Re: POLITICS Voting- Brittany ( was: Cup of urine a day... )

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/3/04 12:05:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

dolliecain@... writes:

<<<<Micheal how can you possible advocate people not to vote. I think that is

shameful. People have died to give you that freedom. Maybe this is a group I

should not have joined. I hope that you do not speak for the majority on this

group.>>>>

_____

~~~~~> Hi Brittany,

Given that there are over 1000 people on this list, and that the list has

food and nutrition as its subject, it is unlikely that there is any " majority

opinion " concerning politics on the list.

If you determine who you get your nutritional information from by their

politics, then the best thing for you to do would be to organize the 50,000 +

messages on the board by thread and read all the threads with the " POLITICS " tag

on

the subject line, and then create a spreadsheet organizing the list members

by their political beliefs. After you've done this, you can simply set your

email client up to reject nutritional messages to the list from people whose

politics you disagree with, while accepting the nutritional posts from people

whose politics you agree with.

All that said, didn't anyone who died to give us the freedom to vote, not

also die to give us the freedom *not* to vote? Freedom is a state pertaining to

choices, and all choices must have a minimum of two alternative options (with

respect to voting, these would be voting, and not voting).

Chris

[Guest guest]

I had written:

>Freedom is a state

> pertaining to

> choices, and all choices must have a minimum of two alternative options

(with

> respect to voting, these would be voting, and not voting).

____

Then I pasted Mike 's top-post (ahem!):

As far as Chris' last

> point, not voting is equivalent to voting for whoever wins. Not

> choosing is often a form of choosing.

_____

~~~~~> Hi Mike,

After calling the point " stupid " I'd expect you to at least have a relevant

rebuttal. Your last sentence " not choosing is often a form of choosing " not

only does not conflict with my statement, but expresses exactly what I was

saying: the choice exists between choosing (between candidates) and not choosing

(between candidates).

If Brittany had said, " the freedom to vote for Republicans " or " the freedom

to vote for Democrats, " for example, one implying a choice between it and the

other, than that would satisfy a definition of freedom, because one could

exercise a choice freely. But she said, instead, the " freedom to vote, " and the

freedom to vote per se would be reciprocated by the freedom to not vote, just as

the freedom to vote for specific thing x would be reciprocated by the freedom

to vote for some specific other thing y.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Great points (except the last one, which is stupid), and to that

I should also point out that voting in this specific socio-historical

context is like choosing between two brands of potato chips (yes,

there are differences, but compare to the foods people should really

be eating), not something to get all worked up and passionate about.

All that said, I personally disagree with and think his sig is

facile nonsense to grab attention and is best ignored. It's not

shameful; it's just silly and irrelevant. As far as Chris' last

point, not voting is equivalent to voting for whoever wins. Not

choosing is often a form of choosing.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

Re: POLITICS Voting- Brittany ( was: Cup of urine a day... )

In a message dated 9/3/04 12:05:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

dolliecain@... writes:

<<<<Micheal how can you possible advocate people not to vote. I think that is

shameful. People have died to give you that freedom. Maybe this is a group I

should not have joined. I hope that you do not speak for the majority on this

group.>>>>

_____

~~~~~> Hi Brittany,

Given that there are over 1000 people on this list, and that the list has

food and nutrition as its subject, it is unlikely that there is any " majority

opinion " concerning politics on the list.

If you determine who you get your nutritional information from by their

politics, then the best thing for you to do would be to organize the 50,000 +

messages on the board by thread and read all the threads with the

" POLITICS " tag on

the subject line, and then create a spreadsheet organizing the list members

by their political beliefs. After you've done this, you can simply set your

email client up to reject nutritional messages to the list from people whose

politics you disagree with, while accepting the nutritional posts from people

whose politics you agree with.

All that said, didn't anyone who died to give us the freedom to vote, not

also die to give us the freedom *not* to vote? Freedom is a state

pertaining to

choices, and all choices must have a minimum of two alternative options (with

respect to voting, these would be voting, and not voting).

Chris

[Guest guest]

The cliché that not voting is " equivalent to voting for whoever wins " is

overly facile, and not mathematically correct. I am assuming that by

equivalent you are claiming some sort of mathematical equivalence - I'm not

sure what other kind would be relevant in counting votes.

They are obviously not equivalent, so I'm not sure that a contrived example

is necessary. But imagine a scenario where 5 people have voted for candidate

A and 4 people have voted for candidate B. If no more people vote, then

candidate A wins. If there are 5 more people in the voting pool, and none of

them vote, then candidate A wins. However, if they all vote for candidate B,

then candidate B wins. Clearly, not voting is different than voting, and can

represent a valid choice in any election. What the debate comes down to, in

my opinion, is whether (say, in this election), despite the fact that both

candidates are 'potato chips', one of them may taste worse to a degree that

warrants a choice.

BTW, even Chomsky wrote (in some article on Znet) that, on this particular

occasion, it would be worth it to vote for Kerry.

> Great points (except the last one, which is stupid), and to that

> I should also point out that voting in this specific socio-historical

> context is like choosing between two brands of potato chips (yes,

> there are differences, but compare to the foods people should really

> be eating), not something to get all worked up and passionate about.

> All that said, I personally disagree with and think his sig is

> facile nonsense to grab attention and is best ignored. It's not

> shameful; it's just silly and irrelevant. As far as Chris' last

> point, not voting is equivalent to voting for whoever wins. Not

> choosing is often a form of choosing.

>

> Mike

> SE Pennsylvania

>

> The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

>

>

> Re: POLITICS Voting- Brittany ( was: Cup of urine a day... )

>

>

> In a message dated 9/3/04 12:05:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

> dolliecain@... writes:

> <<<<Micheal how can you possible advocate people not to vote. I think that is

> shameful. People have died to give you that freedom. Maybe this is a group I

> should not have joined. I hope that you do not speak for the majority on this

> group.>>>>

> _____

>

> ~~~~~> Hi Brittany,

>

> Given that there are over 1000 people on this list, and that the list has

> food and nutrition as its subject, it is unlikely that there is any " majority

> opinion " concerning politics on the list.

>

> If you determine who you get your nutritional information from by their

> politics, then the best thing for you to do would be to organize the 50,000 +

> messages on the board by thread and read all the threads with the

> " POLITICS " tag on

> the subject line, and then create a spreadsheet organizing the list members

> by their political beliefs. After you've done this, you can simply set your

> email client up to reject nutritional messages to the list from people whose

> politics you disagree with, while accepting the nutritional posts from people

> whose politics you agree with.

>

> All that said, didn't anyone who died to give us the freedom to vote, not

> also die to give us the freedom *not* to vote? Freedom is a state

> pertaining to

> choices, and all choices must have a minimum of two alternative options (with

> respect to voting, these would be voting, and not voting).

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> BTW, even Chomsky wrote (in some article on Znet) that, on this

> particular

> occasion, it would be worth it to vote for Kerry.

Gene, I'm going to look this up but if you have it more handy I would

very much appreciate the URL. Thank you so much.

Lynn S.

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.wisforwomen.com

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 15:53:38 -0400

Anton <michaelantonparker@...> wrote:

> Great points (except the last one, which is stupid), and to that

> I should also point out that voting in this specific socio-historical

> context is like choosing between two brands of potato chips (yes,

> there are differences, but compare to the foods people should really

> be eating), not something to get all worked up and passionate about.

> All that said, I personally disagree with and think his sig is

> facile nonsense to grab attention and is best ignored. It's not

> shameful; it's just silly and irrelevant. As far as Chris' last

> point, not voting is equivalent to voting for whoever wins. Not

> choosing is often a form of choosing.

>

> Mike

> SE Pennsylvania

>

> The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

>

Hi Mike,

I think your conception of a non vote is simplistic and nonsensical,

though quite common. I won't call it stupid since it has an air of

plausibility about it and I won't call it facile since you responded

with such assuredness and confidence that I'm assuming you have thought

it through.

I also think that your comment about " not choosing is often a form of

choosing " only serves to reiterate what was saying about genuine

freedom, but since it wasn't addressed to me I won't address it directly

here. Nor will I address why you thought it okay to call something

" stupid " without offering much reason as to why, or do you just think

your critique is self-evident?

But since you do accuse *me* of *facile* nonsense I am compelled to

define and then respond.

Facile:

3. Arrived at without due care, effort, or examination; superficial: proposed

a facile solution to a complex problem.

4. Readily manifested, together with an aura of insincerity and lack of depth:

a facile slogan devised by politicians.

Actually I might put your comment in the last defined category but I

won't. Nonetheless, I can hear every politician in America saying in

order to shore up the institution of gov't, " not voting is equivalent to

voting for whoever wins. " That is nonsense at the very least least, but

I tackle it below.

Since you are apparently unaware of this, I have come to my position

after quite a bit of thought over the years. I haven't easily arrived at

what I believe politically. You simply have no way of knowing that I got

there either because of lack of due care, effort or examination or that

what I believe about voting is readily manifested, insincere and lacks

depth. It might be wrong but you have no way of reading and knowing my

life or heart to claim its " facile. " Unless of course you are God or

spent a lot of time with me either in person or online discussing these

things. Neither is true.

Thus, your charge of " facile " is baseless.

This a favorite tactic of many critics, and one that has been used

against libertarians in particular. I wrote about that here (excerpt

below):

http://tinyurl.com/6nm89

The third paragraph in the excerpt is the one relevant to this

discussion, the others are to provide some context.

" But according to Frum’s cohort, Jonah Goldberg, I’m one of the mislead

ones, a commoner if you will. Thus, since I’m not actually part of the

club, I am not guilty of their sins, other than buying into a false

viewpoint.

" Yet I find it hard to understand how one who believes that war ought to

have verifiable justification; that human life is sacred, no matter the

ethnic makeup; that civilian innocents should never be harmed, under any

circumstance; that war should never be celebrated, even when just; and

that politicians regularly lie to advance their own agenda as a matter

of course (irrespective of party), is somehow being deceived.

" I have no desire to be a rank and file facilitator of the muddled

thinking and the hubris that seems to have gripped the neoconservative

movement when it comes to the subject of war. Nor am I interested,

having come to this point of view through honest and sometimes difficult

thought, reflection, and discussion, in Frum and company’s priestly

absolution of my apparent political and economic naïveté.

" No, if you don’t mind, I’ll err on the side of the

libertarian/anarchist understanding of liberty, which is to be free from

the state and all its immoral and thus illegitimate coercive

machinations. If this be deception, then so be it. "

Second, I wonder if you read the article in my sig line. It is a

thoughtful response to a real dilemma that faces thoughtful people

around the world and not just in America. Or was this just an off the

cuff comment without any regard for content?

Third your comment, " I personally disagree with and think his

sig is...to grab attention and is best ignored, " is hilarious.

Of course it is designed to grab attention, and it certainly got yours!

;-)

That is one of the purposes of a viral signature, to bring peoples

attention on a regular basis to something that doesn't properly belong

in the body of the message. It is a very unobtrusive and accepted form

of advertising ones idea, product, service, what have you. And we are

free to ignore it if we so choose.

Lastly, my non vote is not the same as voting for the winner. I think

voting is evil when it involves coercion/stealing from people and doing

things with their life energy that they wouldn't otherwise do. If its

not freely given then its theft or slavery. I have always maintained

the above in nearly every thread where this was a subject. I include

taxation, conscription, and much regulation in that category. You may

not agree with me but that is not the point.

Whoever I vote for the office of President is going to initiate and

continue coercive power, i.e. violence. I'm not electing a winner by not

voting, since either winner is going to *do* the *same* thing. By not

voting I am refusing to coerce and steal *willfully* and *indirectly*

from my neighbor and perhaps even vicariously participate in the death

of their son's and daughters.

Not voting *is not* necessarily morally equivalent to voting which it

seems you might be implying. I hope not. By choosing to abstain from

this instance of evil is not thereby the same as participating in this

instance of evil. Down is not up, white is not black, theft is not

compassion and good is not evil.

My not voting for Bush or Kerry is not the equivalent of voting for one

or the other, morally, mathematically or otherwise.

FWIW,

Kick the Habit: Don't Vote!

http://tinyurl.com/439vl

Eat fat, get thin... lift big, get small.

" They told just the same,

That just because a tyrant has the might

By force of arms to murder men downright

And burn down house and home and leave all flat

They call the man a captain, just for that.

But since an outlaw with his little band

Cannot bring half such mischief on the land

Or be the cause of so much harm and grief,

He only earns the title of a thief. "

--Geoffrey Chaucer, The Manciple's Tale

[Guest guest]

> Gene, I'm going to look this up but if you have it more handy I would

> very much appreciate the URL.

Never mind, found it!

L

------

Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.wisforwomen.com

[Guest guest]

@@@ Gene:

The cliché that not voting is " equivalent to voting for whoever wins " is

overly facile, and not mathematically correct. I am assuming that by

equivalent you are claiming some sort of mathematical equivalence - I'm not

sure what other kind would be relevant in counting votes.

They are obviously not equivalent, so I'm not sure that a contrived example

is necessary. But imagine a scenario where 5 people have voted for candidate

A and 4 people have voted for candidate B. If no more people vote, then

candidate A wins. If there are 5 more people in the voting pool, and none of

them vote, then candidate A wins. However, if they all vote for candidate B,

then candidate B wins. Clearly, not voting is different than voting, and can

represent a valid choice in any election. What the debate comes down to, in

my opinion, is whether (say, in this election), despite the fact that both

candidates are 'potato chips', one of them may taste worse to a degree that

warrants a choice.

@@@@@

Gene,

I'm sorry, but your example vividly demonstrates my point, a point so

obvious it doesn't even need such a demonstration, and my statement

*is* mathematically correct, in a trivial, painfully obvious way. I

can't see how something so simple deserves more than the one sentence

I gave it, but in the tradition of NN, here we go...

I think you might've missed or intentionally ignored the intended and

obvious interpretation of " whoever wins " . It means " whoever would win

if you don't vote " . So, for the common-sensically challenged folks

out there, the extra-explicit version reads " not voting is equivalent

to voting for whoever would win if you don't vote " .

The only equivalence measure that makes sense in this case is " who

wins " . If those 5 people don't vote, A wins. If they all vote for A,

A wins. If they all vote for B, B wins. There are only two

possibilities: A wins or B wins. In the non-voting case and the

voting for A case, A wins. Bingo, the same equivalence class of " A

wins " . It can't get much simpler than this.

Clearly, not voting is different than voting. When you vote, you

affect the outcome. When you don't vote, you automatically support

whatever outcome occurs. I never said not voting is the same as

voting. I said not voting is the same as voting for whoever wins.

(Personally, I'll be voting *against* the potato chip that appears to

be loaded with carcinogens and PHVO, etc.)

@@@ Chris:

After calling the point " stupid " I'd expect you to at least have a relevant

rebuttal. Your last sentence " not choosing is often a form of choosing " not

only does not conflict with my statement, but expresses exactly what I was

saying: the choice exists between choosing (between candidates) and

not choosing

(between candidates).

@@@@

I did have a relevant rebuttal! It was the second-to-last sentence!

It's there! The last sentence was even included as a bonus paraphrase

and generalization.

Our conceptualizations are totally opposite here, and yours seems

illogical to me in this case. If there was option of " neither A nor

B wins " , then your idea would be valid. However, this is not the case

here. In this case, your " not choosing " is the same as choosing

whoever most other people choose. Isn't this obvious?

@@@ :

Nor will I address why you thought it okay to call something

" stupid " without offering much reason as to why, or do you just think

your critique is self-evident?

@@@@

,

Wow, both you and missed my very explicit sentence justifying my

use of the word " stupid " . It's the second-to-last sentence in my

email. You even cite that sentence in your email! I even added an

adverbial intro phrase to connect it to " Chris' last point " ! Heck, I

even went overboard devoting *two* sentences to a point so obvious

that it doesn't deserve more than one!

This whole discussion is comically absurd.

@@@ :

I think your conception of a non vote is simplistic and nonsensical,

though quite common.

@@@

Unfortunately for you, my conception is correct, and trivially so, and

even spelled out in gory detail above. So, simplistic,

yes--something can be simplistic and true at the same time--but

nonsensical, well, no--something can't be nonsensical and correct at

the same time.

@@@ :

Lastly, my non vote is not the same as voting for the winner. I think

voting is evil when it involves coercion/stealing from people and doing

things with their life energy that they wouldn't otherwise do. If its

not freely given then its theft or slavery. I have always maintained

the above in nearly every thread where this was a subject. I include

taxation, conscription, and much regulation in that category. You may

not agree with me but that is not the point.

@@@@

Sorry, , but no amount of fancy talk under the heading of

" morality " can change the simple fact that voting in this case means

choosing between A and B. You're talking about a totally different

topic, the problems of both A and B. That's not what voting is

about. Voting is choosing between A and B, end of story. You're

conflating two totally independent issues: 1) voting and 2) the moral

status of our government.

@@@ :

I'm not electing a winner by not

voting, since either winner is going to *do* the *same* thing. By not

voting I am refusing to coerce and steal *willfully* and *indirectly*

from my neighbor and perhaps even vicariously participate in the death

of their son's and daughters.

@@@@

The shared properties of A and B have nothing to do with who wins an

election. That's not relevant to voting. Voting is the selection

among A and B. If you vote for A, you're helping A. If you vote for

B, you're helping B. If you don't vote, you're helping the winner of

the election. Nothing more, nothing less. You're welcome to simply

not care who wins; obviously that's a totally valid position.

*******But, no matter what is inside your head, a ballot is a ballot,

an independent reality outside of your head, and if you don't vote,

then you're supporting the winner.******** I personally think not

voting is a totally valid position that doesn't offend me in the

least, but it either means 1) you don't differentiate *at all* between

A and B, or 2) the value you assign to your differentiation is less

than the value you assign to the actvity you use those x minutes for

instead.

Everything I'm saying is cold, hard logic and has nothing to do with

political *content*. I don't have the knowledge, interest or

fortitude to discuss political content (e.g. the new topic you

broached about morality and government) with you guys. It's not my

bag and I'm pretty clueless (although I'd still like to think my

odd-berry parity argument totally demolished all the libertarian

apologetics in that really old thread in a crushingly concise and

poetic fashion! :-) It hit so hard and so fast I don't think anyone

ever knew what hit them!) I'm just trying to defend a trivial point

of logic!

@@@ :

Not voting *is not* necessarily morally equivalent to voting which it

seems you might be implying. I hope not. By choosing to abstain from

this instance of evil is not thereby the same as participating in this

instance of evil. Down is not up, white is not black, theft is not

compassion and good is not evil.

@@@@

Ah ha, you asked for it! Here comes the linguistic artillery. You'll

note I said " equivalent " and not " same " . All it takes to show two

things are not the same is one difference, no matter how small, even

something as far-fetched as an irrelevant moral attitude! Now, of

course, in theory, one can find a difference between any two things by

virtue of their status as distinguishable entities in the domain of

discourse (e.g. space-time coordinates in an extensional ontology),

but the true meaning of " same " in human language (not a scientific or

philosophical language) is " equivalent with respect to all

contextually relevant factors " . For example, in my reply to Chris

above I went ahead and used " same " instead of " equivalent " because it

was a correct usage with respect to the relevant factors of that

discourse context. In this discourse context wherein you've broached

a curious moral distinction with no material bearing on voting or

elections, it's necessary to be more careful with the word " same " ,

eschewing it in favor of " equivalent " and a clarification of exactly

what measure of equivalence is intended. Of course, I never used

" same " in the first place, to avoid this petty issue, and I'll even

repeat here the measure of equivalence I explicated in reply to Gene

above, which was contextually salient in the original statement and

still the only sensible possibility: " who wins " .

There's no point in arguing with your moral stance. I simply have a

different one. I might as well tackle your metaphysical stances,

which is way outside the scope I define for myself as a participant in

this discourse community. I also simply have (extremely) different

ones. You're welcome to think of not voting as a morally superior act

in the privacy of your own central nervous system, but please don't

deny the logical real-world realities of voting.

@@@ :

My not voting for Bush or Kerry is not the equivalent of voting for one

or the other, morally, mathematically or otherwise.

@@@@

Mathematically it's trivially equivalent. Morally it's equivalent if

there exists a single distinction of moral value one assigns to them,

unless, like you, one assigns moral value to the act of voting itself

despite the total absence of external consequence to this private

moral distinction. I don't know of any " otherwises " to refer to, but

they'd need to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

By the way, I accept your defense against my charge of being " facile " ,

although I think I could defend my usage with a little effort. It's

just not worth the trouble, and it's much more interesting to just

note and acknowledge the extent of personal investment of time and

effort behind your position. I never doubted that.

@@@ Joe:

I will throw my two cents in here too. I myself used to vote, but

now I choose not to. Not only do I find both of the choices morally

objectionable, I find the whole system morally objectionable. It's

a system that was once more pure but has been manipulated to the

point where we loose either way. To me it would be like going to

Vegas and playing a roulette game where if you bet red, house wins,

if you bet black, house wins. I would not play that game.

@@@

The only way you can *not* be playing that game is to somehow no

longer be a US citizen! I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote;

I'm just pointing out obvious facts. I agree with the general

attitudes you have in your post, but those are simply independent

topics.

@@@ Joe:

Like most people I realize voting today is at the very least a waste

of time. I would take it one step further and say it's immoral, at

least in its modern form.

@@@@

Actually, it's immoral *not* to vote IF there exists a single moral

distinction for you between the two candidates AND you don't have a

separate *stronger* moral attitude about the *act of voting itself*

like does AND the act of voting doesn't conflict with a

morally more significant activity (e.g. visiting a dying relative or

something might be a possibility for some). Note that the *act of

voting itself* is essentially a physical, external, numerical

contribution to ballot tabulation.

All of this would be a totally different story if there was an

externally measurable consequence to not voting, but there is not any

such thing in the case we're considering of *current American

elections*. I can easily imagine other scenarios where not voting

could have other meaning, but in this case it means only one thing: a

vote for whoever wins.

Mike

SE Pennsylvania

The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

[Guest guest]

Silly me. I thought you might be actually trying to make a point, rather

than couching such triviality in such arrogance. Sure, if I am the only

theoretically undecided voter, and A is winning by one vote, then it makes

no difference whether I vote for A or I don't vote. And I suppose I should

take into account the infinitesimal probability that that this might

actually occur.

> @@@ Gene:

> The cliché that not voting is " equivalent to voting for whoever wins " is

> overly facile, and not mathematically correct. I am assuming that by

> equivalent you are claiming some sort of mathematical equivalence - I'm not

> sure what other kind would be relevant in counting votes.

>

> They are obviously not equivalent, so I'm not sure that a contrived example

> is necessary. But imagine a scenario where 5 people have voted for candidate

> A and 4 people have voted for candidate B. If no more people vote, then

> candidate A wins. If there are 5 more people in the voting pool, and none of

> them vote, then candidate A wins. However, if they all vote for candidate B,

> then candidate B wins. Clearly, not voting is different than voting, and can

> represent a valid choice in any election. What the debate comes down to, in

> my opinion, is whether (say, in this election), despite the fact that both

> candidates are 'potato chips', one of them may taste worse to a degree that

> warrants a choice.

> @@@@@

>

> Gene,

> I'm sorry, but your example vividly demonstrates my point, a point so

> obvious it doesn't even need such a demonstration, and my statement

> *is* mathematically correct, in a trivial, painfully obvious way. I

> can't see how something so simple deserves more than the one sentence

> I gave it, but in the tradition of NN, here we go...

>

> I think you might've missed or intentionally ignored the intended and

> obvious interpretation of " whoever wins " . It means " whoever would win

> if you don't vote " . So, for the common-sensically challenged folks

> out there, the extra-explicit version reads " not voting is equivalent

> to voting for whoever would win if you don't vote " .

>

> The only equivalence measure that makes sense in this case is " who

> wins " . If those 5 people don't vote, A wins. If they all vote for A,

> A wins. If they all vote for B, B wins. There are only two

> possibilities: A wins or B wins. In the non-voting case and the

> voting for A case, A wins. Bingo, the same equivalence class of " A

> wins " . It can't get much simpler than this.

>

> Clearly, not voting is different than voting. When you vote, you

> affect the outcome. When you don't vote, you automatically support

> whatever outcome occurs. I never said not voting is the same as

> voting. I said not voting is the same as voting for whoever wins.

>

> (Personally, I'll be voting *against* the potato chip that appears to

> be loaded with carcinogens and PHVO, etc.)

>

> @@@ Chris:

> After calling the point " stupid " I'd expect you to at least have a relevant

> rebuttal. Your last sentence " not choosing is often a form of choosing " not

> only does not conflict with my statement, but expresses exactly what I was

> saying: the choice exists between choosing (between candidates) and

> not choosing

> (between candidates).

> @@@@

>

>

> I did have a relevant rebuttal! It was the second-to-last sentence!

> It's there! The last sentence was even included as a bonus paraphrase

> and generalization.

>

> Our conceptualizations are totally opposite here, and yours seems

> illogical to me in this case. If there was option of " neither A nor

> B wins " , then your idea would be valid. However, this is not the case

> here. In this case, your " not choosing " is the same as choosing

> whoever most other people choose. Isn't this obvious?

>

> @@@ :

> Nor will I address why you thought it okay to call something

> " stupid " without offering much reason as to why, or do you just think

> your critique is self-evident?

> @@@@

>

> ,

> Wow, both you and missed my very explicit sentence justifying my

> use of the word " stupid " . It's the second-to-last sentence in my

> email. You even cite that sentence in your email! I even added an

> adverbial intro phrase to connect it to " Chris' last point " ! Heck, I

> even went overboard devoting *two* sentences to a point so obvious

> that it doesn't deserve more than one!

>

> This whole discussion is comically absurd.

>

> @@@ :

> I think your conception of a non vote is simplistic and nonsensical,

> though quite common.

> @@@

>

> Unfortunately for you, my conception is correct, and trivially so, and

> even spelled out in gory detail above. So, simplistic,

> yes--something can be simplistic and true at the same time--but

> nonsensical, well, no--something can't be nonsensical and correct at

> the same time.

>

> @@@ :

> Lastly, my non vote is not the same as voting for the winner. I think

> voting is evil when it involves coercion/stealing from people and doing

> things with their life energy that they wouldn't otherwise do. If its

> not freely given then its theft or slavery. I have always maintained

> the above in nearly every thread where this was a subject. I include

> taxation, conscription, and much regulation in that category. You may

> not agree with me but that is not the point.

> @@@@

>

> Sorry, , but no amount of fancy talk under the heading of

> " morality " can change the simple fact that voting in this case means

> choosing between A and B. You're talking about a totally different

> topic, the problems of both A and B. That's not what voting is

> about. Voting is choosing between A and B, end of story. You're

> conflating two totally independent issues: 1) voting and 2) the moral

> status of our government.

>

> @@@ :

> I'm not electing a winner by not

> voting, since either winner is going to *do* the *same* thing. By not

> voting I am refusing to coerce and steal *willfully* and *indirectly*

> from my neighbor and perhaps even vicariously participate in the death

> of their son's and daughters.

> @@@@

>

> The shared properties of A and B have nothing to do with who wins an

> election. That's not relevant to voting. Voting is the selection

> among A and B. If you vote for A, you're helping A. If you vote for

> B, you're helping B. If you don't vote, you're helping the winner of

> the election. Nothing more, nothing less. You're welcome to simply

> not care who wins; obviously that's a totally valid position.

> *******But, no matter what is inside your head, a ballot is a ballot,

> an independent reality outside of your head, and if you don't vote,

> then you're supporting the winner.******** I personally think not

> voting is a totally valid position that doesn't offend me in the

> least, but it either means 1) you don't differentiate *at all* between

> A and B, or 2) the value you assign to your differentiation is less

> than the value you assign to the actvity you use those x minutes for

> instead.

>

> Everything I'm saying is cold, hard logic and has nothing to do with

> political *content*. I don't have the knowledge, interest or

> fortitude to discuss political content (e.g. the new topic you

> broached about morality and government) with you guys. It's not my

> bag and I'm pretty clueless (although I'd still like to think my

> odd-berry parity argument totally demolished all the libertarian

> apologetics in that really old thread in a crushingly concise and

> poetic fashion! :-) It hit so hard and so fast I don't think anyone

> ever knew what hit them!) I'm just trying to defend a trivial point

> of logic!

>

> @@@ :

> Not voting *is not* necessarily morally equivalent to voting which it

> seems you might be implying. I hope not. By choosing to abstain from

> this instance of evil is not thereby the same as participating in this

> instance of evil. Down is not up, white is not black, theft is not

> compassion and good is not evil.

> @@@@

>

> Ah ha, you asked for it! Here comes the linguistic artillery. You'll

> note I said " equivalent " and not " same " . All it takes to show two

> things are not the same is one difference, no matter how small, even

> something as far-fetched as an irrelevant moral attitude! Now, of

> course, in theory, one can find a difference between any two things by

> virtue of their status as distinguishable entities in the domain of

> discourse (e.g. space-time coordinates in an extensional ontology),

> but the true meaning of " same " in human language (not a scientific or

> philosophical language) is " equivalent with respect to all

> contextually relevant factors " . For example, in my reply to Chris

> above I went ahead and used " same " instead of " equivalent " because it

> was a correct usage with respect to the relevant factors of that

> discourse context. In this discourse context wherein you've broached

> a curious moral distinction with no material bearing on voting or

> elections, it's necessary to be more careful with the word " same " ,

> eschewing it in favor of " equivalent " and a clarification of exactly

> what measure of equivalence is intended. Of course, I never used

> " same " in the first place, to avoid this petty issue, and I'll even

> repeat here the measure of equivalence I explicated in reply to Gene

> above, which was contextually salient in the original statement and

> still the only sensible possibility: " who wins " .

>

> There's no point in arguing with your moral stance. I simply have a

> different one. I might as well tackle your metaphysical stances,

> which is way outside the scope I define for myself as a participant in

> this discourse community. I also simply have (extremely) different

> ones. You're welcome to think of not voting as a morally superior act

> in the privacy of your own central nervous system, but please don't

> deny the logical real-world realities of voting.

>

> @@@ :

> My not voting for Bush or Kerry is not the equivalent of voting for one

> or the other, morally, mathematically or otherwise.

> @@@@

>

> Mathematically it's trivially equivalent. Morally it's equivalent if

> there exists a single distinction of moral value one assigns to them,

> unless, like you, one assigns moral value to the act of voting itself

> despite the total absence of external consequence to this private

> moral distinction. I don't know of any " otherwises " to refer to, but

> they'd need to be taken on a case-by-case basis.

>

> By the way, I accept your defense against my charge of being " facile " ,

> although I think I could defend my usage with a little effort. It's

> just not worth the trouble, and it's much more interesting to just

> note and acknowledge the extent of personal investment of time and

> effort behind your position. I never doubted that.

>

> @@@ Joe:

> I will throw my two cents in here too. I myself used to vote, but

> now I choose not to. Not only do I find both of the choices morally

> objectionable, I find the whole system morally objectionable. It's

> a system that was once more pure but has been manipulated to the

> point where we loose either way. To me it would be like going to

> Vegas and playing a roulette game where if you bet red, house wins,

> if you bet black, house wins. I would not play that game.

> @@@

>

> The only way you can *not* be playing that game is to somehow no

> longer be a US citizen! I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote;

> I'm just pointing out obvious facts. I agree with the general

> attitudes you have in your post, but those are simply independent

> topics.

>

> @@@ Joe:

> Like most people I realize voting today is at the very least a waste

> of time. I would take it one step further and say it's immoral, at

> least in its modern form.

> @@@@

>

> Actually, it's immoral *not* to vote IF there exists a single moral

> distinction for you between the two candidates AND you don't have a

> separate *stronger* moral attitude about the *act of voting itself*

> like does AND the act of voting doesn't conflict with a

> morally more significant activity (e.g. visiting a dying relative or

> something might be a possibility for some). Note that the *act of

> voting itself* is essentially a physical, external, numerical

> contribution to ballot tabulation.

>

> All of this would be a totally different story if there was an

> externally measurable consequence to not voting, but there is not any

> such thing in the case we're considering of *current American

> elections*. I can easily imagine other scenarios where not voting

> could have other meaning, but in this case it means only one thing: a

> vote for whoever wins.

>

> Mike

> SE Pennsylvania

>

> The best way to predict the future is to invent it. --Alan Kay

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> BTW, even Chomsky wrote (in some article on Znet) that, on this

>> particular

>> occasion, it would be worth it to vote for Kerry.

>

> Gene, I'm going to look this up but if you have it more handy I would

> very much appreciate the URL. Thank you so much.

>

> Lynn S.

Oops - sorry - I missed this the first time around. But you found it -

excellent!

>

> ------

> Lynn Siprelle * web developer, writer, mama, fiber junky

> http://www.siprelle.com * http://www.thenewhomemaker.com

> http://www.democracyfororegon.com * http://www.wisforwomen.com

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Mike,

___________

Mike wrote:

<<<<I did have a relevant rebuttal!>>>>

___________

~~~~~> writes:

No, you didn't, and you ought to re-read my original post, since you clearly

misunderstood what I was saying.

____________

Mike continued:

<<<<<< It was the second-to-last sentence! >>>>>>>

___________

~~~~~~> writes:

Here's your second to last sentence:

" As far as Chris' last point, not voting is equivalent to voting for whoever

wins. "

The " last point " you refer to, is right here:

" All that said, didn't anyone who died to give us the freedom to vote, not

also die to give us the freedom *not* to vote? Freedom is a state pertaining

to

choices, and all choices must have a minimum of two alternative options (with

respect to voting, these would be voting, and not voting). "

Your sentence quoted above clearly has nothing to do with my paragraph quoted

immediately above. Nowhere did I contradict your statement that not voting

is a form of choosing; moreover, I explicitly described not voting as a form of

choosing!

My post contains 1) a definitional requisite of " freedom " (that includes

choice) 2) a definitional requisite of " choice " (that includes two alternate

options) and 3) and specific example of how these definitional requisites relate

to

the choice of voting, which is that, in order to be a freedom, it must have a

reciprocal freedom of an alternate choice, and this alternate choice is not

voting.

Nowhere in your point that " not voting is equivalent to voting for whoever

wins " do you address any of the three above points, which are the only points I

made.

______

<<<<<Our conceptualizations are totally opposite here, and yours seems

illogical to me in this case. If there was option of " neither A nor

B wins " , then your idea would be valid. However, this is not the case

here. In this case, your " not choosing " is the same as choosing

whoever most other people choose. Isn't this obvious?>>>>>

_____

~~~~> Yes, it is obvious, but it's entirely unobvious what on earth it has to

do with what I said.

To recap, or, to just start over, I responded to Brittany, who had said that

people died for our freedom to vote, by saying that if they had died for our

freedom to vote, they had likewise died for our freedom to not vote, since

" freedom " requires the ability to choose between at least two alternate actions

(and one could simply be a non-action, in opposition to an action) or states.

No one says that someone under house arrest is " free to be within the confines

of their home if they so choose, " because it requires the freedom to be

outside of one's home in order to be a " choice " to be in the home.

We were discussing the freedom to vote per se, not the freedom to vote for

one or another candidate, so you are bringing the discussion to an irrelevant

level of analysis. The freedom to vote for Bush is reciprocated by the freedom

to vote for Kerry, for example, but that's discussing voting for a particular

candidate, not voting per se.

_______

~~~~> Now, I'll address your other point, which I still maintain has nothing

to do with mine.

I agree with you on the condition that voting or not voting would affect the

outcome. Voting has two purposes 1) to affect the outcome, and 2) to declare

a personal endorsement of a candidate. If your vote has no chance of

affecting the outcome, then only point 2 is relevant. So, for example, I live

in

Massachusetts, which is in no way a swing state. Twice as many people will vote

for Kerry as Bush, guaranteed, and the Electoral College system is

winner-take-all. If I vote for either Kerry or Bush, my vote is guaranteed to

have no

effect on the outcome of the vote, even if the popular vote in the country were

down to one single vote, because all of MA's EC votes will go to Kerry, period.

So, if I vote at all, the only function of my vote is to declare an

endorsement of one or another candidate. If I vote for a third party, I'd do

the

same, and maybe I'd have some benefit to them of getting them qualified for

public

funding, or automatic ballot access, or whatever. If I abstain from voting,

it is not a vote for whoever wins, because my vote has zero chance of being

decisive, so it is simply a lack of personal endorsement for any candidate.

However, you are mathematically correct if the vote/non-vote affects the

outcome, as you pointed out in your response to Gene.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

Would you mind taking this debate over to nt-politics? All interested not on

that list

nt_politics-subscribe

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Wanita-

Ehh, filtering on the POLITICS tag works IMO -- as long as people use it.

>Would you mind taking this debate over to nt-politics? All interested not on

>that list

>nt_politics-subscribe

-

[Guest guest]

Ok, tag gives trash option for those not interested.

> Wanita-

>

> Ehh, filtering on the POLITICS tag works IMO -- as long as people use it.

>

> >Would you mind taking this debate over to nt-politics? All interested not

on

> >that list

> >nt_politics-subscribe

>

>

>

> -