People still believe their vote can lead to change? (Ron Paul, legal, parties)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's like someone telling you you have to choose feces or urine flavored ice cream. Would you eat either one just because those are the choices someone picked for you? If they said "well if you don't pick one, the other will be forced on you" why are you still supporting the process at all? I'd be telling everyone I know not to go along with their demands, because the more people who do it, the more power those people continue to have.
That is why (tho I'm still technically undecided) I will probably vote for Johnson. He has issues too -- too many "Aleppo moments" -- but at least its a vote for a third party. A substantial vote for Johnson may send the message that not all of the people are willing to exercise their right to vote on the political establishment's terms. Or based on their media manipulation.
Tough to take an article seriously that misspells the name of our current president.
The options to elections would be tough on this country. I'll never say never but I think a lot of people have had their eyes opened during this election cycle. I'm going to vote. Would never consider not voting. But this has been a gut wrenching election cycle for me. Yes..........I'm that invested in it. Every American should be that invested in it.
Yeah, that was an unfortunate typo... I follow the author and I've never seen him misspell Barack before.
In any case, what's the logic behind always voting no matter what? I'll point out that I'm especially unlikely to vote, considering I'm against having politicians in the first place, but even if I still believed in putting people into power over others...I still don't think I would play a rigged game.
The only real options are to vote for the lesser evil, which allows them to point and say "Look how much support I had this past election" while doing evil things and act like they have legitimacy, or people purposely don't vote in order to send a message - to the establishment, sure, but more so to other citizens and the world. Politicians need that heir of legitimacy and support.
That is why (tho I'm still technically undecided) I will probably vote for Johnson. He has issues too -- too many "Aleppo moments" -- but at least its a vote for a third party. A substantial vote for Johnson may send the message that not all of the people are willing to exercise their right to vote on the political establishment's terms. Or based on their media manipulation.
I'm not sure if you read the part about Johnson in the article, but I understand that mindset. I know a lot of libertarians who want to use elections to spread a message, even if they don't expect to win.
But I do like the mafia point that he made, which I brought up earlier. If the mafia had an election, would you vote just to send a message that you don't approve of what they're doing, or would you just not participate in their game?
But I do like the mafia point that he made, which I brought up earlier. If the mafia had an election, would you vote just to send a message that you don't approve of what they're doing, or would you just not participate in their game?
Good question. If I could distance myself safely, with no sign that the election would ever affect me, I probably would. But if I thought that the way the process is being carried out is something that someday may harm my interests, then I'd cast a vote to send the Mafia a message.
From your link:
"Ultimately, when enough people have given up the superstition of “authority,” the biggest tyranny in the world can simply be ignored out of existence."
Isn't it obvious that to do this there must be large organization, a plan, an alternative, and wide agreement?
There are efforts to establish such an organization and alternative. But I suspect the broad majority will not get involved or even informed until they are up against it, hopeless, and desperate and see no alternative.
I understand the concept of resisting the process by not casting a vote, but if resistance is the message to be sent its going to require a more vigorous way to express it than just not showing up.
From your link:
"Ultimately, when enough people have given up the superstition of “authority,” the biggest tyranny in the world can simply be ignored out of existence."
Isn't it obvious that to do this there must be large organization, a plan, an alternative, and wide agreement?
There are efforts to establish such an organization and alternative. But I suspect the broad majority will not get involved or even informed until they are up against it, hopeless, and desperate and see no alternative.
Actually I don't think so at all. It's kind of like saying we need a large organization, plan, wide agreement to stop believing in Santa Claus. Some people would promote the idea that he isn't real, and you eventually get to a point where most people have given up the belief. With the belief in a legitimate authority - person or group with the "right" to rule over others - people just have to stop believing that it can exist, because it can't. Never has existed. People only imagine it to be legitimate with no logical reasoning behind it (social contract theory was an effort to explain where legitimate authority comes from, but it failed...debunked many times).
I think I'll leave it at that. I'm hoping to avoid this turning into another thread about why we need government vs. why we don't.
I understand the concept of resisting the process by not casting a vote, but if resistance is the message to be sent its going to require a more vigorous way to express it than just not showing up.
I think the main thing is to communicate with people and spread the right ideas. Change the beliefs in society and the rest will follow. Voting won't help and has the potential to make things worse. For me personally, it's about getting the ideas out there, getting more people on board, and eventually you reach a point where it has a significant impact.
I've actually mentioned this a couple times in other threads, but the real change will come when you get authors, professors, TV personalities, and other public figures to adopt certain ideas. Most people follow the opinion of "experts" or people they trust, so you wouldn't even need to change everyone's mind individually.
Actually I don't think so at all. It's kind of like saying we need a large organization, plan, wide agreement to stop believing in Santa Claus. Some people would promote the idea that he isn't real, and you eventually get to a point where most people have given up the belief. With the belief in a legitimate authority - person or group with the "right" to rule over others - people just have to stop believing that it can exist, because it can't. Never has existed. People only imagine it to be legitimate with no logical reasoning behind it (social contract theory was an effort to explain where legitimate authority comes from, but it failed...debunked many times).
I think I'll leave it at that. I'm hoping to avoid this turning into another thread about why we need government vs. why we don't.
I'll give you this much:
You said "With the belief in a legitimate authority - person or group with the "right" to rule over others - people just have to stop believing that it can exist, because it can't. Never has existed."
My vision is for citizens to ultimately participate in their own "ruling" over themselves in a fair, balanced and organized way. It would end the idea of authority being delivered from "above" by authoritarians. There are studies and experiments with this being developed.
I assume you don't see the Democrats (or maybe even the Republicans) as "oppressors", but you can ignore the language he used for now... If the choices weren't limited to Hillary or Trump, would you still want Hillary in power?
Typically you need around $1 billion dollars in campaign funds to run for president, and the billionaire CEO's and large corporations that give our politicians that campaign money control our government. And all of our major TV news organizations, radio stations, and newspapers are owned by the same corporations that give our politicians their campaign money. And our government is worse than you have described in this thread.
And to answer your question, I would rather have (YOU) in the White House than Hillary or Trump. But your not a billionaire CEO or connected to $1 billion dollars in campaign money so you can't run for president.
Quote:
It's like someone telling you you have to choose feces or urine flavored ice cream.
Its facts and the laws of economics giving you a choice,
A.) America's national debt rises to 87% of GDP. And over $1 trillion dollars gets spent on needed infrastructure repairs, improving education, and programs that help regular Americans.
B.) America's national debt rises to 127% of GDP. And the richest 5% of Americans get trillions of dollars of supply side/trickle down tax cuts.
Would you eat either one just because those are the choices someone picked for you?
I think 50% of Americans should realize our government has been taken over by corporate America, and then those 50% of Americans should take actions to overthrow our government. But where's the organizations and groups that want to do this? (They do not exist.)
And until the above groups exist Americans only have the 2 choices above. And which one would you choose for America?
Quote:
If they said "well if you don't pick one, the other will be forced on you" why are you still supporting the process at all? I'd be telling everyone I know not to go along with their demands, because the more people who do it, the more power those people continue to have.
I actually share your attitude more than you know, and I share your disgust more than you know.
But since organizations and groups to combat the problems you speak of don't exist, should I/you stop voting and not take part in deciding whether our national debt rises to 87% or 127% of GDP?
Last edited by chad3; 10-02-2016 at 07:37 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
