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

[nayjevin]

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......

I believe the message of 'give til it hurts' is more responsible for that than involvement in electoral politics.

It's not politics' fault that people prioritized donations over their future financial stability, but it is a side effect that is unavoidable. I think it's valuable to educate as to the importance of putting personal finances in order before choosing the best action.

[TheTexan]

???

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

Not that I disagree, but if that's how we're measuring results, Alex Jones has produced far more results than Amash has.

I meant results more in terms of legislative sense.

[William Tell]

If that's how we're measuring results, Alex Jones has produced far more results than Amash has. Just saying.

So?

[nayjevin]

Voting - everyone into liberty should do it, it takes almost no time and money
Carpooling to the voting booth - saves money and amplifies impact
Persuading to vote - for those who are into liberty and enjoy it and are good at it and don't have a particular vision of a path for more impact (everyone should do it a little bit for perspective though)
Volunteering for a candidate - same as above
Running for office - for those who are into liberty and well versed and likeable and have an impeccable reputation and enjoy it and are good at it and don't have a particular vision of a path for more impact and are either in a district that is reasonably winnable or are in a position to reach audiences by doing it greater than any other pursuit

Persuading not to vote - for those who are good at trolling Hannity forums

[TheTexan]

Voting - everyone into liberty should do it, it takes almost no time and money
Carpooling to the voting booth - saves money and amplifies impact
Persuading to vote - for those who are into liberty and enjoy it and are good at it and don't have a particular vision of a path for more impact (everyone should do it a little bit for perspective though)
Volunteering for a candidate - same as above
Running for office - for those who are into liberty and well versed and likeable and have an impeccable reputation and enjoy it and are good at it and don't have a particular vision of a path for more impact and are either in a district that is reasonably winnable or are in a position to reach audiences by doing it greater than any other pursuit

Persuading not to vote - for those who are good at trolling Hannity forums

I only see one productive thing in that list

[nayjevin]

Not that I disagree, but if that's how we're measuring results, Alex Jones has produced far more results than Amash has.

Yes he has. But Amash can't do what Alex Jones does, and vice versa. So it's not the same choice for each person - they have each made the right choice.

I meant results more in terms of legislative sense.

But that's a limited view. We must compare all impacts of Amash's choice vs. what if he had chosen the best non-election related activity for himself (but he does both, he has a family). With AJ, we must compare all impacts of his choice vs. what if he had chosen the best election related activity for himself (but he does both, he encourages political action in many forms). It's just not black and white as those on both sides of this issue sometimes make it.

[nayjevin]

I only see one productive thing in that list

lol

because of the doobie in the carpool?

[TheTexan]

Yes he has. But Amash can't do what Alex Jones does, and vice versa. So it's not the same choice for each person - they have each made the right choice.



But that's a limited view. We must compare all impacts of Amash's choice vs. what if he had chosen the best non-election related activity for himself (but he does both, he has a family). With AJ, we must compare all impacts of his choice vs. what if he had chosen the best election related activity for himself (but he does both, he encourages political action in many forms). It's just not black and white as those on both sides of this issue sometimes make it.

What's your end-game?

[William Tell]

I only see one productive thing in that list

Do you agree we are better off and more informed because Ron Paul was elected to Congress and given a platform for his views by the people of Texas, or not?

Or do you think we would be further along liberty wise, and more informed if he had never been elected?

[TheTexan]

Do you agree we are better off and more informed because Ron Paul was elected to Congress and given a platform for his views by the people of Texas, or not?

Or do you think we would be further along liberty wise, and more informed if he had never been elected?

Politics can be useful. It is useless, however, for legislative reform.

[acptulsa]

What's your end-game?

Is there one?

Life and history march on regardless. What more could possibly be hoped for than a step in the evolution of society? If we could turn a paraphrase of Ronald Reagan--the biggest, most consistent lie ever told is, 'We're from the government and we're here to help,' into a universally accepted truism, how big a favor would we have then done our posterity?

[heavenlyboy34]

[mosquitobite]

If you are not actively involved in helping a local liberty candidate get elected in some way, each year - then I agree, voting wont help.

Run for office or be involved in helping a liberty candidate run for office. If good people DON'T, then evil will always win.

[William Tell]

Politics can be useful. It is useless, however, for legislative reform.

I think that Constitutional Carry legislation for example, is useful. Now granted, it should not be needed. But states have passed, and are passing such bills. Calling off the dogs of the state from arresting people for carrying is a good thing. And its legislative reform.

[nayjevin]

Politics can be useful. It is useless, however, for legislative reform.

Are you saying legislative reform has never occurred?

[nayjevin]

What's your end-game?

Precinct sized balkanization with ISO Constitutions of varying degree similar to creative commons licenses.

[William Tell]

Homeschooling is an example of somewhere that legislative reforms have been made. The laws in most states are far more friendly to homeschooling now, than they were 40 years ago.

[nayjevin]

The alternative is convincing enough people that, once society collapses of its own weight, we should get together and live peacefully as one and not implement any systems to prosecute murder.



heh

[Cabal]

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.

My point isn't really that abstaining is a choice that is right or wrong (morality kind of goes out the window when there's a gun to your head), it's that voting in elections is simply not conducive with liberty as a primary goal. You're effectively hoping to redirect the force of the State--the gun in the room--to subjugate people you disagree with. Your opposition is doing the same. You're both trying to rule each other and to give yourselves some slack when the reality is you're both being ruled by the State. Rather than realize that, you wholesale buy into the divide et impera propaganda machine that pits you against each other, and distracts you from the elephant in the room. And the differences are really negligible, honestly. Some want more government here rather than there, or they want legislation for this rather than that. In the end, the State grows and expands regardless of how you vote, perhaps even in part because you continue to vote. That's what voting is, in its current implementation. So, the idea or notion that you're achieving any semblance of liberty through voting is just bizarre.

The reality is voting is more like captives making pleas to their captors than anything else. Regardless of how you might dress it up, you're still a hostage begging for table scraps that the State you're begging took away to begin with.

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.

Again, you seem to be stuck on arguing about the relative size of the State rather than whether or not the State should even exist at all. And so long as you continue voting for the State, you can't really begin that discussion, unfortunately.

[HVACTech]

a suggestion for you HB.

Persuading not to vote - for those who are good at trolling Hannity forums

the Daily Clinton and Obama forums would also be good places for you to haunt.

[cajuncocoa]

VOTE HARDER!!

[heavenlyboy34]

The alternative is convincing enough people that, once society collapses of its own weight, we should get together and live peacefully as one and not implement any systems to prosecute murder.



heh

Why do you think there's only one alternative?

[nayjevin]

My point isn't really that abstaining is a choice that is right or wrong (morality kind of goes out the window when there's a gun to your head), it's that voting in elections is simply not conducive with liberty as a primary goal. You're effectively hoping to redirect the force of the State--the gun in the room--to subjugate people you disagree with. Your opposition is doing the same.

It seems like a mix of a utilitarian/pragmatic argument and a moral argument. It's not conducive to the goal - i.e. not effective/pragmatic, and hoping to redirect force of state is wrong, moral argument.

As to the utility of voting, it is obvious that mathematically one vote makes zero difference .99999999% of the time. But every ballot has multiple opportunities to vote - various seats and initiatives. My last ballot was about a dozen votes I think. Further, I will either vote or not vote forever. That's many more votes. Still, the one vote each time has near zero mathematical chance to have an impact on its own. But no one does that. They get more or less informed, talk about it with a few or a lot of people, and all those people vote. For these reasons it's vote + persuade others to vote and mobilize friends and family that agree. Also encourage people likely to vote against new laws and taxes to do so.

As to the morality of voting, the government may indeed be 'the gun in the room,' and if so, it seems you would argue that it's wrong to try to control it. It would be wrong for Hitler to try to control Jefferson's gun. It is not wrong for Jefferson to try and control Hitler's gun.

You're both trying to rule each other and to give yourselves some slack when the reality is you're both being ruled by the State. Rather than realize that,

I realize that prior to voting.

you wholesale buy into the divide et impera propaganda machine that pits you against each other, and distracts you from the elephant in the room.

Voting doesn't distract me from the elephant in the room. Voting isn't buying wholesale into the system anymore than pleading to a slavemaster is buying into slavery.

And the differences are really negligible, honestly. Some want more government here rather than there, or they want legislation for this rather than that.

This is a perfect argument for average GOP vs average Dem, but it doesn't fit here IMO.

In the end, the State grows and expands regardless of how you vote, perhaps even in part because you continue to vote.

But not as much as it would have without any voting. Those taxes that don't pass would have passed without voting. State smaller as direct result of voting.

That's what voting is, in its current implementation. So, the idea or notion that you're achieving any semblance of liberty through voting is just bizarre.

It's not voting to achieve a semblance of liberty, it's voting to either increase liberty or stop encroachment of it. I think I have a semblance of liberty now. It's pretty good for a white American, really. But it needs to be better.

The reality is voting is more like captives making pleas to their captors than anything else.

And if it works, they should. But not if it is at the expense of something that works better.

Regardless of how you might dress it up, you're still a hostage begging for table scraps that the State you're begging took away to begin with.

OK, table scraps better than no table scraps.

Again, you seem to be stuck on arguing about the relative size of the State rather than whether or not the State should even exist at all. And so long as you continue voting for the State, you can't really begin that discussion, unfortunately.

False imperitave, they are not mutually exclusive. One can be stuck on putting a certain kind of government in place, and therefore be blind to the reality of government programs, but that needn't always be the case. Me voting is proof. I've had discussions like that and voted on the same day. WHATSAYOU???

[TheTexan]

Are you saying legislative reform has never occurred?

I'm saying for every step forward, there has been 100 steps backward.

[nayjevin]

Why do you think there's only one alternative?

I don't I was just trying to make funny of your position = murder

[nayjevin]

I'm saying for every step forward, there has been 100 steps backward.

What I see is that it's 100/1, then 90/1, the 50/1, then 2/1, then 1/1, then 1/2 etc

[TheTexan]

What I see is that it's 100/1, then 90/1, the 50/1, then 2/1, then 1/1, then 1/2 etc

Not gonna happen ever sorry

[osan]

What's your opinion?

My opinion is that America, taken as a statistical gestalt, is not very likely to come to its collective senses. Were it to, the mechanisms that remain in place might still be sufficient to right the ship, so to speak. The problem, as it now appears at the time of this typing, is that America is not really even in the ballpark of possibility for coming sufficiently to its senses such that it would begin taking the needed measures. I see what the news is like - what they say and, perhaps more importantly, how they say it. I see and hear what people around me say - it is not nearly as bad here in WV as it is in much of the rest of the nation, and yet it is plenty bad enough - and what issues from their gullets is impossibly disconnected from reason and rationality. We all see it. Consider some of the posts of cops beating/murdering/robbing/kidnapping innocent people, showing on video the open hostility and contempt in which they hold "us". Then you read the comments by people who praise this behavior and then punctuate with the equivalent of FrankRep's now infamous "...did this to himself" meme when they utter expressions such as "what do you expect when you <fill in the blank>.

I read and see and hear this same sort of thing no matter where I go. There is a crushing plurality of people whose mental states are truly terrifying. We now have a huge proportion of people who are just like those Germans who blindly followed Hitler and who are so timid of character, so in need of that external symbol that serves the role of synthetic courage, and so self-loathing that they actually become enraged when anyone has the temerity to stand tall and assert their sovereignty over themselves. When such people are taken and savagely beaten by police, these cowardly chameleon people cheer adore the abusers all the more for having crushed yet another reminder of how wretchedly inferior they are to those who have been abused.

All these activities have some effect. What effect?

I am sure they do, but the real question is whether the effect is relevant? Is it sufficient to the goal? Thus far, it appears the answer is "no" because we are in no better a position than we were 50 years ago. Indeed, it seems quite clear that we are in a decidedly far worse position.

Some of the people who participate aren't trying to wrest this land back into a particular semblance of freedom as an only goal. For instance, donating to a good cause. What does the cause do? Attending a rally. Did you network? What did you miss by doing it?

I cannot speak for the motivations of others. If they have other goals in mind, good for them I suppose... but they ought not utter a peep's worth of complaint if one day they wake up to the muzzle of a black rifle between their lips and some rather harsh language and a trip to parts unknown and for who-knows-how-long.

Respect, but what you're not seeing is that there is a way that your goals will be accomplished when other people do the things they choose to do. I'd appreciate your perspective as to the best things I should do.

I cannot presume to know that answer. But my question is "at what point do we admit that we are going nowhere and choose to adopt other means?"

At this point, the only thing I will do is sit back and watch. This is not because I am lazy, but because I am in no humor to get myself injured of worse for the likes of the Average Man. He is not worth such a sacrifice, IMO.

I didn't understand this.

Our continued participation in this charade that the American political process has become strikes me as nothing more than a tactic for maintaining diversion of the great majority of people based on a 2-year cycle that repeats itself like clockwork. People become upset with whatever the issue du jour may be. They bitch. Some become active. They campaign. They rally. They stump. They vote. Some cheer. Others curse. Then they wait for the miracle of "hope and change". Predictably, it never comes and they become temporarily discouraged, but it passes and by that time they are pissed all over again and the cycle repeats.

However, with each cycle, the average man appears to become marginally less-smart than he was the previous one. As each successive generation goes through the public education meat-grinder, the average intellect weakens such that one day we may expect to find few capable of even the most rudimentary levels of rational thought. That is what I mean by "buying time. If those in power can stave off the coming together of Americans (for example) into a vein of thought inimical to Theire designs, whether through the normal political process or by taking up arms against Themme, Theye better ensure the future of Their positions because it is now abundantly clear, what with standards and methods such as "common core" that Theye are in a state of open warfare against the intellects of America's future. One more generation of so and the average high school graduate stands to be so pliant, so well trained to the master's heel, that Theye will no longer have anything but the slightest reason to fear reprisals against Theire caprice, not matter how outrageous precisely because the meaners will no longer have the capacity or the desire to recognize it.

The theory that violence solves problems is a minority view.

And yet it was the violence of open warfare that resulted in the establishment of America. Perhaps the assumed fact that it is a minority view say less about the view than the capacities and opinions of the majority. Had the colonists repudiated war, precious few of us would be here today and those of us present would be subjects of the crown.

[TheTexan]

Precinct sized balkanization with ISO Constitutions of varying degree similar to creative commons licenses.

That's a fine goal. One comment though

"Balkanization, or Balkanisation, is a geopolitical term, originally used to describe the violent process of fragmentation or division of a region or state into smaller regions or states that are often hostile or non-cooperative with one another."

The definition doesnt say anything about voting.

[otherone]

What I see is that it's 100/1, then 90/1, the 50/1, then 2/1, then 1/1, then 1/2 etc

I wish I had your optimism.
I can't see anything changing until people choose Freedom OVER safety. As it stands, people conflate the two, although they are nearly opposites. But even if they understood the difference, they would still choose safety.
"Land of the safe, home of the fearful".