Re: POLITICS Voting- Brittany - Mike parker

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 23:14:46 -0400

Anton <michaelantonparker@...> wrote:

>Gene...

>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.

Mike,

You have taken a real world issue and a thread that began with the

concept of freedom and voting based on *my* sig link, and turned it into

ivory tower mathematical exercise.

Unfortunately, the whole issue is much more nuanced than that.

Apparently you are not aware of how voting works here in America. Even

if I vote it will have no bearing on the outcome except in some rare

statistical case such as what you describe above, but what you describe

above is not real world. Its an ivory tower argument. Sort of akin to

winning the lottery. Rather than make this post even longer than it is,

you might find this article of interest, especially the statistical

realities of voting in America:

http://tinyurl.com/58kle

> 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.

And this where you continue to fall out of the boat. First it is only

true in the rare instance. Second, support for something is not the same

as non-support of something, except in the rare odd berry case ;-) and

even then it is a statistical game, not a real world understanding of

how we comprehend " support. " . When I choose to not vote, I am not

automatically " supporting " whatever outcome occurs. I have made a

statement about the outcome, a statement of non-support *whichever* side

wins.

If enough people make the same statement, politicians will be

predictably nervous and rightly so. They will interpret a large non

voter turnout for what it is - non support, unlike you. And no gov't,

totalitarian or otherwise, can long survive with the non-support, either

active or passive, of the people they rule over.

But you may not be aware of the concept that all rule, even the most

vicious, remains so because people allow it to be so. Since the ruling

class is by necessity a small elite, it cannot be otherwise.

If a majority of non-voters decide they don't like the winner, the

winner is in trouble. And they don't have to vote to delegitimize him or

an aspect of his program. Simple ignoring will do. Or creating an

alternative market will do. Prohibition is the perfect example. The

gov't reacted to people ignoring their edicts. The vote to repeal was

simply a recognition of the huge non-support the *winners* were getting

on this issue.

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

> be loaded with carcinogens and PHVO, etc.)

Which chip might that be? Looks to me like they are both loaded with

various kinds of carcinogens toxic to my " health " at many levels.

> @@@ 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?

In one sense yes. In another sense I don't see the connection to Chris'

point, so I don't understand the relevancy. But in a broader sense the

answer is no.

What you are saying is that if I deem something as evil, and that is the

choice before me in either case, then not choosing one over the other is

a de facto choice for evil, since both choices are evil. If I vote I'm

voting for evil. If I don't vote I'm voting for evil. That is a

tautology and moral nonsense.

My non-support might ring up in some rare statistical anomaly as

" support " but there is no equivalence between my not voting for an

instance of evil and *actively* voting for an instance of evil.

The problem is you have tried to narrow and reduce voting to this

fundamental mathematical equation that has no other dimension. Yeah,

right. To give a nod to Brittany, people didn't die for a mathematical

equation.

> @@@ :

> 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 will let handle this one. My guess is he won't let this one pass,

lol!

> @@@ :

> 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.

If in simplicity it distorts the meaning and yanks it out of its

original context or any meaningful context, which you have done, then

such simplicity is incorrect.

> @@@ :

> 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.

Actually Mike you have fallaciously narrowed the field and created a

straw man and then promptly tore it down.

In this instance, in relation to your comments about *my sig line* you

voiced your *personal* disagreement and then offered your *moral*

pronunciation as my sig line being silly and irrelevant though not

*shameful*.

There is no such thing as shame without morality of some sort. You can't

even bring it up outside of some moral context in your own mind. Now you

are going to turn around and chastise me for fancy talk about morality?

Give me a break!

The true story is that the original genesis of this thread was voting versus

non-voting, and its relation to freedom, not choosing between A and B

but whether we could or should choose *neither* A nor B. Your

mathematical pronouncements and what they might mean were never a part

of the equation.

Your trying to sterilize this topic and simply make it into a

mathematical equation is what is new here, not me introducing some

" fancy talk about morality, " which you might have understood had you read

the article in my sig line. And since you didn't answer my question

specifically asking that, I will take it that you did not read it. But

you can correct me if I am wrong.

My sig line has content, which is why there is a link attached to it.

> @@@ :

> 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.

Yes but they have everything to do with my not voting. I didn't speak

of winners and losers, you did. I spoke of voting and not voting. And in

the real world, not voting carries a different meaning and impact than

in your simplistic use of " support. "

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.********

Again, this is a total nonsensical use of the word support and as I stated

above, enough of this " supportive " non-support and politicians have a

real mess on their hands, which is why they use the same rhetoric and

logic you do to get people out to vote.

How often has one heard the SILLY statement, " vote, no matter who you

vote for. " Well if a non vote was AUTOMATIC support for the winner then

such a statement is silly on the face of it. But the reason it is said

is because politicians realize, unlike you, that non-voters are not

supportive, and that enough of them bring the whole franchise into

question. A franchise which operates by means of the vote, not non-votes,

needs people to vote, no matter who it is for, so as not to raise the

ugly question of legitimacy.

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.

Yes people would be better off staying home and reading a book rather

than encouraging more freedom restricting activity.

And whatever differentiation exists among the candidates is on the margin

and makes no substantive difference.

> 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.

Voting or not, which is the where this thread began by Brittany, is all about

content and your attempt to remain morally neutral while suggesting I

interjected a new topic is fallacious and hilarious.

But I will restate it: if a vote means I'm stealing or murdering by

proxy, then its immoral. If it doesn't, then its fine. So some things

will get my vote on occasion, but not these two candidates who see with

one eye when it comes to things like the war.

Are they morally equivalent on the Iraq war? Yes. Are they morally

equivalent on the need for legalized theft? Yes. Are they morally

equivalent on invading my privacy (re: Patriot Act)? Yes. Are either

interested in guaranteeing my choice when it comes to raw milk, or work

abroad, or money ownership? No. I don't plan on actively supporting such

activity by my so-called " neutral " proxy.

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!

I noticed it Mike, just didn't think it was worth pursuing at the time.

I think you were the one who equated libertarianism with communism, IIRC.

Given such a facile comment (lol!), I figured the thread was long enough

as it was ;-)

> @@@ :

> 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 " .

Which is why I said they are not " morally equivalent " in " this instance. "

I didn't say voting was immoral per SE, which I don't believe, but I was

referring to " this instance. "

As I understand it, the two candidates are " equivalent with respect to

all contextually relevant factors. " Of course the original context is

larger than the artificial context you have created. And, without

getting into it, what one deems contextually relevant will differ on the

basis of things like *morality*.

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,

LOL! *You* stripped the context (or never understood it in the first

place), then proceeded to tear that straw man down. Anyway...

Curious moral distinction? By whose standard? Yours? Your moral

distinctives? Who made you the arbiter of the morality of something?

Further, since when is theft (taxation), murder (war) and slavery

(conscription) *curious* moral standards?

Now you may think these are okay in their legalized forms, but my pointing

out what they are despite their legal status doesn't make it a " curious "

moral stance. Its rather obvious what they are, even if you think they

are justified. The *real* curiosity is that you don't see them for what

they are in the first place, and think its extreme when someone points

out the emperor has no clothes.

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 " .

But the original context was: " don't vote " not your straw man " who wins " .

Your attempt to conflate non-voting with " support " of the eventual

victor is a poor attempt to side step my original point, which is vote

for neither. In that case, it is irrelevant who wins, which is the

reason for not voting in the first place by my reckoning.

That is what you don't understand about the libertarian approach, which

is that the outcome is largely irrelevant. And I contend that all in all

it has been that way since the time of Lincoln, not rhetorically but in

terms of substance. Assent and dissent are not the same, as their

ultimate *impacts* are different.

> 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.

Yes our stances are VERY different, despite your attempts on a number of

occasions to act as if your morality is somehow not in play, although it

always is, sometimes more clearly than in others (like the OREO thread).

But in either instance if you vote for legalized theft, slavery and

murder, and I don't, then yes my not voting in those instances is

morally superior to your voting in those instances, and that is not in

my central nervous system, but stands apart from both you and me.

However I know from previous posts you do not believe in transcendent

morality, but I would be happy to defend such a proposition until the

cows come home but obviously not on this list.

And again you missed the point by not engaging my argument. I didn't

say not voting in totality, I said not voting in *this instance.* And

the article in my sig line specifically refers to the presidential race.

But I would happily vote in a case of defending freedom, or at least

slowing the encroachment of all seeing gov't. I'm always actively

looking for local issues where I can piss on City Hall so to speak. And

if I lived in Ron 's district, I would vote nationally as well.

> @@@ :

> 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.

LOL! I'm beginning to believe you are serious.

<snip>

> 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.

Essentially? Voting in a total vacuum? Private moral distinction? LOL!

You are serious.

Mike, if you like the last word is yours. I'm going back to the smoking

thread :-)

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