happy non-voter here

By Margaret -
Just cause I'm a non-voter doesn't mean I have a complete and total disinterest in election returns this evening: I honestly hope enough Democrats win to make the Republicans stop spending money like Democrats

Comments

  1. Margaret3:42 PM

    Darnit. Where'd the long-winded explanation I left go to?!?

    1) I believe voting is interfering in other people's lives. It isn't merely sending a representative to gov't, it's saying you want that representative to force your whims on other people. I want no part of that.

    2) When you play a game you have to accept the consequences. I may peacefully live with the consequences of others forcing their values on me, but I'm not going to voluntarily give up my autonomy to play a stupid game. As far as I am concerned, anyone who votes gives up their right to complain about the outcome.

    3) My vote literally doesn't count. If an election were up to my vote, it would be contested.

    4) The system is open to fraud and corruption.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wabulon9:48 PM

    Hi Margaret.

    What about the difference between disinterest and un- or lack of interest?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Margaret1:07 PM

    Do you mean the difference between not caring at all and being uninterested in participating in a game you don't like but maintaining an interest in how it turns out because you're forced to be involved anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous6:57 AM

    "What about the difference between disinterest and un- or lack of interest? "

    Somewhere between 35 and 40.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous5:21 PM

    1) I don't have the right to rule you, and you don't have the right to rule me.

    2) Neither I (nor you) can delegate to someone else - e.g., a politician - a right I (nor you) do not have. Therefore,

    3) voting for someone to rule my (and your) neighbors is illegitimate - even immoral.

    That's why I don't vote.
    --Jackney Sneeb

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:06 PM

    i like buy Tales Of Pirates Gold

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more