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.
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.
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!
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I thought that the War of 1812 was fought because the Federal government failed to renew the First Central Bank charter in 1811?
I have my own blog at FSK's Guide to Reality. Let me know if you like it.
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.
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.
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
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
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."
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."
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
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."
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
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.
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.
Lysander Spooner – No Treason
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Rooster: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.
socialdtk:My question is how do you typically respond to people when they ask you these questions?
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.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
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.
socialdtk: Rooster: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.
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.
socialdtk:" 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.
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?
scineram: socialdtk:" 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. 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.
scineram:Is he bitching students to vote demopublican?
socialdtk: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
socialdtk:He said several times that Democracy doesn't work if you do not vote.
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.
liberty student:You should tell him democracy didn't work for the Jews in the 1930s whether they voted or not.
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
Lifes a piece of shit, when you look at it
Life's a laugh and death's a joke, it's true
Just remember it's all a show, keep em laughing as you go
Just remember that the last laugh is on you
It's a college. He's probably pimping the socialist party.
NewLiberty: 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!
Laughing Man:There are fascist professors also. Suffice to say, professors are not necessarily socialists / fascists,
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.
liberty student: Laughing Man:There are fascist professors also. Suffice to say, professors are not necessarily socialists / fascists, No, most professors are socialists. Fascism is a form of socialism. All forms of statism are socialism.
If you want to lose all distinctions between words, then yes.
So minarchism = socialism
Rooster:So minarchism = socialism
Right. The state or the market, there is no third solution.
Rooster:If you want to lose all distinctions between words, then yes.
Distinctions can still be made, but there is no such thing as capitalist government. It is an oxymoron.
liberty student: Rooster:So minarchism = socialism Right. The state or the market, there is no third solution. Rooster:If you want to lose all distinctions between words, then yes. 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.
liberty student:Right. The state or the market, there is no third solution.
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.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan