Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Anarchists and voting

Shtookah
Posts: 71
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 7:51:57 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I believe anarchists should vote just as anybody should. I really feel frustrated when perfectly intelligent and free thinking individuals choose not to vote. Even though they do this out of protest, I can't help but feel its really apathy.. Somewhat causing me to feel that their enabling our two-party dictatorship here in America. Am I stupid for saying that?
You are reading a very cool and original signature that makes you think I am chill person to hang with.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 8:15:21 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/29/2010 7:51:57 AM, Shtookah wrote:
I believe anarchists should vote just as anybody should. I really feel frustrated when perfectly intelligent and free thinking individuals choose not to vote. Even though they do this out of protest, I can't help but feel its really apathy.. Somewhat causing me to feel that their enabling our two-party dictatorship here in America. Am I stupid for saying that?

No you're not stupid. In theory, someone should vote for the candidate who is closest to them on the political spectrum.

Although, we should also have open primaries so third party and non-affiliated voters don't get stuck with whichever stupid candidate a small minority of people decide on.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 9:02:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Some anarchists I know say they think it'd be irresponsible to vote, because they don't support any of the candidates. Others say they don't want to participate in the system they don't agree with and would see it as hypocritical if they voted. Some take it a step further and say they want to literally destroy the process all-together (as in would consider using force in the future, as they feel they can morally justify it) so choose not to vote for that reason, obviously. I'd say the most appropriate thing to do would either be voting for the candidate who best represents your views, or, if you're not going to vote then do something proactive in the realm of activism to educate people on your cause. In other words, if you don't like the system, then don't just complain about it but actually do something about it (or try).
President of DDO
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 9:14:19 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 11/29/2010 9:00:40 AM, Sieben wrote:
http://www.cato-unbound.org...

So basically, if you're smarter than the average person, you need to vote to counter-act their stupidity.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
LaissezFaire
Posts: 2,050
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 9:41:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
My reasons for not voting:

Your vote won't make a difference. You're more likely to die in a car crash on the way to the poll than make a difference in the election.

There's no real difference between the two major parties from a libertarian perspective. So even if your vote did change who would be elected, it wouldn't be a positive difference.

The state is evil, and libertarians shouldn't have anything to do with it if they don't have to. Participating in this statist ritual just lends legitimacy to the state.
Should we subsidize education?
http://www.debate.org...

http://mises.org...

http://lewrockwell.com...

http://antiwar.com...

: At 6/22/2011 6:57:23 PM, el-badgero wrote:
: i didn't like [Obama]. he was the only black dude in moneygall yet he claimed to be home. obvious liar is obvious liar. i bet him and bin laden are bumfvcking right now.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 9:42:23 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
The mainstream theory about democracy is that even if people are wrong about policy, their errors will be random. Some people will over/underestimate policies evenly, so the idiots will cancel out and the average will be the "correct" answer.

Caplan points out that the assumption of random error is bogus. People are systematically biased, which leads to larger gaps on certain issues like immigration and welfare. So when there's a 1/10000000 chance your vote will matter, there isn't much point in anyone participating, intelligent or not. Its a prisoner's dilemma.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2010 9:43:36 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I might vote for Ron Paul though. Not because I think it would make a difference (I live in texas...), but just to feel good. Just to see his name on the ballot... *sniff*
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...