Not voting out of principle = voter apathy = insanity

[socialdtk]

Today in my American Government class when we were counting the number of students who voted in the 2009 election everyone with the exception of me raised their hand. My professor was curious enough to ask why I didn’t vote in such a historic election and I responded by saying, " I didn’t know of a candidate that shared a similar political or economic philosophy with to my own and that if they did they wouldn’t be running in the election in the first place." My professor responded immediately by saying to the class that it was common for people “his age”(referring to me) not to care about the political process but he hoped by the end of the semester that each and every student would be able to understand how great the USA Government is. Reflexively I responded by saying that voting doesn’t legitimize government and I never planned to vote in order for my beliefs to be forced upon all US citizens.

After this quick out burst he stared at me for a few seconds and said that, “thousands of Americans have died so that you can enjoy all of the privileges of democracy and if I disagreed with them America probably isn’t a good match for you.” So again reflexively I responded to him by saying something like, “thousands of men died for Soviet Russia and Fascist Germany too. Does mean Hitler and Stalin was right?”

This went on for awhile but by the end of class my professor basically called me ignorant, ill-informed, and absolutely crazy.

My question is how do you typically respond to people when they ask you these questions? I completely understand how someone when introduced to these ideas suddenly, unexpectedly and for the first time could dismiss them as being absolutely crazy. Especially when the majority of people have been told differently their entire life.

[wilderness]

i think you did well considering the teacher right off the bat had already put you ‘down there’ below him when he referred to age which means you lack wisdom or something. Right away he had already put you intellectually below him and obviously he’s trying to teach a government class and feels the need to justify his work. But that’s not always the case - all government teachers are not like him. My wife teaches U.S. government and mentions how some people don’t vote and don’t find the government to be legitimate. She discusses all sides as much as possible. She usually ends up getting tons of free-thinking students giving diverse feedback on diverse topics. Open-minded teacher probably correlates to more open-minded students.

So sometimes nothing can be done except speak from your heart in which you did.

[nirgrahamUK]

I would have been tempted to sucker him in by starting out opaque, after his first ignorant jibe at your apathy, I like to think I would have said, “on the contrary, evidently I take politics more seriously than you” … and see where he wanted to go from there…

the most general advice i can give when it comes to someone adopting a moral highground with you, as this fool seemed to is to say you are a voluntarist and point out the gun in the room

oh, and hello!

[Byzantine]

@socialdtk

“thousands of Americans have died so that you can enjoy all of the privileges of democracy and if I disagreed with them America probably isn’t a good match for you.”

I don’t discuss politics generally IRL, but if I hear this in the right setting I’m going to call someone on it. The War Between the States was anti-democratic. And the Spanish-American War, WWI and WWII were clearly not fought so that future Americans could “enjoy all of the privileges of democracy.” And don’t get me started on Korea, Vietnam, et al.

Going back further, the American Revolution was certainly not fought for the cause of universal suffrage, and the War of 1812 was really over trade and who got to expand into unclaimed American territory. I don’t think it was a serious effort by Britain to recapture its former colonies.

[fsk]

I thought that the War of 1812 was fought because the Federal government failed to renew the First Central Bank charter in 1811?

[socialdtk]

@nirgrahamUK

to say you are a voluntarist and point out the gun in the room

That is exactly where I would have taken the argument if only I were calm and composed. Today I wasn’t thinking very clearly due being put on the spot within 30 minutes of the first class period. It’s times like these I always look back on wishing I would havedone a better job in explaining myself not for the sake of the argument but so others in the room might be exposed to ideas they had previously never considered. The good is that it’s early in the semester and there isplently of time to make myself clear.

[socialdtk]

@wilderness

She discusses all sides as much as possible. She usually ends up getting tons of free-thinking students giving diverse feedback on diverse topics. Open-minded teacher probably correlates to more open-minded students.

That is precisely the reason I signed up for the class in the first place. I’ve already sat through Civics and Economics in high school and wasn’t looking for a repeat of that in college. Hopefully this exchange isn’t foreshadowing an entire semester of pro government propaganda.

[wilderness]

@socialdtk

@nirgrahamUK

to say you are a voluntarist and point out the gun in the room

That is exactly where I would have taken the argument if only I were calm and composed. Today I wasn’t thinking very clearly due being put on the spot within 30 minutes of the first class period. It’s times like these I always look back on wishing I would havedone a better job in explaining myself not for the sake of the argument but so others in the room might be exposed to ideas they had previously never considered. The good is that it’s early in the semester and there isplently of time to make myself clear.

i had a feeling this is how you felt. i’ve been there. but it won’t all be solved in 30 minutes and I still have lots to learn myself… you were another breakthrough for some already inclining that way, and those in the class that felt as you did undoubtedly noticed that speaking your mind gets nothing but insults from that teacher. And even those leaning towards the teacher simply huddle under his wing cause they don’t know what’s going on and still depend on somebody to shelter them.

straws on a camel’s back

[wilderness]

@socialdtk

@wilderness

She discusses all sides as much as possible. She usually ends up getting tons of free-thinking students giving diverse feedback on diverse topics. Open-minded teacher probably correlates to more open-minded students.

That is precisely the reason I signed up for the class in the first place. I’ve already sat through Civics and Economics in high school and wasn’t looking for a repeat of that in college. Hopefully this exchange isn’t foreshadowing an entire semester of pro government propaganda.

yeah, unfortunately sometimes I learn best by buying books I like or using the library. sometimes good knowledge is more underground so to speak

[Laughing_Man]

@socialdtk

Reflexively I responded by saying that voting doesn’t legitimize government and I never planned to vote in order for my beliefs to be forced upon all US citizens.

Here is what I would do. Copy and paste this quote from Lysander Spooner [ don’t plagiarize [;)] ] and make reference to further reading his work No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority. I would print out a bunch of copies and present them in the next class. Give one to the professor and ask him if he still thinks you are apathetic towards politics.

@Lysander Spooner from *No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority*

It cannot be said that, by voting, a man pledges himself to support the Constitution, unless the act of voting be a perfectly voluntary one on his part. Yet the act of voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part of any very large number of those who do vote. It is rather a measure of necessity imposed upon them by others, than one of their own choice. On this point I repeat what was said in a former number, viz.:

In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self- defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot — which is a mere substitute for a bullet — because, as his only chance of self- preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented to.

Therefore, a man’s voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, EVEN FOR THE TIME BEING. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to be disturbed or injured by others."

[DanielMuffinburg]

Lol. I’m surprised you didn’t get arrested, get called an anti-semite or fascist, or suspended. When the professor called you ignorant, you should have challanged him to read Tom Wood’s PIG to American History (PIGtAH) or Bob Murphy’s PIG to The Great Depression and the New Deal (PIGtTGDatND) One response I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to use is to challange a professor to read Tom Wood’s PIGyAH or Bob Murphy’s PIGtTGDatND. I would do this in front of the whole class so that if the professor refuses the challange, then the professor will look weak. In your case, I think I would have said something like, “are you saying that you know more than a PhD from Columbia, or a PhD from NYU.”

[liberty_student]

You’re a brave man, but most people don’t want you to question their state allegiance, because the state is one of the totems of identity they use to understand themselves. Many of us don’t identify ourselves by our ideas, but instead project and reflect ideals of the various institutions around us.

The myth of the democratic state, is that the people and state are one, linked forever.

So when you attack the state, you might as well be directly attacking these people. Because THEY are Americans. THEY vote for this government. It represents THEM. If you don’t vote, you are rejecting THEM and their ideal society. You are an outsider. You are a heretic.

It’s not as simple as you exercising your conscience or staking out an ethical position.

It is very hard to have a rational discussion, with people who irrationally cling, to irrational ideas.

[socialdtk]

Brilliant quote indeed. Do you know where I could find a free copy o No Treason in it’s entirerty. I have never gotten around reading anything by Spooner and feel like now is the right time to change that.

[liberty_student]

Lysander Spooner – No Treason

[Laughing_Man]

@Daniel

Lol. I’m surprised you didn’t get arrested, get called an anti-semite or fascist, or suspended.

Inciting a riot with radical ideas. Don’t taze me bro!

[Laughing_Man]

@socialdtk

Brilliant quote indeed. Do you know where I could find a free copy o No Treason in it’s entirerty. I have never gotten around reading anything by Spooner and feel like now is the right time to change that.

A single read of that blinding logic turned me into an Anarchist and I am forever grateful to Spooner for writing such a masterpiece.

[Laughing_Man]

@liberty student

So when you attack the state, you might as well be directly attacking these people. Because THEY are Americans. THEY vote for this government. It represents THEM. If you don’t vote, you are rejecting THEM and their ideal society. You are an outsider. You are a heretic.

The double standard of society. The government is everything they want and when it errors, it is everything they resist.

[socialdtk]

Yet another great idea. Show up to class one day with any one of Bob or Toms politically incorrect books and place it in a highly visible area and wait. This would be easy because I sit no more then five feet from him.

[wilderness]

yeah, my wife has read Tom’s book on the Constitution and discusses the significant terms such as life, liberty, and property, etc… that’s how she teaches. She’ll discuss succession as inherent not only naturally but in the Constitution as well. I’d have to say she’s one heck of a unique teacher.

[socialdtk]

@liberty student

because the state is one of the totems of identity they use to understand themselves. Many of us don’t identify ourselves by our ideas, but instead project and reflect ideals of the various institutions around us.

I’ve always seen this as the void between anarchism and statism and I cannot envision what it would take for society to cross the divide and arrive at true freedom. Many people attach themselves to institutions such as the state, gangs, clubs, message boards eta in order to feel like they belong. Being truly free scares them and often times isn’t very appealing. In that way collectivism is truly slavery and the source of most of the states power.

and thanks for the No Treason link.