NationStates Jolt Archive

Consider the following:

It is a fundamental right of all men to have control over themselves, and to decide to do things according to their own will.

This is a statement with which I believe the majority of you would agree.

Now, consider:

The role of government is to make decisions for the people it governs. If it fails to control its people, we would consider a government itself to have failed. Thus, a government is judged by the degree of control over the people that it wields.

And when an entity exercises executive control another entity, it deprives the latter of the right we have previously determined to be fundamental to all men. Likewise, when a government exercises control over its people, it is similarly depriving each and every affected subject of the subject's right to control and decide for itself.

By voting, we authorize another entity to remove from both us, our neighbors, and our fellow countrymen a critical right native to every man, woman, and child. A vote for any candidate endorses this philosophy. Through a vote, the voter asks another person -- the candidate for whom the ballot was cast -- to take from everyone the choice, the right, to make their own decisions.

I recognize that this is only my second post, and I assure you that I am not a troll; I had recently been trying to think of any defensible reason not to vote (considering that the only thing we in America can really agree on is the necessity of voting), and I figured that if I brought the topic up to a larger audience, it would ignite an interesting discussion.

except by voting you are having a part in something that does affect you. so you can have your say and to help shape your government to your desires.

by not voting, you are allowing others (your neighbors, your friends and strangers) to shape a force that can determine how you live and how well you live.

so by not voting you are giving up your control over a force that can affect you.

Edit: even a vote of "None of the Above" is you adding your views to issues.

All I will say is, spoil your ballot, instead of just not voting. Otherwise no-one will ever know about your opposition to voting for anyone.

Write in Hugh Jass.

Write in Hugh Jass.

... but wouldn't that be mistaken for McCain/Palin?

I know where you're coming from, because I myself have become more than a bit iffy about democracy and the value of majority decisions.

But I disagree with this statement: "The role of government is to make decisions for the people it governs. If it fails to control its people, we would consider a government itself to have failed."

I think that's a non sequitur to an extent. When the government makes decisions for us, the presumption is that it makes decisions we would agree with, but have no means of enforcing. We have an interest in there being a mechanism to prevent people murdering each other, but none of us has the capability to create such a mechanism for ourselves. Similarly, we may have an interest in a limit to the amount of environmental damage done over time, but we have no means of doing anything more than reduce our own impact, which wouldn't be enough.

So the government is a means of creating and enforcing rules that we would presumably want but can't actually create ourselves. That doesn't mean the government has to control us in any deeper way than preventing people from breaking aforementioned rules. If I try to protect myself against murder, am I denying a fundamental right of the murderer to do things according to his own will? Well, yes, but that's because his right is conditional as far as interaction with other people is concerned.

Voting is then the process by which it is determined what these rules are. The problem I have isn't that these rules exist, but that I think majority opinion is not a valid way of establishing them. So that means I can think the decision reached in an election is basically irrelevant - in theory. In practice it obviously isn't, and so I myself am a voter who spends a lot of time analysing the positions of the people who are up for election and compares them to how well they fit the rules as they really should be. And of course it would also be my right to say that none of the candidates are close enough, and refuse to endorse any of them. I wouldn't need any more justification than that.

Aye, yer damned if you do and damned if you don't. Sad times.

Well, the media makes it pretty clear there's no point in voting except in 'battleground states.' And I listen to what the media tells me, for it never lies.

I disagree with the fundamental premise of the OP. Government is not controlling us. It is our opportunity to create the sort of society we want.

So basically if you believe in pure and absolute anarchism then you shouldn't vote. I'm OK with that. We can't all decide to do whatever we want in any case. Person A decides they will rape person B, while person B desires not to be raped. Obviously, these desires are mutually exclusive. Any organization which moves to take away person A's ability to commit rape against person B, (Or, I suppose, to assist in person B's rape) is, in effect, a government. If a government must exist (and almost everyone would agree it must, in some form or another) then someone in that government has to make the decisions. That person has to be chosen somehow. By voting, you are endorsing a person, in effect saying "I believe this person will make the best decisions."

The rest is just determining what choices are allowed and which ones are not.

I disagree with the fundamental premise of the OP. Government is not controlling us. It is our opportunity to create the sort of society we want.
Yes, but there is no point in pretending that it does so without infringing on the self-determination of people. And as such there has to be a limit at which taking this opportunity becomes the wrong thing to do.

And that's assuming the organisation that is government is actually capable of doing what voters might like it to do.

I agree with both your points.

Yes, but there is no point in pretending that it does so without infringing on the self-determination of people. And as such there has to be a limit at which taking this opportunity becomes the wrong thing to do.

Governments are useful so long as the opportunities and benefits they provide are more important to us than the individual freedoms we give up. Where the dividing line is, I don't know, but I think most democratic countries are on the good side of the line.

And that's assuming the organisation that is government is actually capable of doing what voters might like it to do.

I think, broadly, they do. When we are dissatisfied we can kick them out. And we do.

You have to accept that you have to give up some rights to live in a stable society, but most of these are things you'd give up the chance to do precisely because you'd rather people did not do them to you (like rape, murder or steal). So you'd want that surely? I can't see what your problem is.

So the government is a means of creating and enforcing rules that we would presumably want but can't actually create ourselves. That doesn't mean the government has to control us in any deeper way than preventing people from breaking aforementioned rules. If I try to protect myself against murder, am I denying a fundamental right of the murderer to do things according to his own will? Well, yes, but that's because his right is conditional as far as interaction with other people is concerned.

I think it's not just rules we want but can't create, but also rules we know we need but don't want.
That sounded kind of Father-Knows-Best, so I'll elaborate. The prisoner's dilemma is a situation where both players involved know what the best and fairest outcome for "society" (the two players) is, but individually don't want to risk being taken advantage of. However, if they meet at an earlier time and agree that confessing is "illegal," and then get another friend to enforce this rule, they'll reach the best overall outcome. Government is like the third friend.

I think it's not just rules we want but can't create, but also rules we know we need but don't want.
So does that mean the government has the right to impose rules which it decides we need but don't have the guts to actually ask for?

That's a lot like the whole "let's bomb Iraq" thing in Britain, Australia et al. The population was clearly against it by an overwhelming margin, but the government made the point that it is really in everyone's interest and we just didn't know what we wanted, or wouldn't say it. John Howard was pretty open at times about thinking that the opposition was mainly the product of leftist, anti-American groups which made it impossible for the true opinion of the population to be heard.

All sounds a tad flimsy to me.

This will be the first presidential race I've really payed attention to. Definitely the first I've felt emotion over. It's not emotion over Obama. The emotion has came over state candidates and thier campaign. Since I've been paying attn. and have cared for this first time in my life .. I've noticed much shit.

Elisabeth Dole vs Kay Hagen in my state. I don't know if you all have heard about this, but Dole made a commercial lying on Hagen, calling her Godless, and flat out trying to make it seem that she yelled "There is no God!". The voice wasn't her, they know so, have said they know so (how many got that memo .. hmm?).. and still let it keep going .. obviously. Some of you may say , well what does it matter if she did? Well number one she didn't, and number two .. it does matter.

The real problem tho, is that many are going to flat out freaking believe this tripe without going past their sister in law, pastor or neighbor. MANY~~~

This is why Bush got elected the 2nd term. I honestly believe it was because of dumbass voters.

I got a flyer in the mail Saturday from Doles campaign.. Abortion Is Murder! It truly raised my blood pressure.

Trying to pull the 'God' card when exploiting ignorance. I'm not saying being pro life is ignorant. Believing these mf's that use abortion and/or God as a rallying tool.. when really what they are going to do once IN is in no way related to God or the beliefs of these 'Godly' voters, is angering.. when I know it will work.

Ohhh... the Preachers ..... and the Pastors I'm sure.. are preaching every Sunday on how we must vote Republican.. 'It's what good Christians do'.

They are so full of shit.. nothing worse than (crooked cop? heh.. not today) portraying yourself as good when you are nothing but a snake and liar.

I'm waiting for a secular Republican to harp to me about taxes..

My small knowledge rebuttal will be .. Hmm.. a bit higher tax or a job?




Edit: Dole Commercial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzhUOfgxg2c) Only for the commercial.. not ALL this guy says after, cause I do not know if Hagen is/was a Sunday school teacher.. doesn't matter anyway!! It's all I can find online now. I'm also not sure Dole is losing.. I doubt it honestly.

So does that mean the government has the right to impose rules which it decides we need but don't have the guts to actually ask for?

That's a lot like the whole "let's bomb Iraq" thing in Britain, Australia et al. The population was clearly against it by an overwhelming margin, but the government made the point that it is really in everyone's interest and we just didn't know what we wanted, or wouldn't say it. John Howard was pretty open at times about thinking that the opposition was mainly the product of leftist, anti-American groups which made it impossible for the true opinion of the population to be heard.

All sounds a tad flimsy to me.

See the paragraph below the quoted bit. There are plenty of things we (not the governing elite) know we need, but we can't achieve these needs without organization and planning. We do have the guts to ask for them, but asking is really all we as individuals can do.
And now my laptop says it has 5% power, and I must go as quickly as I came. Adieu.

I said this on the GE thread, but its relevent to post it here, too.

For the record, I love you guys. All of you.


But if I find out any of you fuckers didnt vote, Ill hunt you down and gut you like a fish. Then, Ill impale your corpse in front of my appartment building. Finally, Ill enslave your soul and force it do to my taxes for all of eternity

Im so fucking serious.

A choice to not vote says that you are okay with whatever happens and don't care, either way. To me, it's a bit hypocritical to complain about the government's actions when you did nothing to oppose any part of the current government coming to power.

If you vote, you don't get to complain about the outcome. You were part of the process, and therefore part of the problem.

Only those who abstain get to complain. There really should be a 'none of the above' option. But until there is not voting is the best form of protest.

If you vote, you don't get to complain about the outcome. You were part of the process, and therefore part of the problem.

Only those who abstain get to complain. There really should be a 'none of the above' option. But until there is not voting is the best form of protest.

My brother feels that way. I can understand where he's coming from.

Cast a write-in vote for Geecku.

If you vote, you don't get to complain about the outcome. You were part of the process, and therefore part of the problem.

Only those who abstain get to complain. There really should be a 'none of the above' option. But until there is not voting is the best form of protest.

I have the opposite opinion.

If you vote, even if you don't like any of the candidates, you can still write in and voice your opinion.

To me, if you don't vote, it says you don't give a shit about who's in the government at all. And therefore, any complaints are hypocritical if you hate the government that gets elected, as you did nothing at all to stop it from happening, instead sitting on your ass.

...It is a fundamental right of all men to have control over themselves, and to decide to do things according to their own will...

BTW, what about women?

(Runs and hides.)

To me, if you don't vote, it says you don't give a shit about who's in the government at all. And therefore, any complaints are hypocritical if you hate the government that gets elected, as you did nothing at all to stop it from happening, instead sitting on your ass.

I have a problem with the system of government. I don't think it is democratic. So I don't think my not voting is hypocritical at all.

I have a problem with the system of government. I don't think it is democratic. So I don't think my not voting is hypocritical at all.

You do nothing at all to change that system of government. If you started a political party or voted for candidates that agreed with you, even if you and your candidates consistently lost, at least you'd be trying to change things.

If that's too ineffective for you, then get off your lazy ass and start a revolution.

Otherwise you're just a whiner.

You do nothing at all to change that system of government. If you started a political party or voted for candidates that agreed with you, even if you and your candidates consistently lost, at least you'd be trying to change things.

If that's too ineffective for you, then get off your lazy ass and start a revolution.

Otherwise you're just a whiner.

How do you know what I do?

Not voting in general elections is not the same as doing nothing.

On the other hand voting is often used as an excuse in lieu of actually doing anything.

The real whiners are people who vote, but then don't like the outcome, or who complain about how things aren't going well.

Some candidates actually do want to limit government intervention in personal and business affairs. Though they are extremely unlikely to ever win in a major race and run mostly on principle a vote for them would be a vote for a reduction in government.

I don't think that you simply shouldn't vote. You should make an informed vote. Many people who support Barack Obama don't realize that he's for child slavery. It's even on his website as part of his platform: "Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year.", "Require 100 Hours of Service in College". They just listen to the soundbites about "hope" and "change" and think he'll magically solve their problems. They're looking for sybols to solve their problems but they'll be disapointed when they find out that a bumper sticker, no matter how badass it may look, will not pay the bills or get them great sex.

Remember, say no to child slavery. Say no to Obama. Vote Libertarian.

How do you know what I do?

Not voting in general elections is not the same as doing nothing.

On the other hand voting is often used as an excuse in lieu of actually doing anything.

The real whiners are people who vote, but then don't like the outcome, or who complain about how things aren't going well.

I don't. But you sure haven't offered up any better ideas.

If you actually are starting a revolution, I understand the need for secrecy. Otherwise, you appear to be a lazy ass fatalist.

Some candidates actually do want to limit government intervention in personal and business affairs. Though they are extremely unlikely to ever win in a major race and run mostly on principle a vote for them would be a vote for a reduction in government.

I don't think that you simply shouldn't vote. You should make an informed vote. Many people who support Barack Obama don't realize that he's for child slavery. It's even on his website as part of his platform: "Obama and Biden will set a goal that all middle and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year.", "Require 100 Hours of Service in College". They just listen to the soundbites about "hope" and "change" and think he'll magically solve their problems. They're looking for sybols to solve their problems but they'll be disapointed when they find out that a bumper sticker, no matter how badass it may look, will not pay the bills or get them great sex.

Remember, say no to child slavery. Say no to Obama. Vote Libertarian.

It's not that I would never vote. If I lived in California I'd vote tomorrow because of prop 5. But 'choosing' between the big candidates is an exercise in futility.

Vote some third party guy. Vote Nader, vote the socialist guy. Just vote...


Though with the lines in my state and the lack of a vehicle... Crap I might not be able too.

I don't. But you sure haven't offered up any better ideas.

If you actually are starting a revolution, I understand the need for secrecy. Otherwise, you appear to be a lazy ass fatalist.

No, the sheep who religiously turn up and vote are generally the lazy asses. I would like to call them fatalists, but since they have already delegated all their thinking I don't think they are capable of that sort of independent thought.

I do get involved in politics stuff, but I am not naive enough to get involved with candidate stuff normally. Though I will give money + help to candidates I think are trouble makers.

No, the sheep who religiously turn up and vote are generally the lazy asses. I would like to call them fatalists, but since they have already delegated all their thinking I don't think they are capable of that sort of independent thought.

I do get involved in politics stuff, but I am not naive enough to get involved with candidate stuff normally. Though I will give money + help to candidates I think are trouble makers.

Again, you offer no better ideas at all.

Again, you offer no better ideas at all.

You haven't asked for any.

Here's an idea, don't vote for the guy who voted in the senate at the beginning of October to put your taxes up, slash government spending and raise interest rates.

You haven't asked for any.

Here's an idea, don't vote for the guy who voted in the senate at the beginning of October to put your taxes up, slash government spending and raise interest rates.

When I said the first time that you hadn't offered any better ideas, that should have been a hint.

I don't mind paying taxes. I think they are the price of civilization. I don't like paying them exactly, but in most things, most of the time, you pretty much get what you pay for. I don't see government as an exception to this.


As for ideas, slashing government spending doesn't happen if people who want to do it don't get into office. To get into office, people need votes. I am not a member of the government. Just wanting to slash government spending won't make it happen.

So far, as far as ways to get something done, you have offered nothing.

As for ideas, slashing government spending doesn't happen if people who want to do it don't get into office. To get into office, people need votes. I am not a member of the government. Just wanting to slash government spending won't make it happen.


The government doesn't set spending limits. Whether or not government spending gets slashed over the next 18 months is completely outside the purview of whoever is elected tomorrow.

The government doesn't set spending limits. Whether or not government spending gets slashed over the next 18 months is completely outside the purview of whoever is elected tomorrow.

I don't set spending limits, and you don't either. If it was in your power to say "I wish for slashing public spending" and have it be done, well there wouldn't be an issue.

I don't count bitching about what you see as a problem on an internet forum as doing something about it.

You offer plenty of criticism and complaints, but no contributions to addressing any of it.

You say there is a problem.

So what exactly to you propose that regular people such as yourself do about it?

Besides wait for the glorious revolution when everything will magically be better, I mean.

Yes, but there is no point in pretending that it does so without infringing on the self-determination of people. And as such there has to be a limit at which taking this opportunity becomes the wrong thing to do.

And that's assuming the organisation that is government is actually capable of doing what voters might like it to do.

With government, we allow some infringement on self-determination to avoid much greater infringement upon it. In anarchy, all disputes would essentially be settled by "might is right". Government would still exist, in the end, but it would be imposed by those who had the most strength and the willingness to use it against others.

With a democracy, everyone can help exert that might, even if they aren't personally all that strong or willing to shoot people.

Of course, we have to take steps to make sure that the government doesn't become that greater infringement itself. And that's where we have to walk a hard line.

If you vote, you don't get to complain about the outcome. You were part of the process, and therefore part of the problem.

Only those who abstain get to complain. There really should be a 'none of the above' option. But until there is not voting is the best form of protest.

There is a "none of the above" option. You use the write-in portion of the ballot.

Sitting at home on your ass basically makes the statement that you are apathetic, and thus endorsing any government that happens to get elected.

Many people who support Barack Obama don't realize that he's for child slavery.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAha

I like you. You're silly.

The government doesn't set spending limits. Whether or not government spending gets slashed over the next 18 months is completely outside the purview of whoever is elected tomorrow.

Completely, eh?

So none of the people elected have any control whatsoever over government spending?

Where is the overlord who actually decides it, then?

Since other people are going over the whole government/self-determination part, I'm going to question another element in the OP's argument: that the proper ethical response would be abstention.

The issue of voting, ethically, to me seems most akin to the classic thought experiment about a runaway train: on its current path, it will run over five people, but if you redirect it, it will run over only one. The question is not, "Can you murder the one to save the other five?" (which an absolute respect for self-determination would prohibit), but rather, "Can you redirect the inevitable killing force (for which you are not responsible) from the five to the one?"

If I vote for Candidate A, even though I think her policies unjustly violate people's self-determination, so as to avoid the victory of Candidate B, whose policies would unjustly violate people's self-determination even more, I am not saying that it is acceptable to violate people's self-determination, under any circumstances--I do not support and may even actively oppose the policies of Candidate A's that violate self-determination. What I am saying instead is that since self-determination is going to be violated anyway, by the actions of others that I cannot control, I would rather have fewer violations of self-determination than more.

There's nothing ethically problematic about that.

There is a "none of the above" option. You use the write-in portion of the ballot.

Sitting at home on your ass basically makes the statement that you are apathetic, and thus endorsing any government that happens to get elected.
Exactly what I said. Then he started talking as if not voting was an action that somehow sent a message.

I'm sorry, but politicians care the least about what people who don't vote think. Anybody who thinks it sends some kind of message besides not giving a damn is being foolish, in my opinion.

BUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAha

I like you. You're silly.

And silliness is always welcome.

Since other people are going over the whole government/self-determination part, I'm going to question another element in the OP's argument: that the proper ethical response would be abstention.

The issue of voting, ethically, to me seems most akin to the classic thought experiment about a runaway train: on its current path, it will run over five people, but if you redirect it, it will run over only one. The question is not, "Can you murder the one to save the other five?" (which an absolute respect for self-determination would prohibit), but rather, "Can you redirect the inevitable killing force (for which you are not responsible) from the five to the one?"

If I vote for Candidate A, even though I think her policies unjustly violate people's self-determination, so as to avoid the victory of Candidate B, whose policies would unjustly violate people's self-determination even more, I am not saying that it is acceptable to violate people's self-determination, under any circumstances--I do not support and may even actively oppose the policies of Candidate A's that violate self-determination. What I am saying instead is that since self-determination is going to be violated anyway, by the actions of others that I cannot control, I would rather have fewer violations of self-determination than more.

There's nothing ethically problematic about that.

Even if you go from the premise that all government is bad, it is still true that some are much worse than others. And so choosing still matters.

absolutely everyone has the right to not vote.

i think the guy who does the zydako show on kvmr, said it with a kind of eloquent crudeness, and i may not agree with all, or even most of what i'm only guessing might be his reasons for saying it, but:

"if you don't vote 'stfu' (stfu is not an exact quote, but pretty unambiuously what he ment, i forget the actual phrase he used). if you do, you've got a right to say any damd thing you like"

now i'm not meaning that as an insult to anyone, i'm just quoting, and i don't even entirely agree that a nonvoter lacks the right to speak up, but, i mean, when an opportunity like voting comes up, to express an oppinion, just because doing so responsibly might involve doing a little 'homework', though again, no one is absolutely going to make you do that either, you can vote just as whimsically and frivoloulsy as you feel like it, i mean, how much right has a person given themselves, even to bitch about whether or not they think their vote is being counted, if they don't, i mean, maybe because i have oppinions, and my ego wants me to express them, but its hard for me to imagine wanting to forgo an opportunity to express them. to express them in such a concrete way.

Voting is compulsory here, but that won't stop me from checking in, writing "GO FUCK THE DEVIL IN HELL" in big red letters on the ballot, and leaving.

Where is the overlord who actually decides it, then?

The bond market. You can't spend it if people won't lend it to you.

Voting is compulsory here, but that won't stop me from checking in, writing "GO FUCK THE DEVIL IN HELL" in big red letters on the ballot, and leaving.
And what will that achieve, exactly?

Voting is compulsory here, but that won't stop me from checking in, writing "GO FUCK THE DEVIL IN HELL" in big red letters on the ballot, and leaving.

that might be a bit difficult to interpret, other then as a vote against being required to vote, but in cameroi we'd certainly count it as a valid one.

Voting is compulsory here, but that won't stop me from checking in, writing "GO FUCK THE DEVIL IN HELL" in big red letters on the ballot, and leaving.

And what will that achieve, exactly?

A petty insignificant release of impotent rage for an Emo who can't back up the talk and pines for the good old days of The Axis of Complicity with Dubya, Blair and Howard.

And what will that achieve, exactly?

Considering I'm the only conservative in the country, about as much as voting.

A petty insignificant release of impotent rage for an Emo who can't back up the talk and pines for the good old days of The Axis of Complicity with Dubya, Blair and Howard.

I was just as upset when I DID vote and we lost. What's your point?

I was just as upset when I DID vote and we lost. What's your point?

I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I didn't throw a whiny self-pitying whine about how my vote doesn't matter. I voted again in 2008 for Obama.

The point is if you're going to bitch and whine instead of perservering and participating in democracy, you deserve the results that you get. Just ask the brilliant Venezuelans who boybotted the election and bent over with pants down for Hugo Chavez.

I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. I didn't throw a whiny self-pitying whine about how my vote doesn't matter. I voted again in 2008 for Obama.

Your system is different. At least after eight years, you get a new candidate, and odds are he's going to be a retard like McCain. In Australia, there are no term limits, and Rudd will probably never lose.

The point is if you're going to bitch and whine instead of perservering and participating in democracy, you deserve the results that you get. Just ask the brilliant Venezuelans who boybotted the election and bent over with pants down for Hugo Chavez.

I don't see a problem with that. One of the reason I refuse to vote is to punish other Australians; if we have a bad govt. and they win again, that's Australia's punishment. They made their bed, now sleep in it.

Considering I'm the only conservative in the country, about as much as voting.

Bollocks. What kind of ridiculous definition of the word conservative are you using?

Bollocks. What kind of ridiculous definition of the word conservative are you using?

I dunno. I'm actually socially liberal, to be honest.

By voting, we authorize another entity to remove from both us, our neighbors, and our fellow countrymen a critical right native to every man, woman, and child. A vote for any candidate endorses this philosophy. Through a vote, the voter asks another person -- the candidate for whom the ballot was cast -- to take from everyone the choice, the right, to make their own decisions.

By not voting, you also fail at prevent another candidate from doing the same thing. I can't remember the quote exactly but I will paraphrase Noam Chomsky's view on voting for the lesser of two evil, which he said during an interview on Oct 24, 2008.

"There's nothing wrong with voting for the lesser of two evil, if you care about your country you will do what you can to prevent the worst."

That being said, I voted for Ralph Nader. I don't know enough about the economy to tell which is the lesser of the two evil in this election.