Must be "opposite day"

in voting •  2 months ago


I read a blog post where the act of v*ting was characterized as "prosocial" behavior.


When someone v*tes they seek to exert political power over others. Either to get a cut of other people's stolen property, to impose "laws" which violate the life, liberty, and property of other people, or to choose someone to rule over them. That certainly sounds like antisocial behavior to me.

So where does this idea that v*ting is "prosocial" come from?

Maybe it comes from the idea of "civic duty". Where you are expected to participate in, or at least endorse, society's worst behaviors so that no one else feels bad about the nasty things they do to others. Or, at least that's how I see it.

I know I absolutely don't see v*ting, or otherwise participating in politics, as "prosocial" in any way.

Thank you for helping support
Donations and subscriptions are always appreciated!

Authors get paid when people like you upvote their post.
If you enjoyed what you read here, create your account today and start earning FREE STEEM!
Sort Order:  

Citizens have the power of votting to get punished by politicians for the next few years!

I dunno, I have trouble with this idea. I recently went to a local event where they did a ribbon cutting at a newly completed water control station. Here in South Florida it's really important to manage the water levels around the city so we (a) have municipal water and (b) don't flood. There were a bunch of city commissioners there. I voted for several of them.

I don't see my local government as coercive - they collect property taxes, which arguably I agreed to when I bought a house here. I'm glad they are there to put in water control structures, cause I'm sure as hell not gonna do it. I suppose they could put the word out and raise funds through donations, but that seems quite inefficient compared with the system we have. I have a small business and we are raising funds for some structural improvements that way; it's slow going compared to having an established budget.

I can agree that there's far too much coercion in our system as a whole (especially federal), but how do you envision a social group as large as a city can get things done without voting?


Do you need an extortion-funded monopoly to do these things? How do you know the government is efficient or effective? Do you really think water works are justification for the robbery, kidnapping, and murder the government also necessarily commits as aspects of its operation?


Do you need an extortion-funded monopoly to do these things?

I dunno, that's why I asked. More specifically, I asked how it could be done better, and if that better way would really be accomplished without voting.

My only comparison would be small business, and often that is far less efficient than my local government (when it comes to building infrastructure).

My guess is we don't need it to be a monopoly, but we do it cause it works the best so far.

So what is the alternate path?


Why do you think local businesses are "less efficient"? If government services are so good, why must they be mandatory? Why can't they tolerate competition and choice? What are the real costs hidden behind the bureaucracy?

I suggest reading a short book entitled Economics in One Lesson, by Henry Hazlitt. It should help you understand the economic concepts you need to use when considering such matters.

When you vote, what are you really doing? Either your vote is a meaningless ritual to grant a veneer of public consent to government, or your vote is usurpation of authority. I do not own you. I do not have authority over your life, libery, or property. How can I then mark a ballot to give that authority which I do not have over my neighbor to some third party?

I know in civics class we were taught that elected officials represent us, but there is in reality no agent/principal relationship between even the politician and those who voted for him, much less those who voted against him, did not vote, or could not vote. It is a massive fraud.


I own a small local business. We are currently raising money to add ductwork to our AC. We have been soliciting donations in our email newsletter for several weeks. We will probably have to solicit people individually in our classes to meet the goal. We have several small repairs and upgrades that aren't in our budget, so we will need to do this again.

It is more rewarding to do it this way (voluntarily, with students pitching in), but it would be more efficient if we just raised our prices. Either way is valid as far as business goes; for us community is a core value.

I am really glad it's not up to us to install water control structures though. When I vote, what I think I'm doing is delegating my choice about things which I know very little, or am not willing or able to do myself, to someone else. I mean, what does competition and choice look like for water control structures? Maybe I'm dense here, but I think it looks like voting.

I'm talking about local government, which I think was intended to be a form of competition and choice vs the state and federal systems. I'm not so sure it still functions that way, though. There are bright spots.but far too much big government meddling.


Thanks for the book recommendation; I love that it is a free pdf. I wish it was broken into text iI could highlight. Here's a gem:

Today is already the tomorrow which the bad economists yesterday urged us to ignore.

Voting: because you can pretend to take credit when government goons do stuff you like, but claim you aren't responsible when they do something reprehensible.

So alluring and clean, friend.