Seems to me that there's actually a lot more nuance to this. Paying attention to things doesn't have to be to the exclusion of paying attention to others.

Voting matters. It can make a very real difference. Sit it out at your own risk, as well as the risk of everyone else. Just because we have crappy choices doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

Ideology is fine, but we live in the real world.

Sorry you've been blinded to the oppression you support and perpetuate.
You might figure out what I'm talking about in the shallowest and most temporary way in a couple days, but it is not likely that you'll build that out into the reality of irrepresentative representatives. Who cannot even know much less represent more than those few who are closest to them but are given power far beyond what any sane person would want.

I'm not naive about this. Don't condescend to me.

I understand and sympathize with the idealism, but we have a choice, and it makes a real difference. Both sides are NOT the same.

I'd love it if we could move beyond what we have, but it IS what we have, and we need to deal with that first.

What's your practical suggestion for a way out of this?

"both sides are not the same"
a democratic candidate that got single digit percentages in their primaries who can't interview to save their campaign and a republican candidate that the media hates but the public loves for his promises to reduce the size of the government while his first four years grew federal spending continuously

Yes they aren't pitch perfect identical, but it is the same goddamn story it has always been.
Every time I bring up the solution plain as day you people are programmed to ignore it. Stop worshiping the state. You're in a suicidal cult. It only has what power you give it.

Saying that I "Worship the state" is just preposterous.

Instead of throwing around this rhetoric, seriously, what do you propose as a solution or solutions? I've never seen you propose one.

Only because you're as blind to the solution as you are the problem.

What majority makes an otherwise immoral act moral?

pfft.

Solutions, please.

It's becoming ever harder to think you might have any.

What is in the journal title, what is the answer given in this comment string a couple times?
The only limit to the growth of the state is the demeanor of the people in resisting its growth into their lives.
The state isn't your tool to use to constrain the state, the state is the state's tool to constrain you.

Surely at some point you'll figure out that 'might makes right' promotes high time preference no matter the form it takes. I still haven't looked at the election results, but as I said one reply up; maybe you'll figure it out temporarily for a few years, but I doubt it'll stick. Same as 16-20.

I’m not sure there is a specific anti-voting message here.

Do you have reason to believe that there is one?

I wouldn't say that it's specifically an anti voting message. It's obscured by some rather obtuse language. If you look at his last paragraph and what he's said to me since, it sure looks to me as though he's saying that voting doesn't matter because both sides suck, and voting just plays into their game.

Perhaps you should ask him if that's what he's trying to say?

Done. :)

I know/have met far too many people who need to be taught this message.
If it's an honest inquiry (You're parked on the side of the road, taking a much needed nap during a long drive, to STAY SAFE, and a LEO wakes you to see if you need help, is told, "Thank you, no, just getting some Zzzz's before continuing on my way," and they nod and turn-about, leaving you alone? THAT sort of engagement is respected/appreciated. For all the others determined to play their 'FAFO/Fishing' games against us? No.), I don't mind it.
The instant 'They' start to become annoying? Harassing, going proctoscope in their morbid curiosity to know everything about us?

That's when my teeth come out, and I'm more than willing/able to engage with them accordingly.

That 'Do unto others' creed matters.

Hugs

A couple of us were wondering if you are saying that voting is not worth it. Are you saying that?

I am saying that forcing your beliefs on those around you through coercion is immoral.
As an aside to that that always seems to come up next; coercion and persuasion are entirely different concepts that people seem to have a hard time distinguishing between.

that doesn't sound like an answer to his question to me...

At the very least you may need to share your definitions of persuasion and coercion here.

it doesn't sound like an answer because you've been distracted by the red herring pasted atop the underlying question. When high-level things don't make sense, dig underneath them to the underlying foundations of the question and answer what you can until the big complicated unanswerable questions become clear through convergence of their underpinnings.

persuasion : carrot
coercion : stick

Bit late, but I'd suggest ignoring sikfock666; guy's known for trying to start up drama here on-site, refuses to listen to anything right of Mao. Just block/ignore him and move on.

Nah man, I chatterbox at him all the time.
Always good for a laugh if nothing else, being the one supposed "anarchist" I know that gargles the state's balls at every opportunity and in every way possible.

Probably just a fed or some shit, w/e

We live in society, people's lives are interdependent and everyone's business is connected to one another. So I don't think adopting a fully individualistic outlook on life works for everybody, especially those in weaker position in comparison to others, like minorities. You can tell trans people to not be concerned with who wins the election, but it doesn't change that they have a reason to be concerned.

"who is not allowed to secede from subjugation without losing their life's work"
A nation is like an organism; everyone is a part of something greater than themselves that dictates their life. Concept of seceding doesn't make much sense.


But putting all of that aside I agree with you more than not. I don't think people should want to force their will over others and be unhealthily concerned with their lifes. In my opinion it doesn't apply to things you think it applies to, but otherwise I like that way of thinking and I leave others be when it doesn't concern me. And I agree with the title of this journal; often it's used in the right way that shouldn't be taken as something offensive.

"So I don't think adopting a fully individualistic outlook on life works for everybody, especially those in weaker position in comparison to others, like minorities."

Freedom of association requires you to be able to peaceably secede from associations forced upon you.
Especially as the minority. Remember the ostensible purpose of voting after all; determining the will of the majority. To be forced upon the minority.

In reality that minority is actually an assembly of many minorities who become a large majority of people who are being forced to go along with something they want no part in. To reference the recent US election (that I finally was informed of the results of) you'll find that a very large section of those who voted R and nominally "won" wanted nothing to do with their "chosen" candidate at all, he was merely the lesser evil. Thus that supposed "majority" of people being only some 21% of the us population just keeps shrinking.

Seriously, what is the problem with free association built upon the foundation of recognizing that violently forcing yourself on those around you is reprehensible in the same natural and universal manner as slavery and rape?

The government without oversight has become a beast, gobbling up close to a third of a nations income and not really producing anything for it. The people are uninformed and uncaring , this horrible child they have refused to guide and discipline is coming full circle. Can it be controlled?

I often try to think up the turning point of when the brakes failed and it tipped over the edge, but that can is easy to kick back beyond history I'm comfortable with trusting the veracity of.
Nationalized schooling in 1979? Nationalized banking in 1913? Forcing states to follow the federal lead or face death for noncompliance as in 1865? Whenever universal franchise was adopted, allowing net goods consumers to dictate their will to net goods producers with the full threat of governmental violence?

Were our representatives ever truly representative, or was that always just a convenient lie that allowed unchecked growth well beyond any imagination?

I see Trump's win as the option that slows state proceedings slightly, which should be a good thing but I'm unsure even of that. We're all that proverbial frog in a pot of water...

1935 when a hand up became a hand out? who is to say, maybe each little speck of rot, blurring together now in a canvas where the original colors are now lost. Maybe the collective is dumb enough that term limits are a good idea, or would they just allow for those foreign actors to install fresh blood, that trillionaire who makes sure that judges get appointed and all the important cards are played.