On this tragic day, this is a good reminder to all of us who have compassion for a fellow humans, but specifically to those who wish to reduce government but still choose to vote:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3588
in part:
"Your vote is not a defensive act. It is an act that facilitates violence committed against people like me who have done you no harm but merely wish to live...and peacefully so. By casting a vote, you tell thugs, opportunists, parasites and worse that they have a right to intrude upon my life with their laws, their taxes and zero-tolerance policies about everything from speech to drugs, from guns to trans-fat. You vote is like ringing a dinner bell for wolves to descend."
8 comments:
To choose to not vote, is to deny yourself the right to complain about loss of democratic rights.
To refuse to vote is to refuse to take responsibility for not removing whomever you take issue with, from office.
Anon,
Not true of course.
First off a right to free speech in no way depends upon voting, nor should it. Rights are inherent in moral agents, not something to be granted by any "authority."
Secondly, it is voter who is a hypocrite for complaining, not the non-voter. The non-voter did not support the harm to others, or herself, but the voter actively approved of the process and the system by participating. To complain then about the outcome is to simply become a hypocrite.
As for removing people from office, you are missing the forest for the trees. The problem is not a particular person in office, they are all evil after all, but rather the existence of any post, of any office which necessitates or assumes a right to control other people.
You can respect other people as people or you can assume that you have a right to own or otherwise control the peaceful lives of others (voting), but you cannot do both.
Compassion, respect, and integrity are all at odds with voting, with the presumption that you have a right to own other people.
When someone chooses not to vote they give me their vote to cast and cast it I will. I always vote because I like to complain. If you want to complain, vote.
Vote.
Vote often.
Vote repeatedly.
I agree with you Storm,but find it interesting that you are using industrial civilization to facilitate your home construction as Industrial Civilization requires a hierarchical organization to function.That means leaders and laws to hold it all together.Perhaps you are familier with Green Anarchy.It is an offshoot of traditional anarchy in that it recognizes that hierarchy is inherent in civilization.Rather than redistribute the means of industrial production.
Anon, we require order not laws. As long as there is order we can certainly have civilization, and order comes about via function and respect for others. Laws are often at odds with order, or are arbitrary, and certainly they limit growth, civility, and civilization. The incarceration rate in the US, which is higher than any nation in history (in fact the incarceration rate for non-crimes alone is higher than any nation in history for all of their reasons for incarceration!) takes away from civilization, reduces advancement, and prohibits learning in a number of areas.
The old "laws" of the common law tradition in England (and other places" were not laws dictated by any ruler, but rather judgements from courts run by the people. They were never abolute, but were all merely case studies such that a very similar case may in fact get a different ruling if but one important aspect of the case were different. In this way order was discovered, not decreed, and there was (and is) no need for laws as we know them today.
As for the socialist offshoot of anarchy you refer to as "traditional" anarchy (got to give them credit for usurping that role in people's minds..) I contend that it is not anarchy at all as it neglects respect for persons and demands a rigid essentially totalitarian state. There is no other way to enforce that redistribution of the wealth, and of course without a state, the state cannot own the means of production. (ala socialism)
I had not come across that difference in "green anarchy," but thanks for the reference.
It seems to me from my reading and of course from the logical implementation of basic respect for persons, that the long tradition of what is sometimes called "individualist anarchy" is the only right and just path, for it allows for all of the other suggested forms of association, with the one caveat that all must be voluntary without the coercion which is the trademark of the state.
Walter, thanks for the comment. Unfortunately voting is not complaining, it is cheering and encouragement. It says that you approve of the ownership of others, and that this should continue.
That is not to say you cannot complain and vote, but it is like complaining about eating too much at Thanksgiving, you did it to yourself.. Though with voting you are doing it to others also, but you get the idea.
Industial civilization is anything but voluntary to many.Just to aquire this fine piece of land(NA)we had to do some serious "persuasion".Virtualy all industrial activities have people affected that protest.
Anon, amongst the problems with that argument there is an is/ought fallacy (well reversed..) That governments made immoral decisions in no way necessitates that civilizations are dependent upon those immoral decisions.
That this was the case in no way means that this is the only way to have civilization.
Post a Comment