Anarchy

I don’t regularly visit One Small Voice, because the posts are sporadic and often more techy–geeky than my reptilian brain can handle (also, it’s too easy for me to slither in to the “abundance of jewels” I’ve found scattered about and not emerge for hours ... and with my brain swirling with even more thoughts than I’ve time to consider, much less share). So that’s why I didn’t see his post-election item until this morning: I Unvoted!. We’re still working on restoring graphics upload capability here, so I can’t present his images for your convenience, and I dislike hotlinking to images unless it’s explicitly approved by the originating site ... so I encourage you to hie thee thither for the best way to deal with a ballot that I have seen to date.

Wendy McElroy writes "An aspect of the free market -- the real free market, sans government, not the wretched State capitalism of today -- that receives scant attention from libertarians is the vital role played by activist consumers and consumer advocacy groups. They are part of the feedback mechanism that makes the marketplace function well. Just as unions ((again sans government) act as a brake on bad labor practices ..." Stephan Kinsella says that corporations are valid entities, and that the problem is really the legal structure, i.e. the state.

Because some relatively newish friends of mine have been exploring the issue of principled voting and nonvoting, I’d been toying with the idea of writing on the subject again. But I simply haven’t been able to summon any enthusiasm for the task—not even framing it in terms of it being for their possible benefit. Perhaps I’ve already devoted my allotment of life force to the issue, I dunno ... but I’m happy to say that someone else whom I respect has written an excellent piece on the subject:

... I love this country, but I hate its government.

If it is alive, government wants to kill it. If it is valuable, government wants to steal it. If it is beautiful, unique, or quirky, government wants to standardize, regulate or get rid of it. If it is interesting, risky or in any way not already completely safe and benign, government wants to dumb it down to manageable and predictable levels.

And no, putting your favorite idiots in charge will not fix it. Even putting smart people or caring people in charge will not fix it. ....

... [I]s it better for me to vote for an evil tyrant or not vote at all? Seriously. Those are the choices as best I can tell. For another thing, if it doesn’t matter who I vote for, then why does it matter that I vote at all except to prop up a system which I vehemently oppose? ....

After a good discussion recently, it has become clear to me that not voting in and of itself is not necessarily a sufficiently clear message that I have no faith in and no respect for the system. Therefore, I am spelling out my message explicitly right here.

I will not vote in this election.

I will not participate in this distraction and sham, and neither laziness nor apathy is among my reasons behind my choice.

I think most of the possible voting choices are unethical. Specifically, I believe it is unethical to vote to place another human being in a position of power over a peaceful person who cannot opt out of that system if there is a reasonably realistic chance your choice might prevail. I believe it is unethical to vote to steal a peaceful person’s property- be that theft in the form of taxation, eminent domain, zoning, gun control, the drug war, fines or penalties for victimless activities, or any of a bazillion other activities I could list. I believe it is unethical to vote to take away any peaceful choice a person could make- be that choice to carry arms either openly or concealed in public, to fuck bicycle parts, to wear clothing with distasteful graphics, to speak, publish or read offensive material, or again any of a bazillion other things that do not violate anyone else’s right to their own equally individual choices.

Kirsten says much, much more that is worth your attention in Casting My Whole Vote. She’s captured my thoughts and feelings much more concisely than I probably ever could.

In thinking about the recent discussions on hierarchy, some ideas from another discussion came to me and it seemed this might be a good place to explore them.

Disclaimer: I am not, in any way, suggesting that racism or the rest is good or healthy. Please remember that.

The question is, however, what is the moral response to expressions of these things? Many times the response is violent or hateful in return, creating the politically correct nightmare.

If we have any "right" or claim to life, liberty and property, how can we not have equal claim to our own thoughts and actions?

Okay, now that the unexpected excursion to Weirdsville is over, perhaps those of us interested in the issues that were raised in that post can consider and discuss the subject without distractions and personal attacks.

I know I’m far from the sharpest reptile slithering around, but even after a supposed clarification, I am still at a loss to grok Francois Tremblay’s recent post, Why Hierarchies Are Immoral.... Perhaps someone here can help enlighten me.

It was Billy Joel who wrote a song some time ago about love relationships ultimately being “a matter of trust”. While that’s true, the larger point—and the reason the song has been repeating in my mind for a few hours now—is that all relationships are built upon trust. Every contract, formal or informal, every market transaction, happens because there is some degree of trust between the participants. It appears to me that trust is such a deep, implicit part of that most of us probably don’t recognize its role, unless something happens to disturb it and therefore bring it to our attention.