Way of the Mind Forum

Do you usually vote? (I do, most of the time, but I'm in Portugal)

I'm going to guess that TXStorm will say that we shouldn't vote, because that helps legitimize the political system, the people in power, and so on.

I won't dispute the fact that about everyone in power isn't there for our benefit, but for their own. However - and I believe here's where we disagree - there are different levels of government-caused harm. Or, we could say, different degrees of evil.

Doesn't it make sense to vote for the ones we know will harm us the least, for our own self-interest? By not voting, you may, by default, cause the "worse ones" to grab power, or keep it.

I could give the obvious example: Democrats may be bad, and they certainly don't have freedom in mind, but compared to current Republicans (which are, these days, controlled by neocons and the Religious Right), they're almost saints, in my opinion. Doesn't it make sense to support the former (keeping in mind that conditions may change in the future, as individuals in each party are replaced)?

Any thoughts?

I'm a paranoid person and I think that even if the last presidential vote WASN'T rigged (Florida) it will be in the future. I think this because anybody with an immagination could be conned into thinking that everybody else voted for the other guy via news. (This is all US oriented btw)

I started NOT voting because I didn't know anybody personally, and whenever I heard them speak publicly, I sensed bullshit.

Later, I tried to vote again, but again declined. That was because I saw the major difference between the people I would be voting for, and myself, family and friends.
These people could never understand being poor. They had great educations from great schools because thier parents paid great amounts of money, because they could afford it. There was no way that these people had the kind of people like myself or friends/family in mind.

I DO wish that democrats come into power aside from republicans, but something inside my head whispers more disaster.

I remember when Clinton was president, and that by the end of his presidency I could get one job, or the other. And by the second year of Bush Jr.'s it was "take this job and hold on tight.". Everything was cheaper, and the overall economy was MUCH better with democrats in reign. A lesser evil.

However, I think that democrats have learned thier lesson by now. It's been clearly displayed to everyone that once complete control is achieved, you can run away with it all and nobody will be able to do anything about it, even if you've done it blatantly, in thier face, and with no apology.

The fact that republicans vote democratically now, because they see the HUGE problems accuring with our current presidential reign only gives the Democrats more angst to do the same power mongering. For the future it seems, is thiers.

Pedro,

You violate not merely causation, but basic responsibility when you claim that not voting causes anything at all.

By this same reasoning, not raping is the cause of rape.. not stealing is the cause of theft.. Clearly as a logical point, this sort of reasoning is fallacious.

Yes it is true that government by its very nature is necessarily evil, and no it has not been shown to be a necessary evil. You say that not everyone there is for our benefit, which is like saying that some pedophiles like children.. None of those in power are there for anyone's benefit but their own. This is the inherent nature of the beast.

The lesser evils argument simply does not work and never has. This sort of reasoning tells us that we ought to steal because it is better than rape or murder, and worse yet that stealing is good because it could be worse. It also employs a false dichotomy (well nested false dichotomies actually) which simply ignore all positive choices in order to try in vain to justify the desired conclusion. So rather than examine the situation logically and realistically, the lesser-evil advocate pretends that there are only two choices and so he/she must choose the lesser of the two. No reason to consider real choices, real alternatives because to do so will result in the defeat of the desired conclusion. Emotion is leading where reason ought to lead.

To make matters even worse, there is an assumption that identical entities are different. So the dichotomy is false not merely because there are positive options available to us, but also because the "two" choices are not different at all. The demoncrats and repugnicans in the US are not different. They both seek to reduce liberty as fast as they can while increasing governmental power. For those who have forgotten, remember that many of the ilk have switched labels in the last several elections. There is no principle with such persons, only blatant power grabs. The demoncrats did not oppose the aggression against muslims, nor did they stand up against the repugnicans when it came to the attacks on liberty such as the ill named "Patriot act" instead they gleefully joined in and helped in both cases. They do not prevent laws from being passed at all, nor do the repugnicans when they are in the minority.  THEY ARE ALL THE SAME. There is no "lesser evil."

Look to the last presidential election where you have one guy who went to yale, was given all the money he needed to work failed business ventures, and to support his political and power aspirations. Then you had another guy who also went to yale, was given all the money he needed to work failed business ventures, and to support his political and power aspirations. You could not have found two individuals more alike. Yet we still hear the mindless mantra of the "lesser of two evils?"

http://www.zetetics.com/mac/hitler.htm
Ask yourself if you are really taking a stand when you choose to vote for a system that puts a guy like Hitler in charge. Every vote is a vote for the worst of the system for you are advocating, advancing, and acknowledging the legitimacy of the system itself by participating.

Imagine using this reasoning in any other aspect of our lives. So you are headed down the street, as a fervent pacifist, and you see thugs beating up an old lady. Now instead of thinking rationally and reasonably about the situation, you employ "lesser evil" thinking.. what is your action? Well you must of course join in since otherwise she will be beaten worse..

You hear about the local Klan election and since you are an ardent supporter of tolerance and oppose racism, what is your decision? Well applying "lesser evil" thinking, you obviously must join the Klan and participate because otherwise the Klan would be worse..

In introduction to logic classes we teach the technique of applying the same argument to all true premises, and seeing if we can reach a false conclusion. If and when you do find that false conclusion from the same argument form and all true premises you know that the argument form is invalid, therefore fails to prove the conclusion to be true. These examples above do just that. The "lesser evil" argument is simply invalid (in several ways). Of course as I have also shown, it is not merely invalid in argument form, but relies upon all false premises as well, ensuring that the conclusion cannot be true.

It is worth reading In Defense of Anarchism  by Robert Paul Wolff, who actually tries to give the strongest case for demoncracy as is possible, and in this he succeeds in creating the strongest case possible. Of course this is not to say that it actually makes a case for demoncracy, but rather shows that no matter how generous one is, no matter how biased one is, no matter how much one has heard the empty rhetoric of the pro-state/anti-liberty folks, there simply is no support intellectually or practically for statism, even statism in the supposed best form (demoncracy).

Professor Wolff carefully examines all aspects of the system in an effort to find a way to justify it, to salvage even the illusion that it works, only to demonstrate without a hint of a doubt that in fact none of the arguments for demoncracy (or statism at all) even remotely come close to holding water. I cannot recommend this short book enough for all who really believe or really want to believe that statism is the answer, not because there is some joy to be had in disproving the position, but because this is one of those wonderful cases where intellectual generosity is stretched to the limit, and still there is nothing to save from the position. It is a well written, well thought out book which is accessible to the intelligent layperson.

Another useful text, again based upon true premises and sound reasoning: http://www.wendymcelroy.com/dissent/index.html

Kren,

Interest rates were significantly higher, housing starts were lower, and the economy was artificially high. So it is simply not true that everything was cheap3er and the overall economy was better, much less "much better."

Clinton enjoyed that rarity of a fluke in the economy, that being the tech boom. The government had nothing to do with this happening, though they were involved in its demise (that was clinton, not bush). Recall that Bush had not been in office long enough to effect the economy short of massive changes on the order of FDR type schemes. The economy lags behind presidential elections by one term, which means of course that the downturn in the economy if it is to be credited to any president must rest upon Clinton's shoulders.

Recall that Clinton increased the debt higher than any previous president, advocated increased taxation, decreased opportunities for business starts, and put up many hurdles to small businesses- the very businesses which still account for over 70% of the jobs in the US.

The point is that Clinton was in fact no better than Bush when it comes to the economy. They are the same..

This is in direct contradiction to things I have read before. My understanding was that Clinton left us with a budget surplus... can you cite your sources?

Do not confuse the budget (which excludes Social insecurity btw, as well as all of the inappropriately named "entitlements" leaving only so called "discretionary" items) with the debt. The budget can be "balanced" or even have the appearance of a surplus all the while increasing the debt tremendously. One of the ways to do this is to put off paying for expenditures until a future date. Another is to "borrow" from social insecurity. Both of these were employed by Clinton as a matter of course.

Now of course you want to know where all of these baseless claims of a so called surplus (btw if there had really been a surplus, why did the debt still exist at all?) appeard from? Well what they did was an accounting trick which is illegal (in fact Enron was busted for this amongst other things) in which debt is shifted off books so that assets and income appears larger. Clinton shifted debt to future times and to social insecurity so that there was the appearance of cutting spending all the while spending was being increased dramatically. Knowing that the bills would not come due until he was out of office he continued to spend extravagantly. Another accounting trick employed was that of forecasting, which is where all of the supposed surplus was supposed to exist. What they did was take the rate of growth that came during the tech boom, assumed not merely similar growth, but the same rate of accelaration of growth well into the realm of fantasyland. No economy could sustain the levels of growth that they assumed would exist, and of course when the tech bubble burst as it had to do, all of those claims of surplus and projected revenues were proved to be false.

Remember to always ignore the claims of the politicians with regard to economics since they have no idea what is going on, and have direct motivation to lie about what is going on.

Going back to the "budget" for a moment, as I noted it includes only discretionary funds, which account for under 20% of the actual amount that the government wastes (aka "spends"). The ill-named "entitlements" account for about 85% of the budget (this varies slightly from year to year) and included in the entitlement section is the payment on the debt and the interest on the debt since the debt was created by having these so called "entitlements." Furthermore Social insecurity is considered off books entirely, except where politicians choose to use it to make it appear as they have no choice but to raise taxes and screw up the budge (see LBJ's famous examples of this).

As for sources, look to the CBO (Congressional Budget Office, WBO (White house budget office) and if you can track it down, the various accounting offices and schemes.

"The economy lags behind presidential elections by one term."

That's scary. Basically, those in power will be doing everything they possibly can to proffit so they can run away before anybody really notices the difference.

Such is democracy.

I say we throw out the current system and elect TX our president...

What did I ever do to you Jim?

Maybe I should have said our non-president?

To take this back to the topic, I would still note that it would be wrong to vote even for me..

It would still be the consolidation of power.
Wich would lead to this, and then that, and eventually... the DARK SIDE.

That would be one of the practical concerns certainly, but also on a principled level I would have no right to dictate how others live their lives peacefully. No one has the right to dictate such actions of others, regardless of any positive intention, or supposed better knowledge, or whatever excuse they choose to employ.

Were I to be granted control somehow, and I used to to rid us of the control of others, this would still set a precedent for giving total control to an individual over all other individuals. Essentially I would still be at best a benevolent dictator, which is certainly not what I wish for myself or for anyone else.

... though certainly it would be the lesser of the two evils, right Pedro?

even if i was old enough to vote, i live in a red state... (as in redneck and Republican).

my vote wouldn't even count. that's why the electoral college sucks. gore and kerry both won by the popular vote, but it's the electoral college that is the problem. and the only way that it can be rid of is either

a) 2/3 of Congress is Democrat

or

b) a Dem is elected president

because the republicans do this to their advantage.

by the way, we're kind of getting off topic from voting to fallacies in arguments and the budget.

Fallacies are never off topic necessarily since they demonstrate that a given argument has no support.

As for the rest, there are an infinite ways to refute the pro-statist position that is only natural that some would come from persprectives with which you disagree..

well.. actually what i meant was not to stop the thread... that would be... against my ideas. i meant to move it to another thread

Move what to another thread? All refutations of the statist position?

BTW Clinton lost the popular vote as well... Furthermore if you look to the numbers (as if they were meaningful) you will find that Clinton for instance was elected by under 5% of the population. Most people do not support any candidate, but they foolishly support the system that bring folks like Bush, Clinton, and on other countries, Saddam, Hitler, etc. to power.

you know, i never thought of it that way :-)

The solution to that - which will never happen, as it would end the bi-partisan system as well, and none of the two parties would ever want that - is a way of voting where you list the candidates / parties in order of preference, instead of just voting for one.

A lot of people think like this: the party I agree with the most is small party C, but it has no chance of winning, therefore voting for it is a waste. Now, between big parties A and B, A is almost tolerable, and B is totally repulsive... therefore I'll vote for A, as the lesser of two evils.

With the alternate system, even if people voted the same way, party C would still get their second vote, as they'd put party B last. Meanwhile, the people who preferred party B instead of A might, too, agree that C was a more "honest" party, and put it in second place, putting A last. What do you know... party C wins! Or, at least, gets as many votes as either A or B.

As I said, this will never happen, of course. We couldn't have the people's real preferred party actually win, could we?

no, that would be too convenient.

Pedro,

That is akin to saying that the better rape is to use lube... The suggestion misses the point in that it ignores the fact that the practice itself is unjust and unworkable. Remember raping to protect virginity simply doesn't work, just as using anti-liberty to promote liberty does not work (as we have seen in every instance of every government on the planet).

Furthermore it assumes that a party represents an individual. This is not merely not the case, it is not possible for this to be the case. Our lives are far more complex that this assumes. None of us are one issue people, for we have other aspects to our lives.

So a clear might makes right position? As long as 50% and one person say that the "Kill all people over 6 feet tall" party is the right one, then it is not merely acceptable for the "kill all people over 6 feet tall party" to take power over everyone, it is a GOOD thing? Is there no problem with this then?

What gives any individual the right to dictate how another individual will peacefully live? Without an answer to this, the defense of the indefensible, that is to say of voting and the inherent inherently evil consequences that follow from it, cannot even begin.

That a very small fraction ever chooses to put their voice and vote behind any political power-monger is a trivial aside. I addressed it only to shatter that aspect of the anti-liberty position. The core problems still remain, and still remain wholly unaddressed. The state you describe would still considate power into the hands of a few who will use that power over all to dictate the peaceful actions and everyday events of the lifes of innocent persons. It still means that those who do not agree, those who do not support the system itself, are subject to the rigid controls and harsh penalties of this totalitarian (it is necessarily totalitarian) state, which is to say that those few privileged individuals in power get to tell the rest how to live, especially those who never agreed to this sad form of slavery.

So we can talk all day about how to improve rape, but at the end of the day rape will still be wrong and evil.