User insights

[va_tazdad]

In simple terms, the NOTA vote is a record that both parties have access to that says neither candidate was deemed worth that person's vote, but they cared enough to send the message of displeasure, instead of not caring enough to vote.

It says there is another vote out there that both parties missed but might win over some day.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

To clarify - it matters not who you vote for. It matters that you showed up and spoke up.

You do realize not participating in a corrupt system is speaking up too right? Oh wait you don't find that "socially acceptable"?

Apparently you are too close to the issue to be able to distinguish the personal "you" from the collective "you". The comment stands, now with reinforcement.

You are a sly one. You could have used YOU if you wanted to distinguish it I don't think you did.

Then what are we left with? I have lived with anarchy, which is just a fancy way of saying the strongest get to push baround the weaker. Not my cup of tea. You don't like tje "vast evils and destruction of government" yet are still here enjoying the privileges that somehow manage to seep through. And worse, insist on those privileges. Sorry, but my cognitive dissonance does not stretch that far.

Utter nonsense. Both on the redifining of anarchy to fit your agenda. And the false meme of that the "privileges" we enjoy come from the state. We insist on rights which are innate not privileges granted from masters.

ETA - it just struck me that you are going to claim that this is in fact the situation we find ourselves in. I guess I need to expand the thought to include that the difference also lies in how one goes about changing the relative powers. (As things stand right now (and have been for a long time) merely picking either of the major parties is just changing which side of your backside gets kicked before the other side. With anarchy there is no organized way to change that, and under the current "system" it is going to take a significant event for enough people to rise up and say "Enough!"

So you recognize voting now isn't changing anything but we have to vote or we can't complain and it is the way to change?
Rising up isn't only done by voting.

Based on your comments, you have been saying "Enough" but have been doing nothing else.

The what have you done for me lately fallacy. Saying enough is the start, this has been explained to you many times. There is no other way really to get enough people to stand up and say enough unless we b!tch about it.

It's commonly and frequently said that somewhere between 97% and 99% of people vote for the candidate that represents the party that they and their family have historically voted for. Which goes a long way to explaining why blacks and hispanics and American Indians tend to vote for the Democrats in spite of the history of what that party did and still does stand for. So much easier to show up at the polls and say "Thank you, Massa, for the free cheese" than it is to say "I'd really rather work to be able to buy my own cheese" (even if that's pretty much just a dream of a small, fringe minority of the Republicans since Lincolon's second term).

Was the point of this being able to say "Massa" and make a slight at ethnic groups for doing what you want them to do .....vote?


[strike]stay safe[/strike]

 

[sudden valley gunner]

In simple terms, the NOTA vote is a record that both parties have access to that says neither candidate was deemed worth that person's vote, but they cared enough to send the message of displeasure, instead of not caring enough to vote.

It says there is another vote out there that both parties missed but might win over some day.

You think they care as long as they win.

There is an initiative here in Washington that is being pushed forth called make every vote count. So that our state doesn't become a winner take all in presidential elections. We end up a "blue" state because of our large cities. The reds are not in favor of this initiative even though it would benefit them more than 3rd parties. They don't like 3rd parties so much they are willing to cut their noses off to spite their face.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

In simple terms, the NOTA vote is a record that both parties have access to that says neither candidate was deemed worth that person's vote, but they cared enough to send the message of displeasure, instead of not caring enough to vote.

It says there is another vote out there that both parties missed but might win over some day.

Ah thanks for explaining.
Although I have to say as far as post-election issues in the news, usually voter turnout numbers are discussed as being significant for one reason or another. I've never heard anything about the significance of NOTA.
But you could be right. The candidates themselves may take NOTA numbers very seriously.

 

[OC for ME]

How would your neighbor know that you voted, or not? That little "I voted" sticker? So, if you don't vote, you don't get a vote? Folks whining about folks who whine.

Vote or not, no biggie, I'll still listen to your whine until your whine becomes tedious...like the whiners who whine about those who whine.

 

[wrearick]

.... I would like to require an anti-stupid test, but realize tat with the apparent majority of voters falling into what I would consider as stupid they would turn that around on me and I would be disenfranchised. ....
:-*

Skid,
More dangerous than that, vote for a losing candidate three times in a row and you will have "proven your incompetence/ignorance" and LOSE the right to vote. After strike two how many good citizens would back the establishment candidate? See, that way the numbers of votes for the mainstream (?) candidate will stay high and reflect the majority of the voters wishes.....

 

[skidmark]

It seems to come down to this: the establishment state is seen by most as too powerful to change, and therefore some will tke no action to change it. Others will point out the flaws of the establishment state, and no more, and consider that their contribution to the metaissue. Others will support the third-party candidate even though they know they stand not a chance of winning but claim that the stand they made is vital. Others will attempt to make changes from within the establishment state. Others will expend their capital and energy focused on specific issues without caring which side of the same coin that is the establishment state supports their position. Others will go along with whatever delivers their free cheese while charging the least effort.

As far as I can see, few if any are trying to bring those with different thoughts on how/why the state should operate over to their chosen side.

 

[The Wolfhound]

Choosing to vote is to participate. Whether you participate on not, Government WILL be inflicted upon you. I for one, prefer to be part of the system instead of just being a victim of it. My impression that I have some effect upon the outcome of an election and thus, the direction said government will go with its infringements, may be illusionary, but to not participate is without question an acceptance of the outcome without taking any action to shape it.

 

[Citizen]

Choosing to vote is to participate. Whether you participate on not, Government WILL be inflicted upon you. I for one, prefer to be part of the system instead of just being a victim of it. My impression that I have some effect upon the outcome of an election and thus, the direction said government will go with its infringements, may be illusionary, but to not participate is without question an acceptance of the outcome without taking any action to shape it.

That is understandable.

For myself, while I talked above about being unwilling to visit upon fellow human beings the harm and destruction of government, at the bottom of it is the recognition that I have no power to rule another equal without his express individual consent. Just because some long-dead guys said I had the power doesn't make it true. When I meet my maker, I cannot shift responsibility to them "Because, Lord, those dead guys, and the current government told me I could." Or, just because my Social Studies teacher told me I could or "that is how the system works", doesn't make it true. Not even when that teacher said the system has faults but its the best we've got. Those dead guys, the current government, and that Social Studies teacher--none of them or anybody else--has the authority to transfer to me such power over another equal.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Choosing to vote is to participate. Whether you participate on not, Government WILL be inflicted upon you. I for one, prefer to be part of the system instead of just being a victim of it. My impression that I have some effect upon the outcome of an election and thus, the direction said government will go with its infringements, may be illusionary, but to not participate is without question an acceptance of the outcome without taking any action to shape it.

I think the same can be said for just "voting too.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

That is understandable.

For myself, while I talked above about being unwilling to visit upon fellow human beings the harm and destruction of government, at the bottom of it is the recognition that I have no power to rule another equal without his express individual consent. Just because some long-dead guys said I had the power doesn't make it true. When I meet my maker, I cannot shift responsibility to them "Because, Lord, those dead guys, and the current government told me I could." Or, just because my Social Studies teacher told me I could or "that is how the system works", doesn't make it true. Not even when that teacher said the system has faults but its the best we've got. Those dead guys, the current government, and that Social Studies teacher--none of them or anybody else--has the authority to transfer to me such power over another equal.

I like this principle.
However if there is a candidate that I believe will use his elected position to appose the system of coercive control I will vote for him. It's not entirely counter intuitive to vote someone into a system you don't like if the person will damage that system.

 

[skidmark]

I like this principle.
However if there is a candidate that I believe will use his elected position to appose the system of coercive control I will vote for him. It's not entirely counter intuitive to vote someone into a system you don't like if the person will damage that system.

"It's not my fault because I didn't do anything" vs "Even though what I can do is but little, I did what I could".

https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html

stay safe.

 

[Citizen]

"It's not my fault because I didn't do anything" vs "Even though what I can do is but little, I did what I could".

https://web.cs.dal.ca/~johnston/poetry/island.html

stay safe.

Your comments are getting better. Still off-base, but better.

Earlier, you used a version of responsibility as blame--conceiving responsibility as a device to blame or hold accountable. Meaning, your earlier concept that if a person doesn't vote he has no right to complain, is an enforced responsibility/acountability. Inverting responsibility/accountability, your concept had the central premise that failure to act was blameworthy/accountable and denied therefore his human right to complain. (Oh, I know you later switched your argument to whether he had standing to complain, but that is beside the point here.)

In the post quoted above, you reach higher. Now, you're giving an example of someone actively taking responsibility, doing what he could. This definitely a notch or two above using responsibility to blame someone. (We'll just ignore that you are once again changing your argument; its beside the point.) He's doing what he can. Definitely a step up as far as responsibility goes.

Where you fall short, Skidmark, is omitting the harm and destruction caused by government, and recognizing an individual can refuse to cause or contribute to afflicting others with such.

Its not hard to consider that politicians lie, pander, steal, etc. A fella can recognize the likelihood that the oh-so promising candidate will do the same, regardless of his "promises" on some positions with which that fella might agree.

Maybe in 1800 when Thos. Jefferson* was candidate could one claim ignorance, but not today. At least not me. The alternative is to deny experience and observations about government and politicians. That is basically an unstated premise of your argument--that I must ignore experience about lying, pandering, destructive politicians. Otherwise, I did not do what I could.

I will not cause nor contribute to the expropriation, over-regulation, legal risk, and economic destruction of my fellow human beings by voting. I have no power to coerce another equal without his express individual consent.



*Even the especially constitutional and rights-oriented Jefferson made the unconstitutional Louisiana Purchase. Also, he damn near caused a rebellion with his unconstitutional embargo on the goods of certain European countries--people whose lives depended on those imports suffered quite a bit of economic destruction. My point being that even a candidate as promising as Jefferson is capable of unconstitutional or destructive, harmful policies.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I like this principle.
However if there is a candidate that I believe will use his elected position to appose the system of coercive control I will vote for him. It's not entirely counter intuitive to vote someone into a system you don't like if the person will damage that system.

I agree but am very very picky. If the slaves can choose a master who will only beat them once a day instead of 10 scenario.

The only problem is noone I ever voted for ever won, I think because they would have actually reduced the violence.

Instead we have a long history of one president after another systematically increasing the violence. Reagan increased it way more than Carter, Bush more than Reagan, Clinton more than Bush, Bush more than Clinton, Obama more than Bush, Romney or McCain would have increased it the same or more than Obama.

I have a problem with the religious like reverence people have for voting. OMG! you didn't partake in the sacrament this year! What a heretic!

 

[Old Virginia Joe]

I used to feel the same way.

Then I realized I don't have to object or take counter-action to deserve to be left alone or to not deserve being treated the nasty, threatening, expropriating, over-regulating way government treats others and I.

If a fella feels apathetic about being able to influence meaningful change, I don't fault him. He's up against an entrenched group of highly intelligent shifty people who will use every trick in the book to maintain themselves in power and/or their grip on his economic throat.

Do you mean like me being told threateningly by my county public servants that if don't cease camping occasionally during the deer hunting season on my farm property on an unpaved state road in rural Virginia that I will be prosecuted through the courts? THAT kind of over-regulating, nasty treatment? The treatment that was confirmed by the county Board of Supervisors, the Circuit Court, and even the Virginia General Assembly? Then, yeah, I agree, but I'm not apathetic, just getting more and more wound up.

 

[skidmark]

I will not cause nor contribute to the expropriation, over-regulation, legal risk, and economic destruction of my fellow human beings by voting. I have no power to coerce another equal without his express individual consent.
.

https://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

Combined that with "I would not for anything shoot thee, friend, but thou art standing where my shotgun is pointing."

You keep coming back to your desire not to cause nor contribute to the expropriation, over-regulation, legal risk, and economic destruction. But you never discuss how you might stop the expropriation, over-regulation, legal risk, and economic destruction.

I guess you are standing there patiently waiting for devine intervention.

[aliquid hic]

 

[Citizen]

https://munchkinwrangler.wordpress.com/2007/03/23/why-the-gun-is-civilization/

Combined that with "I would not for anything shoot thee, friend, but thou art standing where my shotgun is pointing."

You keep coming back to your desire not to cause nor contribute to the expropriation, over-regulation, legal risk, and economic destruction. But you never discuss how you might stop the expropriation, over-regulation, legal risk, and economic destruction.

I guess you are standing there patiently waiting for devine intervention.

[aliquid hic]

False premise: that by voting, a person can find a wonderful candidate who will not only do no harm, but will stop the harm.

Now, I already explained just a couple posts up that life has taught me that government will inflict harm, no matter who wins the election. And, that I don't even want to grant it the tiny fragment of legitimacy my vote would confer.

So, you just keep on trying to blame me for not wanting to contribute to harming others. At the bottom of your argument is that if don't contribute to harming others, I am somehow blameworthy.

 

[Grapeshot]

False premise: that by voting, a person can find a wonderful candidate who will not only do no harm, but will stop the harm.

Now, I already explained just a couple posts up that life has taught me that government will inflict harm, no matter who wins the election. And, that I don't even want to grant it the tiny fragment of legitimacy my vote would confer.

So, you just keep on trying to blame me for not wanting to contribute to harming others. At the bottom of your argument is that if don't contribute to harming others, I am somehow blameworthy.

Again I see attributing to another, other than what they said. No one say anything remotely like "find a (forget wonderful) candidate who will not only do no harm, but stop the harm."

Would seem that even if you (personally) or Mother Teresa were to get elected, harm would be inflicted.

That you go to such gross extremes is what makes you potentially blameworthy.

IMO - what Skidmark has said is that if you do not vote for the best candidate (in your opinion), then you have given up/forfeited the most effective tool at your disposal.

 

[Citizen]

Again I see attributing to another, other than what they said. No one say anything remotely like "find a (forget wonderful) candidate who will not only do no harm, but stop the harm."

Identifying a false premise underlying another's comments is not even close to claiming he said such-and-such.


By the way, Skidmark also ignored my express statement that I have no power to coerce another equal without his express individual consent. Implied in Skidmark's comments is the false premise that I have the legitimate power to coerce other equals without their consent, and can delegate that power to another by voting.

 

[Grapeshot]

Identifying a false premise underlying another's comments is not even close to claiming he said such-and-such.


By the way, Skidmark also ignored my express statement that I have no power to coerce another equal without his express individual consent. Implied in Skidmark's comments is the false premise that I have the legitimate power to coerce other equals without their consent, and can delegate that power to another by voting.

I'll bet that you think you really made a good argument there - devoid of anything tangible though it may be.

You use underlying and implied thoughts as if they are factual statements of his contentions. It would seem you are more applying you own spin to the prose.