PDA

View Full Version : I'm So Proud of My Kid Sister Today...




BuddyRey
10-24-2012, 08:46 AM
As a younger girl, she hated even thinking about politics, let alone getting involved. But in the last year or two, she's finally begun to understand how her rights and her wallet are impacted by the people in Washington, and today, at age 19, she cast her first-ever Presidential ballot for Gary Johnson. In my mind, that's worth some major bragging rights, especially considering that for my first Presidential race, I voted (and campaigned) for that lameoid John Kerry, for which I am still deeply ashamed.

Here's to young people getting involved and excited about the fight for liberty, and being wiser and more informed about it than most of us were at their age!

BuddyRey
10-24-2012, 09:41 AM
Does anyone else have stories of newer/younger voters in your family or circle of friends who are doing the right thing this year?

Origanalist
10-24-2012, 09:46 AM
As a younger girl, she hated even thinking about politics, let alone getting involved. But in the last year or two, she's finally begun to understand how her rights and her wallet are impacted by the people in Washington, and today, at age 19, she cast her first-ever Presidential ballot for Gary Johnson. In my mind, that's worth some major bragging rights, especially considering that for my first Presidential race, I voted (and campaigned) for that lameoid John Kerry, for which I am still deeply ashamed.

Here's to young people getting involved and excited about the fight for liberty, and being wiser and more informed about it than most of us were at their age!

Don't feel too bad, my first vote was for Jimmy Carter. :o I wish my kids were a bit more political, I think they just feel it doesn't matter, they are going to be screwed by the government no matter what.

Philhelm
10-24-2012, 10:07 AM
Does anyone else have stories of newer/younger voters in your family or circle of friends who are doing the right thing this year?

I got my wife, who is 26 and apolitical, to vote for Ron Paul in the primary. That's not a stunning victory though. :(

I'm going to write-in Ron Paul, and she's going to vote for Gary Johnson. I figured the split option would be nice.

Philhelm
10-24-2012, 10:07 AM
Don't feel too bad, my first vote was for Jimmy Carter.

Ouch! :D

hazek
10-24-2012, 10:17 AM
I hate to rain on your parade but don't you think a far greater achievement would have been if you got her to care and not vote and understand why she didn't vote?



I really hope people will be able to make this intellectual leap within my lifetime where they realize how voting for whoever achieves exactly the opposite of their ideals and wishes.. How voting is just participating in a charade and legitimizing it in the process instead of doing something that would really change something. :rolleyes:

Travlyr
10-24-2012, 10:23 AM
I hate to rain on your parade but don't you think a far greater achievement would have been if you got her to care and not vote and understand why she didn't vote?



I really hope people will be able to make this intellectual leap within my lifetime where they realize how voting for whoever achieves exactly the opposite of their ideals and wishes.. How voting is just participating in a charade and legitimizing it in the process instead of doing something that would really change something. :rolleyes:

How about county level voting? Do you recommend not voting for Sheriff, DA, Mayor, City Council, County Commissioners, Clerk and Recorder, Road Commissioner?

Bastiat's The Law
10-24-2012, 10:32 AM
How about county level voting? Do you recommend not voting for Sheriff, DA, Mayor, City Council, County Commissioners, Clerk and Recorder, Road Commissioner?
We should have our people running at all levels.

hazek
10-24-2012, 10:32 AM
How about county level voting? Do you recommend not voting for Sheriff, DA, Mayor, City Council, County Commissioners, Clerk and Recorder, Road Commissioner?

No voting what so ever, unless you have a contractual consent of every voter and every person the vote would affect. Then and only then a vote is ok.

Travlyr
10-24-2012, 10:36 AM
We should have our people running at all levels.

Indeed.

dannno
10-24-2012, 10:39 AM
Holy shit, I had no idea anybody campaigned for John Kerry!

EBounding
10-24-2012, 10:48 AM
I voted (and campaigned) for that lameoid John Kerry, for which I am still deeply ashamed.

Good story. I campaigned for Bush and I am also ashamed. :(

JK/SEA
10-24-2012, 11:02 AM
i used to like chevy's, now i like Fords...

JohnM
10-24-2012, 11:16 AM
Don't feel too bad, my first vote was for Jimmy Carter.

In 1980, I supported Carter.

And it seems that I was right. In "Recarving Rushmore", Eland ranked Carter number 8 of all US Presidents in terms of peace, prosperity and liberty. He was just behind Washington (number 7), and way ahead of Jefferson (number 26).

And, at number 8, he was the best president that America has had in the past 50 years.

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2012, 11:20 AM
My first vote was for GWB (too young to know better). I never campaigned for anyone till Ron Paul ran, though. :)

TCE
10-24-2012, 11:27 AM
My younger brother is now an unabashed libertarian and he voted for Dr. Paul in the primary. He is not shy about letting people know his political affiliation, either. Cool story, all. Multiple +reps were handed out by me for this thread.

BuddyRey
10-24-2012, 01:36 PM
I hate to rain on your parade but don't you think a far greater achievement would have been if you got her to care and not vote and understand why she didn't vote?

I really hope people will be able to make this intellectual leap within my lifetime where they realize how voting for whoever achieves exactly the opposite of their ideals and wishes.. How voting is just participating in a charade and legitimizing it in the process instead of doing something that would really change something. :rolleyes:

I agree with you on most things Hazek, but this is not one of them. If you're living in a steadily marching and metastasizing tyranny, and you have even ONE check against its onslaught (however weak and pitiful that one check is), you shouldn't feel shame or guilt in using that check.

Don't get me wrong; I understand and even sympathize with the non-voting position. And I'm under no illusions that my or even our entire movement's votes will propel us into the kind of ideal voluntaryist society we both want. But I also don't think voting for someone like Gary Johnson is an act of aggression. I'm voting for *less* aggression, not more of it, and there's nothing wrong with practicing "self defense" against the state.

hazek
10-24-2012, 01:48 PM
I'm voting for *less* aggression, not more of it, and there's nothing wrong with practicing "self defense" against the state.

Well if you are intellectually honest then you must recognize that voting without the explicit contractual consent of all the other voters and by the vote affected non voters means that winners of this vote will force i.e. use violence against the losers of the vote and non voters in order to get them to obey their rules. Even if those are mostly rules I would consent to, it's still violence of one group upon another without their explicit consent. And I'm sorry but I just can't see how that is different from what we have right now or how that could ever be a recipe for a better future.

Not voting and not giving this charade it's legitimacy is the only solution. Kings weren't abolished by better kings, but by no kings.

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2012, 01:59 PM
Well if you are intellectually honest then you must recognize that voting without the explicit contractual consent of all the other voters and by the vote affected non voters means that winners of this vote will force i.e. use violence against the losers of the vote and non voters in order to get them to obey their rules. Even if those are mostly rules I would consent to, it's still violence of one group upon another without their explicit consent. And I'm sorry but I just can't see how that is different from what we have right now or how that could ever be a recipe for a better future.

Not voting and not giving this charade it's legitimacy is the only solution. Kings weren't abolished by better kings, but by no kings.
FWIW, I prefer kings to the various trappings of "democracy" or democratically operated systems.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41YYMRZEBFL._SL500_AA300_.jpg

jbauer
10-24-2012, 03:02 PM
No voting what so ever, unless you have a contractual consent of every voter and every person the vote would affect. Then and only then a vote is ok.

Yes because getting the consent of everyone is possible :rolleyes: Some people choose not to care. Thats not my fault. I choose to care and I choose to try to make an impact. If you choose not to exercise one of your remaining freedoms (although you could argue its not worth much) I choose to vote. I choose to have my voice heard and I choose to make a difference.

green73
10-24-2012, 03:24 PM
Voting is great for the oligarchs. It tricks the people into thinking the government is "of the people".

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2012, 03:28 PM
Voting is great for the oligarchs. It tricks the people into thinking the government is "of the people". +rep

hazek
10-24-2012, 03:41 PM
Yes because getting the consent of everyone is possible :rolleyes: Some people choose not to care. Thats not my fault. I choose to care and I choose to try to make an impact. If you choose not to exercise one of your remaining freedoms (although you could argue its not worth much) I choose to vote. I choose to have my voice heard and I choose to make a difference.

I wonder how this would work if instead of government services we were talking about an internet service provider. This ISP would hold an election of who gets to decide what kind of connections are going to be implemented in customer homes but the trick is once the vote is over his decisions get forced upon the entire geographical area known as a country, even those who don't care about internet will get it implemented in their home and be forced to pay for it. Would be interesting to see how many people would be outraged they have to pay for something they don't want and never cared about but a small group decided to hold a vote and then impose their will on to them.

I'm sorry but the world isn't perfect harmony where everyone agrees on everything and you can't get everyone's consent.. Wait no, actually I'm not sorry the world is diverse. I kind of like my individualism and my choice on where I want to live and with which people I want to socialize with, it's actually how we discover how anything works best.

Also you don't impose your rules upon people who live across the "national borders" why would it be any different with people who disagree with you within those imaginary lines?

AlexAmore
10-24-2012, 04:39 PM
I hate to rain on your parade but don't you think a far greater achievement would have been if you got her to care and not vote and understand why she didn't vote?



I really hope people will be able to make this intellectual leap within my lifetime where they realize how voting for whoever achieves exactly the opposite of their ideals and wishes.. How voting is just participating in a charade and legitimizing it in the process instead of doing something that would really change something. :rolleyes:

What kind of utopia are you proposing? Honestly when I'm at a crossroads I think "How did our forefathers bring about this amazing freedom experiment called America?". I answer that question with...well there was a shit load of voting going on.

Voting is legitimate, the system may not be. You're attacking the wrong thing.


Well if you are intellectually honest then you must recognize that voting without the explicit contractual consent of all the other voters and by the vote affected non voters means that winners of this vote will force i.e. use violence against the losers of the vote and non voters in order to get them to obey their rules. Even if those are mostly rules I would consent to, it's still violence of one group upon another without their explicit consent. And I'm sorry but I just can't see how that is different from what we have right now or how that could ever be a recipe for a better future.

Not voting and not giving this charade it's legitimacy is the only solution. Kings weren't abolished by better kings, but by no kings.

In a democracy you're correct. Our forefathers were way ahead of you, that's why they created a Constitutional Republic. It sounds like the only thing left on your table is an overthrow. Of course that would be you imposing your will upon the masses, according to your logic. You can vote with your ballot or vote with your gun, either way you're making waves that people must deal with.

I think at the end of the day the voting will show how much strength our ideas have. Honestly I'm having a hard time making sense of your arguments and the basis for them considering the fact that I can't think of any examples where non-voting lead to freedom. I know of places where you can't vote and I wouldn't want to live there.

hazek
10-24-2012, 05:23 PM
What kind of utopia are you proposing? Honestly when I'm at a crossroads I think "How did our forefathers bring about this amazing freedom experiment called America?". I answer that question with...well there was a shit load of voting going on.

Buuuuuuullshit.

There was a shitload of firing of bullets at those who'd try to rule them. That's how it's ever going to happen again, people realizing it's up to them individually to not let even the smallest thefts or violations of their freedom and property fly and instead always defend themselves with any means necessary.

hazek
10-24-2012, 05:25 PM
It sounds like the only thing left on your table is an overthrow. Of course that would be you imposing your will upon the masses, according to your logic.

Buuuuuuullshit again.

I don't want to overthrow anyone, I just want others to leave me and my property the fuck alone.

Lucille
10-24-2012, 05:27 PM
My son cast his first vote ever for Ron Paul in the 2012 GOP primary!

hazek
10-24-2012, 05:28 PM
I know of places where you can't vote and I wouldn't want to live there.

I don't want a place where you can't vote, I want a place where voting or not voting affects only those who gave their explicit contractual consent to being affected.

Henry Rogue
10-24-2012, 07:43 PM
I don't want a place where you can't vote, I want a place where voting or not voting affects only those who gave their explicit contractual consent to being affected.
^ That makes sense to me. I think I get the gist of the principle. In a democracy 51% vote can enslave or oppress the 49%. Therefore the concept of democracy is one of force, and anyone who cherishes there own Liberty and respects other's Liberty should choose to not participate in that force. The problem is only people who love liberty and respect other's Liberty would choose to join you in boycotting the vote, giving tyrants absolute power over us. If i vote for only pure Liberty candidates. I don't see how that oppresses anyone else. I think of it this way, a person can own a gun. S/He may choose to use it for aggression, s/he may choose to not use it at all or s/he may choose to use it in self-defence. I guess I'm not one to turn the other cheek. I will use my vote for self-defence.

AlexAmore
10-24-2012, 08:38 PM
Buuuuuuullshit again.

I don't want to overthrow anyone, I just want others to leave me and my property the fuck alone.

Then you're probably going to want to vote for someone who believes in strong property rights.


I don't want a place where you can't vote, I want a place where voting or not voting affects only those who gave their explicit contractual consent to being affected.

Join the club. The problem is over time that place will turn oppressive eventually. Over time anarchy will turn oppressive. Our core problem is figuring out how to stop that timeless cycle. At the end of the day it's not about law. It's about who is organized, funded and has bigger, badder guns.

Your mindset, like all libertarians (myself included), is about individualism and decentralization. These are great virtues because they emphasize, require, and result in a lack of power. Unfortunately that's not gonna win us a nation through brute force or politics. I think we need to change our mindset to differentiate between our end game and our path to it.

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2012, 10:37 PM
Buuuuuuullshit.

There was a shitload of firing of bullets at those who'd try to rule them. That's how it's ever going to happen again, people realizing it's up to them individually to not let even the smallest thefts or violations of their freedom and property fly and instead always defend themselves with any means necessary.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to hazek again I regret that I have no +rep to give you, good sir. :(

heavenlyboy34
10-24-2012, 10:40 PM
Join the club. The problem is over time that place will turn oppressive eventually. Over time anarchy will turn oppressive.
Proof, plz? This is a popular claim, but constitutional minarchy always becomes oppressive eventually as well. So, you're going to have to find a better way to defend your position than that.

AlexAmore
10-25-2012, 02:02 AM
Buuuuuuullshit.

There was a shitload of firing of bullets at those who'd try to rule them. That's how it's ever going to happen again, people realizing it's up to them individually to not let even the smallest thefts or violations of their freedom and property fly and instead always defend themselves with any means necessary.

Of course there were bullets. But bullets aren't the common denominator of freedom; It was the voting in of the Constitution. That's what I meant.


Proof, plz? This is a popular claim, but constitutional minarchy always becomes oppressive eventually as well. So, you're going to have to find a better way to defend your position than that.

So they both become oppressive. The Constitutional Minarchy at least allows people to use recourse without picking up a gun. They can run for offices, vote, have a jury.

You also need contract law and property rights. Go explore Africa with the various levels of Anarchy and there are constantly coups and powerful gangs and most everyone is poor. I would argue general wealth is a good indicator of the strength of the contract law and property rights in a country. China made some progress with property rights and contract law and suddenly people started prospering.

We know monopolies are dangerous, but they are profitable. So with anarchy of course owners of roads, hospitials, utilties, protection agencies...etc will eventually associate, become bigger and more powerful and now we have a de facto government without the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to stop them from imposing their will with force.

Sure the Constitution isn't doing a great job, but it gives us markers to see how bad our government is getting and motivating people to do something about it.

Edit: Hazek just neg reps this post saying I don't know what I'm talking about. Nice way to bow out.