Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

Gotta get to this before Boro does [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

This post is about self defense from a libertarian perspective, the assumptions underlying are based upon individual liberty, disagreements on those principles are probably best served under a different thread.

Most libertarians clearly believe that self defense is a legitimate concept, that when a person unjustly attacks you or your property they are forgoing their own right to their body and property. If Mr Hatfield (to steal Rothbard's examples) shoots at Mr McCoy, Mr McCoy is within his rights to shoot Mr Hatfield back. However these actions of self defense are limited to action against the aggressor. If Mr H shoots, Mr M is not justified in pulling the woman to his left in front of him to stop the bullet, even in the name of self defense. If he does so he has aggressed against that woman, and is liable for her injuries.

How does this pertain to voting? If, as a libertarian thinking individual, you view voting as an immoral use of coercive violence, can you justify using voting as a means of self defense? Our definition of self defense gives us a guide in solving this issue. While we may be fully justified in defending ourselves against those whose votes attempt to strip us of our rights, we are not justified to injure those who don't vote for things that strip us of our rights, or who don't vote.

Who, as libertarians, can we vote for then? Clearly we can vote for a person who is a reductionist, one who we believe will only work to reduce the coercion a state would be an acceptable vote in the name of self defense. Can we morally vote for a candidate who we believe would reduce the overall coercion of the state, but would do so by reducing it in area X and increasing it in area Y but with an overall diminished effect? The answer here is clearly that to vote for such an individual is to use Groups A's aggression to justify our own against group B, which is not allowable, so the only way that voting for such an individual would be permissible is if we were willing to offer restitution to group B for those aggressive actions which we supported.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

So then voting is not a waste of time, provided it is done for the right candidate for the right reason?

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
So then voting is not a waste of time, provided it is done for the right candidate for the right reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

This post appears to only address the question of whether voting defensively is immoral, and not that of whether it is worthwhile.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

First of all, tolbiny is talking about whether or not the practice of voting is fundamentally or theoretically consistent with libertarian or ACist beliefs, not whether it is worth the time or effort to do so in terms of getting the result that you want.

And second, with regards to voting being a waste of time or not, the decision of an individual to spend the time it takes to cast one vote is much different than the decision of spending time trying to get hundreds or thousands of people to vote. I think that is the question your post relates to, which is a seperate issue from what tolbiny is talking about.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
So then voting is not a waste of time, provided it is done for the right candidate for the right reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

This post was specifically about the morality of voting, it says nothing of the efficiency of voting.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

"the decision of an individual to spend the time it takes to cast one vote is much different than the decision of spending time trying to get hundreds or thousands of people to vote."

I guess this is the part I don't understand. Each individual voter decides on whether or not to take the time to cast his or her vote. One cannot get hundreds or thousands or people to vote other than one at a time.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

you are trying to convince other people to waste their time. This may or may not be a waste of your own time.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
"the decision of an individual to spend the time it takes to cast one vote is much different than the decision of spending time trying to get hundreds or thousands of people to vote."

I guess this is the part I don't understand. Each individual voter decides on whether or not to take the time to cast his or her vote. One cannot get hundreds or thousands or people to vote other than one at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Last time I checked it was in fact possibly to communicate to people in parallel. I only have to type this once, yet probably two dozen people will read it. Ron Paul gave two speeches yesterday, yet was heard by a couple thousand.

I am told by reliable sources that television shows air a single time and are viewed by millions.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
"the decision of an individual to spend the time it takes to cast one vote is much different than the decision of spending time trying to get hundreds or thousands of people to vote."

I guess this is the part I don't understand. Each individual voter decides on whether or not to take the time to cast his or her vote. One cannot get hundreds or thousands or people to vote other than one at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a waste of time for each of them. They are losing so that I can benefit.

EDIT: Although they may not be losing, because presumably they get some joy or satisfaction out of voting that Boro does not get. Their vote may strictly be a 'waste of time' but as long as they get value from it, its win-win.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
One cannot get hundreds or thousands or people to vote other than one at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Television commericals perhaps?

If I say "It is not worth my time to vote because there are 10 million other voters in my state, and the odds of my vote ever changing the election are so infitesmal that I would be better off spending my 6 hours reading a book at home", that does not mean that it might not be worth my time to campaign for my candidate and convince large groups of other people to vote for him. Do you understand how they are not the same thing?

What does your first reply have to do with the OP? He is not talking about whether voting is worth his time or not, he is talking about whether it is theoretically consistent with his other anti-state and anti-coercion beliefs.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

But each of us decides as an individual who to vote for or whether or not to vote. If my vote is a waste of time, your decision to try to influence my vote is also a waste of time because if it doesn't make any difference how or whether I vote, an attempt to influence my decision is useless as well.

I'm using "waste of time" in the meaning that I assume you intended it to mean when you orginally mentioned it, not as a waste of the minutes we are allotted on this earth but as something that is ineffectual in achieving anything of importance.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
But each of us decides as an individual who to vote for or whether or not to vote. If my vote is a waste of time, your decision to try to influence my vote is also a waste of time because if it doesn't make any difference how or whether I vote, an attempt to influence my decision is useless as well.

[/ QUOTE ]

Since I cannot hope to affect the election with my single vote, it is a waste of time for me to vote. It is a waste of your time for you to vote. It is a waste of their time for any individual to vote. But if millions of people are going to erroneously waste their time voting, and I can influence those millions to vote my way, then that is not a waste of time.

Here is an example. Say there are 1000 people voting on something, including myself. It is already almost certainly a waste of my time to vote, assuming that the majority of people are foolish enough to each vote. But if I can give a speech to all 999 others that may influence them to vote my way, then that may not be a waste of my time.

Yes?

PS. In my speech I probably would not mention that it is foolish to vote. Even though it is.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
But each of us decides as an individual who to vote for or whether or not to vote. If my vote is a waste of time, your decision to try to influence my vote is also a waste of time because if it doesn't make any difference how or whether I vote, an attempt to influence my decision is useless as well.

I'm using "waste of time" in the meaning that I assume you intended it to mean when you orginally mentioned it, not as a waste of the minutes we are allotted on this earth but as something that is ineffectual in achieving anything of importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, most likely both voting and convincing people to vote is a waste of time. But how can you not see that, in at least some cases, convincing others might be worth it?

Voting is a waste of time unless the following inequality holds true:

(1) (benefit of your candidate winning) x (probability of your vote swaying the election) > the cost of you voting

Convincing others to vote is a waste of time unless this inequality holds true:

(2) (benefit of your candidate winning) x (probability of your persuasion swaying the election) > the cost of your persuasion


The idea is that the left hand side of inequality (1) is very close to zero because of the extremely small probability of your vote swaying the election (this is especially true in presidential elections depending on what state you live in).

On the other hand, if you are a very persuasive or powerful person and can convince thousands or millions of people to vote a how you want them to, the left hand side of inequality (2) might be a respectable number.

Now the likelihood of either of those inequalities holding true is very small, but you at least have a chance with number 2.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But each of us decides as an individual who to vote for or whether or not to vote. If my vote is a waste of time, your decision to try to influence my vote is also a waste of time because if it doesn't make any difference how or whether I vote, an attempt to influence my decision is useless as well.

I'm using "waste of time" in the meaning that I assume you intended it to mean when you orginally mentioned it, not as a waste of the minutes we are allotted on this earth but as something that is ineffectual in achieving anything of importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, most likely both voting and convincing people to vote is a waste of time. But how can you not see that, in at least some cases, convincing others might be worth it?

Voting is a waste of time unless the following inequality holds true:

(1) (benefit of your candidate winning) x (probability of your vote swaying the election) > the cost of you voting

Convincing other to vote is a waste of time unless this inequality holds true:

(2) (benefit of your candidate winning) x (probability of your persuasion swaying the election) > the cost of your persuasion


The idea is that the left hand side of inequality (1) is very close to zero because of the extremely small probability of your vote swaying the election (this is especially true in presidential elections depending on what state you live in).

On the other hand, if you are a very persuasive or powerful person and can convince thousands or millions of people to vote a how you want them to, the left hand side of inequality (2) might be a respectable number.

Now the likelihood of either of those inequalities holding true is very small, but you at least have a chance with number 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

All true.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
But each of us decides as an individual who to vote for or whether or not to vote. If my vote is a waste of time, your decision to try to influence my vote is also a waste of time because if it doesn't make any difference how or whether I vote, an attempt to influence my decision is useless as well.

I'm using "waste of time" in the meaning that I assume you intended it to mean when you orginally mentioned it, not as a waste of the minutes we are allotted on this earth but as something that is ineffectual in achieving anything of importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your point is well taken, at least by me anyway.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
But each of us decides as an individual who to vote for or whether or not to vote. If my vote is a waste of time, your decision to try to influence my vote is also a waste of time because if it doesn't make any difference how or whether I vote, an attempt to influence my decision is useless as well.

I'm using "waste of time" in the meaning that I assume you intended it to mean when you orginally mentioned it, not as a waste of the minutes we are allotted on this earth but as something that is ineffectual in achieving anything of importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

for one, a culture of not wasting time can be introduced, persisted and/or strengthened by a single a vote, thereby making it justfiable.

on the other hand, Borodog telling you voting is waste time is not necessarily a waste of his time. A culture of not voting can be a strong movement towards the abolishment of government.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

I actually think that filing a ballot every year should be mandatory like filing taxes, as long as people have the option of submitting a ballot in which you don't vote for anyone.

But I'm sure that would never go over well as people would probably over react and say "ZOMG you're forcing us to vote!" even though you'd have the option of voting for no one and it would be about 100x less burdensome than filing taxes.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that filing a ballot every year should be mandatory like filing taxes, as long as people have the option of submitting a ballot in which you don't vote for anyone.

But I'm sure that would never go over well as people would probably over react and say "ZOMG you're forcing us to vote!" even though you'd have the option of voting for no one and it would be about 100x less burdensome than filing taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be the penalty for not voting? Assuming it's not death or prison time, what happens if I refuse to pay the fine?

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that filing a ballot every year should be mandatory like filing taxes, as long as people have the option of submitting a ballot in which you don't vote for anyone.

But I'm sure that would never go over well as people would probably over react and say "ZOMG you're forcing us to vote!" even though you'd have the option of voting for no one and it would be about 100x less burdensome than filing taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

What would be the penalty for not voting? Assuming it's not death or prison time, what happens if I refuse to pay the fine?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if I had my way it would be a fine. Not exactly sure what I would recommend for people who refuse to pay the fine, but obviously there would have to be some consequences.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that filing a ballot every year should be mandatory like filing taxes, as long as people have the option of submitting a ballot in which you don't vote for anyone.

But I'm sure that would never go over well as people would probably over react and say "ZOMG you're forcing us to vote!" even though you'd have the option of voting for no one and it would be about 100x less burdensome than filing taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gonna even attempt to show that this could be constitutionally acceptable?

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that filing a ballot every year should be mandatory like filing taxes, as long as people have the option of submitting a ballot in which you don't vote for anyone.

But I'm sure that would never go over well as people would probably over react and say "ZOMG you're forcing us to vote!" even though you'd have the option of voting for no one and it would be about 100x less burdensome than filing taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gonna even attempt to show that this could be constitutionally acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about constitutional? I'm talking about the optimal way to operate a democracy. I'd guess it would be another thing to add to the amendment that gets rid of the electoral college.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that filing a ballot every year should be mandatory like filing taxes, as long as people have the option of submitting a ballot in which you don't vote for anyone.

But I'm sure that would never go over well as people would probably over react and say "ZOMG you're forcing us to vote!" even though you'd have the option of voting for no one and it would be about 100x less burdensome than filing taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gonna even attempt to show that this could be constitutionally acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who said anything about constitutional? I'm talking about the optimal way to operate a democracy. I'd guess it would be another thing to add to the amendment that gets rid of the electoral college.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about adding a Non of the above catagory? When ever that catagory won a new election must be held for that position where any of the candidates on the previous ballot are disqualified for that election cycle.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But each of us decides as an individual who to vote for or whether or not to vote. If my vote is a waste of time, your decision to try to influence my vote is also a waste of time because if it doesn't make any difference how or whether I vote, an attempt to influence my decision is useless as well.

I'm using "waste of time" in the meaning that I assume you intended it to mean when you orginally mentioned it, not as a waste of the minutes we are allotted on this earth but as something that is ineffectual in achieving anything of importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

Andy, most likely both voting and convincing people to vote is a waste of time. But how can you not see that, in at least some cases, convincing others might be worth it?

Voting is a waste of time unless the following inequality holds true:

(1) (benefit of your candidate winning) x (probability of your vote swaying the election) > the cost of you voting

Convincing other to vote is a waste of time unless this inequality holds true:

(2) (benefit of your candidate winning) x (probability of your persuasion swaying the election) > the cost of your persuasion


The idea is that the left hand side of inequality (1) is very close to zero because of the extremely small probability of your vote swaying the election (this is especially true in presidential elections depending on what state you live in).

On the other hand, if you are a very persuasive or powerful person and can convince thousands or millions of people to vote a how you want them to, the left hand side of inequality (2) might be a respectable number.

Now the likelihood of either of those inequalities holding true is very small, but you at least have a chance with number 2.

[/ QUOTE ]

All true.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except for the part where I proved to you before that voting is definitely not a waste of time. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that filing a ballot every year should be mandatory like filing taxes, as long as people have the option of submitting a ballot in which you don't vote for anyone.

But I'm sure that would never go over well as people would probably over react and say "ZOMG you're forcing us to vote!" even though you'd have the option of voting for no one and it would be about 100x less burdensome than filing taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gonna even attempt to show that this could be constitutionally acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? People can support ideas for how things should be run and be willing to follow the amendment process, you know. This is a completely unwarranted attack.

Re: Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I actually think that filing a ballot every year should be mandatory like filing taxes, as long as people have the option of submitting a ballot in which you don't vote for anyone.

But I'm sure that would never go over well as people would probably over react and say "ZOMG you're forcing us to vote!" even though you'd have the option of voting for no one and it would be about 100x less burdensome than filing taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Gonna even attempt to show that this could be constitutionally acceptable?

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF? People can support ideas for how things should be run and be willing to follow the amendment process, you know. This is a completely unwarranted attack.

[/ QUOTE ]
Attack? Is my sarcasm detector broken?