So...what next?

[mightyafrodite]

I was sure that Republicans would have a big night tonight. Let's face it...I live in a culture that lives for instant gratification while preaching government fiscal responsibility, and protects the wealthy at their own expense in a misguided belief that they will either join the wealthy or benefit from maintaining the status quo. It's a cynical

Comments

[nsingman]

I do not vote, and do not issue cries of woe. However, you are sorely mistaken if you believe that voting is the only way to be politically active or participate in one's "pet cause." I do not vote because I despise democracy every bit as much as I hate monarchy and oligarchy. If you're going to try to bend me to your will, or have your "elected representatives" do it, I honestly don't care if there is only one of you, or ten, or a billion. The result is the same: I am being coerced.

To paraphrase a famous dead president, as I would not be coerced so I will not coerce others. Thus, I will not participate in this ultimate sacrament of the civic religion.

As for all of those who do vote, it is their cries of woe which should not be respected. By participating, they have agreed to abide by majority rule, and have little grounds for complaint when their gang loses out temporarily to the other gang.

I revile the entire system, root and branch. And though I voted when I was younger, I now proudly eschew the practice, and I feel much

[lafemmedesfemme]

spoken like a true anarchist™ who is boldly taking advantage of the fruits of the democratic process, while proudly eschewing the responsibility of it. to each his own.

[dadandgirl]

And by not participating, they are refusing to take the simplest measure available to exert some control over their own circumstance. You revile the entire system and claim to not participate, yet you continue to live under it. There is no honor or righteousness in that. The system does not care if you don't participate - refusing to vote will not exempt you from the consequences of that vote.

If you are that deeply committed to change, I agree that voting alone is insufficient. But why throw away a tool unless you have something better to use in its stead?

[nsingman]

I said I do not vote. I did not say that I do not participate (I do). That is why I so strenuously asserted that voting is not the only way to participate politically.

[mightyafrodite]

Your statement speaks to the "tyranny of the majority" concept, yes? There is always a danger in approaching any political system, whether it is democracy, theocracy or even anarchy. I do not assume that absence of a political construct breeds chaos. I'm simply skeptical that such a thing is possible. Human beings by their very nature develop connections based upon shared needs or interests. Of course there is a difference between this and the development of "politics" or elaborate systems, but these exist even in smaller interpersonal groups.

I never said that voting is the "only way to be politically active". Activism may sway a group of people to one's line of thinking, but how does agreement transform into the change the activist or politically-minded individual wants? Motivated citizenry can certainly put pressure on officials to make the desired changes. We can convince others to vote in favor of the candidate or initiative championing our agenda. Within this particular context, which is how I framed it, not voting

[nsingman]

When it comes to democracy, I am referring to the tyranny of the majority. But I consider any coercively imposed system to be tyrannical, which was why I noted that the number of tyrants is irrelevant. Yes, we develop connections as social constructs evolve, but they need not be coercive. The vast majority of our interactions are not; I simply wish to extend this to "all our interactions." This is the non-aggression principle of which we radical libertarians often speak.

True, you didn't explicitly say that voting is the only way to be politically active, but you did say that absent voting participation in one's pet cause was "pretty empty." Really? Practically speaking, an individual vote in elections is one of the least effective means of participating that exists, unless there is only a handful of voters. Usually, there are thousands or millions of them.

I absolutely agree that not voting while encouraging others to do so undermines one's credibility, which is why I discourage, rather than encourage, others from voting. It is

[mightyafrodite]

There's little difference between voting for such a law or supporting one that may already exist.

[nsingman]

I agree, but there are many who will support a law they oppose simply because it is the law.

[mightyafrodite]

I can't edit it, so I need to clarify something. By "participation" ('I voiced my disdain for not participating'), I was referring specifically to voting. I really do not want to muddy verbiage here.