boinks voting
Yeah personally, I think the “voting no matter what” is wrong (the lesser of two evils is still evil), but so is the “never vote at all”. It can be defensive.
I see it as those in power (congress) if the individual ever increases the size of the state, they’re criminal. So that includes all of them. Bar Ron Paul. Though, should he ever do so - I guess I’d also have to consider him personally liable for the damage the policy caused.
I don’t however, like it was mentioned above in the OP - that criminality extends to the voters, i.e if they vote them in etc. As pointed out, it’s not voluntary at all - there are restricted options.
So personally, am I forced to vote - last local election, there were 3 parties (liberals / repubs), Labour (Democrats) and Greens. You get fined if you don’t provide a good enough excuse, or get yourself marked off the electorate roll. There are secret ballots however. Good / bad? And even though it is illegal to not put the ballot in the booth or correctly fill the form out, it is practically impossible to police.
So since they all suck just as much as the other… and I don’t want to support any of them (no Ron Paul), you “donkey vote”. Cross them all out. Write voluntarist quotes on the ballot etc. lol. They don’t count them or anything like that.
A “none of the above” would be fcken ideal intermediary step. Man, I’d love to see how many votes that would get.
Trouble is - encouraging others to not vote is also a criminal offense… >.>
Hehe. Thanks. [:)] I seem to have a good enough memory and ability to track down the best resource I know of that addresses the issue raised.
Parties are like armies. Voting is like fighting. Take the ACW, the ethically sound position is to fight for neither the Union nor the Confederate army, but to desert. Because one is an invading army, and the other is a pro-slavery army. However one can desert jet still have a personal preference for one or the other army to win. Also, it is not necessarily true that those who fight for either armies are doing so out of illiberal motives. It is hard to fault a southern farmer who fights to defend his home. And it is hard to fault a former slave who joins the Union army because its victory would mean immediate freedom for blacks in the South, his relatives among them. Jet taken under the loophole aside from both fighting for worthy goals they are also both committing aggression against each other.
Still I am not willing to pass too harsh a judgement on them, because under certain circumstances where it was a matter of survival I imagine it possible I would do similarly and join a less than perfect army which was in some - to my mind comparatively smaller - way an aggressor to someone. The difference is that I would not try to pretend my choice was 100% in tune with ethics, but would in my head acknowledge my fighting is also contributing to some rotten stuff the political leadership is bent on.
Yeah personally, I think the “voting no matter what” is wrong (the lesser of two evils is still evil),
That’s how I feel because they you support the idea that “if only the right guy gets in” ( what I call the accidental theory of governmental abuse) which is bogus.
but so is the “never vote at all”. It can be defensive.
I’ve heard this before.I disagree.
I see it as those in power (congress) if the individual ever increases the size of the state, they’re criminal. So that includes all of them. Bar Ron Paul. Though, should he ever do so - I guess I’d also have to consider him personally liable for the damage the policy caused.
I don’t however, like it was mentioned above in the OP - that criminality extends to the voters, i.e if they vote them in etc. As pointed out, it’s not voluntary at all - there are restricted options.
I agree.I just don’t thing voting is practical.
So personally, am I forced to vote - last local election, there were 3 parties (liberals / repubs), Labour (Democrats) and Greens.
I would argue in that case that IF it was wrong to vote then it wouldn’t be in this case since your being coerced.
You get fined if you don’t provide a good enough excuse, or get yourself marked off the electorate roll.
That sucks.
There are secret ballots however. Good / bad?
Hmm. well it’s bad in that it lessens a feeling of responsibility. I can’t really see any positives.
And even though it is illegal to not put the ballot in the booth or correctly fill the form out, it is practically impossible to police.
Which is great.Maybe you could avoid getting caught.
So since they all suck just as much as the other… and I don’t want to support any of them (no Ron Paul), you “donkey vote”. Cross them all out. Write voluntarist quotes on the ballot etc. lol. They don’t count them or anything like that.
I support with that tactic.
A “none of the above” would be fcken ideal intermediary step. Man, I’d love to see how many votes that would get.
Trouble is - encouraging others to not vote is also a criminal offense… >.>
Wow.Oh well,do it anyway.
Are you able to properly format?
Sorry, I can’t read it.
I just realized I didn’t understand the argument I read fully.
I think it meant that by the act of voting you use government to coerce others to achieve goals you like and in that way it is collaborating in aggression.
I think this is the forerunner to the type of arguments seen in Stephan Kinsella’s Causation and Aggression.