Someone please remind me how we will fix this by voting, etc.

[cajuncocoa]

Voting doesn't change anything, but without it, we wouldn't be Free (tm).
Hell, I voted two times already today.
ahhhhhhhh fill your lungs with the sweet air of Freedom

And here I thought it was all the fighting by Our Brave Soldiers^TM ​in the Middle East that was keeping us free.

[tod evans]

And here I thought it was all the fighting by Our Brave Soldiers^TM ​in the Middle East that was keeping us free.

Don't forget the kops!

[otherone]

The theory that violence solves problems is a minority view.

Really? Ask 100 people if the government should be disarmed.

[nayjevin]

Voting has never really changed anything.

Untrue, a tax was passed recently in my county.

Not voting removes the consent of the governed facade which allows for real change.

Untrue, the choice of whether to vote as an individual has no effect on the facade.

Ahhh ... another Babooshka Doll - in this instance temporal.

Before there was the internet, there was:
It's a rather antiquated idea though, as nowadays being involved in elections can amount to 100's of thousands or more impressions since television is involved

Before there was television, there was:
It's a rather antiquated idea though, as nowadays being involved in elections can amount to 100's of thousands or more impressions since radio is involved

Before there was television, there was:
It's a rather antiquated idea though, as nowadays being involved in elections can amount to 100's of thousands or more impressions since newpapers are involved

Confirmation bias. The advent of television, radio, and newspapers did not magically allow a person with no money to reach 100's of thousands of people (aside from letters to the editor and calling into shows, which is still a great activity). The internet does.

These are all simply mass-media technologies - and if I dare say, each subsequent technology exascerbates the problem. They require the "impression" to be made in shorter and shorter time frames via messages tailored to some murky middle, rather than reasoned through on a person to person basis. They give the "impression" that there are quick fixes that can be put in place at the flipping of a collective switch that appeals to that murky middle, rather than through long, arduous, individual action.

They can, but they don't have to. Internet allows one the freedom to try all kinds of methods to reach lots of people, and they aren't all superficial impressions. For Liberty movie, for instance. Youtube videos, articles. It seems you are saying that if the subject of any of these is electoral in nature, it is less valuable than if they are not. That conclusion can only be reached by begging the question - using a premise that elections are a waste.

By all means, use new technologies to augment the tried and true methods (what are referred to above as "antiquated") where they prove useful - but don't think of them as replacements for the old reliable (dare I say "conservative") practices.

What is antiquated is the idea that being involved in elections is of greater cost than local face to face interaction automatically because of distance. The fact that is free to publish on the internet changes that.

===edited to add==

I hate to fall back to examples in the electoral space - because I don't think highly of the electoral process. But where has the liberty movement succeeded? Answer: in the caucus states and small primary states, and in small contestable competitions ... places where one-on-one contact meant everything.

And in Ron Paul's message being heard by millions of people 100's of times. And in Justin Amash deciding to run for office, or those like him (it seems they would not have had Ron been a newsletter guy his whole life). There are so many other successes that have come directly from a person choosing to run for office. Rand's filibuster. Awareness of media bias resulting from treatment of Ron. This not to downplay the massive effect of actions not coming directly from elections - inventing bitcoin etc.

Where does the liberty movement lose - in the mass markets.

Selective vision. That's not where liberty loses, it's where liberty is losing, or is far behind - same as we are far behind in elections. But getting better in both.

Liberty's strength comes through that one-on-one action.

I don't disagree that can be effective.

You can't impose liberty on the masses via mass media technology any more than you can impose democracy on the toothless ruthless by carpet bombing them.

What makes you think persuading someone with an election is different than persuading someone face to face in that regard? I can just as easily say you can't impose a philosophy on someone by talking to them. Elections are persuading people to change how they vote.

[nayjevin]

Really? Ask 100 people if the government should be disarmed.

You correctly point out that I wasn't clear, but I was referring to the scope of this thread.

[William Tell]

Not voting removes the consent of the governed facade which allows for real change.

You honestly believe that? That's not true at all. Its just wishful thinking. Very few people vote in the average election. So where's the real change? Look at local elections with 8% turnout.

How low does turnout need to get before we magically get liberty?

[nayjevin]

In my opinion, true wisdom comes when addiction to non-conformity and being an outsider, rooting for the underdog, hoping for chaotic collapse, identifying with the controversial and disruptive position, becomes just as annoying as confidence in dear leaders, support of government so long as the right guy is in place, willingness to use gov to steal parts of paychecks so long as the beneficiary is this but not that.

I understand an individual decision that being informed as to electoral options, then acting upon them, is not worth the time. I do not understand those who use that time instead to convince others to do the same. I'm glad Satoshi didn't run for office instead. I'm glad Rand Paul isn't a keyboard warrior instead.

[Cabal]

[donnay]

[nayjevin]

These are all simply mass-media technologies - and if I dare say, each subsequent technology exascerbates the problem. They require the "impression" to be made in shorter and shorter time frames via messages tailored to some murky middle, rather than reasoned through on a person to person basis. They give the "impression" that there are quick fixes that can be put in place at the flipping of a collective switch that appeals to that murky middle, rather than through long, arduous, individual action. By all means, use new technologies to augment the tried and true methods (what are referred to above as "antiquated") where they prove useful - but don't think of them as replacements for the old reliable (dare I say "conservative") practices.

well said

[Matt Collins]

Although that is the good and right way to live, the effect will be minimal. There is no changing the human condition. There will be no natural enlightenment. The cycle of life will continue; here's to hoping that our lives are timed accordingly.

And that doesn't matter... you use the human condition to your advantage. Politicians will do what you want them to do if you can threaten their reelection. It's like Pavlovian dogs.... pleasure and pain.

[Cabal]

The theory that violence solves problems is a minority view.

In theory, perhaps, but in practice, when it comes down to it, whether people realize/understand it or not, they're statist to the core. They are willing to forfeit their own liberty in exchange for State 'protection' from and subjugation of their neighbors, or perhaps they don't perceive a loss of liberty at all. In their own lives, they're actually quite anarchistic and peaceful in practice. Their relationships and exchanges are all voluntary and consensual. But when it comes to the State, they make a special exception and invoke a double standard. And you know what, I think the myth of voting has a lot to do with why they make this special exception, and why they have this double standard.

The State already destroyed our real method of voting a while ago, and continues to make sure it doesn't reassert itself--voting via the market with our dollars, that is.

A lot of people try to rationalize all of this by claiming some minimal version of statism, or trying to convince themsevles that their statism isn't really statism, but if we're at a point where we're quibbling over the size of the State, rather than whether the State ought to exist at all or not, then justice and liberty are already defeated. It all presumes a false premise, you see. Asking how arbitrarily big or small the State should be assumes that there should be a State to begin with at all. People love to talk about the former--they do it every four years complete with great pomp and pageantry amidst ticker tape parades like the reliable, predictable serfs they've been trained to be. And they donate all kinds of time, energy, and money to do so in the process. Either their candidate or party wins, or they don't, as if one man or woman could ever be the answer to all their problems. If they 'win', they're full of triumph and hope--they've seized the gun in the room, and now they get to point it at the real villains. This one will be the one to make things right, they think. Of course if they ever fully realize the depth of their delusion, it's a few years too late--most won't, they'll keep attempting to fix perceived problems with the same mentality that brought them about to begin with. If they lose, they go for the silver medal consolation prizes available in congress, as if that will somehow make any difference. And round and round we go.

[nayjevin]

In theory, perhaps, but in practice, when it comes down to it, whether people realize/understand it or not, they're statist to the core. They are willing to forfeit their own liberty in exchange for State 'protection' from and subjugation of their neighbors, or perhaps they don't perceive a loss of liberty at all. In their own lives, they're actually quite anarchistic and peaceful in practice. Their relationships and exchanges are all voluntary and consensual. But when it comes to the State, they make a special exception and invoke a double standard. And you know what, I think the myth of voting has a lot to do with why they make this special exception, and why they have this double standard.

This is an excellent point, but it's not the myth of voting that exacerbates the double standard - it is the myth of the social contract. Whether I choose to vote, with what I know about the social contract, has absolutely no bearing on the amount of double standard in other people's lives.

I think it's a worthwhile endeavor to enlighten individuals about that double standard, and many people who are excellent at making youtube videos with Rand Paul's best quotes from the campaign trail will be unable to do so. It's not black and white, in other words - abstaining from elections is the right choice for some people - but only when that time is better used toward something else of value.

The State already destroyed our real method of voting a while ago, and continues to make sure it doesn't reassert itself--voting via the market with our dollars, that is.

A lot of people try to rationalize all of this by claiming some minimal version of statism, or trying to convince themsevles that their statism isn't really statism, but if we're at a point where we're quibbling over the size of the State, rather than whether the State ought to exist at all or not, then justice and liberty are already defeated. It all presumes a false premise, you see. Asking how arbitrarily big or small the State should be assumes that there should be a State to begin with at all. People love to talk about the former--they do it every four years complete with great pomp and pageantry amidst ticker tape parades like the reliable, predictable serfs they've been trained to be. And they donate all kinds of time, energy, and money to do so in the process. Either their candidate or party wins, or they don't, as if one man or woman could ever be the answer to all their problems. If they 'win', they're full of triumph and hope--they've seized the gun in the room, and now they get to point it at the real villains. This one will be the one to make things right, they think. Of course if they ever fully realize the depth of their delusion, it's a few years too late--most won't, they'll keep attempting to fix perceived problems with the same mentality that brought them about to begin with. If they lose, they go for the silver medal consolation prizes available in congress, as if that will somehow make any difference. And round and round we go.

This is in my opinion the second best argument for not voting. The reason that conclusion doesn't follow logically from your premises, however, is that we are not arguing about everyone voting, we are arguing about people who believe in reducing the amount of violence perpetrated by government voting.

[Matt Collins]

And once you get that shampoo bottle pattern in your head (rinse, lather, repeat), down to the lowest levels of government, you find that it's not government that needs to be changed at all. It's your neighbor, then your neighborhood, then your hamlet.

Incorrect, most of those people don't vote and don't care.

The only people that matter in politics are the ones who are likely to vote in a primary election, specifically single issue voters. That is about 3-6% of the population, sometimes less. In a contested election, that is usually all it takes to affect the outcome of an election.

[nayjevin]

Incorrect, most of those people don't vote and don't care.

The only people that matter in politics are the ones who are likely to vote in a primary election, specifically single issue voters. That is about 3-6% of the population, sometimes less. In a contested election, that is usually all it takes to affect the outcome of an election.

But voting is violence!

So is pushing someone out the way of a train.

[Matt Collins]

Even if Matt's plan were to work, FedGov is metastasizing at an exponential rate, absorbing more and more "local" and "state" "authority" by the day. And the people think nothing of it. The whole scheme is one big black hole, sucking power upward into a single, concentrated spot and it is so irresistible that only we few lunatics oppose it amongst the general populace.

And that is why it is imperative we fight the feds on the local and state level. It's easy to win most city council seats, and not all that hard to win a state legislative seat. Getting enough people in there, or at least being able to put enough pressure on those already in, is not an impossible task. I know, I've done it myself with almost no resources.

Attempting to turn FedGov "back" into a small government, respectful of the individual is a mad man's delusion. Our latest best hope, Rand Paul, might - MIGHT - be able to govern as Reagan did, and much to the chagrin of so-called "conservatives", those were no great days for individual freedom. Not that he'd ever get a shot at the presidency... you look at the "popular" "libertarian" voices out there and they tend to lead the herd back to the "safer" choice. Everything is conveniently orchestrated to maintain the establishment's status quo.

Perhaps, but that's why I have said the fight is on the state and local level. Those battles are easier to win, and they don't have the Fed to use as a printing press.

Having a national inspiration at the top of the movement, such as Ron or Rand, is very helpful to provide motivation to do this sort of thing on the state level.

Oh, and Rand and Amash and Thomas have been accomplishing a great deal in terms of stopping stuff in Congress too.

I've been saying it for a while now - the only way this changes is when enough people say, "enough". Until then, and we're nowhere near that point, live your life.

Nope, it does not take a majority, just a dedicated few. 3-6% is all it takes and that's easy enough to mobilize.

[Matt Collins]

But voting is violence!

LOL, what kind of idiotic logical fallacy is that?

[Matt Collins]

lulz Even if that were so, the local regimes whored themselves to Leviathan many generations before you were a twinkle in your daddy's eye.

And that can indeed be reversed with a realistic amount of effort.

[tod evans]

And that can indeed be reversed with a realistic amount of effort.

Speaking of logical fallacies....

[Matt Collins]

Speaking of logical fallacies....

How many local races have you run?

[Sola_Fide]

I like that.

[TheTexan]

Incorrect, most of those people don't vote and don't care.

The only people that matter in politics are the ones who are likely to vote in a primary election, specifically single issue voters. That is about 3-6% of the population, sometimes less. In a contested election, that is usually all it takes to affect the outcome of an election.

Step 1: Identify, target, and mobilize single issue voters to make a very small amount of progress on issue A, while losing a great deal of progress on issue B, C, D, E, F, and G.

Step 2: Identify, target, and mobilize single issue voters to make a very small amount of progress on issue B, while losing a great deal of progress on issue A, C, D, E, F, and G

Step 3: Identify, target, and mobilize single issue voters to make a very small amount of progress on issue C, while losing a great deal of progress on issue A, B, D, E, F, and G

..............

Seems like a great idea. We should probably continue to try this approach for another ~30 years or so to see if it works.

[tod evans]

How many local races have you run?

Don't try to push your ridiculous statements off on me Bucko.

If you actually believe that big-gov can be removed from local governments then explain yourself.

Your incipient failure to deliver any more than lip service to actual freedom or liberty is really a bore.

[TheTexan]

I understand an individual decision that being informed as to electoral options, then acting upon them, is not worth the time. I do not understand those who use that time instead to convince others to do the same.

Because [mod edit] can't be done until people acknowledge that other options (e.g., voting) have been exhausted.

[TheTexan]

And that is why it is imperative we fight the feds on the local and state level. It's easy to win most city council seats, and not all that hard to win a state legislative seat. Getting enough people in there, or at least being able to put enough pressure on those already in, is not an impossible task. I know, I've done it myself with almost no resources.


Perhaps, but that's why I have said the fight is on the state and local level. Those battles are easier to win, and they don't have the Fed to use as a printing press.

Having a national inspiration at the top of the movement, such as Ron or Rand, is very helpful to provide motivation to do this sort of thing on the state level.

I agree with this... but only as a means of organizing like-minded people... the end-game is and has always been [mod edit].

[nayjevin]

Because [mod edit] can't be done until people acknowledge that other options (e.g., voting) have been exhausted.

It has not been established that other options have been exhausted. Voting produced Amash and Massie and Brat (and it's really not fair that these are the only examples I ever use - there are many all across the U.S.)

I don't deny the positive impact of, for instance, the Institute of Justice, which is nonpartisan and focused on the court system. I don't understand why the anti-voters consistently deny the positive impact of, for instance, Ron Paul being in the debates (if there were no voters, there would be no candidacy)

ETA:

I agree with this... but only as a means of organizing like-minded people... the end-game is and has always been [mod edit].

This helps me see your position. So then the impact of the candidacy is of value to the extent that it wakes people up to the eventuality. The impact of the vote itself is nada. I say they work together, to the extent people encourage voting for the candidacy, and do so themselves, they aid in providing the conditions by which the candidacy will have a greater impact from an educational standpoint.

BTW, the words of the Declaration of Independence seem to indicate that the revolutionaries only felt that what you seem to consider an unavoidable denouement to be a last resort necessary in some cases. I believe it is never necessary but by the incorrect choices of those who believe it is.

[TheTexan]

It has not been established that other options have been exhausted. Voting produced Amash and Massie and Brat (and it's really not fair that these are the only examples I ever use - there are many all across the U.S.)

In the big scheme of things, with all due respect to the effort they and everyone else has done to get them where they are, this has produced no results.

[nayjevin]

In the big scheme of things, with all due respect to the effort they and everyone else has done to get them where they are, this has produced no results.

???

Amash wouldn't have been on Stossel in front of an audience of lots of conservatives. That is one result.

[tod evans]

In the big scheme of things, with all due respect to the effort they and everyone else has done to get them where they are, this has produced no results.

I see empty pocketbooks of those looking to quell government and full pocketbooks of those looking to grow it...

Those "employed" in government or government service thrive while those who are self employed struggle...

That's the type of results I've been observing for a long time......

[nayjevin]

Step 1: Identify, target, and mobilize single issue voters to make a very small amount of progress on issue A, while losing a great deal of progress on issue B, C, D, E, F, and G.

Step 2: Identify, target, and mobilize single issue voters to make a very small amount of progress on issue B, while losing a great deal of progress on issue A, C, D, E, F, and G

Step 3: Identify, target, and mobilize single issue voters to make a very small amount of progress on issue C, while losing a great deal of progress on issue A, B, D, E, F, and G

..............

Seems like a great idea. We should probably continue to try this approach for another ~30 years or so to see if it works.

I see your point, but I don't think it's a fair and accurate assessment of the reality.

I think that working on a campaign in such a way that single issue voters are identified, targeted, and mobilized, is an admitted short-term trade-off for the positive benefits from winning the campaign (and having lists).