The Power of Not Voting
Apparently, I'm to blame for Hillary's loss in the election. Why? I didn't beg for a new master.
Let's explore this for a moment. I think we can logically derive two key points from this:
- Trump supporters should be thanking me.
- My non-vote has more influence than any vote by Hillary supporters.
So, care to explain to me how it's my fault that Hillary lost while simultaneously telling me that by not voting, I somehow have no power or influence in making decisions in elections?
I can explain it (if you will): you're facing a widespread psychological-pressure technique that's supposed to shame you into falling in line.
Oh, I know. But it's fun to run with them on their wild-goose chases. Makes for excellent youtube footage, lol.
We'll see. If you can get some laughs out of the situation, you're in a better spot than most. :)
Well, I'm glad I wasn't the one to blame. Good thing they identified the culprit. I'm off the hook this time.
Yep, yep. It seems, according to HIllary supporters, not voting actual does make a difference and wields more influence than voting for the loser.
I'm responsible too: I didn't vote either ,though I am not an american
Empowering isn't it? When you wield such influence in doing nothing while those that go out of their way to take action find themselves powerless?
I voted for John McAfee twice in Orlando, Florida, because he was the only candidate running for president in 2016 who did not want to be my master, and whose platform consisted purely of reducing illegitimate government power, and in no way expanding even that government power which a theoretical legitimate government could rightfully claim. Had there been a candidate on the ballot in November that was sufficiently voluntaryist, I would have voted for him and championed him.
I also pointed out that strategic voting for the lesser of multiple evils is, indeed, legitimate, but only when the gain is sufficiently large, and the evil is tolerable. Because I draw the line at government stealing people's houses(as Trump attempted to do to Vera Coking) and murdering people(as the gun laws championed by Hillary Clinton have actually accomplished, many times) I would say that a vote for either major party candidate was a stain on one's moral character.
A case could be made that the same is true of those who voted for "less evil" candidates whose violations of individual rights would likely be grudging, or perpetrated by their incomprehension of the nature of the government they had unwittingly joined (Johnson, de la Fuente, Castle) or by possession of an inherently flawed, evil, and impractical philosophy(Stein, Sanders) derived from philosophical and economic incomprehension.
Regardless, voting for active immorality on a large scale is never defensible, and that's a core feature of the democracy that was once taught to our school children in this country, prior to the government taking control of schooling and eliminating proper History, Economics, Law, and Philosophy (the essential-to-civil-society portions of which were once taught in a course frequently named "Civics").
In any case, to hell with the people who are so abjectly stupid that they wanted you to vote for murder and property-rights-violation. If you politely explained yourself to them in this manner, and they rejected your explanation, you could politely call them immoral "murderers-by-proxy" and "government-theft-advocates."
I've found that doing so really gets under their skin, because they cannot claim that you aren't right, reasonable, and "as polite as warranted."