Trump threatens to withhold endorsement for Republicans who oppose his rescissions package

[nikcers]

Short of guillotines being rolled out and put to use or the like, just about anything can be counted as "consent" in some way or another.

Why should we commit suicide over politics? The constitution isnt a suicide pact.

 

[TheTexan]

Short of guillotines being rolled out and put to use or the like, just about anything can be counted as "consent" in some way or another.

Yea but I don't see any reason to make it easy for them.

Voting is the easiest way to grant them the perception of legitimacy

 

[nikcers]

Yea but I don't see any reason to make it easy for them.

Voting is the easiest way to grant them the perception of legitimacy

Can we tar and feather 50% of the country and still look legitimate to the rest of the world?

 

[TheTexan]

Can we tar and feather 50% of the country and still look legitimate to the rest of the world?

I dunno but there's one way to find out

 

[Occam's Banana]

Yea but I don't see any reason to make it easy for them.

Voting is the easiest way to grant them the perception of legitimacy

I agree.

Unfortunately, most people (including compliant non-voters) don't see any reason to make it hard for them.

(I guess you could say we are presently "outvoted" in this regard, so to speak.)

 

[Swordsmyth]

So now I'm an accomplice? Should I serve jail time if/when a politician commits a crime even though I did not vote? And if so, what happens to the politician? He/she gets reelected [again]?

I'm not going to sit here and tell you how impossibly stupid that is. Because if one can think it, it has the potential of happening. And now I'm wondering if there are places in the world where you are expected demanded to vote [for pre-approved candidates] - or else.

Nice strawman, burning it gains you nothing.

 

[Swordsmyth]

Every candidate is a "potential criminal [...] in office", entirely regardless of whether any other person voted for, voted against, or didn't vote at all.

If that potential becomes an actuality, then those who did not vote no more "consented" to the criminality than did those who did (for or against).

That's what I said, unless you voted for the person based on crimes they promised in the campaign.

 

[CaptUSA]

I'm not gonna bother to do the research but if I did I could probably find quite a few examples of where single digit voter turnouts have happened.

Here's a VERY recent test case in Georgia: https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/georgia-public-service-commission-psc-election-runoff-s52989

Turnout was exceedingly low in early voting for the runoff, but improved somewhat, topping 100,000, or a little more than 1% of Georgia's more than 8 million registered voters.

Still, the GA PSC operates and functions as before. The "winner" will take his seat. Lack of voting interest was not perceived as a repudiation of the system - even though nearly 99% of eligible voters did not participate.

I found a couple other low turnouts in African nations, but it seemed like fear of reprisals was the main culprit.

I've been trying, but I can find no evidence to support the theory that voting or not voting was needed for a system to imply or deny consent. Non-compliance, however, is MUCH more effective and I can find all sorts of evidence to support that.

 

[Madison320]

Here's a VERY recent test case in Georgia: https://www.newsday.com/news/nation/georgia-public-service-commission-psc-election-runoff-s52989

Still, the GA PSC operates and functions as before. The "winner" will take his seat. Lack of voting interest was not perceived as a repudiation of the system - even though nearly 99% of eligible voters did not participate.

I found a couple other low turnouts in African nations, but it seemed like fear of reprisals was the main culprit.

I've been trying, but I can find no evidence to support the theory that voting or not voting was needed for a system to imply or deny consent. Non-compliance, however, is MUCH more effective and I can find all sorts of evidence to support that.

Does "consent" lead to a more free country? Seems like a pretty vague concept to me. I'll bet if we looked at the top 10 most free countries, they're all some form of democracy and they have turnover at the highest government position. And the bottom 10 are some type of dictatorship. I need more than "trust me, voting doesn't work". I'm not saying a voting based system is perfect but it's by far the best out of the available options.

I quit voting for the lesser of 2 evils a long time ago but I have to say it's more for my own ego than anything else. I don't want to have to face the embarrassment of voting for the guy that does stupid shit. But I don't get this hostility for people that do vote for the lesser of 2 evils. If anything they're doing the dirty work that I didn't want to do. For example remember back when Biden tried to force almost everyone to get the jab? We were saved by the supreme court and the people doing the dirty work.

Meanwhile we have people on this forum advocating for all kinds of incredibly severe restrictions on liberty, like limiting free trade, for example.

 

[CaptUSA]

I need more than "trust me, voting doesn't work". I'm not saying a voting based system is perfect but it's by far the best out of the available options.

Yeah, I'm not even asking anyone to provide evidence that voting doesn't work. I'm asking for evidence that NOT voting DOES work.

To me, voting is just signaling a preference of which candidate you'd prefer hold a particular seat. It doesn't seem to be linked with the power of that seat at all. It's not "implied consent" any more than not voting is "denying consent". At least, I'm not seeing any evidence of such. And for some reason, some people get a little too touchy when you ask for evidence.

 

[PAF]

Does "consent" lead to a more free country? Seems like a pretty vague concept to me. I'll bet if we looked at the top 10 most free countries, they're all some form of democracy and they have turnover at the highest government position. And the bottom 10 are some type of dictatorship. I need more than "trust me, voting doesn't work". I'm not saying a voting based system is perfect but it's by far the best out of the available options.

I quit voting for the lesser of 2 evils a long time ago but I have to say it's more for my own ego than anything else. I don't want to have to face the embarrassment of voting for the guy that does stupid shit. But I don't get this hostility for people that do vote for the lesser of 2 evils. If anything they're doing the dirty work that I didn't want to do.

Speaking for myself, I really don't have hostility toward anybody lol. It's all one big hodge-podge, and as long as it keep the conversations going, I'm all for it. Some forums went dead, people don't care, they become complacent, and that's not good.

Sometimes [more than not] I believe that it's good to dig right in, with hopes that it leads readers to really examine themselves, regarding what true liberty really means. Don't tell anybody, but I enjoy being called out on a position that I haven't given a lot of thought to

For example remember back when Biden tried to force almost everyone to get the jab? We were saved by the supreme court and the people doing the dirty work.

We were "saved" only because people and businesses no longer wanted to comply.

Meanwhile we have people on this forum advocating for all kinds of incredibly severe restrictions on liberty, like limiting free trade, for example.

And those same people resort to calling certain us individuals liars, traitors, working for the enemy... when they are the liars, traitors, working for the enemy I wouldn't have any other way, it's all in fun!


Here's a terrific article, btw:

'Voting: The Seen and the Unseen'

Jul 20, 2025

Mises Daily
Dan Sanchez


A certain line of thinking is all too prevalent among liberty-minded Americans. It runs as follows: “Candidate X may not be perfect, but he is better on domestic economic policy than candidate Y, and that is obviously what matters most for liberty.” This way of thinking underlies “libertarian” endorsements of candidates such as Mitt Romney, and it implicitly throws the entire antiwar aspect of libertarianism under the bus.

This is in stark contrast to Ron Paul’s way of thinking. Ron Paul may be in the Republican Party. But this by no means indicates...

• PAF
• Replies: 2
• Forum: Political Philosophy & Government Policy

 

[Madison320]

We were "saved" only because people and businesses no longer wanted to comply.

Based on what?

The mandatory vax law never even went into effect. So non-compliance wasn't even a factor.

I think non-compliance would've been a factor if it had gone into effect but luckily it didn't go that far. If it did, how many people would've had their lives ruined by either taking the vax against their will or not complying with it? Thankfully the hated "lesser of two evils" crowd bailed us out.

 

[PAF]

Based on what?

The mandatory vax law never even went into effect. So non-compliance wasn't even a factor.

I think non-compliance would've been a factor if it had gone into effect but luckily it didn't go that far. If it did, how many people would've had their lives ruined by either taking the vax against their will or not complying with it? Thankfully the hated "lesser of two evils" crowd bailed us out.

Based on I don't know.

I know that I personally didn't vote either way, and I didn't get the shot, nor did I ever wear a mask. I think there was so much information going around concerning Trump's OWS and Bill Gates, and the shots never had 10, 5 or 2 year testing, and the legislatures after CASHING IN decided that it would not be in their interest to pass such a thing.

Legislatures employ Risk/Reward, just like we Agorists do ;-)

Non-compliance, however, is MUCH more effective and I can find all sorts of evidence to support that.

Hey! It's Mr. Sooner rather than Later!

 

[Madison320]

Based on I don't know.

I know that I personally didn't vote either way, and I didn't get the shot, nor did I ever wear a mask. I think there was so much information going around concerning Trump's OWS and Bill Gates, and the shots never had 10, 5 or 2 year testing, and the legislatures after CASHING IN decided that it would not be in their interest to pass such a thing.

Legislatures employ Risk/Reward, just like we Agorists do ;-)

I wasn't clear about the vax mandate. I was talking about the executive order Biden issued.

They didn't "pass" anything, Biden issued a decree that all private companies with over 100 employees have to force their employees to get the jab. In my opinion, that was the creepiest thing I'd ever personally experienced as far as government force goes. Luckily the conservatives on the supreme court shot it down.

 

[PAF]

I wasn't clear about the vax mandate. I was talking about the executive order Biden issued.

They didn't "pass" anything, Biden issued a decree that all private companies with over 100 employees have to force their employees to get the jab. In my opinion, that was the creepiest thing I'd ever personally experienced as far as government force goes. Luckily the conservatives on the supreme court shot it down.

The nation-wide company that I worked for at the time had an all-hands-on-deck conference call. The company stated that every employee was mandated to get the shot and that there would be 100% compliance. I spoke up and said "make that 99% because I'm not getting it". Silence ensued for a good 30 seconds lol. That same day I filled out a religious exemption form, turned it in and I was never questioned about it. Word of that got around, co-workers, managers and others began calling me to ask how I got out of it. Turns out the company only had something like 60-70% compliance, a far cry from 100.

Because I do engage in "activism" here and in Ohio, I and a few members of my liberty group began handing out the form to anybody who wanted it. All they had to do was fill in their name, date it, and turn it in. We went through hundreds of print-outs, no telling how many copies of those were made and shared with others.

I don't concern myself with executive orders, conservatives, or supreme court decisions. I just do what I feel I gotta do - voluntarily, of course

 

[Madison320]

I don't concern myself with executive orders, conservatives, or supreme court decisions. I just do what I feel I gotta do - voluntarily, of course

Yeah, but I'm guessing you pay your income tax.

 

[PAF]

Yeah, but I'm guessing you pay your income tax.

Don't put a cloud over my head lol

I'm an Agorsist, remember? Risk versus Reward!

Anyway, I'm now retired [very early because I invested diversly and wisely] and enjoying the short-change fruits of my labor

 

[TheTexan]

I've been trying, but I can find no evidence to support the theory that voting or not voting was needed for a system to imply or deny consent. Non-compliance, however, is MUCH more effective and I can find all sorts of evidence to support that.

It's an extremely hard thing to prove, or disprove, using historical examples. Even if I were to cite specific cases of "low turnout -> secession/revolution", that does not prove causation, just correlation.

But it's easy to prove using logic.

Based on the below assumptions:
1) Voting sends a signal of consent for voting as a system
2) Signals of consent shape the perception of a government's legitimacy
3) Perception shapes reality

This leads to the conclusion that when you vote, your signal of consent is helping to shape reality. If we accept that your vote has a chance to flip an election, then your vote has a much, much greater chance of increasing a voter turnout statistic's significant digits. E.g., from 34% to 35%.

Let's say if it did hit 34% someone would have tweeted a tweet about the illegitimacy of the government, and at 35% they would have chosen not to.

Someone who sees that tweet, might be considering disobedience. But he didn't see the person's tweet about illegitimacy because you chose to vote and that tweet never happened. But if you didn't vote, he might have been encouraged into doing disobedience from that tweet.

When you vote, you are suppressing other people's disobedience.

The likelihood of your vote being meaningful in a national election, is far far less than your vote being meaningful in suppressing disobedience.

On an individual level, both chances are close to 0. But on the aggregate, it makes a huge difference, especially over long periods of time.

If disobedience is so important (and it is!) -- why take active steps to discourage it?

(I would also add, that this signal of consent is sent when people see you vote as well. Not just in voter turnout statistics.)

 

[CaptUSA]

It's an extremely hard thing to prove, or disprove, using historical examples. Even if I were to cite specific cases of "low turnout -> secession/revolution", that does not prove causation, just correlation.

But it's easy to prove using logic.

Based on the below assumptions:
1) Voting sends a signal of consent for voting as a system
2) Signals of consent shape the perception of a government's legitimacy
3) Perception shapes reality

This leads to the conclusion that when you vote, your signal of consent is helping to shape reality. If we accept that your vote has a chance to flip an election, then your vote has a much, much greater chance of increasing a voter turnout statistic's significant digits. E.g., from 34% to 35%.

Someone who sees that statistic, might be considering disobedience. But he sees 35% instead of 34% and he chooses not to do disobedience, because "why bother, noone is going to join me". But if you didn't vote, he might not have been discouraged from doing disobedience.

When you vote, you are suppressing other people's disobedience.

The likelihood of your vote being meaningful in a national election, is far far less than your vote being meaningful in suppressing disobedience.

On an individual level, both chances are close to 0. But on the aggregate, it makes a huge difference, especially over long periods of time.

If disobedience is so important (and it is!) -- why take active steps to discourage it?

Lol - you started with assumptions without evidence for those assumptions. Are you building climate change models, too? I recognize the nested assumption methodology.

 

[TheTexan]

Lol - you started with assumptions without evidence for those assumptions. Are you building climate change models, too? I recognize the nested assumption methodology.

If you want to challenge the assumptions then go ahead... but it's pretty much irrefutable that when you vote, you signal consent for voting as a system. You might be sending other signals in addition to that signal, but that signal is always going to be there.

The other 2 assumptions shouldn't really be in dispute.