The unethicality of voting is reason all by itself not to vote. People who are trying to lead good lives really don't need any more reason not to vote beyond the fact that voting supports an organization based on unethical actions and, more than that, is an attempt to take control of that organization so the evil power can be wielded according to their desires (even if that desire is to lessen the amount of evil being done, in the case of Libertarians).
But some people are better at doing evil than others.
And what kind of people do you think are attracted to a position that excludes them from the bounds of ethical behavior?
Underlying this principle is a certain logic, in that, if it is unethical for people to take the property from others through force or intimidation and "the government" is an organization of people, then it clearly follows that if they take property from others through force or intimidation, their action is unethical. This simple logic is why it's so important to point out that there is no such thing as a government. The government doesn't collect taxes and fuck up the lives of people who resist. It can't because there is no such thing as a government. People collect taxes and people fuck up the lives of those who resist.
You want I should break his legs?
Try late fees and fines first, to get more money out of 'em. People with broken legs pay less taxes.
This simple fact, that "the government" is just a group of people who have claimed the authority to initiate violence on everyone within a certain geographical area (that area is called "The World" if it's the United States government) undermines, logically, arguments put forth by people who want to use "the government" as a solution to some stated problem. I pointed this out in my posts about gun control.
Gun control activists want to outlaw guns. If you ask them who will enforce the law, they will say, "the government," and then try to change the subject to what they think will happen on <insert some assinine TV show name here since I'm out of touch with the current popular idiocy>. They don't want to think about what they are really saying and if you tell them what they are saying, you'll just piss them off. Since there is no such thing as "government," they mean that people will enforce the laws. To ensure that happens, gun control activists will issue guns to people even though the main premise of their argument is that people with guns are dangerous.
Libertarians are not free of violating this law of non-contradiction. If you take a very basic premise that government employees should do no more than provide cops, courts, and a standing army and drill down a bit, you find the same problem. One reason that there should be cops is to protect citizens from having their property taken from them against their will, such as robbery and theft. How, exactly, will the Libertarians pay for these protective government employees?
That's a better idea than by taking their money through the use of intimidation.
Not only does it boggle the mind to think that the protectors will take money from people through the use violence and threats of violence in order to keep people from taking money from people through violence and threats of violence but the disparity between how much will be taken by the two groups of thieves is monstrous.
I looked at some stats, unfortunately a bit aged, but common sense should fill in the gaps. There is a 99% chance that someone will steal something from you in your lifetime at least once. Odds drop considerably (single digits) that you will be a repeat victim. Robbery, once in a lifetime, was about 30% with very low odds of repeat victimization. There weren't numbers on the dollar amounts that were stolen but I can't imagine that it's very high. A couple hundred bucks or a couple thousand? For most of us, at least.
How much do government employees take from you every year in income tax, property tax, sales tax, and other fees, fines, and taxes?
Like taxes tax.
Is that a tax on your taxes? You are probably being gouged by the stupid tax.
I'm going to be honest with you Libertarians, I'd rather roll my dice without your "protection." There is absolutely no way in the world that I would be the victim of robbery, theft, and burglary in my lifetime to the point where my loss would ever come close to what government employees take from me every single time I make a purchase at a store, every year that I want to keep *my* property and live in my house, or every April 15th.
Your "cure" is like giving me cancer so I don't get a cold. No thanks. I'll take my vitamin D and vitamin C and take my chances. If I catch cold, I'll deal with it. You can keep your solution to yourself.
Plus, they don't really prevent that much. Mostly just try to catch the bad guys afterwards.
And government employees keep the fines and the victims pay to feed and house the bad guy in jail.
Are you guys trying to take over my blog?
Well, we would do a better job.
I'm with the twit on this one.
This collection of fines by government employees and revictimization of the person who had their property stolen is sold to the public under the euphamism of "justice." You want justice, right? Who doesn't want justice? Government employees take 40 - 50% of everything you make over your entire lifetime, collect any fines they can from the perpetrator, and pass the cost of jailing offenders on to the people who had their property taken. If there is any justice in there, I can't see it.
Maybe it's like a search-a-word.
Why don't you look for it and don't bother us until you find it.
This isn't just about theft and burglary but it served as a good example. Just about any proposed "government" solution is like this. Democrats want to prohibit any monopolies so they support an organization that has a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force. Can it get any more frying pan to the fire than that?
The bottom line is that you can't achieve your stated goal by doing the exact opposite. You can't say that you promote freedom and then put effort into supporting an organization that forcefully rules over the people that you want to free.
I don't vote because I believe humans should coexist peacefully on the planet and that no one has the right to rule over another person through the use violence and threats of violence. Voting, especially in America, would mean that I support violence and that I believe that there should be rulers over us. You can't, logically, say that you believe in freedom and also say that everyone should vote for their rulers in order to achieve this freedom. You can't, logically, say that you believe in peace and then vote to support the most violent organization in the world.
Giving guns to people to keep people from having guns, taking their property to protect them from having their property taken, creating a monopoly to prevent the creation of monopolies, voting for rulers in order to achieve freedom, supporting an organization that exists through the initiation of force on others to make the world more peaceful . . .