In this post, I'll cover the follow up questions and then I'll make a point in the next post that I have found interesting to ponder in the last week, concerning voting.
First, I suppose I should address this common misconception from the first question:
"Doing nothing gets no results at all."
This is common thread and I suppose that it probably comes from the brainwashing that is done by the current rulers. People have been trained that if they don't vote, they are doing nothing at all to change the system. However, we all know that voting supports the system and will never create any substantial change to that system. If it did, people would not be allowed to vote. Additionally, not voting does not mean that a person is doing nothing. That would be like me saying that if you aren't reading this blog, you're doing nothing. People are always doing something and people who don't vote can still attempt to make changes to the system. I live my life as an example of a peaceful person, I help my neighbors when I can, I teach my children that no one has the right to be their master and that dictating to others what they can do and can't do at the end of a gun is immoral, and I try to teach others about ethics and freedom. It may not seem like a lot but compared to the nothing of voting, I am doing a hell of a lot more to change the system than voters are and there are people out there doing far more than I am doing. I have been wrapped up in my day to day existence of starting a new job, still attending classes, moving, and being part of my family but I haven't given up on changing the system and I do what I can when I can while voters fight to keep the system from changing.
"So how do you reduce the coercion if you don't get in the system to change it?"
First off, the fact that you understand that government is coercion and you support it should prompt some soul searching for you. Even if you had a sliver of a chance to change the system from within the system, are you willing to sell your soul in the effort? Using force to compel others to act in a way that you find acceptable is evil. If you are willing to lower your standards to that point, these blog posts have been in vain.
Secondly, you can't reduce the coercion by voting in support of the coercion (That don't make no sense!). You reduce the coercion by not taking part in the coercion, teaching others about the reality of the system, and creating and using systems and resources outside of the system as much as possible (and in line with your risk tolerance). Most people avoid doing what they see as evil and are quick to condemn those who stray. You point out that voting in support of the system is unethical and socially unacceptable. People in a civilized society do not use violence to force others to do their bidding.
Do you know what is scarier to the 1% than a Libertarian being voted into office? An election where no one shows up to vote. A populace who views the use of coercion as evil and voices this truth to others and refuses to take part in the coercion will make substantial and lasting changes. People want to be good and they tend to shun that which is evil. If you want to change the system, continue to point out the evil of the system and the system will collapse. Why do you think Australia has a law making it mandatory that citizens vote? Voting ensures that the system never changes.
"In mob rules as we now have, I believe you need to get someone in place to pull the state back in layers. The government will never just let it's power go."
We don't have mob rules. We have 1% rules. You're never going to get anyone into the system who has the power to pull the state back in layers. This government is going to continue until it implodes, as all empires do. What's important to me is what people will want to put in its place. This is why education on ethics is so vital. If this government is replaced by another government, we have gained nothing.
"I have studied a lot of history. It appears someone is always in power."
Then it truly would be a change if there were no rulers. You do want change, right?
"I suppose I'm trying to get people to organize so they have a say and their group is in power and it is a real choice."
If there are no rulers, then you have a *real* choice. Otherwise, your choices are limited by the dictates of the rulers. My next post will be on choosing between rules and rulers.
"Maybe get a trusted person from your group in power. This opens up the possibility for the public to have a real choice."
The only person that I trust to decide when and when not to point a gun at my head is me. The only person that I trust to have the ability to control every aspect of my life is me. You want a small government but I want a smaller government. I will govern my own actions and I refuse to use force to govern the actions of others. People who have this same ethical code are people that you can truly trust. Anyone who runs for office in an effort to gain control of that power is suspect.
"And if your group is ethical and your guy goes on some super power grab you can toss his ass out."
My group is ethical. That's why my group never has a candidate in an election and never encourages people to take part in such an unethical system. No truly ethical person would ever voluntarily take part in something so evil.