Because these people know that the system that’s in place doesn’t want them voting.

Can you explain this statement to me?

My impression was that it was a reference to the voter registration issues that have been present for black voters in Florida, and other ongoing efforts to trick them into not voting. Flyers were distributed in one group of Florida black voters, for example, announcing that the election day had been moved to November third.

I don't find that encouraging. I find it pitiful and rather sickening that people can be so fooled into thinking their vote makes any difference. It shows just how stupid people can be to stand in line for an average of five hours for the sole purpose of encouraging the state to further encroach upon their freedom.

So it isn't enough that the sheep are encouraged to participate in their own slaughter, they need to suffer throughout the entire process?

Hope for what? More of my hard-earned money taken by force and used to kill innocent people? A military draft? A bigger budget deficit? Recklessly printing more money? More intervention into countries where we have no business?

How does furthering the status quo give anyone hope?

I must be really stupid. I don't get it.

Good question, considering that the only thing "the system" actually does care about is that they give it legitimacy.

I'm curious. Do you oppose democratic political systems in principle, or just believe that our current government is corrupt and democracy in this instance is ineffective?

Not a sucker-punch question, I'm just honestly wondering.

I oppose democratic political systems in principle, since I see them as simply rule by the largest mob. Why should I be subjected to the whims of any other group? I firmly believe in the old adage that democracy is nothing more then two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner.

When one person tries to take something from me by force, we call it robbery. When a large mob masquerading as a "majority" does it, it is called "democracy".

The wolves want the sheep to participate, because then they can say, "Hey, it was a fair election; you just lost."

I suppose that this is where we differ; if democracy, as a principle, is the problem then there isn't much common ground for us to discuss on. It seems that leaving a democratic country is certainly an option -- can it be assumed that those who continue living in a democracy are doing so by choice because they view the benefits of the system as a sufficient tradeoff for being on "the losing side" of a political disagreement?

What would your 'ideal state' be? By 'state' I mean 'state of being' rather than 'nation-state.'

First, I want to apologize if my response to your entry seemed harsh or if it looked like I was hijacking your entry. That was not my intention. I just felt an opposing viewpoint should be offered, because, quite frankly, as an opponent of democracy and the whole democratic process, I am getting pretty sick of hearing it glorified to the point of worship. I am also tired of being vilified because I refuse to participate.

To address your questions: I make no assumptions about everyone else; I can only speak for myself. I have considered leaving, and will gladly do so if I can find a place where I can live in an increased state of freedom. I was born here, and continue to live here for a number of reasons, but the "benefits of the system" do not outweigh the harm the system causes and I cause by my involuntary contributions.

In short, my ideal state would be to live in a community-based, decentralized society where all interactions with others is done on a purely voluntary basis and my self-ownership is truly respected and honored by everyone else.

No problem -- you're certainly not hijacking, and the discussion is appreciated. As long as you don't think I'm a capitalist running-dog whore for voting and encouraging others to, we'll get on fine. :D

In answer to your ideal state, I can definitely see the appeal of it. I suppose what I'm getting at, though, is this. Does such a community require absolute unanimity? unanimousness? Whatever the word for that is. *grin* What happens when 5 people decide they're going to have a party and the 6th says the noise will keep him awake all night? Externalities creep in pretty quickly.

I'm thinking 'larger scale' than my own personal day to day stuff. In my experience, decentralized models work best for specific and/or small scale settings. I'm not sure how that would work in a densely populated land mass the size of, say, Illinois.

Again, not dismissing your views, just trying to grapple with the complexity of 'real world applications.' We tend to take many of the products of a regulated society for granted (for better or worse).

The practical application of my ideal is something I admittedly still think about and try to work out. I am not talking about a system of total chaos. There would still be organization and even what many might call "government." The thing is, each person would be free to either participate or not as they saw fit.

In your hypothetical case, I would like to think the sixth person could appeal to the other five and explain that they needed to sleep. A big part of my ideal (and this is very much an ideal) is that people would truly respect each other. This respect would be the foundation of the structure of the society.

I can see communities forming where there would be various types of structure. Some communities might be purely communist in nature. Others might be more individualistic. People would tend to create communities with others that shared their views. There would be all sorts of variations. The only basic rule would be that everyone was participating in the community they wanted on a purely voluntary basis.

For example, the sixth person, living in this type of society, might be able to appeal to an independent arbiter that all parties involved would agree could make the final decision. The societal structure would have to be much different than what we have today. Some people would very likely even see at as much worse than what we have today, because many people cannot handle true freedom very well. People would not have the threat of violence or force to use to their ends.

To echo David just a bit...

The benefits of "losing" or "winning" in American politics are sort of inconsequential if one disapproves of the bottom line ethics of the system. I don't participate because of the ethical implications of democracy rather than because of what benefits I am hypothetically receiving or not receiving.

Now carry on with the practical bits.

Personally, I think that if centralized government were removed, people would realize that they truly are the government, and if anything is going to get done they themselves will have to do it and organize it, which will in turn foster cooperation and a stronger civility.

One of my biggest concerns is the caveat about everyone truly respecting one another. We know for a fact that this isn't the case now.

I DO see the kind of system that you're talking about being a definite ideal. It seems like it would require a complete reboot of most humans' vision of society, however.

Wouldn't this system be particularly susceptible to those who don't play by the implicit rules, or those who have needlessly restrictive perspectives? What if,, in the party example mentioned above, the five assured the one that they wouldn't be loud, but the one still objected? Perhaps he objects to their party being held within plain sight of his living space, since they're neighbors. These are the kinds of 'externalities' that I'm pondering. It's my belief that government, as it were, should primarily be about the subjecting of cost-for-externalities. A leveler of the playing field that prevents one member of the societry from artificially pushing the costs of his behavior onto another member.

Again, not trying to accuse or shoot down. Just exploring the subtleties and ramifications of it.

Yes!

And to further this, such a system would demand communication within the communitiy, something we seem to be doing less and less, while the means of communication seem to be increasing almost exponentially. Instead of viewing our neighbors with suspicion and paranoia, we would embrace them and, dare I say, truly "love our neighbors."

Of course, if one wanted to hole up in their homes and refuse participation, they would be free to do so, but the system would encourage mutual respect, openness and cooperation.

This is where I get confused, though. If they form a government, but several of them disagree, who determines what to do?

I've been trying to help facilitate a small group of 15-20 Christians (Fusion, woo!) and even with that small set, it's terribly difficult. We've settled on a 'buck stops here' model with a deignated tie-braker vote by someone whose role is changed every 6 months. It's a little arbitrary, but it helps.

I'm just very concerned by the 'voting is violence' meme. Democracy, in my mind, is an agreement by a group of people to decide based on a majority's opinion. It can be abused, but the other models I've seen outlined in other posts in this thread seem just as open to abuse, and even more susceptible to 'bad apple effect.'

--puzzling, verb

There is a word for this libertarian utopia (maybe that's not the word you want, but it quacks like a duck to me) you and are advocating; or, rather, two words:

Power vaccuum.

Where there is less government, are people necessarily more free? Ask the people of Africa, where centralized governments are weak or absent...and as a result, the strong are "free" to oppress the weak without interference. Someone is always in charge. There is no way to keep the seat labeled "Top Dog" empty.

In my estimation, what you are asking for is psychologically impossible. A state wherein respect for the rights of others is universal, yet guaranteed by nobody and nothing.

--- Ajax.

For the record, I would love it if this utopia were to happen -- I'm just extremely skeptical that it ever will, for the reasons you mentioned, human nature being one of the primary ones.

This is one of the reasons that as an individual, I believe that I'm making a bigger difference in real terms by being a good person to those around me, and living out the beliefs I espouse. The Bible (Yep, I'm a Christian, etc etc) talks about the "Fruit" of the spirit of God being love, joy, peace, compassion, kindness, patience, and so on. By demonstrating those things, and encouraging others to do the same, I'm contributing to the sort of change that would, one prays, make that sort of 'utopia' possible.

Maybe just a question of 'which one is the cause, and which one is the effect.'

I have done much less thinking about this than David, but, in short, people are choosing to join Fusion, correct? There is no requirement that they stay with the group and no use of force to make them come or stay. When they joined they either a) knew there would be voting to make decisions, or b) are able to leave if they find those decisions no longer fit with their life view and they came of their own will.

As citizens of the United States, we don't really have those sorts of options. As tempting as it is to reply and say that we have the option of leaving, it's not a real option in many ways. We have familial obligations. We have friends. To move to another country would require learning a new language and a new culture entirely. The United States even has to give us permission to revoke our citizenship. We are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

In the sort of system David is talking about, voting would not necessarily have to go away. If people decided that voting was the best option for their community, great! If people decided that consensus was the only way they were going to decide things, great! You would have the freedom to make those kinds of choices, to decide what method of decision making worked best for your group and your groups' needs.

OK. I agree, then, with the idea that democracy as a means of a group making decisions isn't inherently bad -- it's more an objection to the fact that in our flawed democratic republic, not only is democracy often a contest between two puppets for the same Powers That Be, there is no opt-out mechanism for those born into the system.

I'm not sure how the being-born-into-it issue can be resolved, though, as the communities in your ideal society would conceivably encounter the same problems... albeit without the "You can't revoke your citizenship" clause. Familial and cultural ties are always a tough 'un to get past.

By demonstrating those things, and encouraging others to do the same, I'm contributing to the sort of change that would, one prays, make that sort of 'utopia' possible.

I would tend to agree with you. And for the record, although I'm a committed atheist, I try to do the same. Given a choice between doing the smart thing and doing the right thing -- because really, that's the only time it's ever difficult enough to call it a "choice", right? -- I'll do the right thing, as I see it. (Somebody has got to, so it might as well be me.)

But the problem with the "utopia" is that it only takes one asshole to ruin everything. And human nature being as it is, there will always, always be at least one asshole. Thus the need for prisons, armies, and taxes to maintain the prisons and armies. ;)

--- Ajax.

Ah, yes. the "Smart Thing Versus Right Thing" is huge. It's difficult, and you're right -- when the 'right' and the 'smart' coincide, nobdy ever complains about ethical dilemmas. ;)

And yeah, the Asshole Problem is an ever present one. *grin*

There are many factors to take into account when examining Africa. Until colonization, they were free to rule themselves as they chose (I acknowledge that how they ruled themselves was not necessarily peaceful to their neighbors). Colonizing countries forced centralized government onto a society that didn't have a need or want for it. In the absence of colonial force, yes, warlords have claimed power in an already upset system. These problems aren't due to people willfully choosing to have no centralized government (that is, the colonizing countries pulled out of their own accord or the inhabitants demanded that they be allowed to govern themselves in a centralized manner).

There is also an argument for the problems in Africa being due to a low civil society, which the United States does not have.

This isn't advocacy for utopia. This is advocacy for something better than what's in place. If you're hoping for utopia, you'll always be disappointed.

I guess I define 'utopia' as "Any system that fails if a single participant breaks the implicit rules."

The system that's been mentioned does have rules -- namely, that everyone abide by the (reasonable) wishes of those around them whenever humanly possible. I like it, but I believe that it would require a lot of heart-level transformation before it could work even on a small scale...

Tribalism. Hmmm...

The point is that humans are naturally hierarchical. There is always a centralized authority that extends as far as the logistics of the situation will permit. Every society. Every time period. Whether it's a bandit chief or an Emperor of Earth and the Surrounding Spaces, human beings tend, over time, to self-organize around a central authority.

A power vacuum is not the natural state of affairs in human society, nor is a libertarian ideal where nobody tries to hold power over anybody else. Colonization of Africa didn't "upset" anything, sociologically speaking -- it was simply a bigger, stronger tribe taking control of all the weaker tribes.

--- Ajax.

I generally agree with your concerns.

First off, I think there is an ad hoc tendency amoung Americans to conflate democracy with their own state in speaking out against it. However there are many different forms currently practiced in the world. In my opinion, the idea of a "mob rule" can only be alluded to with respect to a direct democracy. You speak of a representative (or indirect) democracy, and there are certainly other models based on ideals like concensus and deliberation. I mean we're so passed the Platonic "democracy" of [i]Republica[/i].

However, in terms of disagreence amoung members, I'm not sure we can conflate opting out of governance as opting out of the social contract. A state based on direct democracy gives the majority power which goes far beyond the basic social contract. And so even in minimalist/anarchist state with no centralized government, we can still have a social contract enforced by voluntary syndicates.

The system I would prefer to live within does not fail if a single participant breaks the implicit rules. Therefore it fails your definition of utopia.

First, I agree with you about self improvement. The only thing within my power is to, in words of Albert Jay Nock, "present society with one improved unit." I do not seek to change everyone to my way of thinking, or to force anything on anyone. However, I do seek change when I think my liberties are being violated, as is being done today when a substantial portion of my earnings are confiscated by force at the threat of violence and used to kill and permenantly injure others.

Second, I am not talking about a "perfect" system here. I don't expect everyone to suddenly "follow the rules." There have to be certain laws and enforcement of those laws, but these laws would all be based on the premise that individual liberty is inviolate. Most of the decentralized communities would still be organized in hierarchial societal structures (there might be a few that would be totally chaotic, but they probably wouldn't last long). There would almost certainly be some of those communities that would grow and perhaps even try to implement more centralized controls. As long as the participants of that community or group were free to leave as they pleased, the size or the structure of the community does not matter.

I view this type of system as more or less an evolution of the concepts of individual liberty upon which the United States was founded. It would certainly not be perfect, but the concept and any arguments against it are only theories, since it has never been tried.

Third, all of this discussion in no way validates the electoral process of the United States. My original objection was directed at a system, or more specifically an individual within that system, that heralds a process as something "beautiful" when it has absolutely nothing to offer most of the people living within it. One may disagree with my ideal for the type of system I would like to see implemented, but this in no way lends more credibility to the horribly flawed, corrupt, no-choice system we are stuck with today.

This is a recurring theme when I enter into these discussions about voting. When I try to explain why I do not vote, the question inevitably arises, "What type of system do you think is best?" The discussion then inevitably evolves into an argument over the merits of my ideal, as if any perceived problems with my ideal somehow gives the existing system more credence.

You may think my ideal is not practical, but that does not strengthen the case for the flawed system we have today. And it certainly is not cause for praising the existing system and its ridiculous machinations.

I guess it is always easier to criticize the status quo than it is to suggest something better, eh?

Third, all of this discussion in no way validates the electoral process of the United States. My original objection was directed at a system, or more specifically an individual within that system, that heralds a process as something "beautiful" when it has absolutely nothing to offer most of the people living within it.

Unless I'm completely misunderstanding your feelings, you object to the fact that you have insufficient freedom for self-rule under the United States' implementation of a representative democracy. As a citizen, your dollars are taken and used for things that you have not personally approved of, but you have insufficient ability to alter those decisions.

There are certainly a huge number of ways to make our basic democratic system better. For example, changing current US laws so that citizens can 'opt out' of citizenship if they move abroad. Changing the electoral college system. Promoting third party candidates in local races, which have a significant down-the-line impact on national races. None of these things are easy, but similarly significant changes have been made in the past. It sounds as if you see this as endorsing an opressive, violent system that runs counter to true freedom. Perhaps I just have a 'revolution threshold' that's much higher than yours.

My reasons for asking you about your ideal are simple -- I'm trying to figure out what you want that justifies mocking those who participate in a system you don't like. It seems that the behavior (calling people pathetic if they vote) doesn't mesh well with the spirit of respect and tolerance that you say would be a requirement of your ideal society.

I have nothing against those who decide not to participate in representative democracy. I would like there to be a better way for them to opt out of citizenship if they desire to live outside the US or give up their citizenship rights and act as 'national indepentents.' I do not mock or belittle you. I simply disagree respectfully, and am sad that the discussion grows heated so easily.

Nothing was heated in my part of the discussion. It may come across that way, but it wasn't meant to.

I also do not/did not intend to mock anyone that participates in the system here. I used the word "pathetic" in this case because I truly felt sorry for these people who were willing to go stand in a line for five hours or more and endure the hardships described for what I see as a useless, pointless exercise. I did not mean to say the people themselves are truly pathetic, but I find the situation they were in pathetic.

I sincerely apologize for not making myself clear. I am afraid I am not the best at saying what I want or properly relating what I mean in text.

Well, I should have re-read my first post before I responded. Man, it sounds very harsh. I didn't use the word "pathetic" -- I said they were stupid -- even worse. I do apologize for that.

It really does break my heart to see and hear people who think they truly have a voice, and as far as I can tell, that voice doesn't exist. For all the millions of people who are so caught up in this election hype, the end result isn't going to make that much difference one way or another, because the choices available are virutally indistinguishable.

I do get angry at a system that gives us no choice and then tries to tell us it is our "duty" or "responsibility" to participate. It is very difficult for me to see anything beautiful about it or to feel there is any hope within it.

Again, my apologies for the tone of my original response.

My original objection was directed at a system, or more specifically an individual within that system, that heralds a process as something "beautiful" when it has absolutely nothing to offer most of the people living within it.

But you haven't made that case, just asserted it. Clearly the person making that statement felt the electoral process was worthwhile, and that the ability to cast a vote was worth defending and facilitating. If you disagree, I'll need a better reason than "my ideal is better" if you want me to take you seriously.

One may disagree with my ideal for the type of system I would like to see implemented, but this in no way lends more credibility to the horribly flawed, corrupt, no-choice system we are stuck with today.

Except that the system we have today is plausible, feasible, and accounts for certain trends and tendencies in human nature which your system does not (or seems not to, in any case.) Perhaps not to your satisfaction, and once we've heard more about your specific complaints, we might be able to figure out why.

...when a substantial portion of my earnings are confiscated by force at the threat of violence and used to kill and permenantly injure others.

This has the makings of a specific complaint, but I don't imagine we'll get very far arguing about whether it's moral to use force at all, and under what conditions. A system that does not recognize that force, coercion, and violence are inevitable facets of human existence (and furthermore, can only be controlled and managed through the use of force, coercion, and yes, sometimes violence) seems to me much less "credible" than the system we have today.

(And the argument about "my earnings" and "confiscated by force" is similarly fraught with peril. :)

--- Ajax.

On this statement -- the heartbrakingly small impact that a concerned individual can have given the nature of our political system -- I agree wholeheartedly.

I wasn't personally offended by your posts, and I hope that *I* didn't come across as nasty or snarky or accusatory. I do think there's a lot to be learned in dialoguing about this stuff, but I think that the two of us at least would have to work through a loooooot of discussions about premises and so on before we'd see eye to eye on this. I think that a lot of the disagreements we're having grow out of some fundamentally different asusmptions about the nature of freedom etc.

Regarding (specifically) African American voters voting in a "system that doesn't want them to," the original writer was referring to a number of attempts in Florida over the past several years to supress the votes of African Americans in particular.

way too long general rant that wouldn't fit here, so had to stuff it elsewhere.

If you believe that human nature is such that it requires the use of force, coercion and violence for humans to survive, then I really see no point in further discussion regarding individual liberty. It wouldn't serve any purpose for me to try to make my case, because we are approaching the subject with completely opposite premises, mine being that the use of force, coercion and violence to violate the liberties of another individual is immoral.

Only history will prove how "plausible" and "feasible" the existing governmental structure and political system in the United States is. It is currently a system that could easily collapse virtually, if not literally, overnight.

Perhaps you could explain how the state has a moral right to take money I earned through various contractual relationships and the resulting work I produced as a result and use it to kill innocent people, for example, by spreading depleted uranium throughout Afghanistan and Iraq. If you mug me and take money from me, the state calls it robbery. If the state takes money from me at the threat of imprisonment if I don't comply (otherwise I wouldn't surrender it), it is called "government."

Oh, and I would opt-out or leave if I could, but U.S. citizens are not allowed to renounce their citizenship without permission from the Federal Government.

It wouldn't serve any purpose for me to try to make my case, because we are approaching the subject with completely opposite premises, mine being that the use of force, coercion and violence to violate the liberties of another individual is immoral.

Your unstated premise: you have the ability to live a completely moral life. I would argue that you do not. Life is an exercise in picking your battles, and adhering rigidly to a set of abstract principles regardless of the situation is a good way to make things worse for everyone.

We all die with a little tarnish on our souls. That's just the way it is.

Perhaps you could explain how the state has a moral right to take money I earned through various contractual relationships and the resulting work I produced as a result and use it to kill innocent people, for example, by spreading depleted uranium throughout Afghanistan and Iraq.

I won't defend the war in Iraq, which I also disagree with, but I will defend taxes. The state facilitated those contractual relationships, by providing the means of exchange, the infrastructure you relied upon to make the arrangements, and probably assorted other associated costs you don't even think about -- and don't need to.

Moreover, the state undoubtedly paid for at least a portion of your schooling, ensured you have (relatively) clean air to breathe and clean water to drink while you went about your daily labors, and provided an army and a police force to defend your assets from foreign and domestic enemies respectively.

All of these services enabled you to earn that money. Morally, the state does have a right to claim a cut -- because without the state, your contract would not have gone forward nearly as smoothly, safely, and efficiently as it did.

And you can't "opt out" of all of these services (and trust me, you would regret it if you did) because there's no way for an army to protect every square inch of the country except for your house, or regulate air and water quality everywhere except for the bits defined by your property lines.

If it makes you feel any better, consider that your contribution to the federal budget is a tiny percentage of the total. It would not be unreasonable to assume that your money is only being spent on things you agree with, whereas the warring and the confiscatory and discriminatory social policies are going forward on someone else's dime. ;)

--- Ajax.

The problem really boils down to this: Misconception.

The general idea of a democratic society (or a democratic republic) is that we are all born free, with free will to choose what we want to do. The primary motivation for people is to do things that make them happy or feel fulfilled (a byproduct of happiness or is happiness a byproduct of fulfillment? Probably both). There are things one person may wish to do which infringes upon the right of another person's freedom and as a result the collective group of free wills must decide to pass laws that may disable specific freedoms (seen as bad according to basic moral code, perhaps) for individuals for the good of the whole.

Murder, for example, is an expression of free will. I can choose to kill somebody if I like, but in taking that person's life away, society has decided I must be punished because it isn't right of me to express my freedom to gain happiness by taking away the ability of another to do the same.

Laws multiply and become more complex, and as people begin to lose sight of what the law is there for which is protecting you from having your freedoms infringed upon, then they begin to target laws at other ridiculous things.

Concessions must be made and everyone must give up a little to get a lot in return. Without this type of system, you are left to the whims of nature which will dictate that the strong will rule, and honestly the strong could give a shit about your freedom.

The government is a representative body that is supposed to act on behalf of the citizenry. We have those that create, repeal or modify the laws on behalf of the people, those that execute the laws for the people, and those that make judgements on the laws made by the people.

The bill of rights, for example, does its best to defend your freedoms. It recognizes that people should have freedom of religion as it is their choice, and that they should be free to speak against the government or organize in protest against something. You should have the right to bear arms against the government if it becomes tyrannical, you should have the right to be free from search and seizure by the government without just cause and the right not to incriminate yourself, along with many others. These are provisions that help ensure the government won't abuse the power the collective people have given them.

In a group of people, those people may decide that the government needs to provide a service for all of some sort, whether it be police and military to enforce and defend, medical services to help the injured or what have you, and as a result the government needs funding to provide the service. In the end, taxation takes a little from everyone in order to provide a lot to all.

The problem isn't with the government, the problem is with the people. If you believe your vote doesn't count, then you are right. A single vote does not count. What counts is someone who expresses their opinion to others to convince them that they are right, and that their collective mass goes to cast votes in favor of a specific ideal, candidate, law, etc. Those who would wait 5 hours in line to cast a vote are not pathetic nor are they exercising futility- look at the numbers this year. Had they not gone to the polls, the margin would have been far greater.

It all boils down to people not understanding what the concept of a representative democratic republic is, and having a misconception of the way things are supposed to work. People who lack the ability to see and think logically about the subject and understand the system and its roots.