All About Multimedia
I read "Libertarianism: What everyone needs to know" which is authored by this man. Brilliant individual
I'm brazilian, here voting is mandatory. Next year going to be my first year voting, and you videos are really helpful for me! Thank you to show me know how to vote better 🙂
You can't delegate a right you don't have.
Are you voting tomorrow? Are you sure you’re ready? Professor Jason Brennan goes through what it takes to be a helpful voter — and what factors might get in the way of good voting.
#libertarian #liberty #voting #vote #election2013 #election #electionday2013
Damn, already labeled myself a libertarian
How to vote well: don't be a dumbfuck. Which is hard to do considering we're all dumbfucks.
When i saw the thumbnail i was like : Chael Sonnen on LearnLiberty?! lol
If you followed this advice, you'd eventually become a non-voter, which is the best kind of voter there is.
I don't vote because I think it'll lead to an anarchist society. That would require the overwhelming majority of society to support a transition to anarchy, and that isn't likely to happen anytime soon. I don't vote because it's unethical, and it doesn't change anything anyways. If I were to vote I'd probably vote for the Libertarian party, or a candidate who promised to end the federal gov't, but the chances of someone like that getting anywhere near the White House are practically 0.
"I never said we could improve policy by not voting.'
I meant switching to whatever you consider more optimal, in your case some manner of anarchy. Either way, you did claim you would achieve it by convincing people to not vote.
Quote: "Voting changes nothing but face of the dictator. No one votes, no one rules."
You seem convinced that this is a worthwhile use of your efforts. I think this is highly unlikely to accomplish anything.
America was far from a libertarian paradise at its founding. Slavery was socially accepted, and state enforced. That's about as far from libertarian philosophy as one can get. My point was that the American government started out very small, and yet today it's one of the largest in history.
Classical liberalism is Libertarianism. State socialists usurped the term liberal. Some Libertarians still prefer the term classical liberal.
The problem is America was founded by minarchists; believers in limited government like you. Objectively the American experiment has failed miserably. This country had at its birth one of the most limited governments in history, and now just two centuries later it has one of the largest, and most tyrannical. Small governments never stay that way for long.
The state does not maintain law, and order. If anything statism is chaos. How many Americans are behind bars despite having never caused physical, or financial harm to anyone else? How many real criminals who have hurt people gotten off the hook? How many people die as a result of the drug war, or the war on terror?
If the state disappeared tomorrow. A lot of people would be confused, and possibly frightened, but ultimately there would be less violence in society.
Show me this social contract. I never signed such a thing. Are you suggesting that merely existing inside the territorial bounds claimed by a state that I am consenting to be ruled by said state?
Positive rights come at the expense of other people. Healthcare is an example of this. In order to provide free healthcare to some people, others have to pay for it.
Negative rights do not inflict any expense. You have no right to steal. You have no right to kill. You have no right to rape. etc.
Define "pure libertarian."
You misunderstand me. War does not exist because of democracy. War exists because of statism. Democracy whether representative, or direct is just a type of statism. Democracy itself is violent because it is forced upon non participants.
My rights as a human being do no vanish simply because I'm outnumbered. There are other ways of getting things done in society that are not reliant upon coercion, and violence.
I never said we could improve policy by not voting. I don't want to influence politics. That's the point. You, and I have absolutely no right to enforce our will upon anyone. Nor do we have the right to elect someone else to enforce our will upon others. Democracy is about making one group freer than another group at the point of a gun.
If the people controlled the state there would be no state since almost everyone is opposed to taxation, war, and all the other injustices of statism.
I don't wish to impose my will on other people without their consent, and cooperation. Democracy is just as violent as any other form of statism. Just look at all the violence, and death caused by the US government in the last century, and tell me again how democracy isn't violent.
If 51% of people want to fund a project, but the remaining 49% don't. Is it ethical to use violence, or the threat of violence to force the 49% to fund the project?
That is the problem I have with democracy. It's not about efficiency. It's about ethics. Democracy is viewed by many as the peaceful solution to society's problems but in reality it's just as violent as any dictatorship, or monarchy.
Before you were suggesting we could improve policy by not voting. After I offered rebuttal, you've bounced over to something that's even farther from being a concise, useful plan than before.
If not participating in the system is your actual intention, consider moving to another country or investing in seasteading.
You correctly assert that voting has an expected utility of near zero, but your current plan to improve policy seems to be little more than unfeasible ideas with conspiracy talk.
I'm not free from state coercion, and that's the problem. I risk being imprisoned, or killed if I don't follow the edicts of your masters. I don't care if you submit to being ruled. It's the fact that you don't support any option to opt out of the system that disturbs me. I'm forced to go along with the electoral process whether I participate, and consent to it or not. How can you call this the land of the free?
Did I not just say "It legitimizes their authority over us."? You legitimize the mass murder of innocent people on the other side of the planet, and the theft of millions of hard working people by voting, and gleefully paying your taxes as if you're donating to the most charitable organization on Earth.
I didn't make the government. I was born under its boot. I'll resist it, and beg it for mercy if I have too, but I will not legitimize its rule over me, or any other human being.
Protesting sure. Mahatma Gandhi is probably my biggest role model, but he didn't vote the British out of India. He actively disobeyed them through direct action. Instead of begging for permission from the state to do something he did it, and dared the state to stop him.
How has voting kept the government in check? Have you taken a look at the government recently?
Limited government is not a new idea, it's the concept America was founded upon, and even before that people knew giving too much power to a small group of people was dangerous. Protesting is begging the government. Voting is giving consent to the government to rule you, and everyone else regardless of whether they consent or not. It legitimizes their authority over us. If enough people objected to their rule they'd fall like a house of cards.
I think this should be mandatory viewing for both the President and the men and women voting on Capitol Hill.
Reagan didn't shrink government, he increased government expenditure. The last president to actually reduce spending was Eisenhower. Protest isn't voting.
Name one example of a government being reduced in power by political means such as voting as as opposed to violent revolt like the American revolution, or non political means such as Gandhi's pacifist protest of British rule in India.
I support global trade, but only if it's in a free market. Statism is a barrier to global free trade due to boarders, regulations, taxes, tariffs, and contradictory laws.
So we need a state that taxes us, and threatens to imprison or kill us if we don't comply with their edicts in order to protect us from thieves, kidnappers, and murderers? I own a gun. I don't need the state to protect me.
When has any government ever been reigned in by the people through politics? The US government has only ever grown. It has never shrank since its inception. You know politics is a fixed game. You cannot win, so why even bother playing?
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.