Re: POLITICS - Voting

[Guest guest]

This isn't addressed to anyone's comments in particular, but is inspired by

the general discussion:

While I plan on voting this November (I may not vote for President, though,

since I don't live in a swing state, unless I vote for a third party just to

make a statement of conscience), even if I maximize my opportunity to vote by

voting in every instance for every level of government possible, voting

comprises an almost negligible percentage of the activities I engage in

throughout my

life. So, the ability to freely engage in voting does not necessarily

indicate any level of freedom in a society unless what's being voted for

maintains

the freedom of the other more than 99.99% of the activities the people within

the society engage in.

The people who founded this country intended it to be a free society, but by

this, they did not mean one in which people were free to vote. In fact, the

ability to vote for the Federal level of government was significantly

restricted, and neither the President nor the Senate were elected by the popular

vote.

Even now, the President is elected by the Electoral College, and the only

reason the popular vote has any bearing on this election is because most states,

after the fact, have incorporated the popular vote within their state as a

means of selecting the President. The Senate was explicitly designed by the

" Founding Fathers " to be a necessary check against the democratic tendencies of

the House of Representatives.

The Founding Fathers had the right idea (but the wrong means of instituting

it) that the freedom of a society is measured by the freedom of humans to

engage in everyday activities, and the tendency of democracy is to encroach on

this

freedom through the act of voting for a government that would encroach on

this freedom, and they sought to check this by two ways: 1) limiting the power

of

the government by a Constitution and 2) limiting the ability of the people to

influence government by having a Senate elected by state legislatures, that

would be dominated by wealthy and " enlightened people " who would check the

democratic tendencies of the Congress.

The founding principles of our government (which have been nearly entirely

abandoned) embodied the idea that voting *restricted* freedom. They believed in

the myth that a limited government was possible, and in the yet more

erroneous myth that liberal principles would be best instituted by a democratic

republican form of government, and thus embarked on a clearly failed experiment

in

classical liberalism.

The freedom that people have fought to preserve that is worth preserving is

the freedom to act freely in day to day events, and to interact with other

people by providing them things of value that they voluntarily are willing to

accept and exchange for. The most noble way to engage in this freedom is not

voting, but *doing*. Doing, by producing things of value, doing good to others,

and pursuing our own happiness in the process.

As relates to the things we value on this list, someone could engage in this

freedom by offering information or products relating to traditional and

healthy things, such as the farmers on this list who engage in the production of

traditional foods, health providers who provide traditional modes of medicine

consistent with our principles, or being active in WAPF or starting another

organization that has similar information-providing benefits, or a web site,

etc.

The opportunities to offer these things of value by voting are limited, and

would include voting, for example, against subsidies to agribusiness, or

restrictions on raw milk -- but neither candidate for President supports such a

platform, and the opportunities to engage in such an act at other levels of

government are possible for some people, but mostly limited.

So, voting could conceivably be a freedom-promoting act, but it usually

represents a freedom-restricting act. It would be self-defeating for one to

exercise a " freedom " that has as its result to further restrict the freedom of

others.

However, there are almost infinite opportunities to use the freedom we have

(always becoming more limited) to engage in a multitude of other activities

that benefit people, and that is the truly noble act.

Chris

[Guest guest]

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.

Washington has managed to divide the country in half and pit us

against each other, a pretty smart tactic. Meanwhile we take our

eye off the true enemy, the republican and democrat politicians who

are spending the country into bankruptcy, and will continue too.

Neither will change that and it will probably prove to be the ruin

of this country. We become obsessed with just winning the game,

beating the other guy, regardless of the outcome.

Both sides primarily use the most primitive human motivator get

people on their side, fear. One side using fear of foreign enemies

(more military), the other side using fear of economic loss (more

welfare). Its pretty obvious neither has the ability nor even the

true desire to really protect us from these things, but rather uses

our need for protection to their own advantage. It's the ultimate

marketing. The government breaks you leg, gives you a crutch, and

then says " see, you can't walk without me. "

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.

-Joe