in this last Presidential debate 2012, did you know that the Green party candidate, Jill Stein was ARRESTED outside the debate. our country is bought and sold ladies and gentlemen, to the major corporations. the election has already been won by the top bankers and CEOs. i am a firm advocate for Gary Johnson and i would love to see Jesse Ventura in the election of 2016. i know Obama will "win" this election because all the signs and hints have already been shown by the Democrips and Rebloodlicans that he is the winner. this game of polling that the mainstream media plays is a distraction from the truth that the elections are rigged and the decision has already been cast by the powers that be.
that reminds me, did you know (adamkokesh's fans) that one of Romney's sons is affiliated with the primary company distrubuting voting machines. if that is not an indication of a rigged election, than i dont know what is. it does not argue on my side, becasue why would Romey want to help Obama get elected, but it argues that cheating is so blatant, yet unchallenged.
any way i talked too long, if you like any of what i discussed in this message, feel free to participate in the poll i created above. that way i can see the level of crazy i am dealing with on the Adam Kokesh fanbase.

I'm not sure why you would think "the Adam Kohesh fanbase" doesn't already think elections are fixed, that winners of elections are predetermined months in advance, that the Demos and Repos are in kahoots with each other, that the mainstream media is less than truthful, that Independents (Libertarians, Green Party, etc.) are chronically disenfranchised by the Establishment or that government is effective.

Where's the option for "nobody" or "myself"? I'm not really down with the whole "choosing somebody to rule over me" thing.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

Yeah wtf. I'd be surprised if anyone in Adam's audience was still voting except in some very specific local elections.

Anarcho-communists are the democrats, individualists are the enemies of all things democratic.

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

I'm voting for Gary Johnson and any other liberty minded candidates that will be on my ballot. Not voting doesn't make sense to me at this point. I understand the concept of not voting, if only we could convince everyone to stay home, but that's never going to happen without first showing the masses that less government really is better, then they'll finally wake up and realize that none is obviously the best. The current result of not voting is like taking a punch on the nose rather than in the chest. Either way you're taking a hit, which would you choose?

Similarly I could say (to paraphrase you): Voting doesn't make sense to me at this point. I understand the concept of voting, if only we could convince everyone to vote to abolish the state, but that's never going to happen without first showing the masses that no government is better.

By the way, do you not know of Stefan Molyneux's thesis that small government usually evolves into big government? Only no government has a chance of staying no government (hopefully). This was the mistake of most political Libertarians like Harry Browne - he used to say anarchism is fine if we can manage it, but along the road of evolution as government got smaller and smaller most people would say "meh, that's small enough for me" and they would stop trying to make it even smaller or abolish it altogether. And then, as Molyneux said, government would just start growing again and we'd have to start the whole process all over again! Just look at what happened after the American Revolution for proof of this.

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

Why is Jill Stein arrested? Is being on a public street illegal in the US if you support the Greens or is this yet another proof that the American exceptionalism is wrong and the dominant political culture has emerged due to almost 100 years of repression of political opinion.

_________________
presidential debate

I obviously agree that no government is best, but attempting to convince a majority that smaller is better is a much more realistic goal than convincing them that none is better. Look at the war on drugs for example, which do you think is an easier sell to Joe average, first legalizing marijuana and letting them see that it can work, or trying to convince them to legalize everything all at once?

I've listened to all the Molyneux that I can handle. (I'd estimate about 100 podcasts) He needs to hire an editor, or learn to use editing software. The man has some excellent points but I can no longer take listening to him blather on for an hour or two to make a point that could have been made clearly and concisely in about 5 minutes. (Unfortunately Adam seems to be following his lead with two hours shows, that contain 5 minutes of interesting material)

That said, again I agree that no government is best. My only argument is that it would be easier to attain by first cutting it down in size and scope, then elimination could be much more feasible. If not, at least with smaller government we'd enjoy a bit more freedom in our lifetimes and hopefully teach future generations to reject the notion of government altogether.

The only other alternatives I see are violent revolution (not a good option in my opinion), or to do nothing but try to wish government away while taking it on the nose.

So let me ask: how has voting helped you? Has voting made government smaller - ever? Do any candidates you might support actually have a chance of being elected? I doubt the answer to any of these questions is "yes".
I know what you mean when you say it is easier to persuade people to just legalize marijuana and stick to that rather than legalizing everything. I have had this debate with people (even advocates of marijuana legalization) a million times and usually it ends the same way - people still favor prohibition. But that's not going to change with you voting to legalize marijuana. Even if it is legal people will still not agree to legalize anything else and, even worse, the people who were against legalizing will bitch at you for causing the whole problem and for wanting even more and "ruining society".

Agorism is the only way to go. I haven't exactly got into my agorist niche yet; it's very difficult here in England where the government is more invasive than in the US and people are much more inclined toward socialism (let's just say here I meet proud statists and not one an-cap or voluntaryist yet...).

You are not going to get anything from the democratic process but what you will do is legitimize it. If you vote you are pretty much agreeing to respecting the result of the election. A boycott is a much safer way to go than a protest vote. I agree that seeing Gary Johnson get 10-15% and seeing him in debates would be amazing. But how is that going to change anything other than lift your spirit a little. Voting is a very short-term strategy. Agorism and education are the long term.

Having said that, good luck with your vote next month!

_________________
"Here, every citizen is king; for he has plenitude of power, he reigns and governs." - P.J. Proudhon

You're certainly not going to get anything from the democratic process by not participating, but it will remain whether you show up or not. If you don't vote, you're still stuck with the result of the election. A boycott will go unnoticed, as will a write in. A protest vote will certainly have an effect, especially if it can sway the outcome of the election, just look at the fear and panic the Ron Paul movement (and Gary Johnson) caused in the old guard lately. This will force a change in policy (even if it's minimal) and that will certainly lift my spirit and many others. I agree, it's a short term strategy and Agorism and education are definitely the long term goal. But it beats doing nothing. I don't advocate giving money to campaigns, parties or candidates. I simply support good ideas with my vote, even if they only offer a small step in the right direction.

I'm lucky enough to have a handful of people I'm able to trade with, and I've seen the interest starting to grow as more and more people get fed up with the overbearing Gov. I'm sorry to hear that you're surrounded by statists, hopefully Jolly ole' England will start to wake up as well. Which brings us to marijuana legalization. We're at the tipping point here, medical use is already legal in many states which was brought to us by, yep you guessed it, good ole fashioned voting . Now we just need to get the feds out of it. The old farts that support the old two party nonsense that they were raised to support are dying off and being quickly outnumbered. I'm also noticing less and less interest in organized religion among young people here, which is another huge step towards freedom from group think.

Cannot agree with this more, love Molyneux's philosophies but he seriously puts me to sleep. And I agree that Kokesh has been doing the same thing in some of his videos. Conciseness and simplicity go a LONG way toward reaching a broader audience, and you don't have to sacrifice the content of your message if you know how to do it. At least their voices are still out there though.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

Education. First, understand the root (irreducible primary) yourself. Then, help others understand the root. The latter is not always winning people over in debates, but planting seeds, expressing ideas in different forms, offering nuggets of insight to those who seek, writing, and speaking (if those are skills you possess). Ideas are the foundation of revolution (or in this case, what's hopefully an evolution rather than a RE-volution), not violence or passivity.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

Here's something Larken Rose recently commented on a YouTube video: "As a realist, tell me this: when has voting ever achieved freedom, anywhere on the planet, at any point in history? Do you really think Johnson has a prayer in hell of winning? And if he did, do you really think he has a prayer in hell of changing the system? Voting is not realistic: it is a faith-based ritual designed to make the peasants feel like they have some say in what is going on."

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

A thought process to share if I may...

voting seems pointless I know. But how does it come to seem pointless. By never voting at all, or by voting and upon seeing the results feeling as if your vote didn't count. The more people you wake up the liberty, the more that go vote for a REAL human being instead of some globalist shill with an R or D infront of their name, the more people will realize our system is broken. There's no real way to prove your votes don't matter/count unless you vote for something you care in, asks others, and then take your own straw poll to see what a likely outcome should be versus what the official tally is listed as. Any thoughts?

Interesting that Larken said that. Have you read his book "The Iron Web"? It contains an excellent story of what could be achieved by planting an An-cap or Voluntarist type in one of the major parties and not revealing their true intent until they're in a position of real power. I'm thinking/hoping that's what Rand Paul is trying to achieve by kissing ass to the Republicans.
I don't think Johnson has a chance of winning, but if he achieves 5% in my state it will eliminate the ridiculous ballot access process for the libertarian party, which is a step in the right direction. And yes, if by some incredible chance he did get elected, he could do quite a bit as commander in chief to steer us away from the cliff we're currently speeding towards.
Voting may be a scam, but imagine if Ron Paul would have gone independent or third party, they couldn't rig the numbers too much, if they over-manipulated the results, the Paul people would have the proof all over the interwebs the very next day, then we'd finally see people waking up to the reality that the game is rigged.

So your proposed solution is to vote for a "real human being" and not a globalist Republicrat. So, this argument is akin to "if we vote hard enough, we can get ourselves a nice slave master instead of a bought and sold one". The whole concept of liberty is that we no longer need a system of authority derived of force and violence. The face and name of the slave master is not the problem, it is the slavery itself and the mindset that creates it in the first place. "Voting" for anything or anybody to be put into place by a violent apparatus (the State) cannot be construed as productive or moral means, it's tyranny--the idea that you, with your vote, can somehow elect to impose your choices on others who would vote differently.

What it boils down to: Voting is an act of participation that gives the system legitimacy, verifies it as a authority that we have faith in to guide our society. If that's how you feel about controls and divisions enforced with police, prisons, and war, then vote on. If you don't, then your non-participation is a "vote" itself against the system of coercion and force.

Also, any stance that voting is productive and could eventually produce a "good slave master" assumes that the entire game isn't rigged by the globalist interests you despise. Which, of course, it is.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

I promise you that even IF Ron Paul were elected President, the State and its interests would still stay their course. The President has limited powers, and the powers he/she has can be manipulated at any time. It's important to see that the State (and its interests) write their own rules they "abide" by. It's a rigged game, it doesn't matter who the face of public relations ("President") is.

Also, I haven't read that one but I'm currently working on his book "The Most Dangerous Superstition." Well worth reading if you get a chance to check it out yourself, it's available on his site. I tweet quotes from it sometimes on my Twitter feed (link in my signature below).

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

"Your vote is gun, aimed at me, at the world-at-large, to force all those who don't believe as you to submit. Your vote is violence."

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

He didn't stand a snowballs chance in hell at the primary level and the republican convention, yet they were bending rules, not allowing him to speak, ignoring his delegates, they were in a complete panic that he might gain any more ground or any more support. He came very close to blowing over their house of cards, all this with a mismanaged campaign and a very small, but very vocal support group. This fiasco definitely caught the interest of a whole new mass of previously uninterested individuals.
If he or someone like him are elected on any level, (as he has been in congress for years) they can and do have an effect, regardless of how rigged the game is, people like him expose the corruption and wake people up to the fact that government is really just a hoax. A strong third party would really kick this notion into the minds of the masses. I don't propose we try to attain a "good slave master" by voting, I propose we try to elect people who will expose the hoax of government, and who will minimize damage and maximize freedom during the time it takes to expose this hoax and ultimately slay the beast. Convincing people to not vote is doing the powers that be a big favor. They don't want people to vote, especially people like us. The fewer people voting, the easier it is for them to sway the results.

I just ordered The Most Dangerous Superstition. I definitely recommend you check out The Iron Web, it's helped to enlighten many of my friends and family since it's an entertaining read, it's not just preaching which turns off most people new to the philosophy.

Larken Rose on voting (and some differing views following): http://t.co/XdNgVBtr

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

[/quote]

I think you may have misinterpreted my thought process. The more people that go out and vote for a legit non R & D candidate, the more people will realize it's rigged. The easier it becomes to wash it all away and start anew.[/quote]

This is exactly what I was trying to say ,while blathering on Molyneux style...

I have to side with the unnamed lady and Mark Benoit, they made the best points. The ways to access the minds of the masses are either through huge amounts of money (not an option unless we find a billionaire an-cap) or organized protest, trying to bring more people on board, and playing the game by getting elected.
Larken is way off on his numbers. Five million people suddenly not paying taxes and not voting is going to end with five million people getting arrested and prosecuted while the other 300,000,000 plus people go about their daily lives. It's going to take a lot more than five million organized individuals to stop the machine.
Stephan and Larken are doing a huge disservice by turning off Ron Paul people. Most of the Ron Paul people are new to Libertarianism. Say goodbye to all those potential future an-caps and voluntarists. Nice going, guys! Divide an already small group, this makes absolutely no sense to me.

Doug Casey's Top 5 Reasons Not to Vote:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-2 ... s-not-vote


This is similar to my argument that participation effectively recognizes the State as a legitimate apparatus. The ultimate goal of a one who does not believe in coercive social organization should be to de-legitimize the State, not participate in its operation. (I understand you both agree on this principle & just offer different tactics, which this is getting to).


I personally hadn't even incorporated this into my reasoning for not voting, but it makes sense. While you may be trying to "vote away" the State, you're also registering yourself as more than just a "voter," but a "willing" participate in other State functions as well. (Casey also notes Census dodging here, which I omitted)


This is a weaker point obviously, but still a valid one. Why waste even a minute of your time potentially legitimizing a coercive and violent system when there are much better forms of living, or being active in your community, that you could do in that same amount of time? Take the afternoon you would dedicate to voting to instead do some volunteer service, or help educate others, spend time with family, do something fun.


We already are familiar with and have covered the "lesser of two evils" argument, which I think we all agree. However, important to note the first part of this reasoning. A Gary Johnson, Ron Paul, or any other politician (except maybe Vermin Supreme) assumes the "right to rule" if elected, if they ever even had a chance (which they don't). They may not, or likely won't, view their "victory" synonymously with your view of it as a means to permanently eliminate his "thrown." Show me a politician who will work their whole lives to move up the chain of command with the goal of eliminating that command itself, AND that has a snowball's chance in hell at winning, and I'll show you a unicorn. Admittedly Ron Paul seemed close to this, though. I still can't decide whether he's a minarchist or a voluntarist in a minarchist disguise.


The only candidates to whom that latter portion does not apply are not "in" the game anyway, and have no chance at winning. Maybe I'm being too fatalistic here, but I genuinely believe the political game is rigged fairly extensively in favor of certain powers, and no decent man/woman that "serves the people" and not power interests will ever receive the golden ticket. The modern President is simply a power broker anyway, not a representative of or actor for civil interests. If he/she attempts the latter, they'll be swiftly checked & thwarted.

Doug goes on further...



And these are the points I want to key in on the most, and as my main response to the previous arguments in favor of essentially "voting away" the system. At least for me, personally, non-participation is significantly an ethical stance. As the interviewer points out (not quoted), no vote, no blood on your hands (unfortunately, I still pay taxes, which makes me quite hypocritical, but at least I won't go to prison for not voting... yet). Also, I wholeheartedly agree that researching political candidates, following them, donating & campaigning for them, tuning in for political debates and discussions, running through bureaucratic mazes, and committing all this time and energy to system you want to de-legitimize in the first place seems entirely counter-productive. As Casey points out, think about it economically. Thus, don't just think about what means (in your case, voting and political participation) you choose to meet an end (Statelessness), but what potentialities are lost in the process of those decided means. What better and more productive ways could you be utilizing your time and resources to perhaps more effectively de-legitimize the State? Again, volunteer work, education, activism, art & expression, self-education, therapy, spirituality, farming, entrepreneurship, and so on.

All of our energy is precious.

_________________
Reduce your government footprint.

Twitter: @jwalidea YouTube: /jwalidea

Many people still participate however. They don't feel the system is rigged, they feel their vote matters (cause in a small way it truly does until it goes to be processed by a Diebold voting machine). The only way to wake these folks up is to first get them off the the R and D train. If you can get them to consider voting someone they believe in and have researched it will get them on the path to the above post. I was a Ron Paul fan for only a year or so until I came to hear the anarcho capitalist/ libertarian ideals in regards to not voting. I respect someone's right to not vote, but the minds of the masses still need swaying and it cant be an immediate 180 flip. Get them on the path to liberty and they will find their way. R an D = no liberty.