You legitimize the system of control that you say you don't like,
Such is your claim. Now substantiate it.
That's what I did...
If a group calling itself the mafia told you that you have to choose one gang or another and they held "elections", would you feel that by participating in their sham you are somehow contributing to positive change, just a little bit? The act of participating is what creates the illusion of legitimacy.
You consider that as substantiating your claim? Good thing you're not a lawyer.
Firstly, it is merely an unsupported assertion. Secondly, an 'illusion' says more about the party whom is looking upon the situation than it says about the party being observed.
All you are substantiating here is that your ability to reason has been overridden by your preconceived biases.
I take the same position as btcusury, as you already know, and I have to agree with your assessment. Btcusury, and anyone else debating something of substance, I highly recommend the following site:
Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate . It will sharpen your wit, and help you to avoid obvious fallacies (or at least construct them in such a way as to entrap the unwary, such as strawmen).
What "obvious" logical fallacy or fallacies did I commit?
Well, I don't know how this might be classified as a logical fallacy, but you made a bald assertion, unsupported, and presented it as settled fact. You followed that by presenting the impression that my actions engendered in your mind as another matter of settled fact.
jbreher recognizes that he is voting for one or another of the "power-mad psychopaths that will lord over us",
Not quite accurate. I am voting
against the
more egregious options.
yet doesn't see how it is that by participating in the "elections" sham these "power-mad psychopaths" and the "news" media create he is contributing to the legitimization of the belief in what he recognizes as "The Most Dangerous Superstition", i.e. the belief in authority. If this logic seems unclear or fallacious to you, I'd suggest you haven't done enough research.
Again, no. I am not contributing to any legitimization of any such belief. The cold stark reality is that, for the foreseeable future,
there will be overlords. Refraining from voting will do absolutely nothing to change this.
I can accept as a matter of faith that the reason you refrain from voting is that you believe it somehow advances the cause of liberty. I think you are wrong, but I can accept that as a motivating factor. However, you know who else refrains from voting? The disillusioned. The apathetic. The lazy. In refraining from voting, your actions in this regard are in effect, and in fact, indistinguishable from these classes. Yes, I realize that my act of voting is indistinguishable from that of power mad collectivists as well. But my point is that refraining from voting
accomplishes exactly nothing. For you to assert that it is somehow superior seems silly to me.
Perhaps you missed upthred where I have had this discussion face-to-face with Larken, and we both walked away with a begrudging assent that our respective positions were defensible. If you really want to debate this, I'm not going to do it through proxy to YouTube.
But you know what I find funny? Each of us are expending energy -- trying to show each other the error in each others' ways. Despite the fact that we likely agree largely with each other on the important underlying issues. I've already sunk more effort into this stupid thread than my act of informed voting consumed. Would our time not be better spent actually out amongst the masses, telling them about the evils of 'authority'?