Wednesday, November 05, 2008
Frustrated by Hope
I've never been so frustrated by other people's 'hope' so much. People seem to think Obama will ride in on a golden chariot powered by winged horses to create jobs, fix the healthcare system, slay the evil profitmongers of Wall Street, and usher in world peace. I've got bad news for them - it ain't gonna happen. All he can do is more of the same things that caused these problems to begin with.
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
If You Didn’t Vote, You Can Complain
(I posted this two years ago on my Myspace blog.)
I hear it all the time, and I heard it just the other night: If you don't vote, you can't complain about the government.
It doesn't take much time to show that practically the opposite is true.
If you did vote, you have given the government a mandate. You have essentially stated, "I will accept the decisions of those I have chosen to represent me." You can't complain about what the government does with your property, whether it be theft by taxation or slavery through regulation. You can't complain about the state of the economy when you elected someone to ruin the market - on your behalf! You can't complain when you are told what you can and cannot do with your body; you asked for drug laws and all the other laws designed to protect you from what's 'bad'.
How did you ask for it? By buying into the system. You wanted representative government. Whether or not it produced the results you expected (as it most certainly did not) is immaterial. You wanted one solution for everyone. You wanted that solution decided by a vote. If your vote went to the losing solution, tough luck - you wanted 'democracy'. So you can't complain.
What about those who didn't see the point in voting? What about those who preferred to use whatever time and effort it would have taken to drop a ballot in a box to do something that directly served their interests? Do they have a right to complain? Most certainly! They can complain that system didn't (and can't due to fundamental flaws) offer the solution or the candidate that best represented their views. They can complain that representative government exists in the first place to place the values of the vote-winners above those of the remaining members of society.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You don't own other people. Supporting a 'democratic republic', whether it be by voting or running for election or lobbying or some other means, is just an attempt to assert ownership over others. It's wrong at its core.
And if you did vote, remember this before you complain: You asked to be owned.
UPDATE - Some relevant links:
Building Bridges Between Anarchists and Non-Voters
I highly recommend anything by Marcel Votlucka. Read his other stuff in the archives.
Other People's Politics
Cat Farmer has a unique way of putting things.
Not Voting and Proud
This Reason article contains a theme I barely touched here.
Don't Vote (It Makes More Sense to Play the Lotto)
I'm too lazy to makes sure the math is right here... just roll with it.
Strike-The-Root Non-Voting Archive
I got these links from STR, so here's their archive. Enjoy!
UPDATE 2:
The Myth of the Rational Voter
Bryan Caplan's FAQ introduced me to a lot of ideas. Here he introduces me to another: What you think you know about the economy is wrong, and you will fuck things up if you vote based on this perceived knowledge. I plan to buy this book when it comes out!
I hear it all the time, and I heard it just the other night: If you don't vote, you can't complain about the government.
It doesn't take much time to show that practically the opposite is true.
If you did vote, you have given the government a mandate. You have essentially stated, "I will accept the decisions of those I have chosen to represent me." You can't complain about what the government does with your property, whether it be theft by taxation or slavery through regulation. You can't complain about the state of the economy when you elected someone to ruin the market - on your behalf! You can't complain when you are told what you can and cannot do with your body; you asked for drug laws and all the other laws designed to protect you from what's 'bad'.
How did you ask for it? By buying into the system. You wanted representative government. Whether or not it produced the results you expected (as it most certainly did not) is immaterial. You wanted one solution for everyone. You wanted that solution decided by a vote. If your vote went to the losing solution, tough luck - you wanted 'democracy'. So you can't complain.
What about those who didn't see the point in voting? What about those who preferred to use whatever time and effort it would have taken to drop a ballot in a box to do something that directly served their interests? Do they have a right to complain? Most certainly! They can complain that system didn't (and can't due to fundamental flaws) offer the solution or the candidate that best represented their views. They can complain that representative government exists in the first place to place the values of the vote-winners above those of the remaining members of society.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: You don't own other people. Supporting a 'democratic republic', whether it be by voting or running for election or lobbying or some other means, is just an attempt to assert ownership over others. It's wrong at its core.
And if you did vote, remember this before you complain: You asked to be owned.
UPDATE - Some relevant links:
Building Bridges Between Anarchists and Non-Voters
I highly recommend anything by Marcel Votlucka. Read his other stuff in the archives.
Other People's Politics
Cat Farmer has a unique way of putting things.
Not Voting and Proud
This Reason article contains a theme I barely touched here.
Don't Vote (It Makes More Sense to Play the Lotto)
I'm too lazy to makes sure the math is right here... just roll with it.
Strike-The-Root Non-Voting Archive
I got these links from STR, so here's their archive. Enjoy!
UPDATE 2:
The Myth of the Rational Voter
Bryan Caplan's FAQ introduced me to a lot of ideas. Here he introduces me to another: What you think you know about the economy is wrong, and you will fuck things up if you vote based on this perceived knowledge. I plan to buy this book when it comes out!
Every parent eventually asks his child, "If all your friends jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you?" I have an even more loaded question for those who refuse to second-guess the wisdom of the average voter: "If the majority said we all had to jump off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you push people who refused to jump?"
A Powerful Message
A Slap to the Face of Anarchists Everywhere
On my way out of work today, I saw two guys peddling shirts that said "Remember | Remember | The 5th of November" on the front. I paused, excited, then I saw the back - "Obama | Biden | 2008".
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Democracy Is Santa Claus
I wish telling someone his vote didn't matter had the same effect as telling a kid Santa Claus doesn't exist - heartbreaking, but then he comes to the realization that he knew it all along. He can proceed with his life happy, no longer carrying irrational beliefs. But it doesn't have this effect. People fiercely deny the logic and cling to Santa.
A Silly Argument
Those who support electoral politics in any form, even anarchist libertarians who support political action as a method of scaling back the government and working toward the ultimate end goal of anarchism, often make a silly argument: if everyone thought his vote didn't matter, there would be no way to affect change. We'd be governed by the whims of a few. On the contrary, if everyone realized his vote didn't matter, we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with. We're already governed by the whims of a few. Beside that, what's the difference between the whims of a few and the whims of the many? None that I can see.
Saturday, October 04, 2008
Vice-Presidential Candidate Fail
I actually found this on one of the tech blogs I read.
I can't really figure out what to say about it. It's hilarious, it's tragic... it's typical.
I can't really figure out what to say about it. It's hilarious, it's tragic... it's typical.
Monday, September 29, 2008
What Is Voting?
Philosophically, the act of voting is the assertion that one's value system should be forcibly imposed on others.
Pragmatically, the act of voting is the assertion that some other person's value system should be forcibly imposed on others.
Pragmatically, the act of voting is the assertion that some other person's value system should be forcibly imposed on others.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
The Reality Behind the Comcast Cap
I was browsing a friend's shared items on Google Reader earlier today, and I came across this Gizmodo article.
Of course, the comments section of the article is a veritable exercise in whaling and gnashing of teeth. One poster was even angry at the 'damn communists'. In reality, however, teh Internetz is partially propped up by public funding, was created by the government, and hence the real costs of distributed computer networking are largely hidden from the users. I doubt the kids were whining and complaining when tax dollars were being taken from everyone, including people who get much less of a benefit from it than they do.
How great would the outcry be if Comcast were charging people that it didn't provide Internet service to when someone went over their cap? Oh wait, Comcast can't do that! Only a government can. Instead of bitching about not being able to stream video all day long (because private property owners might actually want to conserve resources), kiddies should be thanking their lucky stars that the Internet is not a fully privatized institution which might require them to pay for all of their resource consumption.
Today, we're announcing that beginning on October 1, 2008, we will amend our Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) available at http://www.comcast.net/terms/use/ and establish a specific monthly data usage threshold of 250 GB/month per account for all residential customers. [quoted in article]
Of course, the comments section of the article is a veritable exercise in whaling and gnashing of teeth. One poster was even angry at the 'damn communists'. In reality, however, teh Internetz is partially propped up by public funding, was created by the government, and hence the real costs of distributed computer networking are largely hidden from the users. I doubt the kids were whining and complaining when tax dollars were being taken from everyone, including people who get much less of a benefit from it than they do.
How great would the outcry be if Comcast were charging people that it didn't provide Internet service to when someone went over their cap? Oh wait, Comcast can't do that! Only a government can. Instead of bitching about not being able to stream video all day long (because private property owners might actually want to conserve resources), kiddies should be thanking their lucky stars that the Internet is not a fully privatized institution which might require them to pay for all of their resource consumption.
Thursday, May 05, 2005
Semantics of Sermon
I decided to actually post something in my blog! This is the first chance I had to sit down and write. Finals just ended, and I have a two week break before summer classes start.
In the interval between the last post and this, I realized that I'm not going to be able to accomplish everything I set out to do with this blog. Depressingly, I'm just not as smart as I thought I was. I'm not going to be able to come up with original things to write about frequently. Everything in my mind is a jumble. Trying to gain some clarity is like trying to take knots out of a rubberband.
Anyway, I recently discovered the state of anarchy that exists in Somalia. Most ancaps (and obviously the people on that forum) see the situation as a positive proof of their theory. I'm still skeptical. The warlords seem to be forcing their will on the people. The people are enjoying immense freedoms, and capitalism is working it's magic; there are cellular networks and Internet access in some places! However, it is still a little too anarchical (in the "chaotic" sense) for me to jump on a soapbox and shout, "Look, you can see that the state is unnecessary!" I suggested on a thread at anti-state.com that the people need private defense agencies. Someone replied that they had them already. True, one can hire security, but I was thinking more along the lines of conflict resolution/avoidance agencies...private police in the real sense. Oh, and not having to pay tribute to the warlords would be nice.
I'm also wondering how they solve their property rights issues. I'm not going to wonder too much here.
Unfortunately, even if the society is functioning well and continues to do so, I'm pessimistic that it is sustainable given the outside forces involved. That is to say, other governments (namely the UN, United States, and Britain) will not allow a state of anarchy to persist, especially if the region is economically prosperous. I need to read more on the subject and intend to over break, before summer classes start.
In the interval between the last post and this, I realized that I'm not going to be able to accomplish everything I set out to do with this blog. Depressingly, I'm just not as smart as I thought I was. I'm not going to be able to come up with original things to write about frequently. Everything in my mind is a jumble. Trying to gain some clarity is like trying to take knots out of a rubberband.
Anyway, I recently discovered the state of anarchy that exists in Somalia. Most ancaps (and obviously the people on that forum) see the situation as a positive proof of their theory. I'm still skeptical. The warlords seem to be forcing their will on the people. The people are enjoying immense freedoms, and capitalism is working it's magic; there are cellular networks and Internet access in some places! However, it is still a little too anarchical (in the "chaotic" sense) for me to jump on a soapbox and shout, "Look, you can see that the state is unnecessary!" I suggested on a thread at anti-state.com that the people need private defense agencies. Someone replied that they had them already. True, one can hire security, but I was thinking more along the lines of conflict resolution/avoidance agencies...private police in the real sense. Oh, and not having to pay tribute to the warlords would be nice.
I'm also wondering how they solve their property rights issues. I'm not going to wonder too much here.
Unfortunately, even if the society is functioning well and continues to do so, I'm pessimistic that it is sustainable given the outside forces involved. That is to say, other governments (namely the UN, United States, and Britain) will not allow a state of anarchy to persist, especially if the region is economically prosperous. I need to read more on the subject and intend to over break, before summer classes start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)