https://static.wixstatic.com/media/b3ffcf_37c577c37baf41bca7a5fee405fc0025mv2.jpg/v1/fill/w_600,h_319,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01/b3ffcf_37c577c37baf41bca7a5fee405fc0025mv2.jpg
I’m not a fan of aggressive language. It is an unnecessary distraction. Words have meaning. And it is fairly undeniable that words can help heal. By that logic, words can also injure and encourage a complete rejection of actual positive ideas. However what I’m about to share with you is not done out of spite. It is done for the purpose of what shock value is meant to be used for.
Specifically it is the following idea: So many individuals have decided it is acceptable to suddenly vote because information has somehow changed or they feel immediately threatened within the world. This of course includes nuclear war between two nations. Predominately this is about whether or not the recent 2016 Democratic Presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, would have gone to war with Russia being an almost absolute certainty while the current president, Trump, has alternative ideas about that.
So without further hesitation, here is the issue. Do we postpone the inevitable acknowledgement of violent physical conflict or do we not? In order to avoid the nasty fate of a nuclear conflict where there will be no winners in the world at all, the decision to vote for the perceived lesser evil is justified. But what is really being said here with this proclaimed act of changing behavior with new information?
(place meme here)
The points presented are as follows:
These are their points. And while they seem fantastic upfront, they are riddled with absolute fallacies, lack of imagination, and the pretense that obeying the system in the present is somehow going to yield greater success in their survival today. The issue then becomes, but at what expense?
So on to the first point.
-We cannot change the system over night
No we cannot. Just as the system was crafted over generations, it will take generations to change it. However, there are more than just the means to working within the system to make that change happen.
The other options are to only participate in the events of the system which demand compliance or persecution. Voting is not one of those. Taxes on the other hand are, thus counter-economic concepts such as agorism are more beneficial in creating the collapse of government or forcing it to expose its violent hand to coerce conformity more openly. So if one is going to make the justification that voting in a system that is going to impose leadership upon them anyway, why don’t they just go ahead and pay their taxes quietly to fund a potential new branch of government that will be used to stop the old branch AND be willing to disband itself in the future?!
If that is seemingly wild and fantastically naïve, then that’s how voting the right candidate or a lesser evil in actually is.
That’s what voting is ultimately doing. The idea is self preservation in the moment, if this is the idea, is not indicative or someone who understands the importance of greater philosophical clarity or transparency. Unfortunately, self preservation in the moment that willingly participates in a process that comes with ZERO retaliation for noncompliance defeats the purpose. It justifies the system by saying, ‘okay, I’ll play by your rules to avoid a slightly worse fate despite the fact that I know it could be just as bad since the entire system is built upon unwarranted violence, aggression, coercion, clouded ideologies, and lack of transparency; let alone any true and lasting accountability!’
The issue is to expose the violence inherent in the system. By playing the games of the system one stays the hand of that violence a little more because the violent hand is appeased. How many more times will this violent hand decide to act in order to further enrich itself? All this teaches the violent hand of government is to keep threatening the voters with worse options. So by voting under the guise of being coerced with a perceived worse choice than Trump, one effectively admits to any one or more of the following:
-doesn’t understand the issue
-is too scared to be morally consistent
-doesn’t know how to show his philosophical work from the start point to present
-is apathetic to the status quo
-maybe is lost and jumped on a bandwagon of thought
-has a moral code that justifies hurting innocent people
If that last point is the case, then keep listening until the end so understand the dangers of how that point ends up being truer for most than they realize since they do not clearly define or utilized a universally applicable moral code that is easy to understand.
On to the second point.
-They state that they have an obligation to use their influence to change what they can
Okay. I agree with this point. However, once again, there are more choices available. If self preservation in the moment is the choice then one ends up completely screwing future generations into being apathetic, more easily cowed, and nescient about the importance of philosophical consistency. Specifically the issue at hand is in understanding the means employed by government. One cannot be guilty of what they accuse their aggressor of being without being a hypocrite, without being philosophically inconsistent.
If one understands government is built upon coercion, then one using government to end government is a contradiction in logic. To use government to end government is akin to voting for another robber who promises to rob one less or be less violent than the previous. Thus nothing is actually changing but the severity of the current situation on the notion that all fires can be extinguished with other fires.
The severity of the situation is not the problem. The problem is that there is a situation involving some people believing they have a right to control other people for any reason other than being directly attacked or their right to life, property, and happiness being assaulted by the same people they are trying to control with government.
On the third point.
-They don’t have a choice to not live under a democracy
I agree. I will take this to mean all government so that no excuse can be made to simply leave the current one; especially since there is nowhere to escape to where a government won’t somehow claim jurisdiction over.
In this case, it is pertinent and beneficial to create a morally consistent and universally applicable philosophy and make sure it is absolutely transparent from A to Z. In doing so act of committing no harm or encouraging of such harm should be allowed. If the government is known to be founded upon coercion outside of the realm of self defense in the moment (thus making taxation theft), to knowingly use stolen goods and destructive means to end the destruction of government means makes zero philosophical sense. This is true built upon the idea that those in power are not continuing to be hurt, but those who pay the taxes and obey the regulations out of fear are being hurt.
So to use the system to fight the system is to justify taxation in the moment to stop local tyrants the way the local tyrants justify taxation to fight the tyrants they created through their foreign policies. In fact the argument thus far in favor of voting to avoid a far less destructive fate than nuclear annihilation is to ignore the fundamental violence that made possible this scare tactic or real threat to engage in a nuclear war.
While we do not have a choice to escape the jurisdiction of government at all currently, we have a choice to not legitimize it further by speaking out against it and letting others see us condemned openly in time; or until there is a breaking point where violence is known to be close to erupting. Then it’s a matter of calling that bluff instead of empowering that bluff with the knowledge they got ‘once upon a time’ dissenters of voting to vote again to avoid perceived worse atrocities.
But again, this is how philosophical consistency plays out if the goal is to not hurt anyone else. If the goal is immediate self preservation without as much regard for the innocence of others, then fine. Go vote. Such only means that one’s principles can be defined by acts of subtle aggression, by fear like those often mocked as being called ‘sheeple.’
But there is no nobility is further justifying the legitimacy of the very entity because one is afraid of nuclear war. Everyone should rightly be afraid of such horrors. The simple fact is that no one decided to seriously promote the concept of voluntaryism, peaceful anarchism, or whatever they want to call having a clearly defined set of moral parameters to discuss the question of ‘why do we invoke morality?’ instead of simply invoking a far less thought version of it and calling it a democratic-republic of the people, for the people, and by the people under the illusion that it is respectful of consent; which is double-speak since respect of consent needs to be at 100% or the consent of the governed needs to be unanimous lest there is tyranny.
On to the fourth point.
-It is somehow better to choose imposed violations of their consent as a viable option
It’s almost sadistic in nature, akin to the horrific choices presented to people in a bad horror flick, like the Saw series. The overwhelming majority of people being imposed upon with a ruler did nothing wrong to anyone else to justify such punishment let alone to the actual ruler in question. So by deciding to choose instead of opting out or voicing opposition and peacefully rejecting participation until coerced of something that is going to happen regardless of whether or not it is preferable behavior only empowers the ability of such impositions to continue through propagandized figures of support!
That means that by voting at all, one justifies the robber’s actions to the robber. This in turn allows the robber to create more factually accurate numbers of attendance which can be skewed in their favor more easily. Effectively this teaches the robber another lesson of how he is okay to continue the process. This also teaches others that the process is legitimate because they can’t ever explain to everyone who knows they voted why they voted. And then how many people will ignore that and claim voting is for the greater good to keep government in place, period!?!
The only way to been seen as fully against the system without question is to refuse to vote and only participate in coercive activities. This idea that making a stand that sends mixed signals that require others to ask questions to get a far fuller picture is borderline ridiculous and almost utopian in nature. Few people, if any, will bother asking why one voted.
Remember, it’s not polite to talk about religion, politics, or sex per the taboos of U.S. culture. That’s a creation of cultural shaming and control by those in power.
On to the fifth point.
-They make the claim that they have the right to participate in who is going to rule over them
This is just more of the same of the previous point. If they settle for the choices of who is going to rule over them other than themselves by actively choosing what they perceive as the lesser of two evils (and I might add, with no clear moral code to define right from wrong or good from evil presently), then theyagree to not ruling themselves in the eyes of the system. To all of the system’s supporters they are just a different active political party that has agreed to the system. That’s not fair, but the only way to get a crystal clear point across to rejecting being ruled over is to not vote. Additionally it is helpful to speak out against being ruled over at every turn when such an imposition is brought up in one’s actions with another.
If they however vote in themselves then they still are responsible for voluntarily using the resources of the system. That continues the cycle of taxing people more by increases in quantity and percentages and the kinds of taxes directly imposed or through inflation associated with borrowing money from the Federal Reserve Bank. This continues to hurt others and makes the willing participant responsible for choosing such while knowing that the system in question is only going to spend more money one way or the other; especially since the new or returning voter is deciding to use more resources.
This is the idea behind all governments falling victim eventually to spending as much as they can to justify having the same size budget the next fiscal year. Yet the federal government hasn’t exactly been consistent in the last few years about balancing a budget at all.
Congratulations on a lack of philosophical consistency, transparency, or otherwise understanding the unintended consequences of legitimizing the violence inherent in the system.
On to the sixth point.
-They admit coercion is involved in their choice to participate
Yes, coercion is involved. However, until that coercion is making one accept welfare at gun point, holding a bayonet to one’s back to vote, or even demanding one use something it has monopolized, such as roads. Then their consent to legitimizing the system is expressed by using the resources the system confiscates through violence or threats of violence.
How garbled does this sound yet? I ask because a lot of this may not make sense until one decides to create a moral philosophy that doesn’t justify hurting innocent lives in order to save their own. But don’t worry, take a deep breath and get ready for one last to fist to the stomach of this argument because it was presented in such a condescending fashion
For the last point:
-Their participation today doesn’t negate their ultimate goal of ridding the system
The means do not always justify the goals. How many more people do they want to hurt by encouraging the system? That is precisely what is happening. It is not a fine line between rejecting the system by not using the resources it grants to change it and only complying in the moment to avoid persecution for noncompliance. In fact it is a pretty large step from one to the other with ZERO grey area.
To justify there being grey area is to admit that one does not have a clearly define moral code with an objective towards doing no harm to innocents. It’s easy to create clever, witty, and condescending memes. It’s far more difficult to create a code which is universally applicable to everyone with no grey area; certainly such which accounts for the lowest common denominator everyone seeks. (For information on this point, check out the comments for a link to free copies of my eBook, Morality Defined.)
But at the end of the day, to say that using the system to create small changes as a means to set precedents for greater changes in the future is to justify the use of the system at all. Remember the system had no justification in the beginning without the introduction of unwarranted violence. The issue of course with using the system is to maximize the peaceful transition from current status quo to a far better status quo. The most common argument I’ve witnessed in favor of voting, at least for Trump, is to avoid nuclear war. Unfortunately there are too many means to quickly reverse the small steps that were taken in much bigger steps in the democratic-republic of the United States alone.
These big steps were always taken on the heels of war and during its strides of sweeping violence to coerce conformity through highly distracted sophistic linguistics hosed down with fear mongering. All that means is that in order to stop the system, the violence inherent in it must be exposed on such a grand level that the apathetic will be the souls fought over by both sides. Win a few small victories by limiting congressional terms, lowering taxes in the interim, etc., and the change of the powers that be will do everything they can to introduce a new war to sweep away all these new changes.
The battle ground will be the fence upon which the apathetic sit.
The proof of this lay in every single war the federal government has taken part in. The first major time this happened was the War of Federal Aggresssion. (The American Civil War if that is more familiar.) So to prevent the seemingly certainty of nuclear destruction and choose to vote is to stay the hand of violence which needs exposure. Beggars cannot be choosers unless they are willing to suffer the consequences of their actions.
As nuclear war happens to be on the table because past generations of Humanity were ignorant enough to allow it to happen, we must suffer the consequences. The alternative is to endure with the stupidity that is government now and allow governments to devise even more dastardly weapons of mass destruction that our offspring will have to argue about as we are doing now.
(Does this sound familiar? If it does you can find a similar argument about using natural resources and how the ever expanding advance of technology is aiding the discovery of new sources of fossil fuels and alternatives despite the infinite number of pleas crying about how we will be fossil fuel-less by 1970, 2000, 2020, and now 2050 depending on which organization is discussing things.)
Essentially the meme’s argument for voting can easily lead to the justification of murdering another innocent if a terrorist holds a gun to one’s head and promises their freedom if they commit a murder. To remain morally consistent in action one must do any of the following other than hurt another innocent:
-Fight back with honor and win.
-Fight back with honor and lose.
-Do nothing at all and die or rot.
-Sneak out and escape
-Refuse to murder and die a martyr
-Refuse to murder and rot.
But to justify hurting another innocent to save one’s own skin is detestable if one understands that they are innocent and being hurt; forgivable this is if they truly do not understand the importance of philosophical clarity and consistency. However, if they acknowledge the fact that ‘taxation is theft’ as so many of those whom justified voting for Trump are often fond of repeating, they should certainly being able to understand this concept.
That’s the end of that. I understand that it was more aggressive than I am typically known for. It is just disheartening to come across so much hostility and condescending tones when there is a lack of self improve or self reflection to help make the world a better place. All I ask is that people do not bring such condescending sophistry back to me. Certainly don’t employ this kind of perspective.
It’s unnecessary and impolite. If one thinks I have misinterpreted this position, please let me know. I’m always happy to understand where I can improve my philosophical position to maintain the utmost consistency. However, I’m also not going to roll over or tolerate such trifle things as condescension for no other reason than to affect an air of superiority. None will not get a response from me of:
Oh, you’re being verbally aggressive and acting superior to me. I must submit to you!
My goal is to help people understand more efficient, less destructive, and far more principled means. Nuclear war is nothing that anyone wants except those who desire to do evil. Unfortunately our ancestors, those whom were alive during the early and mid 1900s who could understand and do something about government didn’t. So if we don’t do something about calling out the violence that is inherent in government’s foundation, then what planet killing or entire star system killing atrocity will our great grand children have to suffer in the coming century?
-JLD
Find out more about my works here:
I base all of my posts on previous content I've created in two books and multiple audio programs.
Download and read for free Liberty Defined and Morality Defined here,
https://www.smashwords.com/books/byseries/20333
Listen to my Liberty & Morality Defined presents audio series here, http://bit.ly/2eT3ZxN
If you're a Star Wars fan and would like to start the journey into a realm of fantasy following a journey of struggle against two separate empires and a galaxy of souls lost in a conflict still raging on after 10 million years, download and read for free book one of my Hunter's Gambit series, Revelations here, http://bit.ly/2b1QoBh
And visit me on Facebook at http://www.FB.com/LibertyDefined
& http://www.FB.com/JLimberDavis
Twitter @JimLimberDavis
Steemit @JimLimberDavis
If you enjoy the work I create, please encourage more of it with one time or reoccurring donations here,
http://www.jimlimberdavis.com/#!donation-support/c22og