Why It’s Wrong to Vote

…Wrong taken two ways: to the principle and the practical.

I sat there figuring that since I blog a fair amount about it anyway, that I ought to put something up on election-erection day. I’ll make it quick.

The Principle

  • I wouldn’t do that to you.
  • I have no right to any say in your life and affairs, so long as you’re not in my space.

The Practical

  • Not interested in my 1/300,000,000th say in my own affairs.
  • It’s meaningless; and so perhaps this is why so many levels of government are interested in sponsoring various Lottery schemes. They have a certain expertise at it.

George Carlin Doesn’t Vote

And now…

Watch in frustration as Jan Helfeld uses the socratic method to expose Sen. Inoue’s inconsistent logic. But Jan, don’t you know government is magic? It doesn’t have to make sense!

This proper schooling of U.S. Senator Daniel Inoue (D) HI, is very well worth the watch and is perhaps the very most practical reason to not vote, ever.

You are voting for worse than “the lesser of two evils.”

You’re voting for your inferiors.

Richard Nikoley

I'm Richard Nikoley. Free The Animal began in 2003 and as of 2021, contains 5,000 posts. I blog what I wish...from health, diet, and food to travel and lifestyle; to politics, social antagonism, expat-living location and time independent—while you sleep—income. I celebrate the audacity and hubris to live by your own exclusive authority and take your own chances. Read More


  1. Ian on November 6, 2012 at 12:24

    Hey Richard! Here’s a video of a CBS screw up which shows them running a ticker (two weeks ago) saying Obama Won The 2012 Election!

    The game is rigged!

    • Richard Nikoley on November 6, 2012 at 12:35

      Linkie no workie.

      • Ian on November 6, 2012 at 12:45

        Really? Link works for me? Try going to youtube and searching for “CBS Reports President Obama Winning 2012 Presidential Election Weeks Before It’s Even Held”

      • Richard Nikoley on November 6, 2012 at 12:58

        Ok, now it worked.

        I watched most. It just not something that gets me riled. Too stupid probably to be more than a stupid error. Wrong checkbox clicked, or something.

        Yea, exposes the media bias? Who hasn’t known that for decades?

    • AndrewS on November 7, 2012 at 08:23

      Meh. I presume you’re joking. For those not in on the joke:

      News outlets prepare stories in advance; News TV is not actually 100% live. They had, I’m sure, both “Kang won!” and “Kodos won!” tickers prepared. They also prep memorials on famous people — before they die. Omg! That’s just to be ready on the same day the news hits without having to scramble. Similarly, the military prepares for all sorts of absurd scenarios. Doesn’t mean it’ll happen, or that they think it’ll happen, it’s just being prepared.

  2. Morghan on November 6, 2012 at 14:20

    Does your opinion extend to local elections?

    I partially agree on the national level, but aside from filling in a third-party bubble in hopes of hitting 5%, I voted for locals who I am acquainted with and have argued politics in the town square.

    Those are the elections that count, votes are on a scale where it can matter, and sending people I can identify (if not always agree) with doesn’t seem as futile as blowing against the hurricane on national votes.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 6, 2012 at 14:23


      Entirely depends on the makeup of the thing. If small enough, people are going to be influencing each other in person anyway. Voting formally isn’t really needed.

  3. rob on November 6, 2012 at 15:29

    I see it as a “What kind of porn do you like to masturbate to?” kind of deal, if elections are your thing, then have at it.

  4. Elenor on November 6, 2012 at 17:03

    Oh I have to disagree… “Jan Helfeld uses the socratic method…” Nah, he’s arguing like a child! Jeebus! How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?! “The people” always create some sort of govt, and that govt always uses some sort of violence/force/arms to inflict its will on the people. If it’s YOUR govt doing YOUR ‘bidding’ then it’s a better deal than if it’s a govt formed of and by some OTHER people (say, our foreign overlords!) arranging and doing things for some other group (THEIR group!). But nitpicking about ‘can the people give a right they don’t have’ — it’s silliness, it’s idiocy pretending to be smart. I’m assuming this Helfeld fellow is a flaming liberal or academic (well, same thing of course). Tiresome idiot-child trying to prove he’s a smartie by wasting someone else’s time!

    Inoue is either too stupid or too well-bred to smack this guy down as a rude fool. (Try to find a pol who is not some sort of sociopath!)

    That said… er… written: Still, don’t waste time voting… {eye roll}

    • Richard Nikoley on November 6, 2012 at 18:01

      He’s holding him to his stated premises. All Inuoe has to do is tell the truth, but he won’t.

    • jon w on November 6, 2012 at 22:01

      Just watched a few of Jan Helfeld videos, I had never heard of him. Interesting technique, and yes the method can seem childish. But it needs to be done, when such childish magical beliefs are presented as sacred truth. If you tried to argue with a 90 year old pope over the logic of religion, you might have a similar conversation, but Jan’s on a worthy cause because it exposes the ludicrousness to somebody watching. In this case, Inouye honestly believes that a right to dominate other people by force magically comes into being if the people doing it call themselves “government.” If you grow up indoctrinated with this like most everybody does, it’s necessary to recognize these basic assumptions before you can start to question WHY and step away from them.

      • Gordon on November 9, 2012 at 09:18

        Can we really be sure that humans don’t have the “right” to steal from each other? Who decides what “rights” are and who has them? Vegans might say humans don’t have the “right” to take the lives of other animals. But one can refute that with reference to reality. Humans can’t physically survive without eating animal foods. Humans evolved for thousands of years as hunters. Therefore, it is not possible for it to be morally wrong to kill and eat animals. One may not like the necessity of killing and eating animals, but there is no one available to complain to about the way the system works other than reality itself, which isn’t taking petitions.

        Do humans have a “right” to take other humans’ “property” by force (ie. steal)? It is 15,000 years ago and the hunting territory of your anarchic tribe of 20-30 people undergoes a major drought and there is no game to be had. You ask your neighboring tribes for help, but they either can’t help or they’re enemies of your tribe anyway. What do you do? You organize a raid and try to either steal their food or just kill them and take their territory outright. It’s not pretty but, realistically, that’s how the system works for apex predators.

        So you spend 20 years building a local dry-cleaning business only to have business dry up due to the collapse of white-collar jobs in your area. Now the bank is going to take your house. Meanwhile your neighbor’s cupcake shop is going gangbusters. So you break in to their house and steal their jewelry and sell it and pay off the bank. Did you have the “right” to steal your neighbor’s jewelry? Did the tribe have the “right” to steal their neighbors’ territory? Both behaviors seem to be pretty normal and ubiquitous for humans, and perhaps therefore they can’t be “wrong” in the same way that killing and eating animals can’t be “wrong?”

        So if we insist on using the term “rights” perhaps we do have the “right” to take our neighbor’s property by force. Then yes, we transfer that “right” to the government. Of course, our neighbor has the “right” to protect his property from theft. In the case of government “theft” via taxes, one can simply not pay and wait for the IRS and the cops to show up and try to defend one’s property. That would be foolish, given the might of the government. If your neighboring tribe is vastly more strong and lethal than yours and they want your stuff, you have the right to defend it, but you’re going to lose. So it goes. Who are you going to complain to?

        There are more subtle ways of defending one’s property from the government, such as offshore tax shelters, buying politicians to give you tax breaks, purchasing companies which lose money in order to gain tax write-offs, etc. Or even by, god forbid, VOTING (for constitutional amendments which limit the government’s power to take your property, as just passed in VA).

      • Richard Nikoley on November 9, 2012 at 09:25

        “Can we really be sure that humans don’t have the “right” to steal from each other?”

        Yes. But there’s nothing mystical or heavenly about it. Simple natural reality.

        “Who decides what “rights” are and who has them? ”

        Nature does. It’s not an invocation, but a recognition.

        Humans are unique as natural creatures in that they must willfully choose to pursue the values minimally necessary to survival. Other animals do it automatically but we have the ability to waste away in default, or even to willfully blow out brains out. This is not a social construction, but a wholly natural phenomena of the human animal.

        And if that choice we have to make is a natural one, then it follows that by nature, we have the right to make it. Human rights are wholly natural and there is only one: the right to pursue one’s life. Everything else is corollary.

    • Ravi on November 11, 2012 at 10:12

      I am just going to comment on the Helfeld video. It’s that Inoue’s premise is wrong. People do have the right to exert force in self defense or to protect your property. And when we delegate this right to the govt./police/authority, we(the people) are justly delegating this right and only this right ( in self defense). That is why govt. has a right to exert force on a perpetrator and explicitly when there is a victim( which is why, the war on drug or any other victimless crime is overreach).

      Inoue, being a liberal that he is does not want to agree that people have the right to use force in any circumstance( his stated position is only government has that right). That position is meaningless.

      Please let me know if my assumption is wrong.

  5. MC on November 6, 2012 at 18:52

    Richard, do you think voting can at all become important if a candidate set out with the express purpose to limit government and remove the powers delegated to it?

    And if there isn’t a political solution, wouldn’t revolution be the choice left to us? At the end of the day, vote or no vote, the government is still knocking on your door, asking for their share of your pie. I want to see in my lifetime some glorious round full circle pie.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 6, 2012 at 20:41

      No, things can change over time, culturally, and there’s also the option of mass civil disobedience.

      At any rate, the monumental 2-yr waste of human capital has now come to and end and the wrecking can recommence unabated. Americans are socialists explicitly, now.

      • ladysadie1 on November 7, 2012 at 05:21

        “At any rate, the monumental 2-yr waste of human capital has now come to and end and the wrecking can recommence unabated. Americans are socialists explicitly, now.”

        I don’t want Americans to be any sort of “-ists” and I am tired of people thinking that everyone is entitled to a slice of pie that they didn’t bake themselves. Today 44 million people on food stamps will be out celebrating their victory. I will put in 5 hours bartending after I have spent 9 hours at my day job so lazy pieces of shit can chat on their free phones. <>

        Here’s a thought: the way to make a vote count is to only count votes of tax-payers, preferably those of us who pay property taxes… Things would probably be a WHOLE lot different if that was the case.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 06:45

        I popped into one of the cable channels last night against better judgment only to hear of how women in general really like the idea of government and the various protections it affords.

        I lay that attitude squarely at the doorstep of crappy men for decades and decades.

      • ladysadie1 on November 7, 2012 at 06:53

        Here is the root cause of “crappy men for decades and decades” : (written by someone who refuses to be a “crappy man”)

        As far as women liking the idea of government and the protections it affords… I can’t even go there. As you are well aware, I am not one of the women in that general demographic – entitlement princesses, welfare queens and WalMart Moms, parasites, bitchy feminists. Fuck them.

      • Joseph on November 7, 2012 at 07:14

        I think there are actually quite a few good men left. They aren’t the ones getting paid to run companies and win elections (necessarily, though they could be in some instances). They don’t really care about public opinion: they just do what they think is right and let the chips fall. They don’t wish the feminists ill, and they generally don’t fuck them, either (in any sense of the word). They just quietly do the best they can and don’t expect people to give (or get) more than is humanly possible.

        Public school is not always a good place for these men, but some of them survive it OK. Whenever I hear about the demise of manhood in the public arena, I think back over the history of my own life, reflecting on all the really manly men I have known, and I actually have quite a bit of hope that our fears are overblown. Maybe I am missing something important, but in any event, I don’t think the real man is an endangered species yet (any more than he has ever been, at any rate). For the sake of my kids (both boys), I hope not.

      • Joseph on November 7, 2012 at 07:16

        I meant to refer specifically to “bitchy feminists” above, not feminists simply (since in my experience many good women identify as feminists).

      • ladysadie1 on November 7, 2012 at 07:45

        “I think there are actually quite a few good men left.” Yes, there are probably some men who still know how to lead a household and have useful skills. They are referred to as Married.

        “Maybe I am missing something important, but in any event, I don’t think the real man is an endangered species yet …” With all due respect, Joseph, now men see other men isn’t the same as how women see men. Most men I have met (who are available) can’t even decide where to go on a date. Constantly deferring to women in the name of “being a nice guy”. Vomit. Whether or not they refer to them selves as feminist, they are utterly brainwashed and have been shamed out of valuing their masculinity. It is utterly disgusting and I have no use for them, nor for the women who whine about being “equal”.

      • Joseph on November 7, 2012 at 07:49

        The good ones are all married? Maybe that is true. Well, we could always legalize polygamy, right?

      • Liz on November 7, 2012 at 07:58

        Hi, LadySadie–

        I’m not super pro-government, and I think if something is inefficient and bleeds money then it needs to be re-examined or removed completely. I used to do just what you did: work all day then bartended at night simply to pay rent. No health insurance, no equal protection, had to follow the same laws as everyone else, etc. I understand your frustration, but…

        …for you to suggest that someone has to own property to vote is absurd and really backward. I live in an area where property ownership is delegated to multi-millionaires (yeah, it’s NYC), so I am a renter. Maybe one day that will change, but for now that’s just the way it is. To think my voice shouldn’t be heard (or isn’t as important) as a result of this is BULLSHIT.

        Have you done your history? A hundred years ago YOU wouldn’t be able to vote. Ditto for blacks. Sometimes government and laws can do great things, provided we live in a true republic (sadly, that doesn’t seem to be the case).

        I don’t want to dismantle welfare or WIC b/c I know quite a few people who will be needing government aid b/c their houses are destroyed; all they have is the clothes on their backs. I DEFINITELY understand your outright anger at those who cheat the system (I can’t stand them either), but I fear taking away a safety net in times of crisis. If some of my tax dollars allows someone to eat a warm meal or sleep indoors in a bed, then I just don’t feel all that burned up about it.

        What gets me going are tax dollars funding wars that destroy people and this planet. I’m thinking way more is spent here than on ” entitled welfare queens ” (I bet most people think of a black person at those words; I can’t help but wonder if those truly running the show sit back and laugh at us arguing over race, gender, class, and sexuality while they exploit the world and steal more from the American public).

        Thanks for letting me vent.

      • ladysadie1 on November 7, 2012 at 07:59

        Haha, polygamy – hmmm, maybe so. If only there was a powerful Mormon politician that will have some free time now, maybe they could look into that… 😉

        Feminist ideals, IMO redistribute power the way that socialists redistribute wealth, to the detriment of us all.

      • ladysadie1 on November 7, 2012 at 08:14

        Liz – I DO want to dismantle the welfare system in general. (Crisis situations notwithstanding.)

        As far as “doing my history” I am a Historic Society Board Member and one of our top researchers. My knowledge of history is more than adequate, in fact, I really don’t think that it is all the necessary for either non-landowners OR women to have the vote.

        You and I will not see eye to eye on this purely as a matter of geographical location, if for no other reason. Please don’t take it personally. The difference between NYC and here practically puts us on different planets. Please, look here: I am pretty sure the difference between that (my view) and what you see on a daily basis tell us all we need to know.

      • Liz on November 7, 2012 at 08:21

        Awesome photos of Kansas, and you’re right–a world away.

        I am so curious as to why you think it’s unnecessary for women or non-landowners to have the right to vote? Did I read that correctly?

      • AndrewS on November 7, 2012 at 08:29

        I saw someone (maybe redpill?) make a decent argument that the Mormons didn’t really pick up as a constructive social force until they did away with polygamy.

      • ladysadie1 on November 7, 2012 at 08:30

        Yes, Liz. You read that correctly. That’s also why I sent the photos of Kansas. You see, it’s quite simple. The landowners (obviously mostly male) are the caretakers of the land, the responsible parties, if you will. “Land” includes businesses and non-rural property, just so we are clear… What some convenience store clerk living in a trailer or their parent’s basement is totally irrelevant. For all practical purposes, the ones who have taken the time to make something of themselves and better their communities should have more of a say in how things are governed (if we must, indeed be governed at all) than those who do not contribute.
        It’s quite alright, Liz, for us to disagree, I am not offended in the least by it, and I hope that you aren’t either.

      • AndrewS on November 7, 2012 at 08:32

        Liz, did you *read* Richard’s post? It’s not necessary for practically anyone to vote.

      • Joseph on November 7, 2012 at 08:36

        Was that because of polygamy per se or because the US federal government declared war on them and drove all their leaders into exile until they did away with polygamy? There are confounding factors at play here.

      • Liz on November 7, 2012 at 08:40

        Thank you for the explanation, LadyS. I am not offended but rather grateful you took the time to answer.

        Yes, while I understand your viewpoints, I think I’m going to have to agree to respectfully disagree with that line of thinking.

      • MC on November 7, 2012 at 15:33

        When you say “certain group could not vote in the past” it’s really missing the point. At one point only landowners were allowed to vote, and not all men even had the vote. Not that it matters, because America was never intended to be a democracy.

        A democracy means mob rule. If 51% of the voters feel they should be entitled to a percentage of your income through taxes, then the 49% that disagreed are out of luck. Those 49% are not free, they are now slaves to the majority. America is not a democracy, but a Constitutional Republic.

        That means nobody can vote away your rights, vote for you to pay into health care, vote on making marijuana legal, abortion legal, whether you get to keep 85% of your income or not. Other people do not have a say in how you live your life, as long as you are not initiating force on others.

        If people were to wake up and realize America was never founded as a democracy, they would also stop seeing voting as some special right that they would need access to.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 15:37

        The distinction between democracy and representative republican rule has been blurred out of existence for decades. Even republicans have zero idea of the distinction and what it means.

        Not a battle even worth bringing up, anymore.

      • Jacky on November 16, 2012 at 08:45

        If I remember my history correctly, the right to vote was originally given only to men who were property owners. And it was white men. I really got in trouble with some ladies when I suggested we might be better off to return to this, but maybe add property owners in general. I vote, Rick, but not the lesses of the 2 evils. For years I have been convinced that voting is uselss, but I do it anyway, as I like to express myself and my views. I didn’t vote for either of the 2 pimps in 2012

      • Richard Nikoley on November 16, 2012 at 09:25

        Wow, Jacky. Checking my blog and even commenting. Good for you.

        [For the other readers. First, Jacky—Mrs. Manchester to me—is a friend and acquaintance from childhood / school (where she was a teacher of the young young’s). One of the strongest women I have ever met in terms of personal character and resolve. I was also friends with her three children.]

        In terms of voting, I have two perspectives. Nobody ought be able to rule anyone else, even through proxy. If you want someone dead, locked up, prohibited from doing something you abhor, or you want their money—because in large measure this is what voting is pretty much all about—then kill, lock them up, prohibit them by force or take their money by yourself.

        Since I would no sooner kill, lock anyone up, compel them against their will or steal from them—anymore than I would rape, murder or pillage of no laws existed—I see no moral or practical reason to vote in a scheme I often refer to as “cannibal pot hysteria….who goes in the pot and who gets to feast.”

        Or, “I don’t vote because I wouldn’t do that to you.”

        That said, I begrudgingly accept the idea of voting on the moral basis of self defense.

  6. Nick on November 7, 2012 at 05:11

    On CNN last night, Anderson Cooper actually said that since the race was so close, it will effect how the president “rules” over us. Yes, rules over us, not serves us. That is a big problem with our perception of elected officials, they are kings and queens now instead of people doing their best for their country.

    • Joseph on November 7, 2012 at 07:02

      The American president is evolving rapidly toward something like the old Roman emperor (or princeps, as Augustus called himself). His government functions as a sort of benevolent tyranny wearing the guise of a republic (which can only be a guise because the citizenry is too numerous, too diverse, and too ill-informed to make a real republic work). The most recent move in this direction comes from the president’s acquisition of power to detain pretty much anyone (and even kill them outside the US) with no accountability. This is imperium.

      • ladysadie1 on November 7, 2012 at 07:23

        Emperor? Like this???

        “…power to detain pretty much anyone (and even kill them outside the US)” Correction, Joseph. Accurately stated that reads, “and even kill them.” *They no longer remove people from the country to kill them.

  7. Hunter on November 7, 2012 at 08:01

    I’ll just quote Lysander Spooner here.

    “In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave.”

    We must use all of the tools available to us to keep the statists off of our back including voting even if is in the end voting is just a really futile gesture.

    • Natalie on November 7, 2012 at 08:36

      Lysander Spooner is da man! And to think he was writing this when things were way better (no income tax, etc.).
      Everyone – from CEOs to paupers – are dependent on the government to some extent and thus have vested interest in keeping in place, despite all the tyranny and corruption. The government might be incompetent in providing services like healthcare or education but they sure know how to keep everyone enslaved.

    • Joseph on November 7, 2012 at 08:43

      This is the heart of the matter that people always miss. Creating masters inevitably creates slaves. Empowering people (some people) inevitably disempowers others. The myth of total empowerment is a myth. The most we can hope for is a nice ebb and flow, wherein we trade power back and forth amicably, preferably in contexts where we see mistakes occur and learn from them firsthand (rather than being so distant from the effects of tyranny that we feel no compunction in driving our boot heel into the neck of the guy at the bottom when our moment on top comes). The best people are those who don’t act in large ways (e.g. voting) wherever possible. They avoid meddling where the harm they might cause grossly outweighs any benefit (even if the benefits are steady and the harm seemingly remote). They value antifragility and avoid tempting fate to crucify them with a negative Black Swan.

  8. Zerojosh on November 7, 2012 at 08:44

    ““If you are bored and disgusted by politics and don’t bother to vote, you are in effect voting for the entrenched Establishments of the two major parties, who please rest assured are not dumb, and who are keenly aware that it is in their interests to keep you disgusted and bored and cynical and to give you every possible reason to stay at home doing one-hitters and watching MTV on primary day. By all means stay home if you want, but don’t bullshit yourself that you’re not voting. In reality, there is no such thing as not voting: you either vote by voting, or you vote by staying home and tacitly doubling the value of some Diehard’s vote.” – David Foster Wallace

    • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 08:59

      Utter claptrap.

      Not voting is voting is like not collecting stamps is a hobby. Dumbest fucking shit I’ve seen in 2 days, and that’s saying a _lot_.

      • Zerojosh on November 7, 2012 at 15:35

        By not collecting stamps, you are increasing the stamps made available to stamp collectors.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 15:38

        It’s not a hobby. Inactions are not actions.

      • Zerojosh on November 7, 2012 at 15:49

        That is objectively true. However, inaction can produce results that, in turn, resemble analogous actions.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 15:51

        “That is objectively true”

        Thank you.

      • Zerojosh on November 7, 2012 at 16:14

        How polite.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 16:15

        I like to help when I can.

    • Natalie on November 7, 2012 at 12:07

      Quite the opposite.If you vote, you legitimize the state. If you don’t participate, you’re already on the road to freedom. This is the first time I did not follow the election at all (I became an anarchist right after the last one). Guess what, not watching/reading news = plenty of free time on your hands.

      I’ve been a lot more excited about the next Star Wars movies than this circus.

      • Zerojosh on November 7, 2012 at 15:21

        Your statements suggests nihilism more so then anarchism. Most anarchists I know are the best informed re: news and politics. The malevolent forces of our government are happy to hear that your attention is vested in Star Wars, media truly is the “opiate of the masses”. Just switch on the tube and glaze over.

        I personally don’t have any trouble staying informed and having plenty (PLENTY) of free time on my hands, but perhaps I’m a wizard of time management.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 15:33

        “Your statements suggests nihilism”

        Rubbish. She’s the anarchist attending to his own interests primarily and you’re the poser.

      • Zerojosh on November 7, 2012 at 15:43

        Natalie made it pretty clear that she absolutly doesn’t care about politics and has found virtue in that. A lot of people seem to confuse anarchy with inaction and apathy. That’s not teh anarchy I’m familiar with, which is a pretty valid, complex political philosophy that.

        Early in the thread for name calling. If I’m a poser, then your hobby is not collecting stamps.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 15:49

        “That’s not teh anarchy I’m familiar with”

        Who cares? I’ve been an anarchist for 20 years. It’s not complex at all. That’s what posers like you like to think. And its “political philosophy” is no more complex than: “MIND YOUR OWN FUCKING BUSINESS.”

        This is precisely why you will never find me on anrchist discussions boards, forums, websites, etc. etc. Been there, done that. Mostly masturbators over some vision of some utopia.

        Mind your own business. Forge relationships and trade, friendships with others who mind their own business. That’s anarchy. It’s never, ever, ever anything more than that. Ever.

      • Zerojosh on November 7, 2012 at 16:26

        That is an awesome slogan for anarchism, and I assume your personal mantra, but unless we are redefining the term, that is simply incomplete. It’s one thing to be a free thinker and affirm what something means to you but terms have thoughtfully derived, preexisting definitions.

        By the way, “poser”? Are you still wearing a “No Fear” t-shirt and using AOL too?

      • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 16:34

        “that is simply incomplete”

        No, it’s not. It’s fully complete. There’s already a term from some who call themselves anarchists: commies. There’s also a term for others: statists.

        I’m not interested in any of the ways a state imposes non-statism on people.

      • Zerojosh on November 7, 2012 at 17:04

        “I’m not interested in any of the ways a state imposes non-statism on people.”


        You are interested in ways a states imposes statism on people.

        So am I. Now I will fuck off.

      • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 17:10

        No, not that either, but at least it never gets confused with anarchism.

    • Paul C on November 8, 2012 at 08:21

      Putting all ethics and morality aside, math wins on this one. You aren’t the guy that shows up at the end of a tie vote and wins it, and you never will be. First, the odds are too great against it, and second, vote counts are not precise, as the multiple recounts would demonstrate.

  9. Liz on November 7, 2012 at 08:57

    I traditionally vote (though there were times where I have not), but I also vote with my wallet. I sometimes think that works even moreso 🙂

    • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 09:29

      Seen somewhere yesterday:

      “I voted multiple times this morning. Jimmy Dean won. Sonic lost. Conoco won. Chevron lost. Folgers french vanilla won. Starbucks lost. All will be campaigning again tomorrow.”

      • Liz on November 7, 2012 at 10:34

        Haha, this is true.

  10. josef on November 7, 2012 at 10:32

    The more I read your no vote rants, the more you make sense.

    • Richard Nikoley on November 7, 2012 at 10:46

      Yesterday, taking account of the billions in wasted human capital over the last two years, all for a result that changes nothing ought to be enough for all this to make sense.

      The state will eventually be laughed out of existence.

      • Robert Ve on November 7, 2012 at 13:08

        This is probably more true than anything. When people just don’t care anymore the state becomes irrelevant, but right now it’s still the number one religion.

      • Sean on November 7, 2012 at 14:57

        The state will eventually be laughed out of existence.

        These wasted billions show that not only will the State not be laughed out of existence, but it will continue accruing power until it finally collapses under its own weight.

      • Joseph on November 7, 2012 at 16:30

        When the state gets big enough to lift the giant pile of &^%$ Bernanke and company are burying it under, it will be too obese to move!

  11. Kristina on November 8, 2012 at 05:24

    During the counting of the votes Tuesday night, I did some internet stuff, and read your post with the Carlin clip in it. A bit later I had facebook up chatting with a friend about something totally unrelated, but I finally shut it down to avoid all the people posting about the damn election and watched Carlin at Carnegie and Why am I in Jersey or whatever that one’s called. You seriously can’t beat the man for avoiding your civic duty.

    I did vote, but I did so because we had judges up for merit retention, some people running for property appraiser, county commissioner, and tax collector, and no less than 12 amendments to the Florida constitution (not including the one-cent sales tax in my county that pays for roads and such).
    I probably could have given less than a shit about the presidential election, but I didn’t feel like putting forth the effort.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Follow by Email8k