Boy, it takes the comment form a bit long to load...
I just wanted to mention that the idea of "don't blame me, I didn't vote" or the "don't blame me, I voted for the losing party" is a logical fallacy. More so when you are advocating unproven government systems such as Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism, when so many find so many faults in it from the get-go.
I find your new sticker kind of childlish...
Rogel
· 1 year ago
But Ira, since I'm advocating such a radical, and "misguided", less government system an additional small fallacy should be forgiven :) And now seriously - a decision to not participate, as an act of protest or as an act of desperation, is actually pretty strong act. If big enough number of people will decide that they care enough to not participate - unlike those who simply don't care - they can drive a major change. Moreover, since I advocate for less government and to have social system that doesn't built on coercion the call for less participation in the political game is only logical.
Ira
· 1 year ago
That WOULD be true if "blank votes" were counted in and none of the candidates won enough votes even if there were only two running. in the rare event where you had, e.g. 30% per party and 40% blanks, but will that ever happen? I seriously doubt it.
also, I'm not criticizing your non-vote choice, just the "don't blame me" part. as the cliche goes' if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem, this is one of the cases where it's true. Even in our dear little country, where the parliament is infested with tiny 2-3 member parties and you have a hard time building a coalition, I have nobody to really vote for, still I'll vote for a party that does the most for my cause even if I don't agree with their views, just so the parliament is a little more balanced in the right direction (e.g. if I felt Meretz are not doing enough, though closest to my philosophy, I may vote HADASH to pull the parliament to the left if I felt their actions speak louder in the right direction, etc)
which in your case means, Palin, with her misogynistic, pro-god, conservative views, is still a gun-toting small-gov freak, you should be voting for her, no? :)
Rogel
· 1 year ago
But Ira the cliche you are using is at least as wrong as mine - after all telling me that the solution is, and must be, in the status-quo is what I reject. In fact non participation is very real danger to political systems - it has the obvious bad side when under classes simply don't participate and perpetuate their status, but it also a good side when groups identify solutions in places different then the political system. I can't help but smiling thinking that the small, somewhat funny, sticker offended you. Their was one candidate that worn, for many years now, that the current economical system - the central bank, the fiat money and the inflationary policies are very dangerous. He was dismissed and ignored and now when the system collapsing, and when some have the audacity to say that we are all in fault I think that the little sticker is very much appropriate.
Ira
· 1 year ago
umm... offended me? not really...
It just made me think for a second, and it made no sense, so I felt like I should say something, because you always struck me as a reasonable guy (who reaches odd conclusions about things, of course :-)
as for "finding the solution outside the status quo" or "outside the political system", does that mean organizing demonstrations or organizing a military coup? I am not good with euphemisms.
Rogel
· 1 year ago
Military Coup? I'm a libertarian I advocate for non-aggression and none coercion! What I'm suggesting is that people will understand that solutions and social development can be, and better off, done outside of the political system. The idea behind involving the government is that we employing its coercion abilities - we legislating and enforcing as a method to promote values. But if people will accept the non-coercion paradigm and that spontaneous order emerge - to the benefit of us all - when people are free than the need for coercion decrease.
All Comments
I just wanted to mention that the idea of "don't blame me, I didn't vote" or the "don't blame me, I voted for the losing party" is a logical fallacy. More so when you are advocating unproven government systems such as Libertarianism or Anarcho-Capitalism, when so many find so many faults in it from the get-go.
I find your new sticker kind of childlish...
And now seriously - a decision to not participate, as an act of protest or as an act of desperation, is actually pretty strong act. If big enough number of people will decide that they care enough to not participate - unlike those who simply don't care - they can drive a major change. Moreover, since I advocate for less government and to have social system that doesn't built on coercion the call for less participation in the political game is only logical.
also, I'm not criticizing your non-vote choice, just the "don't blame me" part. as the cliche goes' if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem, this is one of the cases where it's true. Even in our dear little country, where the parliament is infested with tiny 2-3 member parties and you have a hard time building a coalition, I have nobody to really vote for, still I'll vote for a party that does the most for my cause even if I don't agree with their views, just so the parliament is a little more balanced in the right direction (e.g. if I felt Meretz are not doing enough, though closest to my philosophy, I may vote HADASH to pull the parliament to the left if I felt their actions speak louder in the right direction, etc)
which in your case means, Palin, with her misogynistic, pro-god, conservative views, is still a gun-toting small-gov freak, you should be voting for her, no? :)
But Ira the cliche you are using is at least as wrong as mine - after all telling me that the solution is, and must be, in the status-quo is what I reject.
In fact non participation is very real danger to political systems - it has the obvious bad side when under classes simply don't participate and perpetuate their status, but it also a good side when groups identify solutions in places different then the political system.
I can't help but smiling thinking that the small, somewhat funny, sticker offended you. Their was one candidate that worn, for many years now, that the current economical system - the central bank, the fiat money and the inflationary policies are very dangerous. He was dismissed and ignored and now when the system collapsing, and when some have the audacity to say that we are all in fault I think that the little sticker is very much appropriate.
It just made me think for a second, and it made no sense, so I felt like I should say something, because you always struck me as a reasonable guy (who reaches odd conclusions about things, of course :-)
as for "finding the solution outside the status quo" or "outside the political system", does that mean organizing demonstrations or organizing a military coup? I am not good with euphemisms.
What I'm suggesting is that people will understand that solutions and social development can be, and better off, done outside of the political system. The idea behind involving the government is that we employing its coercion abilities - we legislating and enforcing as a method to promote values. But if people will accept the non-coercion paradigm and that spontaneous order emerge - to the benefit of us all - when people are free than the need for coercion decrease.