Is Voting a crime?

[AnonLLF]

@geniusiknowit

Voting in a govt election is akin to hiring someone to commit an act of theft or violence. And I think that it’s a double-edged sword for those who attempt to vote in self-defense.

That is exactly my argument and I agree on the self defense point.Voting cannot be done in self defense because even if yes you are voting to avoid yourself being laboured with say some business regulation supported by candidate x ,your still voting for candidate Y and so they may lack that aim of aggression in their manifesto but have others for example massive ‘sin taxes’.Basically even if you vote to oppose one kind of aggression by one candidate or even two,you still vote positvely for some other type of aggression.

The only situtation where it may not be aggression to vote is in a referendum which is directly about for example should regulation X become law or not.In this voting situtation you can either vote for aggression or vote for non aggression a choice you do not have in conventional political voting for a candidate.I hope this makes my argument alot clearer.

[AnonLLF]

@Spideynw

" Do people expect the person they vote for to do things to other people? Not necessarily. "

I can’t think of any person who ever expects the candidate they vote for not to do things to other people.Sure it’s possible but it doesn’t happen.Even statists vote with the intention and hope that the policies they vote for will be forced on others.

But if I vote for someone, with the full expectation that the person I vote for will only rule over me and anyone else that votes for that person, how is that a crime?

It’s possible and if this happening it wouldn’t be a crime however no one who votes thinks this way.The statist wants the policies they vote for applied to others and the libertarian knows that the policies they unhappily vote for in a statist candidate will be applied to others too even though they lack intent to see the ends worked for.

[AnonLLF]

@Spideynw

You don’t think intent is taken into consideration when talking about a crime? Saying “voting” is always a crime is like saying “killing someone” is always a crime. Neither statement is true.

I have already talked about intent and said that the statist has intent and te libertarian likely does not.

I have also said their is types of voting e.g. referendum in which in certain cases there could bethe possibility of voting in a non aggressive,libertarian way.

If you are saying, “voting to decide who gets to harm others is a crime”, I would probably agree, since they would then be considered accomplices.

This is certainly what it always amounts to in the eyes of the statist.

[Wibee]

For my local election, I am debating a few things.

1. Not vote

2. Write-in myself

3. Write-in “John May Lives”

4. write-in Ron Paul..

[Spideynw]

@Skyler, “@Spidernw, this was the original question of which I am referring, “Could we say a statist voting with the intent to use the means of government/government intervention to achieve their desired ends in terms of a vision of society, are crime by collaborating in use of aggression?””

OK, well as I implied, that would probably be considered a crime.

[Bank_Run]

I strongly want to campaign for None of the Above is Acceptable. I need the resources and compatriots. I shall start with shirts and bumper stickers. I need capital and folks that are on board. See voting isn’t a choice, if folks don’t have the choice to not choose. Folks by voting; could not use violence on other folks by using the booth, if they simply had a real choice. More folks would vote, and hopefully a real voice for change can reflect in the ballots. Without non-of-the-above, voting is a sham and an act of violence. The charlatans serving the glorious state don’t want folks to have a choice. I would like to see that, day when None of the Above is Acceptable, is on every ballot.

[E_R_Olovetto]

Voting cannot be done in self defense

I agree. If a certain type of action can’t be done in self defense, it can’t be aggression either. People seem to be ignoring my post so I will ask this again:

If I vote for some guy who dies in office day 1 and never does anything, have I commited a crime?

[Bank_Run]

Voting is no crime. In some countries it’s a crime not to vote, ouch! Voting simply has ethical implications. Even if the brother kicks it in a day, you still made the action of aggrandizing the state.

Under the None of the Above is Acceptable system, all’y’all can have a real and peaceful choice.

[Conza]

“Even if the brother kicks it in a day, you still made the action of aggrandizing the state.”

Does not follow.

There exists a presidential candidate, who has run against the mainstream conception of the presidency.

“Of course I’m cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood.” - LRC

“Under the None of the Above is Acceptable system, all’y’all can have a real and peaceful choice.”

As an intermeidairy step, sure.

[Bank_Run]

Thanks.

Surely it is a step that must and needs be taken.

So; I think a checkmark in a box with None of the Above, on a shirt or sticker ought, and should get folks rappin’. What do you think?

Plus! My state(Colorado) removed the “write in” OMFGWTFMF’s!

[Spideynw]

I am not sure what the point of this thread is. Even if one might consider it a crime, what are you going to do about it?

[mahsah]

What if you only vote for issues?

I don’t really see the problem with say, voting against a tax levy or some government spending.

[Bank_Run]

If you just check the issues and not the candidates, than many states will reject your whole ballot.

Voting is still a submission to the subjugation of the state.

What if they held an election and no one showed up?

[AnonLLF]

@mahsah

What if you only vote for issues?

I don’t really see the problem with say, voting against a tax levy or some government spending.

If it’s voting for a single issue like the one you gave of a tax levy then sure that’s legitimate because you can vote in a libertarian way for no.

[AnonLLF]

@Spideynw

I am not sure what the point of this thread is. Even if one might consider it a crime, what are you going to do about it?

I just wanted to raise the argument and stimulate thought.

It is a good question what am I or are we going to do about it.Strategies to reduce people voting are what we need to think about.

Also I’m saying is that voting should be illegal but will not be made so because government needs it to appear legitimate.

[AnonLLF]

@Conza88

“Even if the brother kicks it in a day, you still made the action of aggrandizing the state.”

Does not follow.

There exists a presidential candidate, who has run against the mainstream conception of the presidency.

It’s true Ron Paul did do that and in doing so spread the message about libertarianism(even if I don’t agree with him completely) and I’m glad he did that.However he still ran for president ,ran for the idea that government should exist and someone should run a government.So he’s not so different from the mainstream.

Ultimately questions on these sorts of things like electoral politics ,voting,political parties- it’s all tied up with whether your minarchist or anarchist,gradualist or abolitionist,consequentialist or natural rightist.

“Of course I’m cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood.” - LRC

“Under the None of the Above is Acceptable system, all’y’all can have a real and peaceful choice.”

As an intermeidairy step, sure.

I’m all in favour of this as a step towards abolishing voting altogether.

[AnonLLF]

@E. R. Olovetto

Voting cannot be done in self defense

The reason for this is self defense is an act which is done in response to aggression(so far voting meets this) and ( that “and” is important)harms no innocents in the process.Voting could only be self defense if while voting you didn’t choose someone to coercively rule over others and also vote for someone you know will aggress and carry out aggressive policies.Voting always involves others.If it didn’t then voting could be self defense.Since it does involve others it can never be.

I agree. If a certain type of action can’t be done in self defense, it can’t be aggression either.

I disagree.Nuclear weapons which kill everything in say a 2000 mile radius cannot be used in self defense since what act of aggression can justify the proportionate use of a nuclear weapon that could destroy everything including innocent people in the vicinity.No one in their right mind would argue Nuclear weapons cannot be used to aggress and ( I hope) no one would argue they can be used in self defense.

People seem to be ignoring my post so I will ask this again:

If I vote for some guy who dies in office day 1 and never does anything, have I commited a crime?

Possibly.It depends how soon he dies.If he’s received tax payer’s money as pay then maybe.If not then no.

[Bank_Run]

I found many ballot issues are "public works’. More folks need to realize these projects generally benefit the few at the cost of us all. Hey if there was a guy running purely on nuclear disarmerment, I would probably vote for him, and fill very bad I filled in the rest of the checks without having a real choice. I really don’t think an end to voting as a tool will ever cease. Voting among friends can often be constructive conflict resolution. Unfortunatly the charlatans folks must adorn(by voting for them); make the choices of war and peace. It seems the c.i.a. may have that power?

[Conza]

“However he still ran for president ,ran for the idea that government should exist”

No, he did not. Try back that baseless assertion up.

You can’t, because it is impossible. He is a voluntarist. Contrary to the vast majority of folks who can’t see the strategy.

Where has he ever said government should exist? You won’t find any evidence of it. What you will find is quotes about the uselessness of the Constitution. But you’ll also find statements in favor of the Constitution; there must be some kind of contradiction, right? Nope - the question you must ask is; “compared to what?”.

Compared to what we have now, I - and libertarian would support a US government that followed the Constitution. Compared to the US Constitution, they’d also support the AoConfederation.

There is a thread about it on the forums somewhere.

[mahsah]

Really? I don’t think that is the case. At least in Ohio, you can even request an “Issues Only” ballot that doesn’t even HAVE any Canidates on it.