How do you RENOUNCE party affilliation, and UNregister to vote?

[Wendi]

The political process in this nation is a sham, of which I no longer wish to be a part. At the very least, I am physically SICK to think that I am affiliated with the Republican party, and I want to UNaffiliate myself. I don't want to be associated with them, OR the Democrats. They are all working for the same goal, and it isn't freedom. So, is there any way have myself REMOVED from the voter rolls, and especially the party affiliation rosters?

[NeoRayden]

Register as a delegate for the 3CC.

http://www.thirdcc.org

That seems to be your only hope.

[ChickenHawk]

Send a letter of resignation to the local GOP. Then call the local elections office and tell them you are Ron Paul supporter and would like to unregister to vote. They would probably be very happy to remove from the voter rolls.

[clouds]

that thirdcc thing is great.

Chickenhawk's sig reminds me of 10th grade in school, when my art teacher mentioned something about... well... something... but my answer, although i don't know if the teacher heard me, was to seek truth. This girl a couple seats over asked me how one does that...

[ToryNotion]

Depends on the local/state law. Here in Virginia we no longer have to express a party choice when registering.

[acptulsa]

Please don't renounce your right to vote. You are free to reregister as an independent without charge at any time.

[Malakai0]

Unregistering to vote as some kind of protest is the absolutely most retarded thing you could do. You might as well mail a thank you note to the neocons for ruining your country since your promising never to vote against them again.

Or just mail them a picture of you bent over and write "im ready" on it.


Either or. If you throw your vote to the 3rd party you believe in, or a good independent candidate, it is still adding to the % of people not voting establishment even if they do not win. The more people who vote third party, the more motivated people are to run for third party. Eventually this may lead to a way out of the power monopoly we see now.

[acptulsa]

Or just mail them a picture of you bent over and write "im ready" on it.

Yeh, pretty much.

[t0mmy]

I emailed the following to the Virginia State Board of Elections:

"To whom it may concern,
I no longer want to be registered to vote in political elections. I wouldn't use such a system to determine anything as trivial as my breakfast cereal, and I morally have no business using it to legitimize people's commanding of governmental authority over me or anyone else. It isn't enough for me to simply not vote anymore. I believe my voter registration implies my consent to a process by which other people fraudulently claim to represent my interests by their actions which I deem criminal. My belief in the fraudulence of the political system makes me unrepresentable. So, please assist me in unregistering to vote.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this simple matter."

Their response told me to contact my local registrar and ask that my name be removed from the voter list.

I haven't contacted the registrar yet, but I'll post more here if there's any more to it than that.

[specsaregood]

I emailed the following to the Virginia State Board of Elections:

"To whom it may concern,
I no longer want to be registered to vote in political elections. I wouldn't use such a system to determine anything as trivial as my breakfast cereal, and I morally have no business using it to legitimize people's commanding of governmental authority over me or anyone else. It isn't enough for me to simply not vote anymore. I believe my voter registration implies my consent to a process by which other people fraudulently claim to represent my interests by their actions which I deem criminal. My belief in the fraudulence of the political system makes me unrepresentable. So, please assist me in unregistering to vote.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this simple matter."

Their response told me to contact my local registrar and ask that my name be removed from the voter list.

I haven't contacted the registrar yet, but I'll post more here if there's any more to it than that.

Thanks for signing up to tell us that. hopefully you are a liberal. I for one want as many small govt people as possible and anarchists to to register to vote. Its better than letting the big govt people have the only say in the matters.

[tremendoustie]

The political process in this nation is a sham, of which I no longer wish to be a part. At the very least, I am physically SICK to think that I am affiliated with the Republican party, and I want to UNaffiliate myself. I don't want to be associated with them, OR the Democrats. They are all working for the same goal, and it isn't freedom. So, is there any way have myself REMOVED from the voter rolls, and especially the party affiliation rosters?

I feel the same way you do about the parties, and the "electoral" process as well. Personally, I choose to remain registered, because I know they'll carry on the tyranny just fine with or without me, and I'd like to have just one more way to be heard.

This primary I wrote in "nobody" for almost every office.

Or, move to NH, where you can stay registered as an independent, and still vote in whichever primary you prefer.

If you really do want to unregister, I can understand it. I've heard it can be difficult. I'd talk to someone at your local town hall -- and be sure to explain exactly why you're doing it. That person-to-person statement is worth more than any vote.

[Dr.3D]

What I object to is them automatically thinking I belong to some party. The GOP keeps sending me stuff in the mail and I keep throwing it in the trash. Just because I made some donations to RP, they seem to think I'm a Republican.

[dean.engelhardt]

The political process in this nation is a sham, of which I no longer wish to be a part. At the very least, I am physically SICK to think that I am affiliated with the Republican party, and I want to UNaffiliate myself. I don't want to be associated with them, OR the Democrats. They are all working for the same goal, and it isn't freedom. So, is there any way have myself REMOVED from the voter rolls, and especially the party affiliation rosters?

You should be able to register as independant. Vote for candidates that earn your vote. I always vote libertarian unless a someone like Ron Paul comes out. The worse thing you can do is be unregistered and not vote. It gives power to the two-party system.

[t0mmy]

Thanks for signing up to tell us that. hopefully you are a liberal. I for one want as many small govt people as possible and anarchists to to register to vote. Its better than letting the big govt people have the only say in the matters.

Voting is a zero sum game. Libertarianism isn't. Capitalism isn't. Freedom isn't. By participating in the voting process, one lends consent (and thus, legitimacy) to it. I'm an anarchist and pro-capitalist, so I've realized as such that, if you think about it enough, I'm a bit of a hypocrite to vote.

Have you heard the saying "Democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner"? Well, I don't want to be a sheep, but I don't want to be a wolf either. You won't rid the system of wolves by becoming wolves!

If your ideology wins governmental control, yours becomes the side using governmental authority to act against the wishes of some people who are forced to finance your actions!

If your ideology looses, your participation in the voting process lends your consent to the legitimacy of the powers of the winners. In effect, elections are a process by which the powers and resources of the democratic majority are subsidized by the consent of the various democratic minorities. "The consent of the governed"

It ultimately doesn't matter whether you win or lose, because no matter whom you vote for, the government gets elected!

[specsaregood]

Voting is a zero sum game. Libertarianism isn't. Capitalism isn't. Freedom isn't. By participating in the voting process, one lends consent (and thus, legitimacy) to it. I'm an anarchist and pro-capitalist, so I've realized as such that, if you think about it enough, I'm a bit of a hypocrite to vote.


Well thanks for stopping by, although I don't know why you bothered, given this site's mission statement.

Our Mission Statement
Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this forum is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Cheers!

[ClayTrainor]

Well thanks for stopping by, although I don't know why you bothered, given this site's mission statement.

Our Mission Statement
Inspired by US Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, this forum is dedicated to facilitating grassroots initiatives that aim to restore a sovereign limited constitutional Republic based on the rule of law, states' rights and individual rights. We seek to enshrine the original intent of our Founders to foster respect for private property, seek justice, provide opportunity, and to secure individual liberty for ourselves and our posterity.

Cheers!

That statement has been very controversial amongst forum veterans, let alone newcomers. (by veterans i don't mean armed forces, just long-time members)

[LibertyEagle]

The political process in this nation is a sham, of which I no longer wish to be a part. At the very least, I am physically SICK to think that I am affiliated with the Republican party, and I want to UNaffiliate myself. I don't want to be associated with them, OR the Democrats. They are all working for the same goal, and it isn't freedom. So, is there any way have myself REMOVED from the voter rolls, and especially the party affiliation rosters?

Yeah, both parties stink. But, when you joined the Republican party initially, were you saying that you agreed with them? I doubt it. I know with me, I joined to return it to a party of small government and to fight like hell to kick all the posers out of positions of power.

Political parties are just instruments. If we work hard, we can get in positions of power within the Republican party, so that in elections, they are no longer fighting us, because we ARE THEM. Or, we can just sit on the sidelines and throw spitballs. That is of course, what they want us to do. They don't care if we don't participate. They don't care if we don't vote. The only thing that scares them is when we decide to stand up and fight back, strategically.

We really can win back our country. But, not if we quit.

[Fields]

You could always follow Ron Paul's lead and stay within the framework. :)

[heavenlyboy34]

You could always follow Ron Paul's lead and stay within the framework. :)


BAAAAA, SHEEPLE!!!! ;)
http://itech.dickinson.edu/chemistry/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/flock_of_sheep.jpg

[TCE]

It ultimately doesn't matter whether you win or lose, because no matter whom you vote for, the government gets elected!

By this logic, if there were 535 Ron Pauls + a Ron Paul President, we would still be electing the government. However, that scenario is much different than electing a Democratic or Republican government. My life would be much better if liberty candidates were elected to public office and I am guessing we would be much closer to your dream of anarcho capitalism.

I could see why three years ago we may have just decided to stop trying the electoral route since we had no victories, but now that we are actually winning seats, I just don't understand why we shouldn't continue this route and perhaps in a few cycles we will have minorities in Congress.

[t0mmy]

12133445676890

[Baptist]

I emailed the following to the Virginia State Board of Elections:

"To whom it may concern,
I no longer want to be registered to vote in political elections. I wouldn't use such a system to determine anything as trivial as my breakfast cereal, and I morally have no business using it to legitimize people's commanding of governmental authority over me or anyone else. It isn't enough for me to simply not vote anymore. I believe my voter registration implies my consent to a process by which other people fraudulently claim to represent my interests by their actions which I deem criminal. My belief in the fraudulence of the political system makes me unrepresentable. So, please assist me in unregistering to vote.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this simple matter."

Their response told me to contact my local registrar and ask that my name be removed from the voter list.

I haven't contacted the registrar yet, but I'll post more here if there's any more to it than that.

welcome to the club.


http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=242633&highlight=unregistered

[t0mmy]

By this logic, if there were 535 Ron Pauls + a Ron Paul President, we would still be electing the government ... but now that we are actually winning seats, I just don't understand why we shouldn't continue this route and perhaps in a few cycles we will have minorities in Congress.

If the dominant ideology of the public were such that it were possible to elect so many Ron Pauls, what would be accomplished by electing anyone at all?

I posted here as a reply to an old post from Wendi about how to unregister which I happened upon in a google search of that question. I like Ron Paul. I am a libertarian.

I've come to my conclusions rationally and morally. I'm not bossing you around, and I'm not electing anyone to do it for me. If I were, I'd reasonably be called hypocritical to criticize others for doing such things.

You don't need to fight to win. Stop participating. Renounce your faith in the system- vocally. It won't take a democratic majority to overburden the government with noncompliance. I don't even care what it takes. I'm just not complying when and wherever that is a cost-worthy option. I won't command anyone to follow me.

Maybe I can't stop someone from whipping me with a switch, but I won't fetch them the switch.

[TNforPaul45]

http://www.jrgenius.com/canadastreetnews/pics%20for%20CSN/sheeplebush.jpg

[TNforPaul45]

http://thetruthorthefight.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/633564940352646100-sheeple.jpg

[t0mmy]

They don't care if we don't participate. They don't care if we don't vote. The only thing that scares them is when we decide to stand up and fight back, strategically. We really can win back our country. But, not if we quit.

They DO care if we don't participate. They want to "Rock the Vote". Noncompliance IS fighting back. When politicians win elections with very low voter turnout, it sucks the wind out of their sails- regardless of their margin of victory. I've watched some in interviews and at town hall meetings after such experiences. It humbles them to know eligible voters don't care for them any more than the general public.

[specsaregood]

They DO care if we don't participate. They want to "Rock the Vote". Noncompliance IS fighting back. When politicians win elections with very low voter turnout, it sucks the wind out of their sails- regardless of their margin of victory. I've watched some in interviews and at town hall meetings after such experiences. It humbles them to know eligible voters don't care for them any more than the general public.

Yes, I'm sure the establishment hates the apathetic. Maybe if you were unregistering to vote and picking up arms, then you might have a point. As it is, low turnout just means you have given up hope.

[t0mmy]

Given up hope in what? I've logically and morally dismissed government coercion as an appropriate or effective tool for combatting government coercion!
You don't seem to understand what I've said at all. The government has nothing without our consent. I've revoked my consent. I'm advocating for - not coercing - others to do the same as a non-violent means of conflict resolution.
It isn't apathy, as your "establishment" would have you think; it's logical and moral clarity and consistency. In the ideal of limited government, there is no non-arbitrary limit because government and freedom are simply incompatible. I choose freedom.

[tremendoustie]

They DO care if we don't participate. They want to "Rock the Vote". Noncompliance IS fighting back. When politicians win elections with very low voter turnout, it sucks the wind out of their sails- regardless of their margin of victory. I've watched some in interviews and at town hall meetings after such experiences. It humbles them to know eligible voters don't care for them any more than the general public.

Baloney. If everyone who didn't vote voted for pro-liberty candidates instead, we'd be half way to free society already.

If a thug is terrorizing the neighborhood, but will give it up if I beat him at tiddly winks, by gum, I'll beat him at tiddly winks. They're game isn't legit, but if we beat them at it, they're out.

To abandon this potential tool to unseat tyrants is foolish and silly.

[tremendoustie]

Given up hope in what? I've logically and morally dismissed government coercion as an appropriate or effective tool for combatting government coercion!
You don't seem to understand what I've said at all. The government has nothing without our consent. I've revoked my consent. I'm advocating for - not coercing - others to do the same as a non-violent means of conflict resolution.
It isn't apathy, as your "establishment" would have you think; it's logical and moral clarity and consistency. In the ideal of limited government, there is no non-arbitrary limit because government and freedom are simply incompatible. I choose freedom.

So do I. But if 60% of the people believe in freedom, but don't vote, the tyrants will still be jamming their will down our throats. Or, we could vote them out and start rolling back the state.

They have to hold elections in order to maintain their illusion of legitimacy. It's a weakness of theirs. To not exploit this weakness, to not attack them from every side possible, is foolish and negligent.

Most people don't show up to the polls already -- a great lot of good that's done. Whereas, if they'd all voted for Ron Paul ...

Not voting says you don't care. Voting for a liberty candidate says you care, and you're fed up with tyranny.

[nobody's_hero]

True: It is immoral to vote for the government to rob money from those who work and give it to those who will not. It is evil to vote for government to go around the world killing people in your name. It is immoral to vote for the government to bail out corporations with taxpayer dollars. It is immoral to vote for someone who will support the Federal Reserve.

IT IS NOT IMMORAL TO VOTE TO TELL THEM TO STOP!!!

[specsaregood]

Given up hope in what? I've logically and morally dismissed government coercion as an appropriate or effective tool for combatting government coercion!
You don't seem to understand what I've said at all. The government has nothing without our consent. I've revoked my consent. I'm advocating for - not coercing - others to do the same as a non-violent means of conflict resolution.
It isn't apathy, as your "establishment" would have you think; it's logical and moral clarity and consistency. In the ideal of limited government, there is no non-arbitrary limit because government and freedom are simply incompatible. I choose freedom.

If I was the establishment I'd probably have people going around spreading this message to every single liberty related website I could find.

[tremendoustie]

Saying it's wrong to vote for liberty, because voting can also be used to subjugate people, is like saying it's wrong to use a gun to stop someone who's trying to murder you, because a gun can also be used for murder.

It's frankly silly.

[erowe1]

If some mafia thug came to my house and informed me he was going to rob me and that he was going to be so generous as to let me vote on whether I'd prefer that he take my money or my life, I wouldn't reply by saying, "I reject your claim to having authority to give me such a choice as illegitimate." I would vote for him to take my money and not feel the slightest twinge of guilt about having participated in a sham election.

[nobody's_hero]

If some mafia thug came to my house and informed me he was going to rob me and that he was going to be so generous as to let me vote on whether I'd prefer that he take my money or my life, I wouldn't reply by saying, "I reject your claim to having authority to give me such a choice as illegitimate." I would vote for him to take my money and not feel the slightest twinge of guilt about having participated in a sham election.

I like your example. But there's a third choice; that you can vote for the thug to go **** himself.

The only problem is that so few people ever vote for the third option, even more people who have the capacity to vote for the third option get discouraged and don't vote at all.

Then the thug kills them. And robs them.

They say voting is immoral?

Then the moral high ground is six-feet-under, surrounding a poor man's coffin.

[QueenB4Liberty]

True: It is immoral to vote for the government to rob money from those who work and give it to those who will not. It is evil to vote for government to go around the world killing people in your name. It is immoral to vote for the government to bail out corporations with taxpayer dollars. It is immoral to vote for someone who will support the Federal Reserve.

IT IS NOT IMMORAL TO VOTE TO TELL THEM TO STOP!!!

If you vote at all, you're participating in the system, and consenting to it. The game is rigged. We all know this. They let us have victories here and there to keep us quiet, but come on, really, there's a threshold, and approaching it. Does anyone honestly think Ron Paul would ever really win the Presidency? I would love it, but the political system in our country is so corrupt and dishonest I don't see it happening. I'll vote if it's convenient for me, I guess, I'll definitely vote for Ron Paul, but I don't want anyone to rule over anyone else and voting means you delegate to someone else the power to make decisions for other people.

[tremendoustie]

If you vote at all, you're participating in the system, and consenting to it.

B.S. If I have to have a gunfight with someone in order to defend my life, that does not mean I consented to that fight, or believe that I should have to conduct gunfights in order to stay alive.

I'm simply doing my best to defend myself.

This is not a moral question. It's a cost-benefit analysis. Which is more likely to stop tyrants, and promote the ideas of liberty: not voting, or voting for a liberty candidate? To me, the answer is obvious.



The game is rigged. We all know this. They let us have victories here and there to keep us quiet, but come on, really, there's a threshold, and approaching it. Does anyone honestly think Ron Paul would ever really win the Presidency?


No, but the more votes and support he gets the more opportunities he has to promote the liberty message, and the more credibility he has when he does.



I would love it, but the political system in our country is so corrupt and dishonest I don't see it happening. I'll vote if it's convenient for me, I guess, I'll definitely vote for Ron Paul,


Good, I'm glad to hear you're not totally dogmatic on this.



but I don't want anyone to rule over anyone else and voting means you delegate to someone else the power to make decisions for other people.

I disagree that voting implies consent. If you try to elect a liberty minded person, it's like trying to wrestle a gun (the state) away from an attacker, so they can't hurt you with it.

If you vote for someone who's going to impose on others, or increase the tyranny of the state, I agree that that's immoral.

[Danke]

Don't vote, it only encourages them.

[JeNNiF00F00]

>:)

[GunnyFreedom]

I totally agree. My apathy is back.

Which is exactly why folks like me will never get anywhere. Whenever we go over a pothole, half our number take their toys and go home.

[heavenlyboy34]

Saying it's wrong to vote for liberty, because voting can also be used to subjugate people, is like saying it's wrong to use a gun to stop someone who's trying to murder you, because a gun can also be used for murder.

It's frankly silly.

"Voting for liberty" is as silly as "fucking for virginity". ;) The State apparatus is too corrupt and powerful to be upset by a vote. As Schaffer said, "Democracy is the delusion that my wife and I voting together have more influence than Jay Rockefeller".

[speciallyblend]

just don't vote republican or democrat. your probably better off not voting anyway. the gop/dnc is nothing more then a political sham. though i am still republican. i will NEVER vote for a biggovgop establishment candidate!! i want to have hope for the gop,but my gut feeling is the gop is a lost cause at the national level!! only 2 options worth a dam in the gop for 2012 Ron Paul or Gary Johnson!!!

[specsaregood]

and voting means you delegate to someone else the power to make decisions for other people.

Wrong. You can't delegate away rights that you do not have yourself. The power has been abused that is what we are trying to stop.

[QueenB4Liberty]

Wrong. You can't delegate away rights that you do not have yourself. The power has been abused that is what we are trying to stop.

What rights don't I have?

[low preference guy]

What rights don't I have?

I think he is referring to the part in bold



voting means you delegate to someone else the power to make decisions for other people.

You don't have a right to make decisions for other people, thus you can't delegate that.

[specsaregood]

You don't have a right to make decisions for other people, thus you can't delegate that.

bingo.

[QueenB4Liberty]

I think he is referring to the part in bold




You don't have a right to make decisions for other people, thus you can't delegate that.

But yet that's the point of voting for a politician, or you at least believe someone else can make a better decision than yourself. Unless you vote on a referendum.

[low preference guy]

But yet that's the point of voting for a politician, or you at least believe someone else can make a better decision than yourself.

So if you don't vote that guarantees that you will make your decisions for yourself and the politician will not interfere?

[specsaregood]

But yet that's the point of voting for a politician, or you at least believe someone else can make a better decision than yourself. Unless you vote on a referendum.

Thats funny, I thought governments purpose was to protect people's rights, not make decisions for them.

[QueenB4Liberty]

When you vote for a politician, they vote on the actual issues. We know how this works, and we know often politicians vote for issues whether the people they represent like them or not. I would rather vote on things like taxes than vote for someone who makes the decision on my behalf.

[tremendoustie]

"Voting for liberty" is as silly as "fucking for virginity".

That's completely false. If I don't have sex, I'm a virgin. If I don't vote, I'm still screwed by the government. Once can absolutely vote in self defense, to try to stop the aggressors.



;) The State apparatus is too corrupt and powerful to be upset by a vote.

I didn't say that's the only thing one should do. But liberty candidates gain a much larger bully pulpit, if they receive more votes. And it's absolutely possible to elect pro-liberty people in local and state elections.

In NH, a pro-liberty state rep recently got a bill passed that made knives legal. Pro-liberty reps also stopped recent seat belt laws, and restrictions on home schoolers. If every pro-liberty person had thought as you do, knives would still be illegal in NH, seat belts would be required, home schooling would be further regulated, and who knows what other mischief the goons in the state house would have enacted.



As Schaffer said, "Democracy is the delusion that my wife and I voting together have more influence than Jay Rockefeller".

Of course democracy is B.S. I don't believe majorities have a right to dictate their will to minorities. That doesn't mean one should not use whatever means of defense are available to oneself.

One could just as well say that gunfights are the delusion that whoever's got the best weapons and skill has a right to kill whoever they want. I don't believe that's the case. But if someone tries to kill me, I'll still defend myself.

To participate in an activity in order to defend oneself from attack does not imply approval of that activity as a way to determine right and wrong.

[tremendoustie]

just don't vote republican or democrat. your probably better off not voting anyway. the gop/dnc is nothing more then a political sham. though i am still republican. i will NEVER vote for a biggovgop establishment candidate!! i want to have hope for the gop,but my gut feeling is the gop is a lost cause at the national level!! only 2 options worth a dam in the gop for 2012 Ron Paul or Gary Johnson!!!

Yep. Voting for a third party, or long shot liberty candidate, sends a much stronger message than just not voting.

[t0mmy]

Tremendoustie, even the 3 quotes you have at the end of your every post support my position over yours.
Everyone's bad analogies and absurd hypothetical scenarios and rhetorical nonsense fail to address my points. You bemoan those of us who "take our balls and go home" as the reason you don't win the game- never minding that the same can be said of you by everyone whose ideas you don't buy into.
Thank you, QueenB4Liberty. The simple truth is that I'm part of such a small democratic minority that I'm unrepresentable. If enough people thought like me to win national elections, there would obviously be no rationale for having national elections. So, I'm not voting anymore.
Any of you who wish to insult and attack and dismiss me so for voicing a position contrary in some way to your own certainly shouldn't wonder why I fear what might be done about me if it were you manning the helm of the almighty state! Perhaps what bothers the most vocal of you most isn't that I'm so wrong, but that you can't quite figure out how I'm wrong. After all, this post was dead a few years before I just answered a simple question I happened upon. I'm not bossing any of you around. I have more in common with you than I do with most people, actually, so why don't you all try just letting what i've said sink in for a while before ripping into me for no good reason with a bunch of 'what-if's' about mobster dilemmas and whatever.

[tremendoustie]

Tremendoustie, even the 3 quotes you have at the end of your every post support my position over yours.


How so? I do think we should organize society in a different way, than to have a bunch of politicians determined by popular elections dictate their will to everyone else. I just don't think abstaining from voting is going to get us there.



Everyone's bad analogies and absurd hypothetical scenarios and rhetorical nonsense fail to address my points.


What points?

Let me ask you this: Do you think it's morally wrong to vote, even for a liberty candidate, or do you just think it's practically less effective than not voting?



You bemoan those of us who "take our balls and go home" as the reason you don't win the game


I didn't say that. I don't think there are enough libertarians who intentionally don't vote, to affect things much one way or another.



- never minding that the same can be said of you by everyone whose ideas you don't buy into.

If someone thinks there's something that I should be doing to promote liberty, I'm all ears.



Thank you, QueenB4Liberty. The simple truth is that I'm part of such a small democratic minority that I'm unrepresentable. If enough people thought like me to win national elections, there would obviously be no rationale for having national elections. So, I'm not voting anymore.

There's no rationale for having national elections anyway.

But, the more votes liberty candidates get, the more they are invited to debates and on talk shows, and the more the message gets out. If you think Ron Paul hasn't had a huge positive impact for liberty, you've got your head in the sand.

And if a liberty candidate somehow actually wins, so much the better.



Any of you who wish to insult and attack and dismiss me so for voicing a position contrary in some way to your own certainly shouldn't wonder why I fear what might be done about me if it were you manning the helm of the almighty state!

Yes, because disagreeing with you or voicing objections to your opinions is the same as using the state to threaten violence against you :rolleyes:



Perhaps what bothers the most vocal of you most isn't that I'm so wrong, but that you can't quite figure out how I'm wrong.


Huh :confused:

You're wrong because you're refusing to utilize a valuable tool we have to shrink the state. It doesn't bother me -- whether you vote or not is up to you ... but your opinion is silly and counterproductive.



After all, this post was dead a few years before I just answered a simple question I happened upon. I'm not bossing any of you around.


That's true. But, you're not using a valuable tool we have to help stop others from bossing us around. It's your right to not vote, but others also have a right to object to your opinions.



I have more in common with you than I do with most people, actually,


I certainly agree :)



so why don't you all try just letting what i've said sink in for a while before ripping into me for no good reason with a bunch of 'what-if's' about mobster dilemmas and whatever.

I think I've let this viewpoint "sink in" quite enough -- I've been aware of it for some time.

And analogies are a valuable way to illustrate a point.

Last primary, for all but one office, I wrote in "nobody", because there was no liberty candidate on the ballot. Even doing that much sends a stronger message than just sitting on the couch. If you sit on the couch, people assume you just care more about American idol. If you vote for liberty, people recognize that you object to the current scope of government, or even to the state in general.

At least three people helped process my ballot. All three of them saw and visibly reacted to it. Even if those three are the only ones who ever read it, it was worth it to send the message, that not everyone approves of the current situation.

[speciallyblend]

Yep. Voting for a third party, or long shot liberty candidate, sends a much stronger message than just not voting.

better then wasting a vote on a biggovrepublican. i would perfer to vote 3rd party, then 2 devils!! i would rather the biggovrepublican lose then endorse the biggovrepublican just because a dem is running! i would vote for neither!! I hope we start to send the message. we accept neither:)

[GunnyFreedom]

better then wasting a vote on a biggovrepublican. i would perfer to vote 3rd party, then 2 devils!! i would rather the biggovrepublican lose then endorse the biggovrepublican just because a dem is running! i would vote for neither!! I hope we start to send the message. we accept neither:)

At least when the biggovdem is in office it pisses off the GOP base enough to push for proper principles. If I have to deal with an Orwellian cretin I'd rather an Orwellian Dem since that will make it easier continue our massive and sweeping reforms of the GOP.

[PreDeadMan]

Yeah lol since technically I'm still a registered Republican I get JUNK MAIL... from every republican running for office or whatever and it's pissing me off. Goddamn I should write these morons back and say you're just a cancer to freedom why do you want to rule over me and steal my money?

[PreDeadMan]

Yeah it's sort of like Bill Hicks said... no matter who gets elected THE GOVERNMENT always gets in lol...

[t0mmy]

As for the 3 quotes, I don't know what to tell you, I guess, except I think I've turned back from the wrong road.

As for my points, I don't know what else to say but to repeat myself.
I've realized voting is immoral AND ineffective insofar as liberty and government are incompatible.

I know you didn't say the "take our balls & go home" thing. I was speaking in the plural 'you' to some other posts too. Sorry not to clarify. If I were speaking, I'd have said "y'all".

I also don't think there are enough libertarians who don't vote to affect things either way. I advocate for that to change, but we'll see how it goes.

Thanks for your ears.

I think Ron Paul has had a positive effect on liberty- mine certainly!- but the contradiction remains between the libertarian ideas of liberty and political authority which won't be lost on opponents of libertarianism. The conventional media and political arenas are not the ideological battlegrounds of the future. When libertarian-leaning candidates win elections, it prolongs tolerance of a coercive social institution and contradicts the idea of non-coercion as a viable strategy for success in important matters.

I didn't equate disagreeing with aggression. My point is that if you win an election, then I pay taxes against my will to support you in your effort even as you disregard my wishes. Being against the idea of that is what makes me a libertarian. Your ideological compromise being the lesser of 2 or 3 evils of your political opponents doesn't change that.

My opinion is silly and counterproductive because voting is a viable tool for libertarianism and anarchy? Hmm.

Analogies aren't a good way to make a point if they are nonsensical.

Sleep time. Thanks for the conversation.

[Christopher A. Brown]

I know how you feel. Serious problem with the GOP and failing to carry the principles of the republic. I've come up with a strategy, which won't mean much until enough people can learn how to separate themselves from the dysfunctional party nonsense.

Wendi wrote:
"How do you RENOUNCE party affilliation, and UNregister to vote?
The political process in this nation is a sham, of which I no longer wish to be a part. At the very least, I am physically SICK to think that I am affiliated with the Republican party, and I want to UNaffiliate myself"

http://patriotaction.net/forum/topics/the-party-that-ended-all-parties-the-principal-party

It is a method for "the people to become the rightful masters of the congress and the courts" and bypass the dysfunctions of party politics.

I've posted a contentious post in a thread about Article V, showing how that, our first constitutional right can be completely safe and serve our defense of the constitution like nothing else.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?444637-Georgia-House-approves-Article-V-convention&p=5433668&viewfull=1#post5433668

[Zippyjuan]

Ooh. Necroposting. The thread is six years old!