Don't Vote!

[G8rMom7]

This is a really interesting thread! Love it!

[annarborgator]

The reality of the situation is that by voting you are expressing a preference for one person over another and presuming that you should have the authority to determine who is allowed to use aggression/coercion against non-government people.

By participating you are SUPPORTING VIOLENCE.

[slideman67]

By not participating, you are abdicating your responsibilities as an American citizen and dishonoring the American soldiers who have fought and died for your right to vote. You are also dishonoring the memories of your ancestors who came over to this country.

If you are confortable doing that then by all means, don't vote. But then as I said before, STFU about politics, because I don't give a shit about your opinions.

[DocZaius]

I have no problem admitting that I SUPPORT VIOLENCE (or at least the THREAT OF VIOLENCE) under certain circumstances.

[annarborgator]

Do any of those circumstances involve supporting the initiation of violence? Or do they all involve using violence defensively?

[G8rMom7]

I am supporting our attorney (in fact today) to serve our notices of our lawsuit by a uniformed officer...for the effect. I suppose that could be seen as supporting violence. But when you don't pay your bills, that's the only recource we merchants have. It is stealing I guess.

[annarborgator]

I am supporting our attorney (in fact today) to serve our notices of our lawsuit by a uniformed officer...for the effect. I suppose that could be seen as supporting violence. But when you don't pay your bills, that's the only recource we merchants have. It is stealing I guess.

The questions I just asked Doc are the important moral considerations...who initiated the force? I'd argue that by taking goods, promising to pay you, and then refusing to pay you that the other side has initiated the force.

The only issue I see is that by using the state's monopoly, you perpetuate its monopoly...while I believe that we need real competition in the arena of dispute resolution. But I also understand that right now there's not really another route to go because the market hasn't produced alternatives yet (I'm working on that, don't worry).

[radbag]

I will be voting, same as always....much to slider's chagrin.

So Ricky, are you advocating that private industry make roads and we pay to use them? How well do you think that will go over?

i pay bridge tolls when i use the bridge....i pay parkway tolls when i use the parkway...i pay the parking meters for parking and/or use of the parking garage.

we pay these already...what's the difference?

ftr - you asked ".........what incentive does private industry have to make roads, schools, provide police protection, etc? "

i answered "the incentive is money"...it's the right answer

[slideman67]

So you are advocating turning all things like road maintenance, school construction, police protection, etc to the private sector? Making money - for what?

Think about that for a second - do you see any problems with this?

[radbag]

So you are advocating turning all things like road maintenance, school construction, police protection, etc to the private sector? Making money - for what?

Think about that for a second - do you see any problems with this?

NOOOO.

i'm advocating answering your question (for the 3rd time) which was "...........what incentive does private industry have to make roads, schools, provide police protection, etc? "

answer is....the incentive is money.

[G8rMom7]

I'll answer the question about "Making money - for what?"...um, the day that it became a bad thing for a person to make a financial gain in this country is just about the time that our economy tanked.

Making money so they can pay employees to work on the roads, pay for benefits for those employees and yes, pay a PROFIT to the board or persons who RISKED their investment dollars on a business opportunity.

Basic economics.

[slideman67]

So if I understand the (il)logic here you all are saying that we don't need a government and we can count on the private sector to do things like build roads give us fire and police protection, and build schools all so they can make money? Do you not see the inherent corruption possibilities here? Do you really want a private business to be responsible for building schools and educating our children for example? What would they be teaching them? Would they be answerable to anyone? What about a company who decides not to build roads or provide police protection to a low income neighborhood because it is not as safe as a gated community and unprofitable for them to be there? Do you really want some corporate bean counter making decisions for the public good? What about someone like me - I work for myself and I work from home. I use the roads to travel to meet my clients, and my business provides profits for me not any company. Does that mean that roads on my street should not be serviced because I don't answer to a company?

A business has a responsibility to its shareholders, at least according to the MBA program I completed at UF. This idea that private business can do things for the public good is not feasible. The potential is ripe for corruption and cronyism to people who are answerable to nobody. Granted there has been and is corruption in government, but when it is exposed, due to open records laws and things like the Freedom of Information Act, voters can decide to vote out the corrupt politicians. We would have ZERO choice to get rid of a corrupt CEO, like a Key Lay for example. Effectively what you are arguing for is a Corporate Oligarchy or Corporatocracy. If you think things are bad now, try that of government. Many Third World countries have it now. And thanks to the five idiots on the Supreme Court who effectively destroyed campaign finance and stated that a business is the same as a citizen, the US may be heading this way.

That may be the strongest reason I can give to vote.

[slideman67]

BTW - you might want to look at the movie Robocop for what could happen if a business ran the police force. Yes I know it is a fictional movie, but could you see something like that happening in real life?

[annarborgator]

So if I understand the (il)logic here you all are saying that we don't need a government and we can count on the private sector to do things like build roads give us fire and police protection, and build schools all so they can make money? Do you not see the inherent corruption possibilities here? Do you really want a private business to be responsible for building schools and educating our children for example? What would they be teaching them? Would they be answerable to anyone? What about a company who decides not to build roads or provide police protection to a low income neighborhood because it is not as safe as a gated community and unprofitable for them to be there? Do you really want some corporate bean counter making decisions for the public good? What about someone like me - I work for myself and I work from home. I use the roads to travel to meet my clients, and my business provides profits for me not any company. Does that mean that roads on my street should not be serviced because I don't answer to a company?

A business has a responsibility to its shareholders, at least according to the MBA program I completed at UF. This idea that private business can do things for the public good is not feasible. The potential is ripe for corruption and cronyism to people who are answerable to nobody. Granted there has been and is corruption in government, but when it is exposed, due to open records laws and things like the Freedom of Information Act, voters can decide to vote out the corrupt politicians. We would have ZERO choice to get rid of a corrupt CEO, like a Key Lay for example. Effectively what you are arguing for is a Corporate Oligarchy or Corporatocracy. If you think things are bad now, try that of government. Many Third World countries have it now. And thanks to the five idiots on the Supreme Court who effectively destroyed campaign finance and stated that a business is the same as a citizen, the US may be heading this way.

That may be the strongest reason I can give to vote.

1) Corporations wouldn't necessarily exist in their current form in the absence of government. Corporations exist in their current form due to government-guaranteed limitations on liability. They very likely would not dominate the market in the absence of government limits on liability.

2) Corporations and other free market entities can be made 100% beholden to their consumers because their consumers can simply withdraw their consent of a business's actions by refusing to do business with them. Withdrawing consent from government is much more difficult (and practically impossible for most people) because it requires a citizen to move to another country and withdraw their citizenship. The free market allows for real competition without artificial barriers to entry, exactly the opposite of how governments currently work. Governments create artificial barriers to entry which disallows true competition to ever exist in government.

3) A business can have a responsibility to anyone or everyone depending upon its charter and what its customers demand. You're wrong that "a business has a responsibility to its shareholders" because plenty of businesses don't even have shareholders.

4) If a business is corrupt then it will face major challenges in the market through competition, destruction of its reputation, etc. If a government is corrupt, it keeps its power because government is legally authorized to initiate violence to maintain its authority. You're absolutely incorrect that the market would have zero choice to oust a corrupt CEO or bankrupt a corrupt/evil company.

[annarborgator]

BTW - you might want to look at the movie Robocop for what could happen if a business ran the police force. Yes I know it is a fictional movie, but could you see something like that happening in real life?

BTW - you might want to look at the insane human rights violations that have regularly occurred while the government has run police forces. Yes, I know it's non-fiction, but why can't you see that you can't rein in entities that are legally allowed to initiate violence against people to maintain their authority?

[annarborgator]

I just can't believe how many people believe in the legitimacy of government. Basically government boils down to this: I write up a piece of paper that says I have the legal authority to take a portion of your property from you and I get a few of my friends to sign it. Then I claim to have the legal authority to take a portion of your property from you. And if you refuse to give me the portion of your property that I tell you to give me, I get to kidnap you and jail you. If you resist my attempt to kidnap and jail you, I get to kill you.

It's insane.

[slideman67]

And I can't believe your illogic and belief that we don't need a government. It's insane.

Tell me, are your corporations going to provide national defense as well? How about printing money and maintaining currency? What about rule of law? How about regulating and having elections? Do you honestly think we can do any of these things without a government?

Are you advocating total hedonism and anarchy? And if not, who will prevent society from becoming this way?

Besides, why should I or any of us here give a damn what you think? You have decided to abdicate your responsibility to this country and not vote.

[annarborgator]

And I can't believe your illogic and belief that we don't need a government. It's insane.

You still haven't proven where the lack of logic lies in my arguments. You just say they're illogical. That's not a very well-defined criticism.

Tell me, are your corporations going to provide national defense as well?

I don't believe there should be such a thing as "national defense" because I don't think there should be a "nation". I believe the free market can provide collective defense much more efficiently and effectively than government can. I also think we'd need much less protection if we didn't have a government going all around the world making enemies and providing a centralized taxing authority to attack and take over.

How about printing money and maintaining currency?

The free market would be much more effective at maintaining currency. P.S. right now currency is maintained by a government maintained monopolistic corporation known as the federal reserve.

What about rule of law?

The free market would create much more effective laws due to competition among creators of law and dispute resolution organizations.

How about regulating and having elections?

Government elections are evil. Plenty of private groups regulate and maintain their own elections on their own without using violence. (HOA boards, Elks lodges, corporations, student governments, etc)

Do you honestly think we can do any of these things without a government?

Absolutely. Are you saying that we can only accomplish these things through the initiation of violence (aka government)? If so it's pretty disgusting that you advocate violence.

Are you advocating total hedonism and anarchy?

I advocate voluntaryism in the form of autarchy, which is a form of anarchy. Who said anything about hedonism?

And if not, who will prevent society from becoming this way?

Are you saying you advocate using violence to force on others your views of how society should be?

Besides, why should I or any of us here give a damn what you think? You have decided to abdicate your responsibility to this country and not vote.

I have no responsibility to this country. Why should I or any of us here give a damn what you think? You advocate using violence.

[annarborgator]

The provision of services by the free market is discussed at length in this free book: http://freedomainradio.com/board/blogs/freedomain/archive/2008/11/14/practical-anarchy-the-book.aspx

[slideman67]

You have completely proven my point by your answers. Your views of how things should be are not sustainable, and since there is no way any of this "utopian" fantasy of yours would ever work, inherently illogical.

Since when have I ever advocated violence? Again, your attempt to equate the necessity of a government to violence is also illogical. I would say that you advocate anarchy with your approach, and I find that pretty disgusting.

And again, you are not going to vote, so when it comes to any of this, why should any of us give a damn about what you think? If you have no responsibility to this country then why are you here? The fact that you enjoy the services of this country like roads, police, etc., and claim to have no responsibility to this country either makes you a hypocrite or someone with an illogical viewpoint. When you can completely be self sufficient in this society without using any of these things, then talk to us. Until then, you have no clue what you are talking about.

[annarborgator]

You have completely proven my point by your answers. Your views of how things should be are not sustainable, and since there is no way any of this "utopian" fantasy of yours would ever work, inherently illogical.

You have no evidence that the proposed ideas are unsustainable and you cannot prove that they would never work. Making your criticism so far entirely invalid.

Since when have I ever advocated violence? Again, your attempt to equate the necessity of a government to violence is also illogical. I would say that you advocate anarchy with your approach, and I find that pretty disgusting.

Please explain to me how government is not the equivalent of violence.

And again, you are not going to vote, so when it comes to any of this, why should any of us give a damn about what you think?

lulz repeating a question or POV doesn't make it meaningful.

If you have no responsibility to this country then why are you here? The fact that you enjoy the services of this country like roads, police, etc., and claim to have no responsibility to this country either makes you a hypocrite or someone with an illogical viewpoint. When you can completely be self sufficient in this society without using any of these things, then talk to us. Until then, you have no clue what you are talking about.

I never asked government to provide the services. I never contracted with government for the provision of such services. If I provide you a service without you asking me to do so, you actually think you have a duty to pay me for unilaterally providing you a service?

I don't claim to be self-sufficient. I only claim that I have the right to choose who provides services to me and whether I choose to pay for services. Government points a gun at me and says, "You will pay for us to create these things or we will kidnap you."

[slideman67]

You have no evidence that you ideas are possible or sustainable yourself. You might want to look at Somalia for an example of a failed state with no functioning government. So given the fact that all of this exists in your head, and that you have no evidence of anything like this working today, your proposal is invalid.

Please explain to me how government is the equivalent of violence.

Maybe I am repeating the question because you have not answered it.

So again, try to live without any government services. Unless you become a hermit like the Unabomber, you will not, nor will you ever be able to do it. Even he used the mail to send his bombs.

If you think you can live in a civilized society without a functioning government, then prove it. Otherwise, shut up, because as long as you live in this country and enjoy and utilize the services that this government provides, you have no leg to stand on.

[annarborgator]

You have no evidence that you ideas are possible or sustainable yourself. You might want to look at Somalia for an example of a failed state with no functioning government. So given the fact that all of this exists in your head, and that you have no evidence of anything like this working today, your proposal is invalid.

You might want to look at how the standard of living in Somalia has increased since it became stateless.

Please explain to me how government is the equivalent of violence.

Defining the State as a monopoly on legalized violence is pretty standard in philosophy of law and political philosophy. If you need it explained I'm frankly surprised you're even trying to engage in this debate.

Maybe I am repeating the question because you have not answered it.

I've answered it many times. You ignore my answers.

So again, try to live without any government services. Unless you become a hermit like the Unabomber, you will not, nor will you ever be able to do it. Even he used the mail to send his bombs.

If you think you can live in a civilized society without a functioning government, then prove it. Otherwise, shut up, because as long as you live in this country and enjoy and utilize the services that this government provides, you have no leg to stand on.

I'm not allowed to prove it or try to live without such services because your fucking government won't allow real competition to itself. Even if I create a private school, the customers I find would still be forced to pay taxes for public education. Same thing with my ideas for creating a private court system. Government is allowed to FORCE everyone to pay for certain services at the point of a gun (through the threat of kidnapping if they refuse to pay) and I have to compete with what people therefore see as "free" services because they've already been forced to pay for them.

All because government claims the legal right to use violence against people if they don't do what government tells them to do.

[slideman67]

You are joking about Somalia, right? If you aren't, then you have no freaking clue about what is going on there.

I will say to you again - if you don't like it here in this country in this government, and you aren't willing to vote to make your voice heard, then leave. No one is forcing you to stay here in this country. Move to Somalia if it is such a great place - I can guarantee you that you won't have a government to worry about.

As long as you are here and continue to use the services that are provided by the government, you have no leg to stand on.

[annarborgator]

God it's like discussing the issues with a fucking 4 year old.

Somalia = straw man fallacy.

Love it or leave it = yet another fallacy.

My use of the services provided at the point of the government's gun = yet another fallacy.

You should have taken a class or two in logic. You have no clue about argumentation.