Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 70

Thread: Three Reasons You Should Not Care about Election Day

  1. #31
    From the "Christian" article:
    You will need to think philosophically about the human condition, and weigh the two parties and their approach to legislation, and you will decide which party has more sensible and upright policies. You will need to be shrewd about propaganda, false narratives, cover-ups, and the like, and you will need to learn from history. Because you love your neighbor.
    Wow. Talk about your fail. Recognize man's sinful nature, weigh the two parties against each other, but be shrewd about propaganda... okaaaayyy....

    Whatever the cause of the silence, here are three reasons American Christians should be politically principled, informed, opinionated, and involved.
    Uh, you had better just stick to spiritual matters Anne -unless you like doing the devil's work of course... SMH

    Interesting (sad) that there is mention of "kings" but no mention of God's warning of kings through Samuel.

    1 Samuel 8:10-22New International Version (NIV)

    10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle[a] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day.”

    19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”

    21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord. 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”

    Then Samuel said to the Israelites, “Everyone go back to your own town.”


    Get back in the kitchen Anne!
    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    Gee, and the difference between that and the statist activists functionally is?
    Tactics are ideologically neutral. The progressive/statists use them because they work. We need to figure out how to use these tactics too and then get to work.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Is Voting an Act of Violence?

    by Carl Watner
    Number 103 - Apr 2000


    This short article was sparked by my work on a forthcoming anthology on non-voting, tentatively titled "The Non-Voters Are Right!" Hans Sherrer, a subscriber to The Voluntaryist, sent me an essay entitled "Voting Is An Act of Violence," which began with the statement "Voting is the most violent act someone can commit in his lifetime[1]." How true is this?
    First, let us define our terms.
    The kind of voting referred to in this article is electoral voting, meaning the act of choosing a particular person for a particular political office. To vote in an electoral election (federal, state, or local) one must first register (after meeting certain age and residency requirements) with the appropriate governmental agency. Then on a given day, all registered voters are given the opportunity to make their choices (in secret) at a government polling place. At the conclusion of the day, the votes are tallied, and the person who received the most votes for that political office is deemed the winner, and eventually sworn into office.
    The kind of violence referred to in this article is physical force (shooting guns with the intent to kill or maim, imprisoning recalcitrants, confiscating property) exercised by the employees or agents of the state (policemen, court marshals, militia men, and soldiers) who wield this force against those who disobey State laws and regulations (referred to as "refuseniks," later in this paper). Usually the threat of arrest and imprisonment is enough to make most people docile and obedient; but the ultimate sanction held by the State and its personnel is "death" to those who refuse to cooperate. The most recent and prominent examples of these deaths are Randy Weaver's wife and child, those incinerated at Waco, and John Singer, the Mormon homeschooler, shot by a Utah "law enforcement" officer in January 1979.
    Now what connection is there between electoral voting and those who act violently in the name of the State? Why does the State want large numbers of people to participate in electoral voting? There are two primary reasons for this. First, those who act in the name of the State can use the fact that many people vote as evidence that they are acting in the name of "the people." Widespread voting is cited as evidence of "consent." State agents, such as legislators, presidents, and judges need an aura of legitimacy if their actions are to be viewed as right and proper by a large majority of the population. Second, governments - especially democratic ones - have discovered that as the proportion of the citizenry which holds the government in esteem increases, the less force the government requires to keep the balance of the population (those who view the government as illegitimate) under control. In other words, the more legitimacy that a government attains the less it needs to exercise outright violence against it opponents. A government which continually had to resort to violence to achieve its ends would soon be seen for exactly what it was: a criminal gang.
    So, given that a successful State requires legitimacy and that one of the easiest ways to achieve legitimacy is through widespread voter participation, what is the responsibility of the voters for the actions of its government?
    By voting, it is clear that each voter endorses the governmental system under which he or she lives. By the act of voting, each voter is saying: It is right and proper for some people, acting in the name of the State, to pass laws and to use violence to compel obedience to those laws if they are not obeyed.
    Clearly, the voter - by pulling down a handle in a voting booth - has not used violence personally. Voting is not the same as pulling the trigger on a gun pointed at a refusenik. The voter has not used force, any more than the lawmaker, president, or judge does when they pass or sign a law, or issue a judicial decree. Yet all these people have either supported or participated in a system of governance which ultimately results in people being bullied or forced into obedience.
    In legal parlance, we would have to say that the voters, office holders, and other participants in government have "aided and abetted" (incited, encouraged, countenanced) the police, soldiers, and jailers who actually commit the physical aggression required in order to bring about submission of the refuseniks. Various war crime tribunal decisions since World War II have established that both elected officials and dictatorial heads of state are legally responsible for the commission of crimes that are committed under their orders, but not by their own hands. In other words, those giving the instructions to soldiers to kill innocent civilians are responsible, even though they do not personally hold the weapons or pull the triggers. Although this principle of liability has never been extended backwards from political leaders to those who participate in elections, it should be clear from this analysis that the chain of responsibility extends from those who exercise the actual violence, to those who give the orders that the violence be used, to those who participate in elections which result in those political leaders being elected.
    Now let us return to the initial question of this article: What truth is there to the statement that "Voting is the most violent act someone can commit in his lifetime."? Let this question be answered by assuming that one is not a serial murderer or does not engage in any type of overt criminal activity. In other words, let us assume that most people who vote in electoral elections otherwise lead peaceful, innocent lives. Is voting the most violent act that they will commit in their lifetimes? Based on the argument in this article, the answer must be "Yes." Each person, by voting, sanctions the violence used by agents of the State. The link in the chain of responsibility for that violence surrounds each voter when he pulls down the lever in the voting booth. Voting is an act of presumptive violence because each voter assumes the right to appoint a political guardian over other human beings. No individual voter or even a majority of voters have such a right. If they claim to possess such a right, let them clearly explain where that right comes from and how it squares with the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence "that all men are created equal, [and] that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable "Rights" of "Life, Liberty," and Property.
    It was with good reason that Henry David Thoreau in his essay on "Civil Disobedience" called for a total abstinence from the ballot box. "When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished."
    http://voluntaryist.com/articles/103.html#.VFPyxYUrDCc

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  6. #34
    //
    The Ethics of Voting - Part I

    by George H. Smith

    1.Introduction


    A detailed libertarian critique of electoral voting is long overdue. Political libertarians (i.e., those who support the effort to elect libertarians to political office) are usually silent on the moral implications of electoral voting. When challenged, they typically dismiss moral objections out of hand, as if the voluntaryist (i.e., anti-voting) case deserved nothing more than a cursory reply.
    This situation will probably change in the near future. The issues raised in voluntaryist arguments are far too important to be discarded without careful consideration, even if one ultimately rejects voluntaryist conclusions. This is especially true for those political anarchists (if I may use that curious phrase) who support the Libertarian Party. If it is at least comprehensible why minarchists (advocates of minimal government) support a political party, the spectacle of political anarchists is far more perplexing. Hence this essay (to be continued in subsequent issues of The Voluntaryist ) is directed primarily at political anarchists, though some of the material is relevant to minarchists as well.
    The purpose of this essay is to explore the moral implications of libertarians (especially anarchists) holding political office, running for political office, or assisting those who do — primarily through the vote. The ethics of voting cannot be divorced from the key question of what one is voting for. And this, as I shall argue, cannot be divorced from the institutional framework in which the voting occurs.
    This essay is directed to fellow libertarians who are familiar with the standard debates in contemporary libertarianism, such as that between minarchism and anarchism. I must also assume that the reader is generally familiar with the basic approach of voluntaryism. (if not, my essay Party Dialogue should be consulted, along with the other essays in "The Voluntaryist Series.") Moreover, standard terms in the libertarian lexicon — e.g., "invasion" and "aggression" (which I use synonymously) — are not defined in this essay. Here again standard libertarian works should be consulted, such as various books and essays by Murray Rothbard. A term that may generate some confusion is "electoral voting." This means voting for the purpose of placing someone in a political office. It does not refer to other kinds of political voting, such as voting on particular issues in a referendum. (This requires a somewhat different analysis.) Hereafter, unless otherwise noted, the simple term "voting" shall be used to mean "electoral voting."
    Since this essay is to appear in installments, I must beg reader's pardon if some problems remain unsolved atthe conclusion of each part. The theory of voting has been so neglected that it is difficult to explore its moral implications without first laying a good deal of preliminary groundwork. Some pro-voting arguments are based on different premises and actually clash with each other when employed by the same person. Other pro-voting arguments appear decisive, but they retain this appearance at the expense not only of voluntaryism, but of principles common to all libertarian theories (especially anarchism). These "kamikaze arguments" attack voluntaryism by undercutting the foundations of libertarian political analysis, thus exploding political arguments later.) For one libertarian to use a kamikaze argument against another libertarian is somewhat indelicate, to say the least.
    The theory of voting should be investigated within a broad framework of political and legal theory. This plunges us into complex and troublesome areas, like principal-agent relationships, accessories before the fact, aiders and abettors of crime, and so forth. I do not presume to have solved the problems these concepts create for libertarian theory, but libertarianism undeniably depends on some notion of accountability for persons other than those directly involved in criminal (i.e., aggressive) acts.
    Libertarians generally agree that the driver of a getaway car is liable for a bank robbery, even if he did not personally wield a gun or threaten force. Similarly, we hold legislators accountable for their unjust laws, political executives accountable for their unjust directives, and judges accountable for their unjust decisions. We do not exonerate these individuals just because they legitimize their actions under the "mask of law." Yet political and bureaucratic personnel rarely participate in law enforcement; they do not strap on guns and apprehend violators. This is left to the police.
    Clearly, therefore, the libertarian (anarchist) condemnation of the State as a criminal gang rests on the view that criminal liability can extend beyond the person who uses, or threatens to use, invasive force. Most of the individuals in government, though not directly involved in aggression, nevertheless "aid and abet" this process. Libertarian theory would be irreparably crippled without this presumption. If criminal accountability is restricted only to direct aggressors, then the vast majority of individuals in the State apparatus, including those at the highest levels of decision-making, must be considered nonaggressors by libertarian standards and hence totally innocent. We could not even regard Hitler or Stalin as aggressors, so long as they did not personally enforce their monstrous orders. The only condemnable persons would be in the police, military, and in other groups assigned to the enforcement of state decrees. All others would be legally innocent (though we might regard them as morally culpable).
    Few libertarians are willing to accept this bizarre conclusion, but it automatically follows if we refuse to incorporate within libertarian theory some idea of "vicarious liability" defined by Black's Law Dictionary as "indirect legal responsibility; for example, the liability of ... a principal for torts and contracts of agents").
    Libertarian theorists have virtually ignored vicarious liability in three respects: first, they have rarely acknowledged it as an implicit underpinning in the libertarian (especially anarchist) analysis of the State; second, they have neglected to provide a thorough study and justification of it; third (and most relevant to this discussion), they have not examined its implications for the theory of voting.
    I shall not attempt to defend a theory of vicarious liability here, despite the crucial need for such a defense. Because I am addressing fellow libertarians — most of whom accept some version of this principle — I shall accept vicarious liability as a given within libertarian theory and proceed from this foundation. ibertarian theory in general, and anarchist theory in particular, would tread perilously close to incoherence without this presumption. Given this fact, it follows that voters, in some cases at least, are deemed accountable by libertarians for the results of their votes (e.g., legislators who vote for victimless crime laws). And this liability attaches despite the fact that the voters do not directly engage in aggression or explicit threats of aggression. It is incongruous, therefore, for a political libertarian to profess bewilderment that even a prima facie case against voting may exist, on the ground that voting is obviously a nonaggressive act. If voting per se is deemed nonaggressive, if the voter is never accountable for what occurs afterwards, then this attack on vicarious liability succeeds in smashing voluntaryism at the considerable expense of rendering incoherent the libertarian analysis of the State. Thus do kamikaze arguments "succeed".
    The libertarian who seriously believes that voting is always nonaggressive — "How," he asks, "can pulling a lever in a voting booth constitute aggression?" — is led by his own logic to conclude that voting for any candidate is permissible by libertarian standards, regardless of what the aspiring politician promises to do while in office. A candidate might promise to imprison all redheads in slave labor camps, or to order the execution of all Catholics on sight. But on a strict nonaccountability theory of voting, the voters who placed these politicians in office are in no way liable for their criminal acts. And since — as political libertarians like to remind us — libertarian theory forbids only aggressive acts, there would be nothing inconsistent in a libertarian voting for these power-seekers, because all voting, by definition, is nonaggressive.
    Moreover, the successful libertarian politician would find it impossible, qua office holder, to violate libertarian principles while in office. If voting is never aggressive, then the libertarian legislator can never be aggressive (and hence unlibertarian) regardless of what he votes for. Would a libertarian legislator who voted for a draft be regarded by members of the Libertarian Party as having acted contrary to libertarian principle? Most certainly. But if libertarianism forbids aggressive acts only, and if voting can never be an aggressive act, then in no sense can the pro-draft legislator be accused of behaving in an anti-libertarian fashion.
    Political libertarians who endorse a non-accountability theory of voting will have to grapple with its many paradoxes. After its implications are understood, it is unlikely to find many defenders. Some political libertarians already concede that a voter may be accountable. For example, Jeff Hummel, a prominent anarchist and supporter of the LP, maintains that "any legislator who votes for an unjust law is ... in fact one of the actual aggressors!" (Free Texas, Fall, 1981). Does this argument extend a step further back? Do voters who place these politicians in power share liability for the resulting injustice? Unfortunately, this is one crucial question among many on which political libertarians remain silent.
    I have argued briefly that the voluntaryist case against political voting cannot be dismissed as prima facie absurd by political libertarians. This is because political libertarians share with voluntaryists a theory of vicarious liability on which the case against voting is built. (see p. 7 of manuscript) Deny vicarious liability ... and political libertarians will be hard-pressed to retrieve their own theory from the wreckage strewn about by their kamikaze attack.
    Of course, to establish the prima facie possibility of the voluntaryist case does not cinch the argument. Many more arguments and principles need to be considered. But we have at least cleared a path along which the rest of this article may travel.
    2. The Burden of Proof

    Before proceeding to an analysis of electoral voting and the arguments pro and con, it may prove helpful to establish some procedural guidelines. Foremost in any argument is the burden of proof. Who assumes the burden of proof in a given dispute? Which side must produce the preponderance of evidence and/or arguments in order to resolve the case? Most important, if the responsible party fails to meet the burden of proof, then what is the status of the dispute?
    In the voting debate, it is usually assumed that the burden of proof rests with the voluntaryist, i.e., the opponent of voting. If the voluntaryist claims that voting is inconsistent with libertarianism or anarchism, then he must substantiate his claim. He must show that electoral voting actually falls within the category of actions known as "Invasive" or "aggressive." Failure to accomplish this acquits the political libertarian, or the political anarchist, of all charges.
    This procedure seems reasonable. To condemn voting as improper is a serious charge, after all, and it appears that the voluntaryist should assume the burden of proof if he expects to be taken seriously. We see a parallel in legal theory, where a man is presumed innocent until this presumption is "defeated," i.e., until the defendant is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The legal presumption of innocence determines where the burden of proof rests. Failure to provide sufficient proof means that the presumption remains where it began: the defendant is innocent.
    The legal analogy is accurate in one respect. It points out that the burden of proof is fixed according to the basic presumption of an argument. If, as we have seen, an accused man is presumed innocent, then the onus falls upon his accuser to defeat this presumption. A presumption functions as the starting point in a dispute.
    From the legal analogy, however, it does not follow automatically that the political libertarian is analogous to the defendant, and thus it does not follow that the burden of proof lies entirely upon the voluntaryist. Indeed, in dealing with anarchism - the principled rejection of the State — I maintain that there is a presumption against political office-holding and therefore a presumption against voting for political office. Thus the political anarchist is the one who must defeat the basic presumption. When two anarchists debate the ethics of voting, it is the political anarchist who assumes the major burden of proof. It is the political anarchist who must demonstrate to the voluntaryist why voting — an overt participation in the political process — is not a violation of their common anarchist principles. Let us examine this claim in more detail.
    Voluntaryists are more than libertarians; they are libertarian anarchists. They reject the institution of the state totally, and it is this element that is not contained (explicitly, at least) within libertarianism. Libertarian theory condemns invasive (rights-violating) acts and says that all human interaction should be voluntary. All libertarians, whether minarchists or anarchists, accept this. It is the defining characteristic of a libertarian.
    Libertarian anarchism professes not only the nonaggression principle, but the additional view that the State is necessarily invasive and should thus stand condemned. Libertarian anarchism combines the libertarian principle of nonaggression with a particular analysis of the State — an analysis not shared by libertarian minarchists. It is the premise of nonaggression, coupled with an institutional analysis of the State, that leads to the rejection of the State by the anarchist as inconsistent with libertarian principles.
    The above reference to "institutional analysis" is critical. One cannot progress from libertarianism to anarchism without an intervening argument. A principled rejection of the State does not necessarily follow from the nonaggression principle, unless one can also show that the State is necessarily aggressive. This latter point — the anarchist insight into the nature of the State — is the minor premise required to justify anarchism:
    Major premise: Libertarian theory condemns all invasive acts. Minor premise: All States commit invasive acts. Conclusion: Libertarian theory condemns all States (or governments — I use the terms interchangeably).
    This syllogism illustrates the difference between simple libertarianism (articulated in the major premise) and libertarian anarchism (articulated in the conclusion). The transition to anarchism is realized through the anarchist insight (articulated in the minor premise). This insight is what all libertarian anarchists share with fellow anarchists. It is also what distinguishes libertarian anarchists from their minarchist cousins.
    Minarchists qualify as authentic libertarians so long as they believe it possible for their minimal State to remain nonaggressive. The minarchist, like the anarchist, accepts the nonaggression principle; but the minarchist does not accept the anarchist view of the State. This controversy over the minor premise leads to different applications of the nonaggression principle to the State. (Whether this stems from a definitional dispute or from something more substantial need not concern us here.)
    The minarchist issues a challenge to all libertarian anarchists, political and voluntaryist alike: "Prove that all governments are invasive. Demonstrate that the State, by its very nature, must violate individual rights." The anarchist responds, as indicated earlier, with an institutional analysis of the State. He avers that institutional features of the State, such as the claim of sovereign jurisdiction over a given geographical area, render the State invasive per se. This invasive trait persists regardless of who occupies positions of power in the State or what their individual purposes may be. The anarchist insight, in order words, is not arrived at inductively. The anarchist does not investigate every employee of every State, determine each individual to be an aggressor, and then generalize from the individual to the institution. On the contrary, the State is assessed first, qua institution, according to constant structural features inhering in all governments. This institutional analysis leads to the anarchist insight, after which particular individuals within the State are considered to be part of a "criminal gang" owing to their participation in the exercise of State power.
    To put it another way: for anarchism, the individual does not taint the institution; rather, the institution taints the individuals who work within it. It is because the nature of the State as an institution renders it irredeemably invasive that we condemn particular offices within the State apparatus, and hence particular individuals who occupy those offices. Such individuals "aid and abet" State injustice, even though they may not personally commit aggressive acts.
    It is necessary to understand that the institutional analysis sketched here is vital to all theories of anarchism, including political anarchism. This kind of institutional analysis must be valid if anarchism is to have a solid footing. It is simply impossible for anarchists to derive anarchism from the inductive method described above. It is patently impossible to examine the personal motives and goals of all individuals who comprise "the State" before we can pass judgment on the State itself. In addition, if this research were undertaken, we would find that the vast majority of State employees never intend to aggress against others, nor do they participate directly in aggressive acts. The inductive method never permits us to bridge the gap between individuals and institutions. Indeed, from a purely inductive perspective, there is no "State." Only individuals exist and act; there are no institutions. The State, then, is a fiction, and it is nonsense to refer to the "State" as "invasive" or "aggressive." Only individuals can invade or aggress; and although some individuals within that organization we call the "State" may personally aggress, the vast majority do not. To condemn the State per se, therefore, as the anarchist wishes to do — and by implication to condemn all individuals within the State — is flagrantly unjust. It is to besmirch the good names of innumerable State employees who never personally engage in aggression.
    This methodological objection to anarchism is important, and anarchists, as I have indicated, will be unable to respond adequately unless they defend the approach I have described as institutional analysis. The coherence of anarchism as a theory hangs on this kind of analysis.
    Why is this relevant to the debate over voting? Because it illustrates that the presumption, and therefore the burden of proof, varies according to whether the voluntaryist addresses a minarchist or a political anarchist. Since the minarchist need not adopt an institutional analysis, he will not view the fact that an individual is an agent of the State as even prima facie evidence of improper conduct. There is, for the minarchist, no moral "curse" on the State as such, which then filters down to individuals within the State. Working for the State, in other words, does not constitute a presumption of guilt. The individual is presumed "innocent" until proven otherwise, despite his institutional affiliations.
    This is why the minarchist is a difficult convert to voluntaryism. Usually the minarchist must be brought first to anarchism, which requires that he accept an institutional analysis of the State, and only then to voluntaryism. The procedural chasm dividing voluntaryists from minarchists is so wide that this intermediate step is ordinarily required. The burden of proof falls upon the anarchist to establish the soundness of this intermediate step.
    But the situation changes when the voluntaryist addresses a political anarchist. Here the anarchist insight — the recognition of the State per se as an invasive institution — is agreed upon by all parties before the argument over voting even commences. Both disputants utilized institutional analysis in order to arrive at their current positions. It is plainly inconsistent, therefore, for the political anarchist to reject voluntaryism because it employs institutional analysis. It borders on hypocrisy for the political anarchist to fall back upon the personal intentions of his favorite politicians in order to save them from the anarchist curse, when he has traveled merrily down the anarchist road without ever having regarded personal intentions as significant before this point. If an institutional analysis of the State is good enough to get us to anarchism, then it is good enough to get us to voluntaryism. Institutional analysis is not a bridge that can be conveniently burned by the political anarchist after he has used it to cross over to anarchism.
    It is because of their common acceptance of the anarchist insight that the initial presumption shifts in favor of the voluntaryist. The voluntaryist and the political anarchist agree that the State is inherently aggressive. From this it follows that anyone who voluntarily joins the State — who campaigns for office, receives a salary, swears allegiance to the State, and so forth — is at least highly suspect from an anarchist point of view. There is a presumption, a prima facie case, against the political office-holder in anarchist theory (and thus against voting for a political office). The burden then falls not upon the voluntaryist to show how this office-holder participates in aggression — for both disputants already agree that the State is inherently aggressive and both accept vicarious liability — but upon the political anarchist to show how his favorite office-holder constitutes a valid exception to the general condemnation (the anarchist curse) of the State and its agents.
    Anarchists agree that the State is necessarily aggressive, which is why they commonly use terms like "criminal gang" and "ruling class" to describe the State. But anarchists also realize that the State is not a disembodied entity. Institutions are not individuals; they cannot act in any fashion, much less act aggressively. Thus, if the anarchist analysis of the State is to have meaning, it must refer to individuals who work within the structure of the State apparatus. Individuals and their actions, considered within a broader institutional framework (prescribed goals, rules, and procedures), combine to form what anarchists mean by the State. Particular offices within the State, and the individuals who occupy those offices, are assessed according to their importance in directing, supporting, and furthering the institutionalized goals of State power.
    It is because anarchists regard the State as inherently aggressive that there exists a presumption among anarchists that anyone who joins the State participates in this aggression. The anarchist curse — the presumption of evil — descends from the condemned institution to the individuals who are necessary to maintain the life of that institution. The institution is the skeleton, in effect, which requires the flesh and blood of real people to operate. These people are highly suspect in anarchist eyes, even if they do not personally aggress, because they are the components required to translate the institutional aggression of the State into concrete reality.
    The anarchist presumption against agents of the State, like all presumptions, is defeasible. It may be that the political anarchist can argue for a valid exception to the general rule. He may be able to explain why we should regard all politicians as members of a criminal gang, except those politicians with "good" (i.e., libertarian) intentions. Personal intentions were not previously considered relevant to the anarchist analysis of the State, but the political anarchist may have uncovered new information that will convince his voluntaryist colleague. The political anarchist may thus be able to overcome the presumption, the anarchist curse, that makes his case seem initially implausible. (The idea of an "anarchist politician" does seem counter-intuitive at best.)
    In our dispute between the voluntaryist and the political anarchist, therefore, the presumption is on the side of voluntaryism, and the political anarchist assumes the burden of proof. Anarchists of all persuasions have traditionally rejected electoral politics, and with good reason. This seems, after all, to be an essential part of what anarchism means. This is why I wrote in Party Dialogue ("The Voluntaryist Series," no. 1) that "libertarianism must stand firm against all Senators, all Presidents, and so forth, because these offices and the legal power they embody are indispensable features of the State apparatus. After all, what can it possibly mean to oppose the State unless one opposes particular offices and institutions in which State power manifests itself? "
    With the preceding introduction material, we are now able to undertake a systematic analysis of voting. Some of the issues discussed thus far raise problems far too complex to be resolved without further discussion. These will be addressed in more detail in subsequent parts of this essay.
    [ Part I ] — [ Part II ] — [ Part III ]

    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  7. #35
    A bullet can be narrowly aimed at a deserving target;
    a ballot attacks innocent third parties
    who must endure the consequences of the politician
    I have assisted into a position of power over their lives.
    Whoever puts a man into a position of unjust power
    - that is, a position of political power -
    must share responsibility for every right he violates thereafter.
    Wendy McElroy


    'We endorse the idea of voluntarism; self-responsibility: Family, friends, and churches to solve problems, rather than saying that some monolithic government is going to make you take care of yourself and be a better person. It's a preposterous notion: It never worked, it never will. The government can't make you a better person; it can't make you follow good habits.' - Ron Paul 1988

    Awareness is the Root of Liberation Revolution is Action upon Revelation

    'Resistance and Disobedience in Economic Activity is the Most Moral Human Action Possible' - SEK3

    Flectere si nequeo superos, Acheronta movebo.

    ...the familiar ritual of institutional self-absolution...
    ...for protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment...


  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    4. Voting is tacit concent to be ruled over.
    5. Black box voting is a sham less truthful than internet polls.
    6. Globalist power brokers, money, and lobbyists decide who will be elected (and who is the backup plan) long before anyone votes.
    7. Boobus is so "programmed" with nightly news propoganda that he's largely brainwashed of reason.
    8. The people who count the votes decide everything. -Stalin
    9. The two party system is two sides of the same worthless coin.
    10. We imprison more voters than all other nations combined.
    11. All too many inconvenient votes are stripped on account of non violent "felonies"
    12. Public education serves as a political indoctrination camp further "programming" our children
    13. Most Americans who do vote are largely illiterate of current events, foreign policy, and couldn't name the duties of the officer they are electing
    14. Boobus would rather elect a woman, black, latino, or gay than consider the issues any of them are pushing
    15. Voting brings reform and we desperately need revolution.


    I could go on and on.

    +rep Thread winnar!
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    Voting at all is explicit approval of voting as a concept.

    And voting on what privileges we'd like to have or not have is a great concept, so please, vote.
    I have found an exception to this rule. I've made a hobby of writing in imaginary people to mock the system. I consider it a form of entertainment. I am hoping that one day one of my "candidates" gets announced in the media as a loser/runner-up. "Mr Giggles with 1 vote", the radio would say.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    No, voting is NOT an "act of violence."

    This article is a pretzel of non sequiturs (as is every defense of the "voting is violence" thesis that I have seen).

    I am no advocate of voting. My own temper & attitudes very strongly incline to abstention from voting.

    But words have meanings, dammit!

    When we equate voting with "violence," we are pulling exactly the same kind of mealy-mouthed, double-talking bull$#@! indulged in by people who claim that it is an act of "violence" to "deprive" people of their (alleged) "rights" to things like health care, education, etc.

    I categorically reject the notion that voting is an ipso facto endorsement of State violence.
    But even if it were such an endorsement, an endorsement of violence is NOT violence ...
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 10-31-2014 at 03:19 PM.
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  11. #39
    I will vote the primary and if Rand gets the nomination I will vote in the election.

  12. #40
    I'll give you one good reason I'll be voting. On the ballot this go around is a proposed constitutional amendment allowing the courts to at their whim decide whether or not somebody is allowed bail pre-trial. Currently they don't have that option. Hell NO.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    14. Boobus would rather elect a woman, black, latino, or gay than consider the issues any of them are pushing

    Too many choices; way too confusing;' WAAAAAY too much work. Just put a black Puerto Rican lesbian on the ticket and let the voters loose.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Tactics are ideologically neutral. The progressive/statists use them because they work. We need to figure out how to use these tactics too and then get to work.
    Its mathematically impossible to beat an enemy with his own tactics, when they both outnumber you and have much more resources.

    Unless of course, you plan on just, voting way harder, than them.

    As long as you play by their rules, you will lose over and over and over and over again. I dont agree with "the only way to win is not to play"... I'd say, "the only way to win is to break the rules"
    Last edited by TheTexan; 10-31-2014 at 04:19 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by specsaregood View Post
    I'll give you one good reason I'll be voting. On the ballot this go around is a proposed constitutional amendment allowing the courts to at their whim decide whether or not somebody is allowed bail pre-trial. Currently they don't have that option. Hell NO.
    Maybe that one has not already been decided. Good luck with your state!

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    Its mathematically impossible to beat an enemy with his own tactics, when they both outnumber you and have much more resources.
    Incorrect....

    Voters must be identified, segmented, and then targeted for mobilization. It is a matter of who mobilizes the most voters more effectively. And the progressives / statists don't always win at this game either. That's why it is critical to get trained on how to be effective at it.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    Incorrect....

    Voters must be identified, segmented, and then targeted for mobilization. It is a matter of who mobilizes the most voters more effectively. And the progressives / statists don't always win at this game either. That's why it is critical to get trained on how to be effective at it.
    So.... vote really, really, hard. Good plan.

    And the progressives / statists don't always win at this game either.
    Not always, no. 99% of the time is a fairly strong record though. And if by some miracle you were able to knock their win rate down to even 80% you dont think that would inspire them to vote harder?

    I'm not sure if you really do believe this, or just want to believe this because you've invested so much of your life and career into it already.

    (And by 99% victories I mean the end result, legislation. Individual races dont mean $#@! and the statists will let you win a couple individual races if it keeps you running on their hamster wheel)
    Last edited by TheTexan; 10-31-2014 at 04:57 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  19. #46
    "Ya Gotta Vote"
    Written and performed by Larken Rose




    Sing along boys and girls!
    Last edited by mac_hine; 10-31-2014 at 04:45 PM.

  20. #47

    Thumbs down

    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    So.... vote really, really, hard. Good plan.
    No, are you incapable of reading?

    I wrote that voting was only the tip of the iceberg, go back and read my post.



    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    Not always, no. 99% of the time is a fairly strong record though. And if by some miracle you were able to knock their win rate down to even 80% you dont think that would inspire them to vote harder?
    Nope... the only reason they are so successful is because people like you do nothing to provide opposition. The liberty movement is by and large checked out (same with most in the conservative movement)


    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    (And by 99% victories I mean the end result, legislation. Individual races dont mean $#@! and the statists will let you win a couple individual races if it keeps you running on their hamster wheel)
    Right, because the establishment "let" Rand win?
    Last edited by Matt Collins; 10-31-2014 at 05:59 PM.
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Collins View Post
    No, are you incapable of reading?

    I wrote that voting was only the tip of the iceberg, go back and read my post.
    I read it. Putting your ballot in the box is "voting". What you describe is generally what I mean when I say "voting hard".


    Nope... the only reason they are so successful is because people like you do nothing to provide opposition.
    From my perspective, you're doing nothing.

    Right, because the establishment "let" Rand win?
    I thought I clarified that enough when I said I don't mean individual races. Guess not. Allow me to clarify further...

    THE STATISTS ARE WINNING.

    BY A LOT.

    Rand, Massie, Amash, they won. Great. Let's just take a hypothetical situation and say that you were managing their 3 campaigns, and only their 3 campaigns. You have a 100% win ratio!!! Congratulations!!!

    But at the end of the day, your victories don't matter. The statists are still getting what they want. That's all they care about. Getting what they want. They don't give a $#@! that you won a few races. They're happy you won a few races. Because that just means, you think that its actually possible to get what you want by playing their rules. They're ecstatic that you're playing their game.

    If by some god $#@!ing amazing miracle, every single forum member here became some expert politico and we all "targeted, identified, mobilized voters" in every $#@!ing county and every $#@!ing state, and actually had a massive enough amount of victories to actually get what we want, what would happen? What we want is diametrically opposed to what they want. The statists would not take this sitting down, and they would step up their game accordingly. And, as I don't think you disputed, they have superior numbers and resources. They would beat us at their game.

    You say I'm doing nothing, and you're right. I'm doing nothing, because I'm standing by at the ready, patiently waiting for people like you to stop dicking around so we can mobilize into action. In the meantime, I'm doing what I can to prepare myself for what needs to be done.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 10-31-2014 at 06:37 PM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    I read it. Putting your ballot in the box is "voting". What you describe is generally what I mean when I say "voting hard".




    From my perspective, you're doing nothing.



    I thought I clarified that enough when I said I don't mean individual races. Guess not. Allow me to clarify further...

    THE STATISTS ARE WINNING.

    BY A LOT.

    Rand, Massie, Amash, they won. Great. Let's just take a hypothetical situation and say that you were managing their 3 campaigns, and only their 3 campaigns. You have a 100% win ratio!!! Congratulations!!!

    But at the end of the day, your victories don't matter. The statists are still getting what they want. That's all they care about. Getting what they want. They don't give a $#@! that you won a few races. They're happy you won a few races. Because that just means, you think that its actually possible to get what you want by playing their rules. They're ecstatic that you're playing their game.

    If by some god $#@!ing amazing miracle, every single forum member here became some expert politico and we all "targeted, identified, mobilized voters" in every $#@!ing county and every $#@!ing state, and actually had a massive enough amount of victories to actually get what we want, what would happen? What we want is diametrically opposed to what they want. The statists would not take this sitting down, and they would step up their game accordingly. And, as I don't think you disputed, they have superior numbers and resources. They would beat us at their game.

    You say I'm doing nothing, and you're right. I'm doing nothing, because I'm standing by at the ready, patiently waiting for people like you to stop dicking around so we can mobilize into action. In the meantime, I'm doing what I can to prepare myself for what needs to be done.
    +rep *raucous applause*
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    From my perspective, you're doing nothing.
    That's because I am not as flashy as I used to be with my exploits....


    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    I thought I clarified that enough when I said I don't mean individual races. Guess not. Allow me to clarify further...

    THE STATISTS ARE WINNING.

    BY A LOT.
    I agree but if you want to stop them from winning, that means you have to get involved. It's a contact sport, not a spectator sport.



    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    The statists are still getting what they want. That's all they care about. Getting what they want. They don't give a $#@! that you won a few races. They're happy you won a few races. Because that just means, you think that its actually possible to get what you want by playing their rules. They're ecstatic that you're playing their game.
    Rand has stopped legislation from moving forward before, and he has gotten politicians on the record that can be used against them; same from Justin and Thomas.

    This is not a single cycle effort, it will take many decades to get back where we need to be.

    And they are starting to get frustrated with us because while they may be getting their way, we are starting to make it harder for them to do so. The more people that get involved and offer resistance, the harder and harder it will be for them to roll right over us.... and eventually, if enough people like yourself get involved, we will actually be able to gain ground instead of actually offering resistance. But that means actually getting off your ass and fighting.






    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    If by some god $#@!ing amazing miracle, every single forum member here became some expert politico and we all "targeted, identified, mobilized voters" in every $#@!ing county and every $#@!ing state, and actually had a massive enough amount of victories to actually get what we want, what would happen?
    And there is your mistake... this comment has just shown that you in fact don't have a clue how the battle is fought.

    Very narrow and precise, almost surgical, victories are what changes the game, not some large massive sea change. At the end of the day every single politicians only wants to get reelected. If you can threaten their reelection, then you can change their behavior and voting pattern.


    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    You say I'm doing nothing, and you're right. I'm doing nothing, because I'm standing by at the ready, patiently waiting for people like you to stop dicking around so we can mobilize into action. In the meantime, I'm doing what I can to prepare myself for what needs to be done.
    Then you are part of the problem.


    I suggest you start here:



    www.facltraining.org/facl2/school-signup.htm
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post

    I always fully support a generously help everyone I want to see get elected.
    thats nice. you are such a sport.
    "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein

    "for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.

  26. #52
    I have 1 good reason not to vote. Nobody on my ballot from the 2 parties is worth a damn. I wouldn't vote for them to be dogcatcher.

    I have 1 good reason to vote. Some of the LP candidates are good.

    If I didn't have time to spare that would be another reason to not vote.

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by presence View Post
    //
    I only read part 1 (the part you linked there) but here's my initial thought:

    When you are voting on a narrowly defined piece of legislation, the aggressors and non-aggressors are easy to pinpoint. Consider a situation where the following proposition is being voted on: "All property taxes in Town A are to be increased by 5%." It is clear that voting "no" is non-aggressive, and that voting "yes" is aggressive. Those who vote "yes" are using the electoral system for the express purpose of stealing from other people, while those who vote "no" are using the electoral system to PREVENT government from stealing. I think its fairly easy to apply this type of analysis to congressional votes as well, at least some of them. Say the proposition is "The United States hereby declares war on Iraq". Voting "yes" (assuming Iraq did not attack the United States... perhaps some anarchists would say even if but I'll leave that to another time as it doesn't really matter for what I'm arguing) is inherently aggressive, but voting "no" is not. When John McCain voted to invade Iraq, he violated the NAP. When Ron Paul voted against invading Iraq, he did not.

    Voting for candidates is trickier to assess because you aren't voting on specific propositions, but between different packages of propositions. "The Non-aggression principle" is rarely, if ever, an option. I would say that voting directly for Ron Paul is probably the closest thing to such a package, but even he is probably imperfect on, say, 2% of those issues. He still isn't in compliance with the NAP 100% of the time (by my assessments, perhaps he is right and I am wrong), but its pretty darn close.

    I do not think that voting for certain packages of propositions over others is aggression, so long as the goal is to minimize aggression.


    That is to say, simply pulling a lever to vote for a candidateis not per say evidence that the voter wants to aggress against his fellow man, not as such.

    Consider a hypothetical election between Dennis Kucinich and Ted Cruz.

    Mr. A, an anarcho-capitalist, votes for Kucinich because he thinks Kucinich will murder less people with his foreign policy.

    Mr. B, a minarchist, votes for Ted Cruz because he thinks, overall, Ted Cruz will protect more of our liberties at home.

    Mr. C, a socialist, votes for Kucinich because he wants the social security system to continue.

    Mr. D, a neoconservative, votes for Ted Cruz because he thinks Ted Cruz is more likely to invade Iran.


    I would say that C and D are inherently acting in unlibertarian ways, while A and B are not. The difference is that A and B have the goal of non-aggression in mind, and are seeking to use politics as a means to that end. By contrast, C and D have a goal of more aggression, and are using politics as a means to attain that end.

    Mind you, I don't think A or B is right. I think their mindsets are too simplistic in the particular cases in question. Between Kucinich and Cruz, I would almost certainly not vote. Or write Ron Paul in. (I'd almost be tempted to vote Kucinich just to tick conservatives off, but that's another issue)

    But I would say that, simplistic though their reasoning is, A and B are trying to use politics to enhance the amount of liberty we have, while C and D aren't. That's the point.

    Motivations matter to the point. Even the guy who votes Hitler over Stalin because he thinks Hitler will kill less people isn't on the same moral playing field as someone who votes Hitler because he wants to see Jews get slaughtered. Of course, I would not vote for either. But I'd definitely vote for Kucinich over either, because Hitler and Stalin are just that bad. Dennis Kucinich (in that situation) would reduce the amount of aggression by orders of magnitude. And that's worth doing, IMO.

    Romney and Obama? I'd say voting for either is stupid, because both are relatively similar. But I'd only call it evil if the goals are anti-libertarian.

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by HVACTech View Post
    thats nice. you are such a sport.
    Batting 1,000 since 1972.

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    I read it. Putting your ballot in the box is "voting". What you describe is generally what I mean when I say "voting hard".




    From my perspective, you're doing nothing.



    I thought I clarified that enough when I said I don't mean individual races. Guess not. Allow me to clarify further...

    THE STATISTS ARE WINNING.

    BY A LOT.

    Rand, Massie, Amash, they won. Great. Let's just take a hypothetical situation and say that you were managing their 3 campaigns, and only their 3 campaigns. You have a 100% win ratio!!! Congratulations!!!

    But at the end of the day, your victories don't matter. The statists are still getting what they want. That's all they care about. Getting what they want. They don't give a $#@! that you won a few races. They're happy you won a few races. Because that just means, you think that its actually possible to get what you want by playing their rules. They're ecstatic that you're playing their game.

    If by some god $#@!ing amazing miracle, every single forum member here became some expert politico and we all "targeted, identified, mobilized voters" in every $#@!ing county and every $#@!ing state, and actually had a massive enough amount of victories to actually get what we want, what would happen? What we want is diametrically opposed to what they want. The statists would not take this sitting down, and they would step up their game accordingly. And, as I don't think you disputed, they have superior numbers and resources. They would beat us at their game.

    You say I'm doing nothing, and you're right. I'm doing nothing, because I'm standing by at the ready, patiently waiting for people like you to stop dicking around so we can mobilize into action. In the meantime, I'm doing what I can to prepare myself for what needs to be done.
    Owe you rep!

  30. #56
    Once every few years, the people get together to try and decide who will be the next Chief Murderer, Thief, and Deceiver.

    People with conviction wash their hands of the matter. Remember, the lesser of two evils is still EVIL. I used to say that in the context of voting selection, silly me.
    Last edited by staerker; 11-01-2014 at 06:42 AM.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by fr33 View Post
    I have 1 good reason not to vote. Nobody on my ballot from the 2 parties is worth a damn. I wouldn't vote for them to be dogcatcher.
    This is usually the case... which is why it's important for you to get involved and either run yourself, or recruit a viable candidate. This place teaches you how to do that:

    http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/T...ining=Campaign
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

  33. #58
    You cant conquer tyranny at the ballot box. To think you can, is really quite foolish.

    I hope your decades and decades of future politicking brings you great personal joy and career success, Matt.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Crenshaw 2024!!!!

    My pronouns are he/him/his

  34. #59
    We also have constitutional amendments on our ballot. I will be voting. The determination of a majority is based on how many vote in the gubernatorial election. I have to hold my nose on that, and several other choices, but I am determined that our state constitution will reflect my principles as far as I can make them. Even with good candidates, they can't be elected if people don't vote.

    I'm not sure why people would belong to a political forum if they aren't going to vote. Ron Paul will be voting. So will Rand. Voting might not be as effective as it used to be, but it is the one thing we have.
    #NashvilleStrong

    “I’m a doctor. That’s a baby.”~~~Dr. Manny Sethi

  35. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by bxm042 View Post
    You cant conquer tyranny at the ballot box. To think you can, is really quite foolish.
    If you actually bothered to read what I wrote, the ballot box is only the end of the line.... to win back our freedom it takes a lot more than just showing up to vote (although that is the ultimate goal).
    __________________________________________________ ________________
    "A politician will do almost anything to keep their job, even become a patriot" - Hearst

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 03-06-2014, 03:32 PM
  2. 3 Reasons This Election Didn't Change A Thing
    By Esor in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-13-2010, 09:12 PM
  3. 3 Reasons This Election Didn't Change A Thing
    By Matt Collins in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 02:11 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-23-2010, 05:41 PM
  5. Reasons for our health care situtation
    By noxagol in forum Health Freedom
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-19-2008, 01:13 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •