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

[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 despite persuading others to do so in support of, or expecting representatives to focus favorably on a given cause, without contributing to the process, undermines one's credibility. If I argue for instance that public libraries need support, yet I decline to vote on a bill/millage addressing that issue (even if it's to say 'nay' because I dislike the proposal), how does that truly move my cause beyond transforming my desire into someone else's responsibility?

I may not always vote for the people who win, but as the victors assume office, it is not only their supporters they are obligated to serve. For anyone to strive for less--an all too common occurrence--is to demonstrate contempt for the spirit of the political process, which one cannot quantify. I do not assume that such an ideal is attainable without a great deal of effort, if it is possible at all. Having said that, voting does not imply my agreement to abide by majority rule. Living here does. I enjoy the perks of being a citizen of this country. For me, there is a level of responsibility that comes with that. Staying informed, challenging perceptions, and working toward what I believe is possible is who I am. I simply cannot, in good conscience, wait for others to do it when there is ample opportunity for me to be involved.

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.

I'm not sure if this is the general "you", or if you're referring to me specifically. I can only answer for me, so I will respond to the latter interpretation. If you deem my post as coercive, I will not argue because, quite frankly, it is a pointless exercise. That is how you perceive it, and I can't change that. I won't apologize for the source of that view, nor will I dress it up with comparisons or musings on human interaction. It would be hypocritical to say that I did not post this to elicit a response, the same as any entry in my journal. Yet I didn't care about trying to persuade you or anyone else. Once I hit the "post" button, my goal was achieved. I voiced my disdain for not participating, and that is as adamant as your decision not to vote. To characterize voting as a religious exercise, marginalizing it as a symbol of social control and institutionalized morality, is a nice touch, I'll grant you. At the risk of being obvious, I have to point out the distinction. Separation from the process is voluntary, and no one that refrains from voting loses any of the rights and privileges of citizenship.

I may lack respect for not voting, but I absolutely respect the right you have not to vote. There is a clear distinction for me. Voting should never be a compulsory act, and I would not support attempts to legislate that choice.

[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 that process (the coercive, political one) I disparage. Again, I want all of our actions to be mutually consensual. Voting is simply indirect coercion.

And yes, I do have contempt for the spirit of the political process. That coercion I keep mentioning and oppose so strenuously is the sine qua non of the political process. When we use persuasion and attempt to influence others, it is an economic process, not a political one, and that is fine. The political process occurs when we are compelled. And ultimately, stripped of its pretty facades, every government law or edict is enforced at gunpoint. In a democracy, the beginning of the chain of events leading to the pointed gun is the vote. Fundamentally, that is why I will not vote.

I'll rephrase and assert that voting does imply your agreement with the principle of majority rule, because you are giving your sanction to the process by voting. I concede nothing by living here, any more than I would agree to be robbed because I wandered onto some gang's claimed turf. Simply because the gang (the USA's government) is immense, claims a few million square miles of turf and allows those it subjugates to pick the guards doesn't make its coercive actions any more valid. While I live here I do tend to be law-abiding, not out of respect for the laws, of course, but out of fear of those aforementioned guns. The fact that I have not yet found a better place to live does not indicate my approval of what is going on here.

In my initial comment and this one, that was indeed the general "you" and not you specifically. However, there may be a bit of "if the shoe fits" here if you support the coercion of others by the government in any way, shape or form. Your post is not coercive, of course. No words could ever be (I am about as pure an advocate of unfettered free speech as could possibly exist)! And I am glad, at least, that you don't believe in forcing others to vote. Though you would not support attempts to legislate that choice, however, would you support the enforcement of laws mandating voting?

[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.