42 votes

I'm not voting anymore

I have been a libertarian for about two years now. I was introduced to libertarian thought by Ron Paul's 2012 campaign. After that whole debacle, I began to consider who I would vote for in 2016 when the time came. Since the 2012 elections, however, I have been doing a lot of thought about my philosophy. I have really delved into libertarian ideas such as the non-aggression principle, and my outlook on voting has completely changed. I will no longer be voting.

I believe there can be no moral justification for government. If we accept that people should never use violence except in cases of self-defense, then we can no longer justify government. Government requires violence to exist. Taxation is theft, etc. If the system you support does NOT require violence, then it is not government. Government is by definition violent.

Can we move past the idea that reforming our government could somehow work, or is even the morally right thing to do? It's a delusion.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Ballots or bullets

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I disagree. But given the

I disagree. But given the choice I would rather die on my feet than live on my knees.

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

The rejection of the "lesser

The rejection of the "lesser of two evils" implies that there is a 100% "good" alternative that we are not able to vote for. That is false because no one is 100% good. We do have, however, many variants of good and many variants of evil. The problem is, most candidates we are presented with are a variant of evil. Giving up and not participating in the system allows more evil candidates to remain in the system, and you know what JFK said about neutrality? "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in times of great moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

The alternative that I cannot

The alternative that I cannot vote for is the dissolving of the federal government.

That's why, in 2020, when Adam Kokesh runs for president with the platform of dissolving the federal government, I will vote for him.

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

Even the Murry Rothbard, the

Even the Murry Rothbard, the father of modern anarchism, believed that the political office was one of the vital tools needed to slay the leviathan.

I may vote but

I won't donate currency.

Ron Paul Was Right

Will you donate time : )

A liberty candidate in you area needs your help, you know it's true....
:)

Ron Paul on his son Rand Paul:
"he does a lot of things similarly, but I think he does everything better. Than I have done over the years,"

You and I have come to the same conclusion

And apparently we're not alone here.

If men are good, you don't need government; if men are evil or ambivalent, you don't dare have one.

i know what you mean give me

i know what you mean

give me someone worth voting for, and i'd vote, if not, i wont vote to legitimize the vote with my presence

the representative that did not get my vote, can not claim to represent me....and i am not obliged to do as they say

How can we stop or slow down federal tyranny without anyone

keeping our government in check?

kind people rock

oh your voting by not voting

by not voting some ignorant slob socialist has a single vote worth a thousand, bottom line if you don't vote someone else will vote for something you don't want.

voting is not voting...

voting is not voting... gotcha....

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

So whats the difference

So whats the difference between an ignorant slob socialist and an ignorant slob conservative voting for the other crook.

Ron Paul was not a crook.

And neither is Justin Amash, Thomas Massie, Jonathan Stickland,or any other of the other Liberty Incumbents we have.

Ron Paul on his son Rand Paul:
"he does a lot of things similarly, but I think he does everything better. Than I have done over the years,"

Yes sir. But I never got to

Yes sir. But I never got to vote for him other than a write in in 08. Haven't cancelled my voter registration yet but until someone worth voting for shows up on my ballot I'm abstaining.

Well then

Please check out the link in my signature and see if any good folks are in your area. That thread is updated all the time.

Take care!

Ron Paul on his son Rand Paul:
"he does a lot of things similarly, but I think he does everything better. Than I have done over the years,"

Jerry Moran sucked in by the

Jerry Moran sucked in by the bogus war on terror. Pat Roberts: Boeing boy and neocon status quo. Kevin Yoder: Sophomore dipshit up there for the party. Local machine: uncontested democrats.

I see.

I am in a GOP area that is waking up.

Ron Paul on his son Rand Paul:
"he does a lot of things similarly, but I think he does everything better. Than I have done over the years,"

Yes!

You have made the leap!

If my need to be RIGHT is greater than my desire for TRUTH, then I will not recognize it when it arrives ~ Libertybelle

Even Plato

knew that the state would take silence as consent.

People will always seek to groups to defend from other groups. Until you rid humanity of it's need to suppress others, individuals will always be held at the mercy of the group, because of force. That is why i believe government is at best a necessary evil.

Here come the down votes.

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty."

Click Here To See The Candidates On The Record

Silence may be consent if you

Silence may be consent if you do not make your disagreement known... However, that does not mean that I have to use my vote to legitimize what I believe is an evil system. I would debate it's necessity, but necessary or not, it's still evil.

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

I agree that silence is consent

I'm going to vote, but only for known Liberty Republicans, or Libertarians.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

This. This is the one thing

This. This is the one thing overlooked. Not all people are nonviolent and they certainly arnt adverse to joining a group to control things.

To climb the mountain, you must believe you can.

welcome to the club. you made the correct choice

Remove all forms of consent.

Imagine what happens when the poll workers are working and no-one is showing up.

I suggest learning real law and prepare to understand logically congruent law. We have mass confusion and once everyone figures out how confused they are they will be looking for answers. Those who understand non-conflicting application of law will win in the end because it is self-evident truth due to its non-conflicting nature and true balance of liability.

Congrats on waking up! Welcome to the club. Its a big club and we are not in the club. It's liberating.

The most powerful Law of Nature is Time. It is finite and we all will run out of it. Use this Law to your advantage, for it offers you infinite possibilities...

Don't Vote

It implies you are willing to be bound by the results.

Nice slogan

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

So by not picking one rapist

So by not picking one rapist over another, I am consenting to being raped by either one?

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

Only by Voting

do you consent to being raped by either one. The choice of which you have left to the whim of the masses.

Don't lets pretend that you're not gonna get dicked under duress. Having some infinitesimal influence in the matter of who's schlong gets to do the dickin', sure don't make it right in my mind.

If your vote made any real difference, they'd make it illegal.

Music to the ears to listen

Music to the ears to listen to your passion. And I so know the pull of these high-sounding phrases.

But stop and consider...

You write: If we accept that people should never use violence except in cases of self-defense...

Except that, in the few instances I've use violence, it has been in the interests of others. I've stopped a neighbor's grandson from kicking his grandmother; I stopped a guy from dragging a woman into his truck after he smacked her head his against his truck door. I stopped a man from continuing to beat his girlfriend after she came into my house for refuge. A couple more. I did all these through threatening violence. In none of these instances was I in danger before deciding to intervene. I most certainly did not act in self defense. In each, I chose to intervene to defend others.

I was not only happy, but ecstatic, that others around me weren't into "never use violence except in cases of self-defense" I'm a woman and in several of these instances, I'm indebted to men who jumped into the fray and stopped the criminal acts I was tying to stop. I'm indebted to men who acted far from this "self-defense" bullshit.

I'm also indebted to people who weren't able/willing to jump in physically, but were able to call a socially agreed upon force to come give me a hand.

So you go, girl, with your "violence except in cases of self-defense" business. Take yourself out of having my back or anyone who has a gut-reflex aversion to the mistreatment of others. You don't want me to jump in if someone is mistreating you?

Don't vote. Don't participate. Next time I see a guy bash a woman's head and I run to her aid, it won't matter one bit to me that you don't think anyone else should help me or that you don't think a bunch of us should go in together to create a force someone who is afraid can call to help me.

Don't vote. I, for one, don't want anyone who is so up into his/her own self preservation to vote. Spare me. And good riddance.

I'm assuming that you've just delved into this kettle and have a pretty superficial notion of it. You're probably using the wrong words.

Before you go off half-cocked and and decide call it all but. Consider engaging. Consider that people (you) should always engage in violence when they see an atrocity playing out before them. Consider that people (you) are responsible for every single thing you see wrong. Act on that. Rather than doge that.

Give it a year. Give yourself to others without need to self-defend. Back up the people who are rescuing the weak. Rescue them yourself and stand in awe of the people who come forward to help. It will be year full of heroism and action. And, if you still think that voting is beneath you, fine. My prediction is that after of a year of being empowered, you'll consider your vote an the exclamation mark for all your work.

A malicious violent attack on

A malicious violent attack on any innocent or perceived innocent person would also be attack on the mental health of any moral person in the vicinity. Don't think the non aggression principle would apply.