The Truth About Voting

[Kat Kanning]

True News 5: The Truth About Voting

[TackleTheWorld]

A blatant appeal to emotion.  Now that is brilliant.  All the Von Mises and Rothbards with their perfect logic didn't work, so we have to face facts and change tactics.  Appeal to pride, appeal to morality, show some passion.  Most people are not slaves to logic, they are slaves to ethics, they don't want to be accused of wrongdoing.  They don't want people to berate at them.  We already have the facts and the logic.  What if we take back ethics too?

Lesson #1 I learned from Stefan M.  The argument from effect (facts and logic) does not sway people, but the argument from morality is irresistible.

[EthanLeeVita]

I tend to find most people can be convinced about the ethicalness of anarchism easily, but aren't convinced about the efficiency. They tend to be very concerned about how it will work more than whether its right.

I was going to elaborate on this more, but my grasp of language is apparently slipping.

[dalebert]

Qualifier-- I haven't watched it yet, but I intend too.  I'm sure I'll like it.

I no longer tell people they're immoral for voting.  I tell them that I have a conflict of conscience with it because it is a process used as an elaborate justification system for violence and I feel dishonest to speak out against that system and then to also partake of it.  It feels like I am talking out of both sides of my mouth, being two-faced, etc.  I also feel that I'm doing more harm with that action that democracy-supporters desperately want me to take than whatever questionable and minuscule benefit might be gained by the act, and of course I acknowledge that's my personal judgment which is what I have to go on for my choices.  Others have to go by their personal judgment.

I find this approach to be very powerful.  You're not passing judgment on someone for their actions but you are making a powerful statement by speaking out about your personal belief and choices that it is wrong for you.  In essence, I'm leaving open the possibility that I could be wrong, which is just a necessary part of being open-minded, but I am convinced.  I will continue to act according to my conscience until I am convinced otherwise.  "Convinced" is a term a fellow Quaker used to describe what I was talking about and I like it.  I'm okay with disagreeing with people about it and I'm not going to be so vain as to judge someone who sincerely believes they're doing the right thing.  This is often all it takes to create cognitive dissonance on the matter.

What you'll find is that someone who is shaky in their own faith about a certain belief or viewpoint will desperately need to convince you that it's A-okay in order to shore up their insecurities.  They need to get other people to agree with them.  I see this in religious disagreements all the time and even with many atheists.  And while I won't judge them, I also won't give them what they want which is a pat on the back or an assurance that I am okay with the action.  If their faith is solid, they shouldn't need that from me.

[KBCraig]

I tend to find most people can be convinced about the ethicalness of anarchism easily, but aren't convinced about the efficiency. They tend to be very concerned about how it will work more than whether its right.

As I like to say: I don't think government is necessary or preferable, I just fear that it's inevitable.

[EthanLeeVita]

As I like to write: Many thought chattel slavery was inevitable; it didn't mean they stopped striving against it. I think murder, theft, and rape will always exist; it doesn't mean I stop striving against them.

[MaineShark]

I tend to find most people can be convinced about the ethicalness of anarchism easily, but aren't convinced about the efficiency. They tend to be very concerned about how it will work more than whether its right.

As I like to say: I don't think government is necessary or preferable, I just fear that it's inevitable.

Any time you have at least two individuals who interact in some way, they will find some method of governing their behavior towards each other.

But that doesn't mean that it needs to be a Statist sort of government.

Joe

[Jim Johnson]

I tend to find most people can be convinced about the ethicalness of anarchism easily, but aren't convinced about the efficiency. They tend to be very concerned about how it will work more than whether its right.

As I like to say: I don't think government is necessary or preferable, I just fear that it's inevitable.

Don't build that house, it will eventually fall down.
How is that 'preexisting defeat' working for you?

[dalebert]

The authoritarian monopoly style of government is synonymous with crime.  I think we will always have crime (and government), but if we want less of those things, as little as possible actually, we have to consistently oppose them.  As long as we proclaim that crime is necessary, it will grow like a cancer.

[KBCraig]

Thanks, Dale. That was what I was trying to say, but you elaborated and were more eloquent about it.

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

In the Lord of the Rings trilogy the "One Ring" controls all of the other "Rings of Power". The Dark Lord Sauron needs to get the Ring in order to be all powerful. The wizard Gandalf wants the Ring to use if for good, but he realizes that the power of the Ring corrupts and no matter how powerful a wizard he is or how good he is, the Ring will corrupt him. So it is decided that the Ring must be destroyed and in order to do that Frodo, a truly good and innocent being, is given the task because he is the only one they can trust not to be corrupted by the Ring's power while completing the task of destroying the One Ring.

(Yeah, you're wondering where I'm going with this... )

The One Ring is government. It is all-powerful over people and will always corrupt them. The debate is ageless and timeless... We must elect someone who will use "government" power for "good" and people fall for that ploy time and time again, never realizing that no one can control the Ring's power for good without being corrupted. The only answer was to unmake the One Ring using the fire from Mount Doom. The only solution is to destroy the power so that it can not be wielded. Unfortunately, we have no Frodo and this must be a unified effort. Just as unfortunate is the fact that most people still believe the lie that the power "just needs to be harnessed for good"... which is an impossibility. Most people are brainwashed into believing that all of that power is 'necessary"! Most people can not even fathom looking into the fire of Mount Doom... into the "abyss" where all that power is destroyed. They've been brainwashed that the destruction of all that power will result in something worse... something unthinkable... something unspeakable...

Which, in reality, is called...

Freedom

[Trifith]

In the Lord of the Rings trilogy the "One Ring" controls all of the other "Rings of Power". The Dark Lord Sauron needs to get the Ring in order to be all powerful. The wizard Gandalf wants the Ring to use if for good, but he realizes that the power of the Ring corrupts and no matter how powerful a wizard he is or how good he is, the Ring will corrupt him. So it is decided that the Ring must be destroyed and in order to do that Frodo, a truly good and innocent being, is given the task because he is the only one they can trust not to be corrupted by the Ring's power while completing the task of destroying the One Ring.

(Yeah, you're wondering where I'm going with this... )

The One Ring is government. It is all-powerful over people and will always corrupt them. The debate is ageless and timeless... We must elect someone who will use "government" power for "good" and people fall for that ploy time and time again, never realizing that no one can control the Ring's power for good without being corrupted. The only answer was to unmake the One Ring using the fire from Mount Doom. The only solution is to destroy the power so that it can not be wielded. Unfortunately, we have no Frodo and this must be a unified effort. Just as unfortunate is the fact that most people still believe the lie that the power "just needs to be harnessed for good"... which is an impossibility. Most people are brainwashed into believing that all of that power is 'necessary"! Most people can not even fathom looking into the fire of Mount Doom... into the "abyss" where all that power is destroyed. They've been brainwashed that the destruction of all that power will result in something worse... something unthinkable... something unspeakable...

Which, in reality, is called...

Freedom

I said much the same thing at http://destroythering.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/what-ring-where/

[FreelanceFreedomFighter]

Good elaboration on the concept. Thanks for posting that link, I'll pass it on.

Some people "get it" (most here), but too many folks just don't understand yet.