Topic: "I don't vote"... "it's beneath me"?? (Read 2740 times)

Well, as for homosexuals, religions surely played a greater role in the past, but not anymore.  But the age of consent laws coincide with the rise of the modern state (meaning from late 19th to early 20th centuries), not with religions or taboos.  You see, regulating morality is such a strong hook for governments — first they teach us what is moral and what is not, and then they scare us about how OMG awfully immoral would we become without the government to restrict our personal lives.


So you had been living in Russia before?  If it was in 90's or early 2000's, you'd find it VERY different if you come here today.  The society is going to shit, and I'm sure it's all because of government.


That's the point: most people here are sure that if you don't cheer on the anti-gay policies, then you're certainly gay yourself.  I find it weird, maybe it's because I'm an anarchist who never gives a fuck what people do unless they hurt me or my property, and who wants ather people to stop giving a fuck either.


Yeah, I see.

I do not know a single person who describes him/herself as a Libertarian who does not vote.

That would sort of defeat the purpose of Libertarianism.

My $.02.

Don't confuse voting for a representative (giving up your political power) with voting for a law, a system, a product, or a verdict (i.e. jury duty) (exercising political power). 

Every time we spend 1 USD we are voting, and each of these votes are more powerful politically than any vote for a representative.  We all vote, and we should all put some thought into our votes otherwise we are most definitely fucked.  Also, unlike the professional elections reality TV show, votes made with dollars and coins are actually counted. 

You are right.  The most telling thing to me was what happened when the Dems had the house, senate, and presidency.  They went into panic mode and came up with the absolutely most lame and pathetic excuses to not get jack shit done.  So, yes, it was a team effort on the part of various politicians, but Obama was a big part of it.

Obama is ten times more dangerous than Bush/Cheney because so many otherwise good people will just go along with his very troubling programs of building a foundation for totalitarianism and fascism without raising any questions.

It would take a while for me to find the post again, but the most salient argument I've heard against voting amounted to the fact that every time the voter participation rate in a country went below something like 20%, the country was just about guaranteed to have a revolution either in immediate response or pretty shortly thereafter. It's a vote of no confidence, and apparently it does count.

No he did not. 

Obama did not drive that point home, either verbally or by his behavior.

You might believe the two parties are the same but there is no reason to attribute that or proof of it to any given politician.

The 2000 elections were an eye-opener to me in a number of ways.

 - I've stopped paying almost any attention the the mainstream media who showed their true colors when the chips were down.  They are mostly useful in that they offer the ability to analyze the nature of the propaganda directed toward the masses, and analysis of this can be valuable in understanding policy directions and thus in decision making.

 - I've viewed the supreme court as largely useless political hacks and it has rubbed off an all the courts from there down.

 - Obama really drove the point home that the two parties are very much two heads of the same horse.  Voting for POTUS is truly futile.  I wrote in someone in 2012 and will likely do the same from here forward unless I decide to vote 'against' someone.  In 2012 it was a no brainer that Obama was pre-selected to it didn't matter who I voted for.  His 2012 victory was clearly in the cards as I saw it, and from the first year of his first term.  This because he is either a weak willed sellout or a genuine fascist one or the other of these are the requirements for POTUS at this time.

I do take local elections fairly seriously and feel that it can be the case that we can send good people who can make a difference to represent us in the central government.  DeFazio, Wyden, and Merkley represent me currently, and I feel that they are all mostly fighting the good fight on critical issues of the day (banking, evolution of the surveillance state, transparency, etc.)

I should point out that I am not a Libertarian or an Anarchist.  I label myself a Socialist though there are plenty of points of agreement I have with Libertarians, and I see Anarchy as preferable to Fascism mostly since the pain would not last as long.

Don't apologise for emotional posts -- they make you likable, if anything.  My problem, though, is still with your reasoning & not your emotions.  Let me sweep out some of the chafe first:
Age of consent has  nothing to do with statism & everything to do with social taboos.  Same goes for ostracism & violence against homosexuals.  i haven't lived in Russia for a long time, but i can tell you that i wasn't too worried about statist thugs busting in on me & my 15-year-old GF.  At 16, i was pretty naive  Oh, pointing out that you're a breeder while expressing your outrage at gay-bashing kind'a breaks the flow for me.  Avoid that -- this isn't a dating site, nobody cares.  I also suspect that nobody worth mentioning will care if you're a satanist or not, so just let people guess -- you'll have more fun that way

It's kind of a bummer that people keep putting words in my mouth.  I never suggested that the state was "fair," that all laws were just & logically sound, or that i personally don't break the law, every day, as a matter of course.  Never.  
I simply point out that certain outlooks are ridiculously myopic & intrinsically flawed, and get labeled as "The Enemy" for a thank you.  Good thing the process is so lulzy

Edit: typo
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=bTbLslkIR2k#t=0s

Why would I vote ?

How about Dem Mob Krazy?

First of all, comparing a house with a state is a bad analogy.  There are millions of houses to rent a room in, and anyone can build a new house if he has enough money.  And there are only about 200 countries, and common people cannot build a new one, no matter how much money they have (spacesteading and seasteading is another topic, in two words: unfairly expensive).

But if you insist on comparing a state with a house, let's speak about 2-family house.  Let's imagine my family owns a large 2-family house, where I live in one half and my parents in another half (not my actual situation, but I bet such families exist).  When time comes, I take a loan and buy my half of the house.  Now that it's mine, I can do what I want with it.  I can change the lock so that my parents wouldn't be able to enter without my permission.  My mom used to insist that I keep my half-house clean and tidy, but now that it's my property I no longer give a flick about her opinion.  I can invite friends and hookers and do what I want in my half unless it doesn't harm anyone outside of it.  Their rules work only on their half, and my rules on my half.  The government, however, insists on its stupid rules over my property even after I buy it.  I can have my own rules over my land, but the government rules take precedence.  And the government feels free to invade my property and demand its "taxes" even though I've already paid for the land.  See the difference?  I'm not allowed to own any land entirely, I can actually only buy a permission to use it subject to it's owner (government) rules.  Which is super-stupid and annoys the hell out of me.  I would agree to pay more to be able to TRULY OWN the land with no strings attached, like in sovereignty over my land.  In other words, I would like to pay as much as needed to take 0.00000006% of my country's land and found a new state within this land.  By the way, I represent 0.0000007% of my country's population and ready to pay for the land 0.0000012% of its GDP, as you see both shares are significantly higher than a portion of land I would be happy to buy.  But of course they won't sell me the land with sovereignty, no matter how expensive.  And no other country will.  That's the point.


See?  You understand it yourself!  Why do you argue then?!  Isn't it outrageous that gov't defines what is 'underage' for example?  People are perfectly adult at 14 or even 13, both physically and mentally.  Why those "government" gangsters push their shit about 18 years old and stuff?!  What happens if people fuck at 17, do they like explode and kill everybody?!  I DARE SAY THAT IT'S OKAY TO FUCK AT 15, now come and jail me, idiots.  What's all this shit about drug prohibition?!  If people are stupid, let them do stupid things and die early, it's better for our gene pool.  Why do adult responsible people get restrained even if we don't even hurt anybody?!  Why weapon ban?!  It's super stupid, how do we even defend ourselves against armed bandits?!  Oh I forgot, it's armed bandits themselves who prohibit guns, isn't it?!  Why do I need to be forced to use those fucking seatbelts?  Let me die in that crash if I'm that car accident, I don't care!  No, I do use seatbelts, but not because of government, but because I actually care for myself, I AM NOT A FUCKING CHILD!  Why do they ban gays?  Okay, they don't ban gays in US or Europe, but here in Russia they do.  I am straight myself, but I've got a few gay and lesbian friends, and some of them were already beaten on the streets.  HUNDREDS OF LGBT CHILDREN COMMIT SUICIDES AND GET KILLED because of those STUPID laws!  And now they force religion on me also!  What if I'm satanist (not really), why should I be OK if they derive their stupid laws from Orthodox Christianity and INSIST that I don't dare say ANYTHING that MIGHT make some of them feel bad?!  So all atheists go to JAIL!!!  You have PRISM in US, we have SORM, pretty much the same shit, why should I be OK with those police dogs eavesdropping my Internetz?!  And they ban websites too, a lot of them.  THIS IS FUCKING IRAN OR WHAT?!  Of course I can use VPN and Tor, but they might ban it too...

DUDE, statism is ugly, ultimate evil, the most dirty thing in the world.  I hate them all so much that I don't hate anything else.  I LOVE THE WHOLE WORLD EXCEPT GOVERNMENTS, because ALL my HATE is just CONCENTRATED AT THEM.

Sorry for emotional post.

Bank of America won't let protesters close their accounts

For some reason the YouTube video is set to "private".

They were charged with "peaceful  closing of bank accounts"   Those arrestors aught to be arrested is what I think!

Since 2001, organizing a successful boycott is considered "Economic terrorism." Witness the Occupy Wallstreet protesters being arrested for trying to peacefully close their bank-accounts.

Bah!  You say democracy, i say Mob Rule.  Even the Greeks were smart enough to qualify just who these demos were -- no women, no slaves.  
Think of democracy as a euphemism for "we'll pretend to care about what you think if you pretend to believe us & don't sharpen your pitchforks."  
The powers that be are trying to be polite -- don't spoil it for everyone


"A glorious blaze of blazers' sounds pretty apocalyptic.

I vote, not that it matters in the end.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_WBo4sfmi4

Media and vote-count manipulation are the tools of a plutocratic system based on money and power. Democracy in the modern age is an illusion, and elections a puppet-show.

Voting sucks anyway. I'm just providing the lulz. Want some more?

Democracy via Facebook! Everybody gets to create proposals for law. Just like you can create events and fanpages. Then people get to "like" the proposals. If 50%+ people like the proposal, it gets implemented and everybody has to follow it. PURE direct dehmukracy, none of that representative shit they peddle today. I wonder how long it would take for people to get fed up with having to follow any stupid shit which gets enough likes?

The ways of peeing your pants laughing at duhmukrazy are countless indeed and I shall continue to provide them until the age of bureaucracy collapses upon itself in a glorious blaze of whatever.

Well, your parents may own the house itself, and possibly the rights to the minerals beneath the plot of land they own, but land "ownership" is just a colorful phrase.  The land is subject to all the local (think zoning laws) and federal (can't serve blow to underage hookers).  Finally, the gob'ment can take your land by eminent domain or some other term if you're not in US.  Justlikethat.

As far as psychopathic claims, there are plenty of those going around.

Quoted from recent correspondence:

With the electronic "voting" systems in the US, I am not sure if it is actually possible to cast a non-vote. I know the Australian e-voting system (with a paper trail!) allows an "informal ballot" (I believe voting is required by law).

Except my parents own their house, no one owns the entire land mass that is named America. Only some psychopaths claim they do, and not just it, but you as well.