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.
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.
I don't really want to comment or read anything here.I have near zero in common with many of you.I may return periodically when there's something you need to know.
Near Mutualist/Libertarian Socialist.
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.
" 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.
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.
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.
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..
@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.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
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.
Individualism Rocks
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?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
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.
"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.
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!
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?
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 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm all in favour of this as a step towards abolishing voting altogether.
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.
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.
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:
Possibly.It depends how soon he dies.If he's received tax payer's money as pay then maybe.If not then no.
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?
"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.
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.
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.
Consider the term "chain of causation". Yours is flawed and mine isn't. Me saying, "That sounds grand if you nuke those Amero-swine into a pancake.", is not analogous to weilding a nuclear device, let alone openly stating the intention to direct it at someone. Moreover, voters do not perceive their actions as aggressive, rather as inalienable rights exercised toward a beneficial end. To suggest otherwise is a logical fallacy.
You're faced with a choice. You either "over punish" or absolve statemen of their crimes and place the guilt on voters instead.
Statesmen do not enforce their own edicts. Consider the basic proportionality formula: two teeth (or a tooth) + costs of capture + "premium for scaring" (re: threats).
This is like a mob boss directing his thugs to go shake down Joe Citizen. If the plan is carried out, the teeth aspect for their theft of 10 gold bars is divided as follows.
Posit that the plan is proposed but never carried out now. Joe Citizen retains his 10 gold bars, but the crime of openly stating the intention to rob (tax) him occured nonetheless. This crime is a threat ("premium for scaring"), the maximum allowable punishment for which, in lieu of an agreement of restitution between victim and criminal, is nothing besides a chance of death for the criminal (in most cases, by purely arbitrary determination by a juror) which meets the threat posed by the intention of the criminal. (See Block's Radical Libertarianism: Applying Libertarian Principles to Dealing with the Unjust Government from pg. 12 and the heuristic device on pg. 15)
Voting can be seen as an act of aggression b/c you are using your vote to force your opinion on others. And even if you vote is for say a libertarian party that party will still have power over people and the decisions it makes will ultimately prevent self-government b/c they will sustain the state. And power over others no matter how beneficial to both parties is the antithesis of libertarianism no matter what strain you follow. So is it a crime- no. Can it be seen as wrong- yes.
Once again if it "can be seen as an act of aggression", it can be a crime (or, alternatively, used in self-defense). By your logic, that apparently not enough people kept buying Baskin-Robbins' daquiri ice over the years such that they stopped selling it (I'm heartbroken over this), could be seen as a form of aggression. The same would go for refusing to hire you for $1 million to fix my sink because it isn't worth it, in my opinion. There is a category of action, voluntary interaction, entirely separate from criminal action, where one truly forces a situation on another regardless of their willing.
You can argue that it is "unethical" or incapable of attaining libertarian ends. It should be obvious that I'm aware of the flaws of democracy and statism. An "anarcho-capitalist" who advocates electoral politics must, in order to be consistent at some future point, become a voluntarist.
Voting is participating in a state whether if is for liberty or not. To use the state for your political purposes no matter how grand and correct is still using the state to further your ideas unto others which is what we all strive to prevent. If someone does not hire me for $1 million dollars than they aren't forcing anything upon me. The market and the state are separate. To vote in the state is to push force your ideas on others using the state, but if everyone stops buying a type of ice cream and it goes away that is from the participation of people in the market. The product may stop being made but no ideas or actions are being force upon your with the threat of force.
I don't think voting could ever be illegal unless the state makes it illegal b/c it is dealing with the state. Voting in any other context separate from the state is up to the apparatus that that voting is taking place in as long as it is within a voluntary apparatus and not a forced one, like the state, than it is not unethical nor illegal.
strawman
Sorry in advance for my intrusion in to your conversation but I have recently registered to submit this comment. Voting is a crime that violates two pillars of contract law; one against the Eternal and the other against your lawful country. Take your pick from the two prohibitions below:1. Exodus 20:3 "thou shalt have no other gods before me." Your vote is your positive, voluntary act to place a god, in this case the sovereign state, before the Eternal, and establish laws that are not the Eternal's laws; Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it ..."2. Also, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, section 2, tells us that "the right to vote ... is denied ... except for participation in rebellion." Look if up. Your vote is your voluntary participation in the defacto body politic and is repugnant to the original, lawful laws of your country. I can reference a huge body of work on this subject if interested.
Thanks for your understanding,
George
Am 14 S2
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Either I don't understand this, or you deleted a whole bunch of words to change the meaning...
...It isn't like I support voting or recognize the constitution as a valid legal document, but I don't see how your claim that "the right to vote...is denied..." is actually what is being said there.
I removed non-essential or clarifying words, called sentence diagramming, but does not alter the meaning. Take out a pen and cross through the words I ommitted and notice that they are not pertinent to the core framework of the passage. "But when" is a predictor and should be ignored as well. Thanks for the reply by the way.
Maybe I need to go back and read the rest of the amendment but...what does this mean?
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.
They are to be apportioned (then elected?)
But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
then this means to me the apportionment is reduced proportionately to the number of blah blah citizens over 21 denied the right to vote for whatever reason (being black?)
stupid constitution
George M:1. Exodus 20:3 "thou shalt have no other gods before me." Your vote is your positive, voluntary act to place a god, in this case the sovereign state, before the Eternal, and establish laws that are not the Eternal's laws; Deuteronomy 4:2 "Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it ..."
So a version of Hebraic Saduccitic law is Eternal law? I thought the Saducees went extinct with the 2nd Temple. Moreover, I don't think there is a case that shows the Jews of the Hebrew Scripture era even thought of voting in and of itself as idolatry.
Plus, was there any judge in any of the states or in the federal government who interprted that 14th amendment law to mean voting is illegal for all?
The Representative language is reference to the apportionment of a new Congress for the de facto insurgent states. It sets forth how newly created de facto citizens, which are termed citizens and nationals of the United States for the first time in history, as well as denizens, freemen and freed salves, are factored for their controlling representation in the usurpation government system. Indians are immune from the legal arm of congressional jurisdiction unless of course they become US citizens.
Yes, your apportionment assessment is correct. Further, "But when" ... is signifying that the first clause is going to be changed or altered by some parameter later in the sentence. The list of elected offices sets forth the officers of the new insurgent system. The phrase "is denied" is linked to the right to vote for 21+ year old male inhabitants who are US citizens, unless of course they want to participate in the rebellion. And that rebellion is against their natural, organic, country, like Virginia, or Delaware. It’s really is quite clever.
Dondolee: thanks for the reply. If scripture was abolished with the demise of the Sadducees then I stand corrected. I believe it was not. Can't say that Jews of the Hebrew Scripture thought of voting as idolatry but I Samuel 8:1-22 pretty much spells out the prohibition and the penalty is spelled out in Matthew 24:. And I know of no written US case where the opinion explained the illegality of voting but continue to look. The coup was quiet, stealth and covert, in my researched opinion. Voting was customary after the Civil War and the simple act of voting, under the new 14th Amendment, caused the voter to enter US Citizenship, not knowing the implications of their actions (surety for the public debt for example). How could they. After 140+ years 99.9% of Americans have neither diagrammed the amendment, thought about it, nor have any clue that their rightful nationality (that of their state) was usurped.
If scripture was abolished with the demise of the Sadducees then I stand corrected. I believe it was not.
The Sadducees only accepted the 1st five books of the Hebrew Scriptures and the literal interpretation of it. In order to survive as a woshiping sect, by definition they had to be able to sacrifice at the Temple, hence when the temple was destroyed all strict interpretation of law based off of just the 1st five books of the Hebrew Scriptures was put to an end and as well as any "strict and literal" interpretation of law. They also didn't believe in the resurection of the dead.
As for the 1 Samuel/ 1 Kingdoms reference, that was made to people who were in a certain covenant with God. Even if voting was wrong for the Hebrews, it would only be wrong to people under that covenant. Jonah did not make the Ninevianites become circumcized in order to recieve prophecy.
Agreed, those scriptural Hebrews under the covenant would be the lawful heirs and assigns of the provisions of the contract. Is it wrong to believe we may be heirs?
If you are Jewish, the interpertation of law is not based literally off the 1st five books, so it would depend on which form of Jewish theology you follow. If you are Christian (that is, you are a Trinitarian / Nicene Creed believer) that covenant no longer applies and be prepared to "render unto Ceaser". If you are atheist, it doesn't matter. If you are some offshoot of Chrstian/Jewish thought (Unitarian, Mormon, neo-Gnostic, Kabalah, etc) I can not say, as I know nothing about any of those theologies.
I must admit, I like the way you think. We have covered some ground and I have learned things, mostly about myself and some conclusions I will now re-evaluate. It has been a pleasure. Good mod.
George M
thank you, always a pleasure
When the deceptively twisted and convoluted language of 14th amendment to the Constitution is untagled, it does state that voting is crime - participation in rebellion. http://www.pacinlaw.org