Good job challenging the prof. It’s always easy to think of better arguments after the fact.
Are you worried you’re gonna get shafted on your grade?
Not at all. I took the class in hopes of becoming more familar with American Government. I’m worried that if I do not voice my opinion and and practice defending my beliefs that the money I spending on education is going to be completly wasted.
I think you did a pretty fantastic job. It is sad that the rest of your class seems to be full of sheeple. Even before I learned about libertarianism, I never voted. I realized it was a waste of time.
First forget the preceeding libertarian shitstorm in this thread.
First tell him your sole single vote will not ever turn even a class representative election. So to the cost of voting there is zero expected return. A net loss.
Second about the thousand died for democracy tell him it is only relevant if you already value democracy for which he is yet to make a valid case.
True, although you’re probably not going to learn anything from this guy other than some facts and a reading list.
I agree that a good argument to bring up would be the probability of deciding the outcome. The only comeback has to be either you should do it out of civic duty, or he might try the “what if everyone thought that way” argument.
Actually his response was retarded. You did not say you do not care about political process. You simply found no suitable candidate. Is he bitching students to vote demopublican?
That’s a whole lotta retarded!
I’m guessing he’s bitching at students to vote Democrat.
He started the class period with serveral George W. Bush jokes (but what sane individual doesn’t absolutly dispise Bush). Next he started a conversation on the topic of voting and then told everyone he was a registered Democrat but would vote Republican he felt they offered the best canidate. He didn’t mention third parties one way or another. It never felt like he was endorsing either party but I was startled by the fact he only mentioned the Democrats and the Republicans. It seems he is just an individual that thinks it’s each and every American citizens duty to vote in each and every election. He said several times that Democracy doesn’t work if you do not vote. I can’t wait until we cover taxation.
Maybe we don’t want it to work [:O]
You should tell him democracy didn’t work for the Jews in the 1930s whether they voted or not.
The Soviets were big on elections too. You should grab Stalin’s famous quote on counting the ballots.
the jewish people I am descended from tragically junked their effective anarchy out of vanity and fear.
The Bible indicates, that the pre-monarchic Israelite society was anarchistic:In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did that which was right in his own eyes. (Judges, 21:25); The prophet Samuel harshly criticized the Jews for trying to establish a monarchy[7
history has been one great joyride ever since eh?
oh and remember students of liberty :
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”[3]
When people ask me why I don’t vote, I tell them that I don’t consider a 100 Millionth share in a really poorly informed decision to be a worthy substitute for actual freedom.
The Rev
It’s a college. He’s probably pimping the socialist party.
There are fascist professors also. Suffice to say, professors are not necessarily socialists / fascists, there are simply very few anarchists. I wish to be an Anarchist professor. Political history hooooo!
No, most professors are socialists. Fascism is a form of socialism. All forms of statism are socialism.
I had an old thread of mine bumped up by someone recently, it was re:Soviet propaganda. You should watch the video and see how the KGB has infiltrated and manipulated western culture and education to create destabilization through collectivist ideals. It’s pretty mind blowing stuff.
yeah I watched that video a long time ago. It was mind blowing. They really know how to tap into the useful idiots.
If you want to lose all distinctions between words, then yes.
So minarchism = socialism
Right. The state or the market, there is no third solution.
Distinctions can still be made, but there is no such thing as capitalist government. It is an oxymoron.
That’s fine, but you’re still not using the word socialism correctly, and you’re also creating your own radical definition of capitalism.
Otherwise, you can do quite a radical restructuring of Austrian history by using your own definition. Was Mises’s book Socialism actually a defense of socialism? Was he in fact showing that socialist calculation was possible and happens all the time? He distinguished between a society where factors of production were owned privately and owned by government.
I think it would be perfectly legitimate to point out that under minarchism the means of production in the industry of protection and justice are socialized. But I don’t think it would make any sense to refer to a minarchist society as a socialist one in light of the usual meaning of the word. Using “socialism” in that sense would seem to betray something of a lack of nuance.