'I am a non-voting Atheist'

[Hard Rain]

sorry, not even gonna bother wading through all of that. It was hard enough to try and figure out what the heck you were trying to say when your posts were only two lines.

Earlier in this thread you said: "Not voting is about laziness and apathy."

Good to know you're too lazy and apathetic to even consider WilD_CaT's compelling post, referencing one of the most important political and economic philosophers of the 20th century.

But oh my gosh, it's like almost one whole page long! Guess that's a bit too much for you?

 

[LazyLion]

Earlier in this thread you said: "Not voting is about laziness and apathy."

Good to know you're too lazy and apathetic to even consider WilD_CaT's compelling post, referencing one of the most important political and economic philosophers of the 20th century.

But oh my gosh, it's like almost one whole page long! Guess that's a bit too much for you?

Nah, it's just that he waffles on without without actually arriving at any kind of point. I said that earlier. He takes lines and lines to actually say nothing of significance.
It's really just a load of meaningless junk. he has utterly failed to convince anyone in this thread that his not voting makes any sense.
Do you see anyone else here who is stunned by his eloquent postings?
Looks like they all got bored of trying to convince a rambling fool and left.
And with that I'm also outta here.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Nah, it's just that he waffles on without without actually arriving at any kind of point. I said that earlier. He takes lines and lines to actually say nothing of significance.
It's really just a load of meaningless junk. he has utterly failed to convince anyone in this thread that his not voting makes any sense.
Do you see anyone else here who is stunned by his eloquent postings?
Looks like they all got bored of trying to convince a rambling fool and left.
And with that I'm also outta here.

Rofl, the reality is people are simply to stubborn to change their opinions or listen to others and simply to lazy to come up with a response and thus resort to ad hominem tactics, much like yourself. Stop coming up with excuses. You got no response to my post.

 

[MiY4Gi]

Rofl, the reality is people are simply to stubborn to change their opinions or listen to others and simply to lazy to come up with a response and thus resort to ad hominem tactics, much like yourself. Stop coming up with excuses. You got no response to my post.

I think you've got it wrong there. Either you're a stubborn idiot or a stubborn genius. Nonetheless, you hold views vastly different from the masses. Everyone thinks you're strange with your strange views, and will stick to their views since they consider THEIR views logical. You have failed to convince us that your ideology is more logical than ours, and as such we either criticize you or simply stop listening to you. I'm sorry my friend, but we just don't think that the points you've made are good enough. If you really want us to listen to you, then first explain to us how you managed to come to the conclusion you have, by going back to the beginning and listing anything you have experienced or learned that contributed to your conclusion.

 

[LazyLion]

Rofl, the reality is people are simply to stubborn to change their opinions or listen to others and simply to lazy to come up with a response and thus resort to ad hominem tactics, much like yourself. Stop coming up with excuses. You got no response to my post.

Most people hold the views they do because they have come to them over years of education and the application of commonly understood and reasoned processes of logic.
Why you hold the views you do makes no sense to any of us, and your attempts to explain them to us have been unsuccessful because there is no underlying logical process for us to follow.
Your ramblings are incoherent and have no bearing on the actual reasons for why you say you do not vote. Yes, I have no response to your pointless posts.

 

[Palimino]

Now who is insecure.

Let me ask you a simple question, whom do you think works harder, or someone who believes in taking care of themselves and their family, who someone who believes they need taking care of? <snip>

Well written but I fear the anarchy ideology is similar to communism. Fine theoretically (on paper) but a shambles in practice. Rather the watered-down version – libertarianism.

 

[agerbon]

Nice posts WilD_CaT. We share similar views.

Well written but I fear the anarchy ideology is similar to communism. Fine theoretically (on paper) but a shambles in practice. Rather the watered-down version – libertarianism.

The problem I think is that people do not understand what freedom is. They call for freedom but then rely on government to take of them. This ends up making government too big with too much power over our lives. This in hand makes the few control the majority. So much for 'majority' rule.

 

[HapticSimian]

Why you hold the views you do makes no sense to any of us, and your attempts to explain them to us have been unsuccessful because there is no underlying logical process for us to follow.
Your ramblings are incoherent and have no bearing on the actual reasons for why you say you do not vote. Yes, I have no response to your pointless posts.

I understand WC's views perfectly, and I dare say I largely agree with them. However, the simple reality of our political landscape compels me to make my cross on a ballot notwithstanding. A vote not cast is almost as good as a vote for the imbeciles we have in power at present. I can't bear the guilt.

 

[TheHiveMind]

Yes we might be able to do something, but if most of us left the country that would have the same result. And if you have the view that we MUST vote in order to prevent the ANC or anyone else from having so much power that they can destroy the country, then logically you must ALSO be in favour of forcefully preventing people leaving this country, as that would have the same effect?

I support people voting against the anc, whether they like one of the other parties or not. I also support people who want to leave SA, completely understandable, I also plan to leave. For me it's not about changing any outcome, because I don't see that happening. It is about stalling the inevitable to give people more time to make plans.
When there is no time left, your plans will be made for you. Your vote is time. It is nothing more.

 

[WilD_CaT]

Well written but I fear the anarchy ideology is similar to communism. Fine theoretically (on paper) but a shambles in practice. Rather the watered-down version – libertarianism.

Libertarianism runs on the concept of the non-aggression principle. (I.E. Theft is not libertarian) Technically speaking a libertarian who is ultra consistant is by definition an anarchist as by definition you cannot favour ANY system of government as it violates the non-aggression principle. (Taxation)

However realistically most libertarians are minarchists. The state is allowed to do three things, provide courts, military and police. Thats it. It is more a practical position than an intelectual one.

The way I see it, it is a general direction. We should be removing power from those in charge (Thus handing it to the people) and we should always be heading in that direction. If we get to a minarchist government, who is to say you can't disband the military, or start privatising police (Private securty, now thats an original thought), or make use of private arbitration (Like we already do)...

 

[WilD_CaT]

I understand WC's views perfectly, and I dare say I largely agree with them. However, the simple reality of our political landscape compels me to make my cross on a ballot notwithstanding. A vote not cast is almost as good as a vote for the imbeciles we have in power at present. I can't bear the guilt.

I have no problem with that, it is perfectly logical.

Just how if a mugger sticks a gun to your head and demands your wallet, it is perfectly logical to give him your wallet rather than get shot.

The problem is ideologically, I do not believe that there HAS to be a ruler as if there is some universal law. That we have to be RULED by "someone". It might practically come about where in groups of people "leaders" emerge etc. The problem is this happened, people got power and since then they have used that power to steal the wealth of others, first it was king and tribal leaders, now it is the state. It doesn't matter. I am NOT a slave. Anyone who says otherwise is evil and wrong.

Thus I cannot support the state (Taxation is taking the fruits of ones labour, FACT). Because of this I do not support a system that encourages government rule. Because of this I do not vote.

My reasoning is an ideological/moral/intelectual justification, not a practical one. It is like having a hunger protest. It is not very practical, eventually you will be to weak to resist anyone trying to take you to the loony bin. But it does send a message.

That is what I am trying to do.

Yet people here have said I deserve to be punished for this. Even jailed. The same people who support this democratic system, the same people who need ME to vote in order to fix this system.

The system is flawed whether I vote or note. People need to realise this.

I do not want the ANC to have power and control over my life, but NOT because its the ANC. It could be the DA, my position would remain the same. You do not have the rights to me or my body or the fruits of my labour. Period.

 

[WilD_CaT]

I think you've got it wrong there. Either you're a stubborn idiot or a stubborn genius. Nonetheless, you hold views vastly different from the masses. Everyone thinks you're strange with your strange views, and will stick to their views since they consider THEIR views logical. You have failed to convince us that your ideology is more logical than ours, and as such we either criticize you or simply stop listening to you. I'm sorry my friend, but we just don't think that the points you've made are good enough. If you really want us to listen to you, then first explain to us how you managed to come to the conclusion you have, by going back to the beginning and listing anything you have experienced or learned that contributed to your conclusion.

My views are simple. I believe the only real right is property ownership which is derived from the fact you own your body. A natural condition of the universe. A natural or universal law.

Thus it is non-objective in its justification as a right. All other rights are man-made (E.G. Right to healthcare is a man made concept, the enforcement entails that someone MUST work and you MUST take away the fruits of their labour. Otherwise how can you enforce this right?). All other rights VIOLATE the right of property ownership. All violations of this right are immoral. (Try argue that one, if the justification is objective, the simple answer is you cant argue, it is not wrong)

Thus government is immoral, thus I do not support ANY government.

Violation of property rights is immoral > Government violates property rights > Government is immoral > Withdraw support for immoral system > Don't vote.

People try to argue in 2 ways.
- Morals are subjective (In which case they believe someone who kept slaves back in the day when it was ok was acting PERFECTLY MORAL. And this person wants to lecture me on morality, moral relavists don't know what right or wrong is, just what they think right or wrong is)
- State does not violate property rights as it is voluntary, but for the state to have the right to tax you (As if you "chose" to live here similar how you might "choose" to rent a house), you need to demonstrate how that right came about. When the landlord extracts rent from you, he has the right to do this as he has OWNERSHIP of the land and you entered into a contractual arrangement with him. Thus to argue the state does not violate property rights you need to argue that the state has legitimate ownership of ALL the land in a country. Legitimate ownership can only come in one of 2 ways, voluntary exchange or original appropriation (Homesteading).

Neither has been demonstrated by anyone on this forum, ever.

It is an assumption and they use this as the base for many of their arguments. Well you cannot just assume things and argue from there. You have to prove your premise is correct first before deducing or infering anything from it. THAT IS LOGIC.

Not one person has ever done it in demonstration that the state has the legitimate right to tax you. Until that is proven, why do people believe the state has this right. (The same people who take the technical athiest position [Lack of proof], suddenly believe in taxation without proof of its justification)

Why do people think it is illogical to question this? It might be "against the grain" but it is not illogical. In fact it is perfectly logical just not popular. Baaaabbbbaaaaaabbbbaaaaabbbbaaaaa (Where's an aussie when you need one eh?)

 

[STS]

i don't vote, **** all of you

 

[MiY4Gi]

My views are simple. I believe the only real right is property ownership which is derived from the fact you own your body. A natural condition of the universe. A natural or universal law.

Thus it is non-objective in its justification as a right. All other rights are man-made (E.G. Right to healthcare is a man made concept, the enforcement entails that someone MUST work and you MUST take away the fruits of their labour. Otherwise how can you enforce this right?). All other rights VIOLATE the right of property ownership. All violations of this right are immoral. (Try argue that one, if the justification is objective, the simple answer is you cant argue, it is not wrong)

Thus government is immoral, thus I do not support ANY government.

Violation of property rights is immoral > Government violates property rights > Government is immoral > Withdraw support for immoral system > Don't vote.

People try to argue in 2 ways.
- Morals are subjective (In which case they believe someone who kept slaves back in the day when it was ok was acting PERFECTLY MORAL. And this person wants to lecture me on morality, moral relavists don't know what right or wrong is, just what they think right or wrong is)
- State does not violate property rights as it is voluntary, but for the state to have the right to tax you (As if you "chose" to live here similar how you might "choose" to rent a house), you need to demonstrate how that right came about. When the landlord extracts rent from you, he has the right to do this as he has OWNERSHIP of the land and you entered into a contractual arrangement with him. Thus to argue the state does not violate property rights you need to argue that the state has legitimate ownership of ALL the land in a country. Legitimate ownership can only come in one of 2 ways, voluntary exchange or original appropriation (Homesteading).

Neither has been demonstrated by anyone on this forum, ever.

It is an assumption and they use this as the base for many of their arguments. Well you cannot just assume things and argue from there. You have to prove your premise is correct first before deducing or infering anything from it. THAT IS LOGIC.

Not one person has ever done it in demonstration that the state has the legitimate right to tax you. Until that is proven, why do people believe the state has this right. (The same people who take the technical athiest position [Lack of proof], suddenly believe in taxation without proof of its justification)

Why do people think it is illogical to question this? It might be "against the grain" but it is not illogical. In fact it is perfectly logical just not popular. Baaaabbbbaaaaaabbbbaaaaabbbbaaaaa (Where's an aussie when you need one eh?)

Okay, you've made some valid points. Now what if government didn't exist, and a group of thugs steals your food, rapes your children, and kills your wife - What will you do? Or, you accidentally kill someone's dog, and that person comes and kills your dog, what do you do? Or think a little bigger, some colonists come and see that there's no leadership here, and they create chaos then take over. What then? Or there's a drought in your city, and people are beginning to kill each other for water. What then?

You believe that the rights the government has given every person, is in fact violating the property rights of someone else? Tell me, are you a car mechanic, chemical engineer, doctor, petrol attendant, farmer, and can you do all the things everyone else can do? The answer is no. What do you do when you need medical care? You see a doctor. What do you do when you need food? You buy from a farmer. What do you do when someone rapes you daughter? You go to the police. Everyone helps everyone else to get through life. What a government does is simply make it easier to do that. A government is there to represent the nation as a whole, to join the dots. If every doctor in the country had to die, South Africa won't perish since the government would use taxes to bring doctors from other nations. Likewise, if every doctor in a city must die, the government would use taxes to allocate more doctors to that city. The government is what facilitates the connections between the provinces, cities, towns, and the people in the towns. You may be possible to defend yourself against an intruder, and your town watch may be able to defend the town against a group of bandits, but who's going to protect everyone from an international threat who decide that you have something they want?

A nation needs to work together if it is going to defend and protect itself, both from others, and from itself. A nation cannot work if everyone does their own thing. There needs to be organization to unite everyone together under a common cause, or in this case, causes. That organization is government. A government uses taxes to make the nation grow in strength, stability, and efficiency. If you are capable of living on your own, then move to an uninhabited island and live there alone. If you wish to live with other people then you need to contribute to the strength, stability and efficiency of the nation. In South Africa, that contribution is taxes. And that government is ANC.

So now tell me, why don't you support government? Why don't you support democracy? Why don't you support team work? Why don't you support your nation?

 

[Hard Rain]

Okay, you've made some valid points. Now what if government didn't exist, and a group of thugs steals your food, rapes your children, and kills your wife - What will you do? Or, you accidentally kill someone's dog, and that person comes and kills your dog, what do you do? Or think a little bigger, some colonists come and see that there's no leadership here, and they create chaos then take over. What then? Or there's a drought in your city, and people are beginning to kill each other for water. What then?

So what? Most of these things happen right now even with governments existing. I answered this line of reasoning ages ago, Myagi, so I'm starting to believe you're probably skim reading posts in this thread. In any case, as I said earlier, you are ultimately responsible for the safety of your property and person, but you can out-source this to security providers. Essentially this is what we do with the police, except the police have a monopoly hence the poor service, corruption, abuse of power etc.

You believe that the rights the government has given every person, is in fact violating the property rights of someone else? Tell me, are you a car mechanic, chemical engineer, doctor, petrol attendant, farmer, and can you do all the things everyone else can do? The answer is no. What do you do when you need medical care? You see a doctor. What do you do when you need food? You buy from a farmer. What do you do when someone rapes you daughter? You go to the police. Everyone helps everyone else to get through life.

Neither WilD_CaT nor myself have said we do not believe in co-operation, these are natural functions of market economy and exchange. What does the government have to do with it? I don't ask them to send me a plumber if I need one or to do my grocery shopping for me, I do business with other consenting adults. Under capitalism we all help each other through life, it just may be implicitly by participating in the market economy as a whole as opposed to an explicit act. Do not even begin to assert that we somehow "need" the government for this. We don't.

What a government does is simply make it easier to do that. A government is there to represent the nation as a whole, to join the dots. If every doctor in the country had to die, South Africa won't perish since the government would use taxes to bring doctors from other nations. Likewise, if every doctor in a city must die, the government would use taxes to allocate more doctors to that city. The government is what facilitates the connections between the provinces, cities, towns, and the people in the towns. You may be possible to defend yourself against an intruder, and your town watch may be able to defend the town against a group of bandits, but who's going to protect everyone from an international threat who decide that you have something they want?

Oh please, you seriously believe the government is omniscient and can co-ordinate the entire economy? Are you a batty socialist? Let me explain your doctor analogy in basic economic terms: Shortage of doctors versus high demand for doctors = higher price for doctors. Higher prices provide the incentive for other doctors, by whatever means, to offer their services. What the heck does the government have to do with it?

As far as "necessitating protection" analogy goes, what sense does it make for 50 million people to be ruled by a couple hundred loafers and thieves? If there is an actual invasion, guess what, people will have enough sense to either strike a deal with the potential invaders or they'll voluntary commit their resources to defence. No government theft and coercion required for this.

A nation needs to work together if it is going to defend and protect itself, both from others, and from itself. A nation cannot work if everyone does their own thing. There needs to be organization to unite everyone together under a common cause, or in this case, causes. That organization is government. A government uses taxes to make the nation grow in strength, stability, and efficiency. If you are capable of living on your own, then move to an uninhabited island and live there alone. If you wish to live with other people then you need to contribute to the strength, stability and efficiency of the nation. In South Africa, that contribution is taxes. And that government is ANC.

Appeals to nationalism and partisanship will get you nowhere. How dare you assert that WilD_CaT and myself do not "work together" with other people. As I explained above, the market is filled with implicit and explicit transactions. By simply going about our daily lives working and purchasing we are implicitly benefiting untold numbers of other market participants. Having the government steal from everyone in a multitude of ways benefits nobody except the government and its chosen friends.

I cannot believe you actually think government makes things more "efficient". Show me something the government is involved in that has become better or more efficient compared to what the private sector can provide? Please, I beg of you, show me!

So now tell me, why don't you support government? Why don't you support democracy? Why don't you support team work? Why don't you support your nation?

This is more creepy nationalism. Let me pose your questions another way: Why do you support thieves? Why do you support tyranny by majority rule? Why do you support having 50 million people ruled by a few hundred?

 

[MiY4Gi]

I'm going to criticize each of your statements soon, but I'm going to think about what to say first.

I can't believe I'm going to have to explain to you why government is necessary. It looks like this is going to be a long thread. I guess I'll look at the more important roles the government plays.

- Health
- Education
- Law
- Roads
- Sanitation and Water
- Food
- Monetary system
- Communication
- Economy
- etc

It's gonna take a while but I think I'll touch on each one and add to the list as I go along. If anything, at least it will increase my post count.

Don't run away now. This is going to be an interesting debate.

 

[pathseaker]

you have to vote in my area we were short of 200 votes for the DA which we could easily have achieved. Instead we were left with the dumb ass anc, who`s councilor never once came to any community meeting or did anything for us.
So don't vote and nothing will change

 

[Hard Rain]

- Health - Already provided by the private sector, superior in terms of quality because of the profit incentive. Cost is an issue because of government-endorsed medical cartels and interventionist regulations.

- Education - Are you trying to assert there won't be education without a socialized system? Ridiculous. Private sector is preferable and superior again.

- Law - You don't need to have a socialized law system or a government monopoly for law to function. Far more efficient for consumers if there is competition.

- Roads - Can all be privatized. We have plenty of superior quality private roads already in existence, most of which will not charge you directly for usage. With government roads you get traffic, inane road rules, extortionist fines, inefficiency, and poor quality.

- Sanitation and Water - Private companies can provide you with broadband internet and electricity, so why not plumbing? When the government does it we end up with shortages and less choices about the quality/composition of water products.

- Food - Are you going to argue that subsidies for farming are necessary? Steal from some so others can benefit is what that philosophy is about.

- Monetary system - This is absolutely the worst point. "Money" as a medium of exchange was purely a process of the market choosing certain goods to act as intermediaries above others. Today, most of the economic malfeasance in the world comes from government socialization and manipulation of its coercion-based fiat monetary system.

- Communication - Don't get this one, most mediums of communication are completely private to begin with. You gonna make the argument that government invented radio or the telephone or the internet?

- Economy - Horrible, horrible, horrible. From your previous post it's clear you have a Mercantilist bent when it comes to matters of trade and economy. To put it succinctly, the more the government interferes with the transactions and affairs of private business the worse the economy gets.

 

[STS]

- Health - Already provided by the private sector, superior in terms of quality because of the profit incentive. Cost is an issue because of government-endorsed medical cartels and interventionist regulations.

- Education - Are you trying to assert there won't be education without a socialized system? Ridiculous. Private sector is preferable and superior again.

- Law - You don't need to have a socialized law system or a government monopoly for law to function. Far more efficient for consumers if there is competition.

- Roads - Can all be privatized. We have plenty of superior quality private roads already in existence, most of which will not charge you directly for usage. With government roads you get traffic, inane road rules, extortionist fines, inefficiency, and poor quality.

- Sanitation and Water - Private companies can provide you with broadband internet and electricity, so why not plumbing? When the government does it we end up with shortages and less choices about the quality/composition of water products.

- Food - Are you going to argue that subsidies for farming are necessary? Steal from some so others can benefit is what that philosophy is about.

- Monetary system - This is absolutely the worst point. "Money" as a medium of exchange was purely a process of the market choosing certain goods to act as intermediaries above others. Today, most of the economic malfeasance in the world comes from government socialization and manipulation of its coercion-based fiat monetary system.

- Communication - Don't get this one, most mediums of communication are completely private to begin with. You gonna make the argument that government invented radio or the telephone or the internet?

- Economy - Horrible, horrible, horrible. From your previous post it's clear you have a Mercantilist bent when it comes to matters of trade and economy. To put it succinctly, the more the government interferes with the transactions and affairs of private business the worse the economy gets.

eet him boet

 

[chicken247]

Expletive! this is so boring.