Sorry for the lack of content lately but I’ve taken a break from reading “Ethics” for a while to just work on some other projects. Hopefully I return to it soon…but until then…

Video and details here:

“On Not Voting”

Intro – Nick, Left-Libertarian (Anarchist without adjectives), non-voter

(don’t support Gary Jonson, et. al.), Vote for Nobody Campaign

Video I’m responding to

Punk Patriot’s FB page

all-left.net

Objections:

“Voting is an endorsement of their policies.”

Although you say this is self-evident, often the most ferocious of lies are

hidden by statements such as these. So let’s examine this a bit closer and in

more depth.

This statement takes us back to what “voting” actually is.

What *is* voting?

Voting is, as I understand it, a *symbolic showing of support towards a

certain candidate*.

Now, you say that this symbolic support *necessarily* entails some sort of *agreement* with all of the person’s policies that they’re voting for. But how true is this? Let’s examine.

First we must remember that while the signal of voting is *taken* to mean support, in actuality it could be a mock vote. Or it could be a vote done via peer pressure and hence not of one’s full will. Or it could be a vote simply to oppose the other party (as many people do).

It’s also very common (especially in the case of Obama) to simply vote for the most “charamatic” politician and not *necessarily* having anything to do with their policies.

So it seems to me, that even right off the bat it seems *much* more grey whether voting *actually* constitutes some sort of *de facto* agreement with a candidate’s positions.

That’s *not* to say people *can’t* do it, I’m sure people do. But to assign them specific intentions to their *symbolic* actions when symbols can obviously tend to be a pretty subjective thing sometimes, seems to stem from sort of presumption of a higher knowledge than I think you actually have.

“A choice between murdering children in foreign countries by democrats and republicans and not doing so…

Well first, let’s examine (briefly) whether this choice *even exists*.

As I’ve already made clear, *choosing* to vote for *anyone* is a lot more murky (at the least!) than you presume so right from the get go this “choice” seems less obvious.

But let’s say that your presumptions are still correct, does this choice still exist?

Well, no, and I’ll attempt to explain why.

I certainly agree Romney and Barack’s policies aren’t to my liking and that murdering children isn’t a good thing. That should be obvious, but just so we’re clear, that’s where I stand on that.

Even still, if there’s no *actual* threat to them getting elected and thus having more children *not* die than the “choice” isn’t actually much of a choice to begin with. Another presumption you seemingly (I say seemingly because I’m going off of things I got from your argument, not stuff you stated yourself, so if I’m wrong, I apologize and feel free to correct me!) think that Stein or any other third candidate has some chance of winning.

But if you don’t (and let’s assume you don’t so we don’t go down the other topic) then how does this choice actually exist? In *reality* more children are going to die in the election no matter *what* you do right? So it seems to me that according to your logic we’re all culpable for the deaths of children (in some ways I *kind of* agree, but I’m coming from a different angle than you) *even though* there’s no real way to stop it.

“Abdictating your responsibility to record your opposition”

This seems to be relying on the presumption that there aren’t *other* ways to record your opposition, which is, of course, a fallacy, a false dilemma fallacy to be exact. Because you’re saying we either have the choice of recording our opposition *through a vote* or through *nothing*.

But of course, historically speaking and realistically speaking there are *plenty* of ways to record your opposition to the presidency or murdering children.

Hell, in this *video* I’ve done *all* of that and I’ve *literally* recorded it. Like, it’s on the internet and will probably be forever there. The voting records? I wouldn’t trust those to do the same. Especially due to the questionable rate of hacking that goes on with them.

“If you abstain from voting, you are complict in murder”

This’d only be true if your vote could actually *prevent* the murder. But our vote, statistically speaking, does not matter and voting for third canditates means even less most likely.

http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count

(Also, I’d like to point out that linking an article does not mean I 100% forever agree with all of its points till infinity…)

“The Murder Comparison”

Personally I don’t use the argument you’re talking about so it doesn’t have much relevancy to me. But either way I honestly don’t see how the comparison works. You, again, seem to be presuming the *vote* could actually stop the murders, but of course, it can’t.

Fortunately, I can use direct action (i.e. using my will without the “proper authoritie’s” say so) to stop the murder and that’s actually a *lot* more effective than simple filling out some paperwork and *hoping* the murder goes away when *statistically* it just won’t happen.

“Moralistic demagoguery”

I mean…I wasn’t gonna say anything like that…but hey, if you want to set yourself up for your own insults at the expense of yourself then you be my guest I suppose…

“To consent to something is to be complicit”

Okay, so consenting just means agreeing, or giving positive reinforcement, etc. etc. but what does being *complict* mean?

Generally speaking complict means being *aware* of something that’s going on and having the *power* to do something about it but not *acting* on said awareness to *prevent* whatever wrongdoing you *know* is going on.

The main thing I’d say here is that the vote *doesn’t* have such power. So this argument doesn’t add much to what you’re trying to get at.

“Through the general assembly model”

“If you do not block then you consent”

Okay, so that’s the rules of *general assembly* types of organizing…but what does that have to do with a *representative* style of organizing? Blocking isn’t somehting you can do. None of us have the power to *block* any given policy or policymaker and if we do we’re certainly not acting on such a thing to any big extent (at least to my knowledge). Which points to us probably either not seeing the point in it, using worse means, or thinking about this the wrong way. Or perhaps some combination of those things, etc.

“If you do not vote against the polices you oppose you are CONSENTING to them!”

I’ve pretty much demonstrated that this argument is (at best) on some pretty shaky grounds given the phenomenons of human action and presumptions of knowledge on your part.

And like I said, comparing two totally different models of organization to make a point isn’t too likely to improve your argument. And for my part I don’t think it did.

“By failing to record your opposition, you are CONSENTING”

Three brief rejoinders:

1. “Recording” your opposition through a system you don’t like sounds like a pretty bad way to record something.

2. Voting isn’t the only way to “record” your vote as I’ve already noted.

3. And the link between not recording your opposition and actually *consenting* is a weak one at best. You’d need to further demonstrate that a lack of *explict* opposition means *necessarily* an *implied* form of consent. I don’t think you’ve done that thus far.

“Non-voting isn’t radical, idealistic or pragmatic, it achieves nothing and in fact actively consents to that which you’re supposedly against”

1. Radical – It CAN be radical…but it can also be just sitting in your chair and telling no one and not giving a shit. Doing things like starting a

Vote for Nobody Campaign (links in the description) means that you’re *actively* promoting opposition to ALL candidates and *recording* that opposition loud and proud. Pretty radical if you ask me.

http://www.anti-politics.ws/

http://www.anti-politics.ws/archives/236

2. Idealistic -Unsure if you just meant ideal but I definitely think voting for Nobody is the *ideal* choice (or Vermine Supreme if you prefer, etc.). Especially if you’re an anarchist like me, but even if you’re not I don’t think voting for *anyone* when you’re vote doesn’t matter is ideal.

3. Achieves nothing – Depends on how you refuse to vote. You can turn that negative into a positive quite clearly as I just showed.

4. Makes you actively consent – Well I think I’ve dealt with that claim enough to either throughougly discredit it if not disprove it all together.

“And besides that it takes about 5 minutes to vote”

But of course, just like I wouldn’t even want to waste a *second* of my time making some sort of food I hate I wouldn’t want to engage in an activity that I thought wasn’t practically effective and is morally tenuous…though that’s another subject for another day. 😉

“You have five minute”

Not for voting I don’t!