On Tuesday, go out and Don't Vote. NOT!

No, I don't believe I will shut up.

The lack of a candidate I would want to vote for doesn't preclude my right to criticize.

Zachary: You seem so like so many who have this attitude. Have you looked at your local sample ballot? No,you have not. Have you considered that there are many different races about which you know nothing? Of course not. Have you looked at the various ballot questions and other issues that will change the world you live in, like it or not, that you have an opportunity? No. Why? Because you are an arrogant sob.

Like the man says, shut up.

Zachary, the fact that you can't even find a candidate you find preferable to the others suggests that you're waiting for utopia or otherwise delusional. You can talk all you want, but don't be surprised if no one thinks you have anything to add to the conversation.

sorry. sob = ... well, I forgot. snob? slob? Oh, no, I remember now! sob = S.O.B.

sorry.

I agree with Zachary. There is NO rational or constitutional argument for this oft repeated truism.

And lack of suitable candidates is a damned good reason.

Jayh, this is a social thing, not a constitutional thing. I for one do not want to engage in the conversation with those who do not participate in this basic way, and you can't make me. It is utterly rational for me to make this choice. My intent is social isolation of the misanthrope undeserving of my time or respect.

And Jay, you provide the same clue as Zach that you have not thought this through. There is almost always one or more issues ... not candidates ... that are important, and a blanket statement that no such issues deserve your attention is as idiotic and ignorant as the blanket statement that no electoral race deserves your interest or attention.

You are nothing other than being lazy. There is no other rational explanation for your behavior.

Vote or shut up.

jayh, one can only afford to wait for a "suitable" candidate if there is literally no difference between the choices. When there are differences (and there are always differences), the choice matters. Either you make a choice, you run yourself, or you own up to the fact that you've abdicated your responsibility. There's no fourth choice that doesn't make you a no-account whiner.

Elizabeth-

Another misanthrope you may want to socially isolate yourself from.

I have familiarized myself with my local ballot... about the only thing I might consider voting for is a measure to allow beer sales in my city, but then again, the liquor store in the next town is only five minutes away.

Laziness has nothing to do with my reticence to vote, and I can only assume that your ignorant ad hominem is a mark of your own irrationality on this issue. As it happens, even if there was a candidate with which I fully agreed, I consider voting itself to be a morally questionable process. The majority opinion is not necessarily the right opinion (cf. slavery, homosexuality, atheism), and I cannot in good conscience willingly participate in a system that perpetuates such gross immorality.

Zachary, let me be perfectly clear about this. I despise you and your whiny, apathetic, pretentious, grossly entitled ilk. You are the sort of vaporish, dithering, useless creature for whom fainting couches were conceived. Your opinion on governance carries all the weight of the feathers you keep in the place of your brain.

Capice?

Stephanie-

If I am to take your well-reasoned, temperate response as an example of the caliber of people who adhere to the "vote or die" sentiment, is it any wonder why I consider following your example to be ethically abhorrent?

Do I care?

As a middle aged boring baby-boomer, married over 30 years, with 3 grown children, this brought tears to may eyes.
The first time I voted was for Jimmy Carter. I took my 20 year-old son down to City Hall last Firday to get him registered and then to vote (early). I don't know who he voted for and I don't care. I also don't care if you have to pick the 'least worst' guy to vote for, and I don't care if you vote for some impossible 3rd party candidate, just vote. I had relatives who died in WWII and Korea, and friends who died in Viet Nam, Iraq and Iran. Whatever I (or you)think of these wars is beside the point: If you want to have any say in whether you or your friends have to put your lives on the line, the first and best way to get a seat at the table is to VOTE!

Stephanie-

Apparently you do.

Tom-

If petty appeals to emotion are "beside the point," why bring them up? I do not agree that combining apathy and democracy is any sort of virtue. I would no sooner submit to the will of the majority opinion for my own life than I would presume to dictate the lives of anyone espousing a minority view. It is a tainted seat one gets when one participates in an immoral system; I simply choose to avoid that ethical compromise.

Zachary -

I cannot understand how you refuse to vote due to a lack of an appealing candidate. You claim it is ethically problematic to vote in this country, why do you care about ethics (matters of what is to do right or wrong) at all if you're going to supress your own autonomy and be silenced when you have the opportunity to influence the direction of the country.

What system of election do you prefer? The most objective voter of all ought to decide?

Elections, I believe, are no place for intention based ethical frameworks, and I think a more pragmatic framework is consequentialism. One of the two is going to win, so if you're going to effectively use your autonomy in this context you need to pick the lesser of two evils.

Kant said it buddy, to live is to be autonomous, and what are you doing alive if your not making decisions that influence action?

Zachary, why do you call Elizabeth's comment ad hominem?

Greg-

In her third post, Elizabeth said that "You are nothing other than being[sic] lazy."

This is an attack on my character rather than on my position; there is no way that she could even know if it were true.

Evan-

Choosing not to vote does not stifle my autonomy; it is an expression of it. There are many more ethical ways to influence one's fellow humans than to force them to follow the tyranny of the majority. Rational discourse (such as we are engaging in here) is but one.

I don't prefer any system where one person can overrule the values of another. Forcing myself to choose the lesser of two evils is like forcing myself to choose between swallowing bleach or ammonia. It is more reasonable to me to spend my time fulfilling my values ethically than to take voluntarily take part in a system I've concluded is hopelessly corrupt.

Wow, since when did we so deify Democracy as to think that anyone who disagrees with it as a system should be shouted down? For a moment I'll look past the irony of folks on a website that spends much of it's time discussing atheism and freethought attacking someone with all the vehemence of a Sunday morning "fire and brimstone" pastor. That not withstanding, there are plenty of reasons to choose not to vote that have nothing to do with being lazy.

I will not be voting today. It is a choice, not laziness. It is me taking an ethical stance against a system I find immoral, probably for many of the same reasons as Zach. I'm not uninformed, I'm not uneducated (my undergraduate degree actually happens to be in Political Science and Philosophy), and I don't consider myself a misanthrope at all.

Democracy is a system of "Have's" and "Have Nots". It is not a system where justice as a principle is triumphed, but a system where justice, ethics, morality, laws, etc are based on majority opinion. If you truly are someone who values freedom and personal autonomy, someone who values an individuals right to choose their own path in life, then I find it amazing you can support a system which suppresses the individual to the tyranny of the majority.

I'm quite proud to be a non-voter today. I'm proud to say, in the face of the overwhelming rabid dogma being spit out by campaigns such as "vote or die", that I would rather not take part in a system that somehow thinks holding a vote every few years gives it a mandate to some moral high ground.

Republicans, Democrats, whatever, it doesn't really matter -- I believe the entire system is flawed and broken, so I choose to boycott it entirely.. because taking part in it only adds to it's own sense of legitimacy.

I now hand the mic over to those worshiping at the church of Government and Democracy... Amen, and praise be to Lincoln.

@Stephanie: "or you own up to the fact that you've abdicated your responsibility". Can you truly say with a straight face that electing someone else to make decisions for you is NOT abdicating your responsibility? The whole democratic system, particularly the representative form of it here in the United States, is BASED ON abdication of responsibility. By subsuming yourself to someone else for the purpose of decision making, you are essentially saying "I'm not capable of making my own decisions about my own life, so I'll leave it up to someone else as a proxy, and also will leave it up to the majority opinion of those around me".

To me, Democracy is the penultimate expression of laziness -- you are saying, unequivocally, I'm not capable of running my own life so I will let someone else do it for me.

Even worse, you are saying to your neighbor "I don't think YOU are capable of running your own life, so I'll elect someone to run yours too."

For a moment I'll look past the irony of folks on a website that spends much of it's time discussing atheism and freethought attacking someone with all the vehemence of a Sunday morning "fire and brimstone" pastor

Just to be clear, you are characterizing some of my commenters as full of shit because they disagree with you while at the same time you chastise them for chastizing you for disagreeing with them. So that does not help.

I want to clarify my own position on this: I don't care if someone does not vote. Personally, I take action to make sure that more people who agree with me vote than would oterwise not have done so. This means that in every race or for every issue on a ballot, I get several votes, not just my own. I ingore the people who don't agree with me, and hope that many of them don't vote.

It is called pragmatic politics. You've never seen a post on this site calling for everyone to vote unless it was had a thinly disguised liberal agenda (such as the video above).

I don't want conservatives, fundies, right wingers, etc. to vote.

I'm thinking that the people that i've met who have the attitude about not voting we are seeing expressed in this comment thread are generally people who would do it wrong and vote for the wrong candidate and the wrong issues. So I'm glad you guys are not voting. This, essentially, give me your vote.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

As for my comment in the OP about not complaining, that is just a personal thing with me. I've had too many conversations with people who claimed they never vote, claim the system can't be fixed, etc., who also go on and on with a pretty predictable set of other statements. Personally, I don't want to hear the belly-aching about the US government or what it does or does not do from people who do not participate in the system (which involved voting). I don't even like to hear the bellyaching from people who do vote but do nothing else, like read, learn, agitate now and then or write a letter now and then.

But clearly, it is better to not vote at all than to vote in opposition to how I think you should vote. I'm not all touchy feely about this. If you don't agree with me, please stay home. Me and my friends will take care of this voting thing.

Zach: You are right: Elizabeth (I assume? maybe I'm wrong?) does not know these things she said about you to be true. But they are not really invalid statements if they are true. IN other words, you have a personal philosophy about your personal behavior. You can't sidestep critique by playing the ad hominem card. You are the hominem who is not voting.

rhyddid, the reason your opinion on governance has all the weight of feathers is that you do nothing about it. Opining in isolation is all well and good in a philosophy class. It doesn't do much in the real world. Life is not a hypothetical exercise.

As for abdicating responsibility, who says I stop at voting? And I've spent enough time arguing with forthright libertarians that I won't get into discussions of efficiency and social contracts here. I will, however, point out that one can either argue against the tyranny of the majority or one can argue for direct democracy or anarchy, as you seem to be doing. You don't get both.

I'll also point out that penultimate does not mean what you think it means.

I think maybe he has 'penultimate' right. First, you engage in democracy, then you fall asleep.

Democracy is like sex.

Greg-

I believe that the irony rhyddid is referring to is the perplexing tendency of the pro-vote commenters in this thread to call me an "arrogant sob," "misanthrope," "lazy," "apathetic," "pretentious," "grossly entitled," et al.

These are all assumptions about my character and psychology, and have no place among people who value rational discourse. Whether I am such an awful person or not, to attack my conclusions through such accusations is a clear ad hominem fallacy, and even presuming that my personal philosophy is relevant as you are doing is a clear genetic fallacy.

For the record, if I were to vote, I would likely choose my conscience over my wallet, and vote for Obama. Therefore, I do not think that my abstention benefits his chances, since I would not vote for McCain otherwise. However, of the two he is the one that I would prefer to see in that position, even if I can't stomach the method of his ascent to power.

Let's try a thought experiment for the non-voters.

Your mother asks you if she should make Key-Lime of French Silk pie for you for your birthday. You know you like Key-lime slightly better than French silk, yet since your favorite is actually Cherry, and cherries are out of season, you say absolutely nothing to her over the telephone until she hangs up in frustration. Later that night, she brings over one of the dreaded pies and forces you to eat the whole damn thing.

You excersized your autonomy in saying nothing, but it has made no difference consequentially, you have wasted an oppurtunity to turn your thought into meaningful action.

I can't see why you think it's appropriate to sour to yourself if you don't like democracy, you ought to be devoting your life to organizing a more ethical system or just being pragmatic and voting.

@Greg: I'm not at all saying the folks commenting are "full of shit", sorry if it came off that way... rather I'm asking them to see that there are other viewpoints, that democracy shouldn't necessarily be treated like religion (calling someone a misanthrope for disagreeing with you, for example), and that in general, calling someone "lazy" for not doing things your way is not truly putting forth an argument. To take the religion example a little further: calling a Christian a moron doesn't really help your argument as to where Science and atheism are coming from... putting forth rational arguments does.

As for you not wanting to "hear the bellyaching", then perhaps you shouldn't be posting anything political at all, or at least ought to disable comments. What's the point in having a comment system if you are only going to complain when someone is critical of a post you make?

@Stephanie: regardless of what you do 'after the vote', you've still fundamentally given up a portion of your freedom by allowing someone else to make decisions that directly impact your life. We can argue to what degree all you want, but it is still an abdication of responsibility. As for saying that I can't argue against the tyranny of the majority and still be an anarchist (which I am), you seem to misunderstand what anarchism means, where it's coming from, or indeed where I'm coming from. This is probably not the forum for lessons in anarchist thought, but I'd suggest doing some reading on individualist anarchism.

And to both Greg and Stephanie, you make the unsubstantiated suggestion that I simply 'don't vote', and that's it, I'm done, I throw out an opinion and then sit back and do nothing. This couldn't be further from the truth for me personally. I am involved in several direct action groups, I always seek to educate others about where I'm coming from and the dangers of government, I work with community groups that actually do something, sidestepping waiting on the government to pay for things (Food Not Bombs, as an example). I believe strongly in direct action and education wherever possible; indeed these are cornerstones of my political and social point of view.

As for my misuse of the word penultimate, I stand corrected in it's usage. And although you meant your last comment as tongue-in-cheek Greg, I personally think that's closer to the truth than you might like to admit ;)... most people do participate and then fall asleep for the next 4 years.

rhyddid: Nope, I totally admit that. Most people don't do what they should do. Except complain, of course. That part they have down!

@Evan: If your mom told you that you had a choice for pie, but that once you made that decision, you and everyone else in your town would only be able to eat that pie for the next four years, no matter what, would you be so flip?

Again, you also are suggesting that by not voting, folks like Zach and I are simply resting on our heels doing nothing. Both he and I have stated that we have a preference for other modes and methods then voting to get our point across and enact change, such as open dialogue, education, direct action, etc. To add to that, don't you think that questioning the existing power structure that everyone takes for granted isn't in and of itself a form of "doing something". You imply that not voting is simply a lack of action -- but boycotting something based on principle is at the heart of thing like the civil rights movement, gay rights, union and workers rights, etc. Just because we don't choose to involve ourselves in the prevailing political system doesn't mean that we are suddenly just 'standing by doing nothing' as so many seem to be suggesting.

Evan-

My mother asking me my personal taste does not parallel the democratic process. A more accurate analogy would be if she took a vote among the family to determine what single kind of pie she would make for the next four years.

Moreover, what kind of person forces someone against their will to eat a pie? What a horrible, unethical scenario.

You seem to be arguing that, since my mother is going to force-feed me a pie I don't like, I might as well choose the least objectionable pastry. I would respond by saying that only an immoral person would force anyone else to eat a pie they don't choose; I would much rather associate with those who are willing to help me find my own cherries so that I can make a pie for myself.

rhyddid: What is your model for selecting people to head up and/or run the government?

Greg -- as an anarchist I don't have a model for selecting government because I don't think that government has any legitimacy. Government, regardless of the form it exists in, implies coercion, and I find coercion to be unethical.

I could go on, but again, I'm not sure that this is the proper forum for discourses on anarchist thought. If you are sincerely interested in some information on anarchism, please feel free to email me and I'll send you some resources/links to look at.

rhyddid: There isn't much of the classic anarchist literature I have not read. I don't know of anything new of any great interest.

@Greg - Not sure how far forward you've read (classical seems to imply Tolstoy, Bakunin, etc to me), but the closest thing to describing my viewpoint would be Agorist out of the spread of anarchist schools, just for clarity.

rhyddid, anarchy is a lovely idea. There are very few ideas that appeal to me more on an emotional level. Just ask the folks around here who know me.

Anarchy can even work quite well on the small scale. Beyond that, it runs into the same problem all ideals do. Anarchy is not everyone's ideal. It isn't even close, even among the people who understand it, which means there are lots of people working against it, plenty of them working for some kind of tyranny or another.

If I choose not to vote, whatever my reason, my choice still has the practical consequence of allowing the voice of tyranny to override my voice. If I try to persuade others not to vote, to whom do you think my arguments will appeal? The tyrannical? Whose voice will I lessen if I'm successful?

Yes, the system is messy and imperfect, but I'm willing to soil my fingers. I'm willing to give up a small amount of my freedom to multiply my voice. Partly it's because I can help the most people who need it the most (and need it now) by acting this way. Partly it's because the alternative is not anarchy. It's tyranny.

"Yes, the system is messy and imperfect, but I'm willing to soil my fingers. I'm willing to give up a small amount of my freedom to multiply my voice. Partly it's because I can help the most people who need it the most (and need it now) by acting this way. Partly it's because the alternative is not anarchy. It's tyranny."

What would you define as tyranny? That's the key question to ask here. At it's base level, is tyranny not the forced compliance with moral, social, and political viewpoints? It seems to me that Democracy, Communism, Authoritarianism, Marxism, Maoism, or any other government related -ism you can point to all have one thing in common: they force certain groups (sometimes larger, sometimes smaller), at the point of a gun to comply with some 'higher ideal'. With Democracy, it's the majority. With communism, it's the bourgeois vs the proletariat, with fascism it's the 'one state, one people, one vision' philosophy that so marked both the Italian fascists and the Nazi's. In every instance, government involves the forced compliance of people to one organization, ideal, culture, social construct, etc.

You say that the alternative to getting your hands dirty is tyranny. I'd argue that by participating in a governmental system, you are already involved in a tyranny anyway.

Governments throughout history have worked to convince people that without the government, the people are lost. They negate any idea of voluntary cooperation, whether by making it appear 'quaint' or 'ineffective' as Democracy does, or by making voluntary cooperation seem outright evil, as if the State were a necessary facet of all aspects of life, as Fascism does.

rhyddid, give me one piece of compelling evidence that government of some form is not an inherent part of the social makeup of humanity and I will be happy to argue "whether" instead of "which." Until then, "which" is important.

Stephanie -- you are the one arguing that government is a necessity, so to be honest I'd say that the burden of proof as to WHY it's a necessity falls on you. (Similar to the atheism argument, if a religious person is arguing that God has to exist, the burden of proof falls on them as to why).

However, I tend to think your question is irrelevant. First, just arguing "it's always been that way" doesn't really justify something as being valid. Second, I'd say that cooperation is an essential part of human society, I'd argue that socialization is an essential part of human society, but where are you making the leap then that governance is?

The biggest problem with your argument is this: government is made up of the same human beings that the governed are made up from. There is no difference between myself and Barack Obama when it comes to our 'humanness'. If that's so, what gives him the ability/right/authority, whatever term you want to couch it in, to make decisions for me, and not vice versa? If I haven't personally vested any authority in him, then the only authority he has over me is that which is taken, not given.

So really, what you would seem to be arguing, is not that 'government' is an essential part of the social makeup of humanity, but that some people in humanity will always try to take from others, to control others, etc. Fair enough, I'll easily concede that. However, that still doesn't necessitate a logical assumption that because some people WILL try to take things and take power over others, that they should be ALLOWED to, or that they are a NECESSARY part of humanity.

There will always be criminals who would take by force what they can't gain through accommodation - but just because they exist doesn't mean that we owe them some special status. And more importantly, just because one person or group may admire them and actively work to put them in power, doesn't mean that everyone should accept them.

Zach-"I would respond by saying that only an immoral person would force anyone else to eat a pie they don't choose; I would much rather associate with those who are willing to help me find my own cherries so that I can make a pie for myself."

The point here is that living in America, you can't just choose to not be ruled by the majority. The majority wins and rules. It IS immoral from your perspective. You are forced to "eat the pie", so don't beg the question criticizing it, make a difference already.

Rhyddid-"Both he and I have stated that we have a preference for other modes and methods then voting to get our point across and enact change, such as open dialogue, education, direct action, etc. To add to that, don't you think that questioning the existing power structure that everyone takes for granted isn't in and of itself a form of "doing something". You imply that not voting is simply a lack of action -- but boycotting something based on principle is at the heart of thing like the civil rights movement, gay rights, union and workers rights, etc."

I'm still not ready no admit that not voting is going to get you the change you yearn for. This country will never just scrap democracy for a different system unless it is somehow voted in (at least in disguise). I think if you want another form of government or anarchy, you're going to need to legitimize it and have other people in America support it, or your movement will be overruled. That will occur through either a vote or a coup. Movements like civil rights, gay rights, and unions all turned out (to varying degrees) because elected officials brought with them those ideas. Do you refuse to bring about your proposed system through a vote if in fact it has a chance of passing?

@Evan -- Do you truly, honestly, realistically believe that any government would every allow itself to be taken out of power? Anarchism will ONLY work if it's from outside the political system.

Why would it make any sense to participate in a system I find immoral? To paraphrase a short story by Stephen Molyneux 'should I join the KKK to try and stop lynching?'

To all: I've enjoyed the debate, minus the personal insults that started it, but I need to move on to actually getting some work done ;)

Thanks,

rhyddid

Evan-

I am making a difference. I am taking a public stand against an immoral process. Likewise, if the mafia took over my neighborhood, I wouldn't try to join it and put my favorite mafia boss in charge- I would resist it and convince others to do the same. To do otherwise would be an ethical compromise I'm not willing to make.

Actually, rhyddid, I'm arguing that there are those who will always cede self-rule for what they see as a bigger purpose. I'm arguing based on the fact that every anarchic experiment I know of that was made up of more than a few people has failed, not because it hasn't been tried. When I combine that with plenty of non-human hierarchical models, I see some evidence that government may be inherent. Thus, my request for counterevidence.

Nor do I think all leaders are people who would only take from others. Government happens, in part, because it is simply a more efficient means of accomplishing shared goals. We organize for the same reasons we specialize--it allows everyone to get more done. I seriously doubt that the organizations you affiliate yourself with to meet your goals have no leadership. What gives those leaders the authority they wield? Does each organization do without leadership if the membership can't agree unanimously?

"What gives those leaders the authority they wield?"

All right, couldn't stay away ;)

The people who consent authority do, but here's the difference -- I'm not held at gunpoint to be a contributing member of those organizations, I easily can opt not to participate in them if I don't like the direction that they are going. I'm not arguing for a lack of leadership, I'm arguing for a lack of government, a huge difference. Leadership has the capacity to be voluntary, government does not. If I refuse to contribute to the U.S., then I can be thrown in jail, my belongings and property taken, my livelihood ruined. If I don't like the direction that Food Not Bombs is taking, I have the option, quite easily, to start my own competing organization and go my merry way with no fear of reprisal. All governments take when they are not given to, and I honestly would defy you to show me a government that allows the people it governs to opt out.

Sure, some people will cede self-rule for a larger purpose, but is that an argument that it should be MANDATORY that people do so? I'm also not arguing against hierarchy, as long as it's freely entered and freely exited.

As for anarchist experiments failing, does that preclude them entirely? Again, I'd submit that no matter what, I'd rather be a part of an experiment that failed that I freely entered (and could freely exit), and in which I wasn't coercing others, then one where I was forced to enter against my will.

rhyddid, as I said before, I'm with you emotionally on the whole idea of anarchy. Where we differ is that I don't belileve large-scale anarchy is compatable with the social tendencies of humanity. Considering that, I believe the only ethical choice is to participate in government to force it to provide the greatest freedoms for the greatest number of people.

Because I believe poverty and ignorance constitute oppression and foster dependence, I tend to support a progressive liberal agenda. It is an agenda, but I think it's the most effective way to bring about real freedom.

As a complete aside, I do know someone who has spent most of the last five years paying no taxes because he didn't want to support the Iraq war. It's doable, but it takes a very strict dedication to personal poverty.

@Stephanie

I just find it hard to convince myself into believing that "real freedom" is somehow compatible with freedom for some but not others. I find it hard to convince myself that pushing down on some people is justifiable to help others. I find it hard to convince myself that it's OK to live by a maxim which guarantees oppression, and yet still espouse freedom. The "greatest good for the greatest number" was the excuse for slavery. It was one of the excuses for 10 million people dying in the Soviet Union. It was one of the excuses used in Nazi Germany. Dramatic examples? Sure, but no less valid. I too believe poverty and ignorance lead to oppression -- and I believe that if you look deep enough, much of the poverty and ignorance in this country are due to the government, it's blunders, and it's policy of "greater good".

At any rate, being forced to live in poverty to avoid contributing to the government is not freedom, but you are right, there are ways to sacrifice to the point of not having to pay taxes.

Of course anyone can say the "greatest good for the greatest number," but that doesn't mean that no one...oh, what the heck. You caught me. This is really all part of my nefarious plot to enslave the world.

Of course, you're disengaged. What are you going to do about it?

Unbelievable collection of Those Who Know Best.

In fact, if you vote, you are the one who can't complain. You are the one who fully endorses the system, you are the one who agrees the outcome is good/democratic, so you are the one who should shut up and live with it.

However, the fact is, no one truly believes that if one does not vote, one loses their right to complain. Unless they don't believe in the existence of the constitution, or concede that the government truly doesn't recognize the first amendment.

Silly puppy, we agree that an outcome is going to happen. We also agree that elections are not all there is to democracy. Why would we shut up when the work has just begun?

Now, it is true that you don't lose your right to complain. It's simply that no one is listening to you.

I don't get why an anarchist wouldn't vote. It is an act that can have a result. Even if voting for a ficticious character to represent a protest.

Modern anarchists do not oppose protest, even though this is often hypocritical. One would think this tool would be used.

Democracy is a sham. You have the choices the ruling class wants you to have. You have no real freedom to express yourself. Democracy is supposed to be the rule by the people, but it's merely a way for people to feel like they are doing something while the ruling class gains more legitimacy than it ever had in history.

Anyone who believes Obama cares about your values, or that McCain cared about your values, or that any politician wants to help you, is a hopeless fool.

Anarchy is the only rational political ideology in a sea of irrationality, conformity and fear of authority. Science sure isn't the answer. Science gave us the nuclear bomb. "Value-neutral" my ass.

But how do you deal with basic goods and services?

Franc, Alleee:

I've long been a fan of your work on Insolitology and other places, but I've never thought terribly highly of your stance on government. Anarchy is like communism -- it's dependent on assumptions of human nature that simply don't follow in the real world -- in the case of anarchy, the assumptions that a) all people are fully rational actors b) not bound by a social contract c) whose rational actions and motives will never conflict to the point where turf wars and factionalism become an issue. If those three conditions are not met, anarchy and/or minarchy are not sensible or possible.

Someone needs to arbitrate these issues; they can't all be dealt with on an ad hoc basis. Someone needs to keep track of precedents and create solutions to conflicts. And someone needs to make sure everyone's on the same page and deal with situations where that doesn't happen. And in a sufficiently large society (that is, larger than ten thousand or so people), it's generally more efficient for the people performing those functions to be specialists. Society is simply too large and complex to have the kind of granularity that anarchists and libertarians want -- unless we were to revert to tribalism (a sure recipe for chaos) or feudalism (precisely the opposite of the kind of freedom you promote), a stateless society is pretty much impossible.

It is certainly true that our state is often a bloated train wreck; for example, expanding Medicaid to the size it would need to be to provide health care to everyone who needs it in this country without making major structural changes in billing and cost management would create a black hole of money that makes the Wall Street bailout look like a Large Hadron Collider experiment. But that doesn't mean that the state is, in and of itself, a bad thing; it's simply an argument that we need to keep tinkering and optimizing. (No, I probably won't convince you with this. But...)

Incidentally, the granularity that anarchists and libertarians want (single people or small family units) fails on one vital, strictly economic ground as well -- economies of scale. Even the simplest cooperative effort is still an ad hoc state in a (very) abstract sense -- it has to have rules, a goal, and some sort of coordinating influence. The argument in favor of statism is that these things are best formalized -- by precedent or statute -- to avoid duplication of effort and arbitrary decisions, as well as to strengthen the position of the cooperative should the need for bargaining with an outside agency arise. This tendency towards cooperative effort seems to be ingrained in humanity as social animals, and seven thousand years of human civilization have shown that this is how humans naturally do things. (As to whether it proves the state is necessary, well, that's only circumstantial, but the case is strong.)

So as for not voting making a statement... well, it's a bit like saying atheism is a religious belief. If you didn't like McCain or Obama, there were third-party candidates. If you didn't like them, you could always write someone else in -- even yourself. In that regard, what we normally think of as a wasted vote is still more of a statement than not voting at all.

I look at it this way -- being a low-information voter is bad enough, being an apathetic non-voter is worse. But to sit there and claim that your refusal to vote on principle is actually making a coherent statement that will be taken seriously by anyone outside your ideological circle -- that's just plain delusional.

Brian X,

Anarchy is like communism -- it's dependent on assumptions of human nature that simply don't follow in the real world -- in the case of anarchy, the assumptions that a) all people are fully rational actors b) not bound by a social contract c) whose rational actions and motives will never conflict to the point where turf wars and factionalism become an issue. If those three conditions are not met, anarchy and/or minarchy are not sensible or possible.

Those threee points you list are just as fatal -if not more so- to government than to anarchy (if not all 3 of them are met). Hence this is why governments are so vulnerable and prone to toppling.

What I find rather unusual is that so many people have this faith above all else in government, which is a monopoly social system -a one size fits all method of social order. Popular sentiment does not often equate with correctness or truth, and this includes a rule-by-majority-opinion democracy.

I look at it this way -- being a low-information voter is bad enough, being an apathetic non-voter is worse. But to sit there and claim that your refusal to vote on principle is actually making a coherent statement that will be taken seriously by anyone outside your ideological circle -- that's just plain delusional.

Ad hominem much?

Voting is like gambling in that when you cast your vote, you accept the outcome even if it is opposite of what you voted for. If you vote you logically have no right to complain about the outcome. If you vote, you are also saying that you think your choice should be forced onto the shoulders of others, and vice versa. "Hey, Chevy is more popular, so let's make Hondas illegal!"

But deliberately not voting is the only way to reserve your right to complain about the outcome. You didnt gamble, so you shouldnt lose your chips. Governments only ever tell people to do three things: pay taxes, join the military, and vote. Government DOESNT EVEN CARE which party you vote for, as long as you casst a vote in some fashion. That is because your vote -no matter which way you cast it- is a mandate for government to keep doing what its doing. It is a way for government to claim legitimacy. Your vote tells government that you are happy with what it is doing and the choices it offers you.

But what if you are NOT happy, as in Zach's case? What if you dont like any of the options offered? What if you dont like the way the government forces one solution onto the heads of very different people? Well, by NOT CONSENTING and NOT VOTING you are removing the governments claim to legitimacy. Low voter turnouts are somethign that politicians fear the most, for this reason. In some countries its ILLEGAL to not vote, and in still others the voted is invalidated if less than 50% of the voters cast a ballot. These facts speak to the fear politicians have of the nonvoter, and the vulnberability government has to low turnouts.

Now Brian K, how about I finish this comment with a little ad hominem in the same spirit as what you finished your own comment with:

Brian K, to sit there and claim that your vote is actually making a coherent statement that will be taken seriously by anyone outside your ideological circle -- that's just plain delusional!!!!!!!!!!oneoneone1112

Brian K,

I forgot one more correction... you said Anarchy is like communism, but that is not correct.

In truth, anarchy is like atheism. Anarchy is no belief in a supreme conscious designer/lawgiver in this reality, similar to atheism being the lack of belief in a supreme conscious designer/lawgiver in the next reality.

Aaron, aside from the atheism analogy, which is funny even though it makes no sense, you're doing an excellent job of displaying the inefficiency of anarchism. That is, you're repeating what your buddies have said, even though they didn't convince anyone either.

I will happily agree that "...democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." However, you've still done nothing to address either the question of whether government is an inevitable part of the human social makeup or the question of how your ideal anarchistic society would answer Greg's question about basic goods and services.

As for the ad hominem business, the reason you get lumped with the apathetic non-voters is because, in practice, your principled stance ends up having the same impact on society that their laziness does. From outside your group, they both look exactly the same. Thus, Brian's statement.

Elizabeth said: "I for one do not want to engage in the conversation with those who do not participate in this basic way, and you can't make me. It is utterly rational for me to make this choice. My intent is social isolation of the misanthrope undeserving of my time or respect."

Wow. I feel like I am hiding out at Walden Pond while all of the oh-so-elite and judgemental snobs debate whether or not slavery should be debated in church...give me the hemlock, now, before this newly elected group of fascists seeks me out for isolation! Social isolation is a tool tyhat is also employed by bonobo's on young motherless males.

"Vote or shut up" is akin to "fight or die" and werk macht frei, if you ask me. Only this time, the guy 'implying' the gun is black, but the slogan comes from war--and is directed at a group of males who grew up during the unprecedented reign of prison growth--prison leveraged against male freedom; bonobo 'social isolation stategy' worked its magic for Obama, son of polyandrist matriarchy.

Stephanie,

Aaron, aside from the atheism analogy, which is funny even though it makes no sense, you're doing an excellent job of displaying the inefficiency of anarchism. That is, you're repeating what your buddies have said, even though they didn't convince anyone either.

Can you support your assertion or give specifics about how my atheism analogy makes no sense? The rest of that paragraph is just personal attacks. I can just as easily claim that you are displaying the inefficieny of government by repeating what your buddies have said even though you and they did not convince anyone.

However, you've still done nothing to address either the question of whether government is an inevitable part of the human social makeup or the question of how your ideal anarchistic society would answer Greg's question about basic goods and services.

I only got to this party just now, and Zach was holding his own IMO, and I merely posted two comments directly responding to Brian K's latest comment.

But since you insist on me answering how basic goods and services would be provided, I will answer the market. A competitive and decentralized market framework is how (in a Market Anarchy at least) essential goods and services would be provided, and free markets provide superior efficiency and quality compared to centralized monopolies and subsidized methods.

As for the ad hominem business, the reason you get lumped with the apathetic non-voters is because, in practice, your principled stance ends up having the same impact on society that their laziness does. From outside your group, they both look exactly the same. Thus, Brian's statement.

Well I'll agree with you about it "having the same impact," but I would contend that it is a positive impact, not a negative one. But if you notice, I took Brian's statement and showed its lack of anything meaningful by using it against him, just replacing "non vote" with "vote." So its really not an argument to simply point out that, from person A's perspective, person B appears to be wrong or silly or whatever.

If you want to read a little bit about why non voters think voting is a bad idea, try these links:

strike-the-root dot com / vote dot html
ireport dot com / docs / DOC-131090
ireport dot com / docs / DOC-54126

Ad hominem much?

I want people to learn the meaning of this phrase. If I think Joe is an asshole, and I call him an asshole, that is not "ad hominem" If I think Joe is wrong when he says 1 plus 1 is some number, and I tell him so, that is not "ad hominem." If Joe, who is an asshole, says "1+1 is [some number]" and I say "Joe, you're an asshole, and therefore you're wrong about what 1 plus 1 equals" then I have done the "ad hominem" thing.

If "some number" is, say, 3, than I got lucky. If "some number" is 2, then I'm repressing Joe. But that is a digression.

I'm just saying (this has nothing to do with the argument about government/not, but it does have to do with arguing. I'm arguing about arguing here.)

To vote is to give one's personal consent to the system by which government is chosen. I choose not to give that consent. I choose to retain what ever freedom I can hold on to.

You want to complain about the government? (You will want to complain -- it is inevitable that government will disappoint you.) If you voted, then I think you should shut up -- you gave your personal stamp of approval to the means by which that government came to be!

I, on the other hand, did not vote. I did not give my "thumbs up" to the farcical system by which democratic governments are formed.

Did you vote? Why? Why were you so silly as to think that your vote counts? Why were you so silly as to think that it really matters whether there is a republicrat or a demoblican in the White House?

Grow up. Just as there is no Superfriend in the Sky to take care of you, the thugs in government are not your friends. Government exists strictly for the benefit of those who are in government and to limit your freedom. That's all.

Brad, one more time, since you all seem to be bent on starting over when you show up here: The election doesn't care whether it has your consent. It will happen whether you smile upon it, pray about it, or frown and stamp your feet. Voting is one of the ways to have an impact on the outcome. No vote, no impact.

And yes, who wins matters.

Brad: I now think that your decision to not vote is a rational and well thought out one. I no longer think that you are just some slob tho says "They all suck, why should I vote for any of them, they're all the same" and hangs up in my ear (I'm thinking of the one out of five people I would run into while phone canvassing last election). You have a different, better articulated reason for what you are doing and I support that.

I pretty much totally disagree with your politics and I also think that even within the range of your particular political thinking (a philosophy of which I am not even close to ignorant), you are not doing the best thing for your cause strategically. But, whatever.

(I think I agree with Stephanie in that area.)

Greg, I think we agree that the strategy is bad, but I'm also seeing elements of what feel like magical thinking in the consent argument. I get that large turnout provides something to point to as a government being representative, but this frequently feels like more than that. If I could point to something specific that made me think this, I would.

I also see false dichotomy in the government = evil, no government = freedom argument. Government is not a monolithic being that exists or not. There are forms and degrees of governance. Anarchy, or the nearest thing that humans have achieved, is merely one of them.

I am less willing to agree to the rationality of these arguments.

I lived for quite some time in a society that, while it existed in a country with a government, existed without that government, and in fact, the government that did exist explicitly (often) avoided messing with the hunter gatherers. And, we were remote so there is not much the government could do.

It is interesting to see how people without a government manage. It suddenly occurs to me that I'm uniquely qualified to talk about this.

Thoughtful governance, selective use of government, is achievable if yo live in the jungle. Until the civil war starts and you all die.

Unlike many of the other anarchists whom you've encountered, I'm unconcerned with strategy. I don't expect to change anything. Yes, I'm utterly cynical.

This is all about entertainment. The difference between you and I -- and the difference between me and most of my fellow anarchists -- is that I've realized that fact.

But... Some of you are seriously claiming that to vote is to have an "impact"? Tell me, do you also believe in God?