VIDEO: Two Libertarians Debate Whether People Should Vote

in #life6 years ago (edited)

FINAL IAMGew (1).jpg

What’s the difference between an anarchist and a minarchist? About six months, they say. Yet for some, it seems the mental journey stops before full enlightenment.

I recently had the pleasure of debating in front of an audience of mainstream conservatives and libertarians whether or not people should vote in elections.

You’d think at an event called FreedomFest that it’d be pretty self-explanatory for those in attendance to understand why you shouldn’t vote, but alas, I still felt like the odd-man out.

My arguments were met with the usual sneers and smirks from those who can’t comprehend how---or even why---we’d want to transition out of this rigged system of democratized violence.

My debate opponent, FreedomFest founder Mark Skousen---god bless his heart---offered the same tired old justifications (paraphrasing):

☒ “Voting prevents utter anarchy!”
☒ “Voter turnout increases when people are fed up and want change!”
☒ “Voting allows us to eject bad leaders without resorting to violence!”

Blah blah blah…

As my turn to speak approached, I knew what would happen: I’d lay out the fundamentals of why casting ballots is akin to violence, explain the non-aggression principle, provide examples of better ways to effect change, and overall assert that the state is a useless, diabolical entity which always does more harm than good.

The reaction was just as predictable as you’d imagine. I think I even heard someone in the crowd whisper, “what about the roads?”

Still, it was a fun and lively discussion which I think you’ll enjoy, if only to get a glimpse of how the watered-down, lukewarm, unenlightened “small government” demographic thinks.

You Can Watch Our Full Debate Here:

Thankfully, here at TDV, I’m much more at home surrounded by friends who realize the inherently violent nature of government---and who use that knowledge to abstain from the system---and even profit along the way.

Those of us keen enough to see voting for what it truly is are more likely to appreciate the value of cryptocurrencies---both as a moral and financial strategy.

It’s what I’ve been advising TDV members on for years, and what you can learn more about in our exclusive newsletter, which delivers the most cutting-edge insights into the crypto market and key investing strategies that I personally use myself (SUBSCRIBE).

Plus, if you want to get together with people who aren’t afraid to admit that demoncracy is evil (and was even heavily warned against by the “founding fathers” of the US), you can always join us every February, at Anarchapulco!

This article is also featured on The Dollar Vigilante's website HERE.

jeff-berwick-bio.jpeg

Sort:  

Taxation is Theft!

Let's be precise here. Voting is generally IMO a bad idea but does not always = Violence.

Violence through proxy i.e paying or supporting someone initiating a violent action is immoral.
The assumption that expressing a preference for an individual to run for president is always tantamount to a moral infraction is however a generalization. If the said individual is running to expand or enable the government system, then the argument would be valid.
That being said, one can support a candidate like Adam Kokesh or Ron Paul that has/is runing to abolish government or
implement the succession of states from government.
Asking a murder to kill an individual is wrong, asking a murderer to avoid killing individuals is NOT a violation.

Therefore supporting a candidate running under the basis of eliminating government is not a violation of The NAP.

The error people make is that they are appealing to the potential for candidates running to expand the government or perform other violations of individual freedoms. That is however not always the case and is an appeal to potentiality fallacy.

After Mark's first response, you should have dropped the mic and considered the debate over.

☒ “Voting prevents utter anarchy!”

Perhaps, a brief explanation of the definition of anarchy would be in order.

I became an environmentalist way before I became an anarchist, yet when canvassers approached me with a petition to keep fracking at least 2500 ft away from neighborhoods (which I believe in), I didn’t sign it.

I couldn’t help but think about what Martin Luther King said though, “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter”.

And that “ The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing.” -Albert Einstein.

In terms of the NAP I think the practice of hydrolic fracturing is an act of aggression towards the Earth, and those whose lives may be affected by accidental contamination of the land, and water sources.

So is not signing the petition a way of turning a blind eye to injustice and aggression? Or is it me being a “good anarchist”?

Dominos will fix the roads

To listen to the audio version of this article click on the play image.

Brought to you by @tts. If you find it useful please consider upvoting this reply.

Great article buddy.....

I am new in steemit so please follow me and support me in the recent post

Posted using Partiko Android

It may be more than 6 months looking at Jan Helfeld not doing logic when schooled by Larken...

I'm reaching out to you my fellow Voluntaryists for your help.

I was recently a victim of main stream propaganda and authorities abuse.

I was wondering if you would like to help me help the freedom and make my story more public?

I want to make it as public as I can. Otherwise I may be silenced, and I am fine even if they crucify me, but I don't want it to go to waste. Please help me spread it. Just trying to help this paradigm shift. I just want to help freedom.

https://steemit.com/tribesteemup/@evolutionnow/propaganda-rabid-pigs

Actually some bits quite motivational.