruled because you believe they are stupid and cannot make their own decisions and need the government to do that. And yes, all voting is useless. It seems that when criticisms such as mine come to the forefront, you and everyone recognize the problems or the ethics of it, and say "so why don't you do something?". By admitting that there is a problem, and then demanding something be done, by myself, shows your dependency.

Actually, I never said there was a problem. It's Nune that thinks there is a problem. I'm pretty happy with things exactly the way they are. It might be a problem for certain portions of the population, but nothing I've ever wanted has been taken from me, so I have no cause for complaint. But getting back to you initial objection, yes, I do think that some people need to be ruled. Not everyone can be trusted to make their own decisions. Most can, but that is beside the point anyway. Because the world is the way it is, there are matters that are inherently regional matters, and only people that are properly informed are really going to be able to make decisions on these regional matters. I won't elaborate, but I suspect you know what I'm referring to. It's the reason tribes had chiefs and councils back in the day. It's the reason families have patriarchs. Sometimes decisions need to be made for an entire group of people, and when the entire group can't decide, a smaller group of even just one person needs to be chosen to make that decision. It's as simple as that, and it's the reason there has always been government of one form or another, and there always will be.

Why should there be property taxes, period? Why is the State allowed to steal and stick its nose in the private property of individuals? It is not so much whether or not the property tax should be high or low, it is whether it should exist at all. And unless one can find a valid reason of why coercion and theft are justified, I am all ears.

In light of how corrupt the LAPD is, I wouldn't say it is a meaningful change. Like all things government, monopolies and bureaucracies become corrupt over time. Thus there is no competition, and since monopolies have no economic calculation, no cost/benefit analysis, there is no way to determine if the resources invested in it are viable or if the right resources go where they are needed. More LAPD is not the answer to crime, how about less government.

The south did not 'secede'. That is the hodge podge Statist education has made you believe. The southern states at the time exercised the rights of what had been agreed upon were the rights of each state, which Lincoln violated. It is more properly termed northern aggression, not southern secession. The south was correct by the way.

The Jefferson that curtalied the Constitution and illegally purchased the Louisianna territory? Of course it was a stupid decision. He contradicted himself.

Well, that's a nice way to skirt around the questions asked of you. If you think Jefferson curtailed the constitution and Lincoln denied the inherent rights of states, then don't you think that their election, as opposed to the election of their opponent's, who would not have done so, made a difference? If you don't think so because government remained in existence either way, why don't you ask the millions of plains Indians slaughtered, or southern families whose land and sons were destroyed by the civil war, if it made a difference to them?

[nunechka]

that is absolutely right loseyourname... government in some form or way HAS always existed...

i think that there is a problem, nothing I've ever wanted has been taken from me either, but this has not been true for other people... and i care about the well being of others, and dont want to deny anyone the rights and the freedom they should have to make decisions in their life... so i think there are people that take advantage of the system, like tom delay "the hammer"... he has government agency serve his personal needs, when we all agreed that we would obey its laws as long as its purpose was to serve our greater needs, like rebuilding the roads, traffic laws, law enforcement, etc...

anyway, good night everyone

[Anonymouse]

You'd still have to obey the laws, wouldn't you? Unless you refuse to obey every law written and you never pay any taxes, you're still a part of it, just as much as the rest of it. You're being told what to do, and you're doing it.

There is a difference between obeying the law, and being forced to 'obey' the law. That is what constitutes the difference between a just law, and an unjust law. I already have an article posted in the Intellectual Lounge in my thread, of what constitutes a just law, a bona fide law, from mere statute law aimed at curtailing liberties. The principle of justice is that unless one has acted aggressively toward others, or there is extremely good evidence that one is about to do so, no one may restrain one from doing what one wants. Currently, with the myriad of laws, that is not the case. These are more like rules for regulations, not laws, from permits to licenses, to God knows what.

A distinction should be made between laws that are created and imposed by humans, and those that, at least as the followers of natural law believe, are based on each person's status as a human being. Jefferson, in his brief summary of natural law contained in the Declaration of Independence, referred to this second type of law as those of "Nature and Nature's God". These laws are antecedent to, and do not depend on government for their existence or validity.

I'll ask again. Do you obey the laws? Do you pay taxes? If you do, you're still a part of the system, like it or not. If you think not voting makes any difference to anyone, you're dead wrong. You keep speaking about the delusions of grandeur on the part of the American masses, but the only one that seems to think he has all the answers is you. You are the deluded one. Refusing to vote is not refusing to be governed. I admire you for sticking to your guns, so let's just leave it at that. It is clear that most of the people on this board don't agree with your brand of ethics. Most seem to agree that others should be told what to do if what they are being told to do is the right thing. There is no internal contradiction in such an ethical system in and of itself, just as there is no internal contradiction in your system of individual self-governance, even though under that system some people will still impose their will on others.

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.

Governance is not the same as government. Governance always exists, whether in family, or relationships, and custom. Government is an artificial form premised on coercion and you seem to think it is proper. You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of what is law, what is justice, and the difference between governance and government. I think that my criticism has hit the nail with the voters, who feel threatened to have their actions questioned by some ungodly mouse on a forum, because you are used to mindlessly carrying out your automated functions like good little lemmings, thinking in the box.

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."

And you're trying to paint the rest of us as simplistic? Because government always exists after the vote, the vote cannot change anything? That's one thing that the vote cannot change.

Because the system is premised on fear, coercion and aggression, and a monopoly of force, it is unethical. The relationship between the government and the voters can best be described as the Stockholm syndrome, in which the hostages begin to see their hostage takers as a means to salvation. And yes, if voting changed anything it would be illegal my unquestioning little voters.

Actually, I never said there was a problem. It's Nune that thinks there is a problem. I'm pretty happy with things exactly the way they are. It might be a problem for certain portions of the population, but nothing I've ever wanted has been taken from me, so I have no cause for complaint. But getting back to you initial objection, yes, I do think that some people need to be ruled. Not everyone can be trusted to make their own decisions.

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. Some people cannot make decisions for themselves, or so the thinking goes. Do you know this is how slave owners believed of their slaves?

As Gene Callahan exclaims:

Taxation, on the other hand, is inherently coercive. The fact that some people would pay requested taxes without the threat of violence behind the request does not make the threat non-existent. Nor does the fact that the level of taxes may have been arrived at "democratically" have any bearing on the question. Imagine that instead of just me, it is two of my friends and me who find some woman very attractive. Rather than persuade her to have sex with all of us, we inform her that we have outvoted her, and that it is the "will of the majority" that we have our way with her, or else. Would any person with a scrap of moral sense find that more acceptable than solo rape?

Or as Hans-Herman Hoppe has commented on democracy:

Imagine a world government, democratically elected according to the principle of one-man-one-vote on a worldwide scale. What would the probable outcome of an election be? Most likely, we would get a Chinese-Indian coalition government. And what would this government most likely decide to do in order to satisfy its supporters and be reelected? The government would probably find that the so-called Western world had far too much wealth and the rest of the world, in particular China and India, had far too little, and hence, that a systematic wealth and income redistribution would be called for. Or imagine, for your own country, that the right to vote were expanded to seven-year-olds. While the government would not likely be made up of children, its policies would most definitely reflect the 'legitimate concerns' of children to have 'adequate' and 'equal' access to 'free' hamburgers, lemonade, and videos.

Most can, but that is beside the point anyway. Because the world is the way it is, there are matters that are inherently regional matters, and only people that are properly informed are really going to be able to make decisions on these regional matters. I won't elaborate, but I suspect you know what I'm referring to. It's the reason tribes had chiefs and councils back in the day. It's the reason families have patriarchs. Sometimes decisions need to be made for an entire group of people, and when the entire group can't decide, a smaller group of even just one person needs to be chosen to make that decision. It's as simple as that, and it's the reason there has always been government of one form or another, and there always will be.

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.

Well, that's a nice way to skirt around the questions asked of you. If you think Jefferson curtailed the constitution and Lincoln denied the inherent rights of states, then don't you think that their election, as opposed to the election of their opponent's, who would not have done so, made a difference? If you don't think so because government remained in existence either way, why don't you ask the millions of plains Indians slaughtered, or southern families whose land and sons were destroyed by the civil war, if it made a difference to them?

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.

[Anonymouse]

it is silly to think you can just call people names and they will start understanding what you are talking about, and to start think like you... you will never get people to even look at an idea of change if you insult them...

Name calling is not to get you to agree with me. I just like it. Think of it as an added bonus.