Success Warrior: The Blog That Embraces ADHD

Why I Don't Vote (Part 5): Clean Up

So,

In this post, I'll cover the follow up questions and then I'll make a point in the next post that I have found interesting to ponder in the last week, concerning voting.

First, I suppose I should address this common misconception from the first question:

"Doing nothing gets no results at all."

This is common thread and I suppose that it probably comes from the brainwashing that is done by the current rulers.  People have been trained that if they don't vote, they are doing nothing at all to change the system.  However, we all know that voting supports the system and will never create any substantial change to that system.  If it did, people would not be allowed to vote.  Additionally, not voting does not mean that a person is doing nothing.  That would be like me saying that if you aren't reading this blog, you're doing nothing.  People are always doing something and people who don't vote can still attempt to make changes to the system.  I live my life as an example of a peaceful person, I help my neighbors when I can, I teach my children that no one has the right to be their master and that dictating to others what they can do and can't do at the end of a gun is immoral, and I try to teach others about ethics and freedom.  It may not seem like a lot but compared to the nothing of voting, I am doing a hell of a lot more to change the system than voters are and there are people out there doing far more than I am doing.  I have been wrapped up in my day to day existence of starting a new job, still attending classes, moving, and being part of my family but I haven't given up on changing the system and I do what I can when I can while voters fight to keep the system from changing.

"So how do you reduce the coercion if you don't get in the system to change it?"

First off, the fact that you understand that government is coercion and you support it should prompt some soul searching for you.  Even if you had a sliver of a chance to change the system from within the system, are you willing to sell your soul in the effort?  Using force to compel others to act in a way that you find acceptable is evil.  If you are willing to lower your standards to that point, these blog posts have been in vain.

Secondly, you can't reduce the coercion by voting in support of the coercion (That don't make no sense!).  You reduce the coercion by not taking part in the coercion, teaching others about the reality of the system, and creating and using systems and resources outside of the system as much as possible (and in line with your risk tolerance).  Most people avoid doing what they see as evil and are quick to condemn those who stray.  You point out that voting in support of the system is unethical and socially unacceptable.  People in a civilized society do not use violence to force others to do their bidding. 

Do you know what is scarier to the 1% than a Libertarian being voted into office?  An election where no one shows up to vote.  A populace who views the use of coercion as evil and voices this truth to others and refuses to take part in the coercion will make substantial and lasting changes.  People want to be good and they tend to shun that which is evil.  If you want to change the system, continue to point out the evil of the system and the system will collapse.  Why do you think Australia has a law making it mandatory that citizens vote?  Voting ensures that the system never changes.

"In mob rules as we now have, I believe you need to get someone in place to pull the state back in layers. The government will never just let it's power go."

We don't have mob rules.  We have 1% rules.  You're never going to get anyone into the system who has the power to pull the state back in layers.  This government is going to continue until it implodes, as all empires do.  What's important to me is what people will want to put in its place.  This is why education on ethics is so vital.  If this government is replaced by another government, we have gained nothing.

"I have studied a lot of history. It appears someone is always in power."

Then it truly would be a change if there were no rulers.  You do want change, right?

"I suppose I'm trying to get people to organize so they have a say and their group is in power and it is a real choice."

If there are no rulers, then you have a *real* choice.  Otherwise, your choices are limited by the dictates of the rulers.  My next post will be on choosing between rules and rulers.

"Maybe get a trusted person from your group in power. This opens up the possibility for the public to have a real choice."

The only person that I trust to decide when and when not to point a gun at my head is me.  The only person that I trust to have the ability to control every aspect of my life is me.  You want a small government but I want a smaller government.  I will govern my own actions and I refuse to use force to govern the actions of others.  People who have this same ethical code are people that you can truly trust.  Anyone who runs for office in an effort to gain control of that power is suspect.

"And if your group is ethical and your guy goes on some super power grab you can toss his ass out."

My group is ethical.  That's why my group never has a candidate in an election and never encourages people to take part in such an unethical system.  No truly ethical person would ever voluntarily take part in something so evil.

 

Why I Don't Vote (Part 4): The Rigged Game

So,

Compared to the first two reasons, this last reason is like a sprig of parsley sitting next to the main course.  I include it though because in my own search for the answer of what can be done, this fact spurred me on to keep looking.  Prior to the 2008 presidential election, I was in a position that was probably very similar politically to the person who asked why people don't vote.  I was part of the Ron Paul Revolution and luckily for me, I was living in Nevada at the time.  Most people probably don't know this but the Ron Paul Revolution won the Nevada Republican caucus but the record books won't show this. 

Not even with an asterisk?

Not even.

Going into this process, I understood that the game was rigged and that the 1% picked two acceptable candidates to represent the two faces of the one-party system.  I understood that the media companies the 1% own (all of them) programmed viewers to choose one or the other and disparaged any candidates other than the two they found acceptable.  My Democrat friends had been swept up in the Hopey Changey mantra and I admit that I was too although I knew that with Obama, there was no hope for change.  They still went with their guy even though many of them had a gut feeling that he would not change anything but they so *wanted* to believe.  I wanted change to and I found myself more involved in the political process than I had ever been and I was shown exactly how pointless it all was.

The grass roots campaign for Ron Paul had been strong across the entire nation but in Nevada, we rocked!  People took classes on how the caucus works and parliamentary procedure, went door to door, set up call centers, and made plans to win the caucus.  It worked too, incredibly, amazingly well.  Ron Paul won precinct after precinct and county after county.  Going into state caucus, there was an air of excitement because it was a sure thing that Ron Paul was going to win and even though the politically small state of Nevada would not change the outcome of the election, it would be a great moral victory and possibly garner attention for future elections.

Stickin' it to the 1%.

Even in losing, that would have felt good.

At the state caucus, it quickly became apparent to the Republican National Committee (of the 1%) that Ron Paul was going to win the caucus and do so unanimously or nearly so.  Again, this would have no effect on the election but it would be a moral victory for the people and the 1% may have seen this as Smaug's missing scale.  This small opening, this chink in the armor, this giving of hope to the people that they can actually make a change could not be allowed.  It would only encourage people to continue to attempt to change the system.  To make sure that never happened, the caucus was closed, the results locked in a casino vault, and the RNC hand picked McCain supporters and sent them to the national convention.

That probably saves a lot of time too.  They should just do that every time.

That would take away from the fake drama created by the fake system.

Of course, the Ron Paul Revolution did not just shrug their shoulders and walk away.  They filed a complaint with the RNC who reviewed what had happened.  They sided with the Ron Paul supporters and said that what was done was wrong and they dismissed the McCain supporters that were set at the state level.  The RNC replaced the dismissed delegates with McCain supporters that they hand picked themselves. 

That seems fair.

GIGO.

The happy ending to this story, for me personally, was an unwavering knowledge that you can't change a rigged system from within the system and a better understanding of just how rigged the system is.  Going into the process, I understood that we had to fight against media blackouts, which would change to intense mudslinging if we managed to garner some attention.  I knew that the media would continue to steer the mindless Republicans and Democrats into fighting for the candidates chosen to be the front runners for either side (the idiocy of the horse-race mentality) and that the sheer number of zombies would crush any chance of Ron Paul getting elected.  I knew that we weren't going to win but I truly thought, hoped, that we would make some small difference.

A naivete bested only by Obama supporters.

Which is only bested by those who voted for Obama a second time.

I was stunned for a while with the blatancy of the cheating that was involved and the motto of a government for the people, by the people still makes me want to hurl.  The American people are not allowed to have a say in anything that the 1% deems important, especially who is going to "represent" them.  This is a government for the 1%, by the 1%.  I suppose that it always has been although in the past, they used to try to conceal it better and be more subtle in telling the American people to "Suck it!"  Those days are gone.  Obama's promise of transparency is one that he has actually kept, just not in the way that he was pretending that he would.  He has openly served the 1% and has embraced the use of violence in a way that probably gives Cheney wet dreams. 

I don't vote because every vote is a wasted vote.  The system is designed to give people a false sense of control in order to keep them from looking for actual solutions which are outside of the system.  It's a mental prison that keeps people under control and productive.  Keeping people under control through the explicit use of force is expensive, creates physical resistance, and can sway public support to the people being oppressed.  It's much better for the rulers if people will voluntarily submit to the rules and they probably laugh about having people actually vote to have their human rights stripped away.

Once your mind escapes this Matrix-like system, you can never look at it the same ever again.  Like Neo, I was looking for an answer, always feeling uneasy with how things were.  The Ron Paul Revolution was my red pill.  I won't kid you into thinking that it was an easy thing to wrap my head around but I will add that there is no way that I would ever intentionally go back to that level of ignorance or naivete.  I know that there is still a long, uphill battle in getting the changes that I want but knowing that my choice is ethical and makes sense logically and that even if I discarded those two aspects, I wouldn't be able to change the rigged system anyway, knowing these things, I have found great peace of mind in this area of my life.

Why I Don't Vote (Part 3): Logic

So,

The unethicality of voting is reason all by itself not to vote.  People who are trying to lead good lives really don't need any more reason not to vote beyond the fact that voting supports an organization based on unethical actions and, more than that, is an attempt to take control of that organization so the evil power can be wielded according to their desires (even if that desire is to lessen the amount of evil being done, in the case of Libertarians).

But some people are better at doing evil than others.

And what kind of people do you think are attracted to a position that excludes them from the bounds of ethical behavior?

Underlying this principle is a certain logic, in that, if it is unethical for people to take the property from others through force or intimidation and "the government" is an organization of people, then it clearly follows that if they take property from others through force or intimidation, their action is unethical.  This simple logic is why it's so important to point out that there is no such thing as a government.  The government doesn't collect taxes and fuck up the lives of people who resist.  It can't because there is no such thing as a government.  People collect taxes and people fuck up the lives of those who resist.

You want I should break his legs?

Try late fees and fines first, to get more money out of 'em.  People with broken legs pay less taxes.

This simple fact, that "the government" is just a group of people who have claimed the authority to initiate violence on everyone within a certain geographical area (that area is called "The World" if it's the United States government) undermines, logically, arguments put forth by people who want to use "the government" as a solution to some stated problem.  I pointed this out in my posts about gun control. 

Gun control activists want to outlaw guns.  If you ask them who will enforce the law, they will say, "the government," and then try to change the subject to what they think will happen on <insert some assinine TV show name here since I'm out of touch with the current popular idiocy>.  They don't want to think about what they are really saying and if you tell them what they are saying, you'll just piss them off.  Since there is no such thing as "government," they mean that people will enforce the laws.  To ensure that happens, gun control activists will issue guns to people even though the main premise of their argument is that people with guns are dangerous.

Libertarians are not free of violating this law of non-contradiction.  If you take a very basic premise that government employees should do no more than provide cops, courts, and a standing army and drill down a bit, you find the same problem.  One reason that there should be cops is to protect citizens from having their property taken from them against their will, such as robbery and theft.  How, exactly, will the Libertarians pay for these protective government employees?

Bake sale?

That's a better idea than by taking their money through the use of intimidation.

Not only does it boggle the mind to think that the protectors will take money from people through the use violence and threats of violence in order to keep people from taking money from people through violence and threats of violence but the disparity between how much will be taken by the two groups of thieves is monstrous.

I looked at some stats, unfortunately a bit aged, but common sense should fill in the gaps.  There is a 99% chance that someone will steal something from you in your lifetime at least once.  Odds drop considerably (single digits) that you will be a repeat victim.  Robbery, once in a lifetime, was about 30% with very low odds of repeat victimization.  There weren't numbers on the dollar amounts that were stolen but I can't imagine that it's very high.  A couple hundred bucks or a couple thousand?  For most of us, at least.

How much do government employees take from you every year in income tax, property tax, sales tax, and other fees, fines, and taxes?

Like taxes tax.

Is that a tax on your taxes?  You are probably being gouged by the stupid tax.

I'm going to be honest with you Libertarians, I'd rather roll my dice without your "protection."  There is absolutely no way in the world that I would be the victim of robbery, theft, and burglary in my lifetime to the point where my loss would ever come close to what government employees take from me every single time I make a purchase at a store, every year that I want to keep *my* property and live in my house, or every April 15th.

Your "cure" is like giving me cancer so I don't get a cold.  No thanks.  I'll take my vitamin D and vitamin C and take my chances.  If I catch cold, I'll deal with it.  You can keep your solution to yourself.

Plus, they don't really prevent that much.  Mostly just try to catch the bad guys afterwards.

And government employees keep the fines and the victims pay to feed and house the bad guy in jail.

Are you guys trying to take over my blog?

Well, we would do a better job.

I'm with the twit on this one.

This collection of fines by government employees and revictimization of the person who had their property stolen is sold to the public under the euphamism of "justice."  You want justice, right?  Who doesn't want justice?  Government employees take 40 - 50% of everything you make over your entire lifetime, collect any fines they can from the perpetrator, and pass the cost of jailing offenders on to the people who had their property taken.  If there is any justice in there, I can't see it.

Maybe it's like a search-a-word.

Why don't you look for it and don't bother us until you find it.

This isn't just about theft and burglary but it served as a good example.  Just about any proposed "government" solution is like this.  Democrats want to prohibit any monopolies so they support an organization that has a monopoly on the initiation of the use of force.  Can it get any more frying pan to the fire than that? 

The bottom line is that you can't achieve your stated goal by doing the exact opposite.  You can't say that you promote freedom and then put effort into supporting an organization that forcefully rules over the people that you want to free.

I don't vote because I believe humans should coexist peacefully on the planet and that no one has the right to rule over another person through the use violence and threats of violence.  Voting, especially in America, would mean that I support violence and that I believe that there should be rulers over us.  You can't, logically, say that you believe in freedom and also say that everyone should vote for their rulers in order to achieve this freedom.  You can't, logically, say that you believe in peace and then vote to support the most violent organization in the world.

Giving guns to people to keep people from having guns, taking their property to protect them from having their property taken, creating a monopoly to prevent the creation of monopolies, voting for rulers in order to achieve freedom, supporting an organization that exists through the initiation of force on others to make the world more peaceful . . .

  

Why I Don't Vote (Part 2): Ethics

So,

I gave this aspect a brief shout out in my original answer.  I did give it as the first justification and maybe the reason I didn't elaborate more on the topic is that it's a topic that doesn't really need elaboration, at least not in itself.  Most people want to make ethical decisions and might consider ethics to be a no-brainer although they may be confused about how it can be unethical for me to vote while it's their "duty" to vote.  Most likely, they would just blow it off as some crazy notion and give it no more thought because that would require thinking.

What is this "thinking" that you speak of?

It's like when you really try to answer a question but it hurts.

I did that once.  Didn't llike it.

You and just about everyone else, my friend.

People don't apply the same ethical standards to government employees as they do to themselves.  Government employees are allowed to violate common ethical standards.  In fact, they are tasked with actions that violate ethical behavior.  That's their job.  If they didn't act unethically, they would be shirking their duties and would be fired.

I believe, and this is just my view, that the reason for this obvious double-standard lies in the reification of the abstract concept that people call "government."  People speak and act as if there really is such a thing as a "government" when, in fact, there isn't.  I have written in the past how this reification is something more, something approaching deification, but most people would reject the notion of the government as a god out of knee-jerk reaction and, once again, give it no more thought.

You're obsessed with this "thinking" thingy.

It does fly in the face of America's Cult of Ignorance (hat tip John McDaris).

In seeing the government as something that exists but something that is not human, something that is greater than humans, something with powers and abilities beyond those of mere mortals, people allow government employees to do things that they would never accept in themselves or their next door neighbor (even if their next door neighbor was a government employee but was "off duty").  It's unethical to murder and steal but it's okay for "the government" to do these things.  Now, obviously, to help with the disconnect, this double-think, euphamisms have to be put in place that will be applied when government employees take actions that others would otherwise look down on because of emotional ties to the words like murder and theft.

If you blow someone up with a missile, it's called murder and terrorism and dangerous.  If a government employee does it, it's called a targeted drone strike and patriotic duty and promoting safety.  In the past, for a quick summation, I have said that government is violence.  George Washington said it this way: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force."

Pshah!  What does this George Washington guy know about government?

You never cease to amaze me.

It would probably be just as true to add that government is spin.  Yes, it's violence, force, coercion, rule by intimidation but I think that it only exists because people mentally and emotionally give government employees exemptions from accepted ethical standards.  They do this by talking about how the "government" will do this or that and by hiding the truth of what this or that really is by using euphamisms. 

You can see the fringe of this disconnect in stories about individual lawmakers.  Many times there is public outrage when a senator or congressperson performs some unethical action for their own benefit.  When one of these people, whose lives are a quagmire of evil actions, performs an evil action outside the scope of "government," it suddenly becomes wrong again, in the eyes of the people.  The truth is that the action is evil regardless of who the benefactor is but many people will condone these actions if they are purportedly done on behalf of "the public."  By lumping themselves in as "the public," they can also pretend like unethical actions aren't being taken for them directly.  If a government employee takes money from someone and uses the money to build a road for "the public," then the person using the road can take comfort that the money wasn't stolen and the road built for them.  That would be wrong.

This brings us to voters.

Really, two-thirds into the post and you are finally going to get to the point?

I'm with the twit on this one.

When you vote, you are hiring someone to perform evil acts on your behalf (as well as a shitload of evil acts that you would never ask anyone to do, ever).  Even if you vote Libertarian and your agent never gets the position, you are still announcing your support of having people act on your behalf in committing actions that you would never do yourself, ever.  In that way, it can also be seen as cowardice.  You wouldn't steal money from your neighbor but you're more than willing to hire someone to rob your neighbor for you.  Most voters may go with the lesser of the two evils (as they perceive it) and Libertarians will go with the least of the three proffered evils but they are all still voting for evil.  Plain and simple.  People try to console themselves and rationalize away any uncomfortable feelings by telling themselves and others, with a shrug, that they voted for the lesser of the evils.  Most everyone around them will let them get away with it, especially if they also voted for agents to peform evil actions on their behalf.  It would be way too uncomfortable to delve into what it might mean about their own character, their own ethical standards, if they admit they just hired someone to perform evils actions for their own benefit.

And if you point it out to them . . . goodbye friends.

Truer words were never spoken by a twit.

I should point out that "their own benefit" doesn't necessarily mean some direct benefit.  It could be simply to force people to live their lives in a way that the voter finds acceptable.  They want laws passed that will require everyone in the country to abide by what they believe to be tolerable behavior.  They want to use government violence and threats of violence to force everyone to live within what they personally feel are accepted norms.  That's not just unethical, that's psychotic.  Laws, used in this fashion, are nothing more than an opinion with a gun.

I would never force anyone to live their life in a way that I see fit.  I would never take money from someone through intimidation to use in a manner that I would then have to attempt to justify to be good enough to outweigh the evil of taking the money in the first place.  I would never do this and most people I know wouldn't do these things either.  Voters manage to get around this inconvenience by voting for a middle man rather than "hiring" one, using abstract terms like "government" and "public" to escape ethical standards applied to humans, and coloring all of the evil actions with euphamisms so they can pretend they aren't really evil actions.

I don't vote because, not only would I not do these actions, I also wouldn't hire someone to do these things for me.  That would be just as evil as if I had done the actions myself.  I don't pretend that there is a magical entity called "government" that doesn't operate under the same ethical standards as the rest of humanity.  When a government employee takes money from another individual through intimidation, it's just as evil as when a non-government employee does the same thing.  People are people and the rules that apply to one person apply to every other person.  I won't hire an agent to do evil on my behalf and I won't support the delusion used to bypass ethical standards.

Why I Don't Vote (Part 1): Introduction

So,

This question was posed by a friend on Facebook:

"I have a question for all of the non-voters. Why are you a non-voter? Wouldn't it workout better if you found like minded people and started your own thing? That would influence the system. Doing nothing gets no results at all."

I gave this for a short answer:

"Voting violates my principles. I don't believe anyone on the planet has the "right" to dictate at gunpoint what others can do, can't do, or must do. When you vote, you are voting for people who use violence and threats of violence to force other people to live their lives in a way that the people with the guns find acceptable. I know you're a libertarian and so you want to repeal most of rules governing people's lives but the game is rigged and you're never going to win. More importantly, when you vote, you legitimize (at least in the minds of many people) a system of control based on violence. And, true to Obama's promise of transparency, it has become quite clear that when you vote, you are voting for the 1%. It's their system and when you vote, you're saying, "I support you in screwing me over for your benefit." Voting is a trap for your mind, an illusion that you have some influence over the system, a way for them to maintain control. As long as you keep supporting them, you will never have the freedom that you think you are working so hard to achieve. You will never be free by voting for new masters."

That's the short answer?

Well, by comparison, this is "Part 1" of a series dedicated to answering the question.

Point taken.

A couple of follow up questions were asked and I gave them quite a bit of thought because I know that the person asking the questions is actually looking for some answers.  Many times, questions in this vein are asked in a shocked, rhetorical fashion in an effort to bring the poor, misguided soul (me) back in line with supporting the rulers (or, at the very least, to get them to shut up).  In this case though, the questions were asked in earnest with a sincere desire for a thoughtful answer.  The first thing I had to do was quiet the knee-jerk sarcastic responses in my head because of how these questions are usually asked.

Well, I mmph, mumble, mumble, humph.  Hey!

Yes, he meant you.

Following that, I gave the questions some thought, reread the original question and my response to that question, and reread the follow up questions.  The fact that the question was asked by a libertarian (who, many times, posts anarchistic quotes on his Facebook timeline) motivated me to make a sincere attempt to provide an informative answer.  Rereading my original response though, I felt like I touched (however briefly) on the reasons that I don't vote. 

Those reasons, summed up to the point of being blog post titles are: Ethics, Logic, and The Rigged System. 

For the rest of the week, I will delve more deeply into each topic, expanding on my original comment in depth, and do a final "clean-up" post to address the follow-up questions that were asked.  I will start with the topic that I think is the most important and, ironically, was covered the least in my original comment: Ethics.  If children were taught ethics instead of obedience, we wouldn't even be having this discussion.  Obviously, the rulers are not going to teach children something that will end their reign so it's up to us to do it.

I don't think . . .

No, you don't.

Couple ethics with logic and you have a serious game changer, which, of course, means that logic and critical thinking will definitely not be part of Common Core.  These two principles, when linked together, are far too dangerous to a system that is based on double-think.  People must believe that good is bad and bad is good and that the only way to change the system is to keep doing the same things over and over, without change.

Persistence is the key.

Persistent ignorance?

And just in case some group comes along that learns how to play the game in such a way that it might possibly throw a wrench into the plans of the rulers, a strategy must implemented to convince people that the only way to change the system is from within the system and procedures put in place to ensure that the system can't be changed from within the system.

That's a solid plan.

Obviously.  Congress has a 16% approval rating but people still vote for them.

Each day, I'll go deeper into each of these topics to explain in more detail why I don't vote, at least not in the manner expressed by the question.  I still vote, just not in that way.  By not voting in the charade of the current system, I am voting for a change to something better, something morally sound, something that consistently makes sense, and something where change is actually possible.

Guns and Control Redux (Part 3)

So,

In addition, can you think of any challenges you might have in successfully convincing someone
else that the technique you chose demonstrates what you now know that it demonstrates?

The main challenge in successfully convincing someone else that the technique I chose demonstrates what I now know that it demonstrates would be in trying to get them to break from indoctrinated thought processes or personal biases, an incredibly difficult challenge. 

People have been indoctrinated to reify “government.”  They actually believe and talk as if there is such a thing as a “government.”  The premise that “All government employees are people,” and its ramifications on the argument will likely catch them by surprise because they think in terms of “government” doing things and are mostly unconscious to the fact that “government” is just a whole bunch of people.  Reminiscent of The Matrix, many people aren’t aware of the reality in which they live and this kind of argument can cause a lot of internal, emotional turmoil that they would rather not deal with because it’s uncomfortable.  It challenges the foundation of many of their beliefs and that is, understandably, a very scary thing.

The problem of personal bias is two-fold: it’s personal and, as such, there may be an emotional attachment to the position.  This bias may come from personal experience (a family member feloniously killed by a person with a gun) or from media-hyped incidents, falling victim in both cases to the fallacy of misleading vividness.  The emotion could be loyalty to a political party, demanding that the party position be defended at all costs (critical thinking be damned!).  It could be any number of reasons.  Being personal, it may not be immediately apparent what the person’s motivation may be in defending the invalid argument.  The emotional attachment to the position may make it feel to that person that “attacking” their opinion is an attack on them.  This may cause them to entrench mentally, which in turn may cause them to argue with even less regard to rationality, resort to ad hominem attacks, or storm off so that don’t have to face reality.

One thing that will likely be similar in both cases is using the appeal to special pleading, arguing that government employees are not “regular” people.  It will be argued that government employees, although taken from a general cross-section of people, somehow possess a particular trait or superpower that exempts them from the rule that “People having guns creates an unsafe situation.”  People who have had the government gene spliced into their DNA can be trusted to have guns but “regular” people can’t.  Not only is this fallacious but since government employees hurt and kill far more innocent people with guns than non-government employees, a fortiori government employees should be banned from possessing guns under the gun control argument.

A couple of other fallacies are likely to make an appearance.  There are good odds that an argument from effect will be presented (“If we don’t ban guns, there will be a mass murder every week.”) or a straw man (“So, you’re okay with someone walking into a school and shooting little kids?”).  There are better odds that the fallacy of pious fraud will show up (the old work horse of weak political arguments, the “necessary evil”).  If the debate continues, don’t be surprised to see ad hominem, a red herring or two, an appeal to force, or the fallacy of the kitchen sink (where every fallacy is thrown in, including the kitchen sink - I made that one up).

Overcoming these challenges with someone who is deeply staid in reification or personal bias is nearly impossible (trust me) but their irrationality doesn’t diminish the counter argument and shouldn’t discourage pointing out the invalidity of the gun control argument.

Guns and Control Redux (Part 2)

So,

Explain why the technique you selected would be useful. 

I think this substitution works on several levels.  It points out that the argument is invalid because it’s self-defeating.  It provides an opportunity to disassociate from indoctrinated thought patterns and existing, potentially emotionally charged, biases.  The idea of banning all dogs from biting is likely to be quickly dismissed as absurd, meeting this requirement of reductio ad absurdum.  It also uses analogy to point to something that never seems to get discussed.

Arguments against gun control laws tend to come in three flavors:

• Challenging the premise that people who have guns are dangerous (grasping by the horn)
• Substituting situations that are more dangerous into the logic (reductio ad absurdum)
• Appeal to the Constitution (using the 2nd Amendment - a fallacious argument with a plethora of suspects – appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, begging the question, amphiboly, and probably many more)

The first two are done to demonstrate that the argument is weak and the third is a misguided attempt at asserting a person's rights.  In the first, stories and stats are presented to show that far more guns are kept or used in ways that do not harm innocent people and that the media-hyped incidents (appeal to misleading vividness) account for a miniscule portion of the people who have guns.  The second substitutes more dangerous situations that people don’t want banned into the argument.  For instance, many more people are killed by mistakes and diseases they contract in hospitals than by felonious gun use, therefore people should be banned from going to hospitals, in order to protect them from an unsafe situation (you can substitute showers, smoking, Coke and McDonald’s, and a whole host of causes of death and injury far more dangerous than people with guns).  While both do a good job of showing that the gun control argument is weak, the dog/pit bull substitution goes one step farther, showing that the argument is worse than weak, it’s not even valid.  Strength and weakness don’t even need to be considered because it is essentially a self-defeating, non-argument.

Framing the argument around dogs helps put some distance between the argument and indoctrinated thought patterns and closely-held biases.  People have some very illogical ideas when discussing gun control (which will be discussed in the answer to the next question) and making dogs the center of attention may help them to think more rationally about the argument.

Arguing that dogs should be banned from biting is laughably dismissed.  Most dogs bite naturally out of fear for their own safety or in protection of their owners/property.  No one faults a dog that bites out of self-defense or that bites an intruder that enters a house.  When dogs do bite, the blame usually goes to the owner of the dog who either failed to maintain control of the dog, or worse, trained the dog to be vicious.  When someone hurts someone with a gun, no one looks intently at the parents, teachers, social workers, social system, clergy, or others who played a role in training the person to be vicious.  The gun becomes a scapegoat, either to avoid being tasked with solving the real and much more difficult problem, or to disarm the subjects of a country to make them easier to control, or some other motive not actually related to the "danger" of people having guns.

The analogy (which would probably be missed by most people) specifically using pit bulls as a substitution uses another indoctrination theme played out by the corporate media.  When you say “dogs,” the image of your own dog comes to mind or the thought of them as “man’s best friend.”  When you say, “pit bull,” thanks to media-hyped incidents (appeal to misleading vividness – are you sensing a theme?), people think of vicious, snarling beasts that rip children to shreds.  However, in this case, the pit bulls’ masters are scrutinized and many times, it is found that they trained the pit bulls to attack.  This creates the impression that pit bulls are inherently dangerous and that their masters are idiots and/or cruel, inhumane bastards who knowingly created a potential menace to society.  If you were to compare the number of innocent people killed and injured with a gun by people who are not government employees with those who are killed and injured by government employees, not surprisingly, you would find that government employees are by far the greater threat.  The nature of their training, environment, mindset, and weaponry makes them inherently more dangerous (I was a cop for 12 years and killed someone in the line of duty) and there is no doubt that their masters are idiots and/or cruel, inhumane bastards who knowingly create a potential menace to society. 

To be continued . . .

Related articles

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)

So,

I am on another school break so that means that I have a chance to update my blog again.

And we care because . . .

I don't think he cares if you care.

I had a Logic class this go 'round and received quite a few kudos from the instructor for my ability to analyze concepts and put that analyzation into words.  In fact, she is going to be using one of my papers as a resource for future classes (hat tip to CV Rick for his comments on taxation providing beautiful support for my position).

You're not going to tell him the paper was on irrationality and self-deception, are you?

I wouldn't.

Anywhoooo, a different assignment required that we take an argument from our environment and do the following with the argument:

• Create a counter-argument using one of the techniques studied in the course
• Transcribe the argument/counter-argument
• Explain why the counter-argument was chosen
• Explain likely obstacles to the acceptance of the counter-argument

Doing this assignment gave me a bit more insight into the argument and counter-argument so I'm adding it to my blog (Guns and Control v2.0, if you will).  This post will cover the first two bullet points with subsequent posts covering the second two bullet points.  This first two are short and kind of boring . . .

He's making the assumption that his other blog posts aren't boring

Indeed he is.

. . . but I am including them because they set up the the remaining two points and they also show where I made some assumptions in the first three Guns and Control posts.  In working through the assignment, I realized that I had made some jumps over information relevant to the argument.  The end result is the same and much of the information presented is the same as the information contained in the first three Guns and Control posts although written more formally and without comments from the voices in my head.

No wonder it's boring.

I concur.

Creating the counter-argument using reductio ad absurdum and answering the follow up questions that were posed does add a different perspective than previously presented.  The combination of a more thorough examination of the underlying logic of the gun control argument and the new angle of approach prompted me to add these posts to the original Guns and Control trilogy.

This is why we are supposed to care?

I still don't think he cares if you care.

Think of a specific instance – real or hypothetical – in your own profession or daily environment in which using either (a) the method of counter-example or reductio ad absurdum to  demonstrate an argument’s invalidity, or else (b) one of the techniques for escaping from a logical dilemma would be useful.  Detail the instance.

If dogs (D) that bite (B) are an unsafe situation (~S) and unsafe situations should be avoided, then dogs or the act of biting or both dogs and the act of biting should be eliminated.
Dogs should not be eliminated so biting should be banned.
To ensure compliance with the ban, pit bulls (P) will be trained to bite.
All pit bulls are dogs.
Therefore, to prevent the unsafe situation of dogs that bite, dogs will be trained to bite to prevent dogs from biting.

(((D ^ B) --> (~S)) ^ (~ (~S)) --> ~ (D ^ B)
 ~~D ^ ~B
~ (D ^ B) --> (P ^ B)
P --> D
(~ (~S)) --> ((D ^ B) ^ ~ (D ^ B))

((D ^ B) ^ ~ (D ^ B)) violates the law of non-contradiction (P ^ ~P) and is always false.  In a conditional statement, a true antecedent that leads to a false consequent is a false statement.  The combination makes this a self-defeating and false argument.

The argument above is a substitution for the argument for gun control laws:

If people (P) who have guns (G) are an unsafe situation (~S) and unsafe situations should be avoided, then people or guns or both people and guns should be eliminated.
People should not be eliminated so guns should be banned.
To ensure compliance with the ban, government employees (E) will be given guns.
All government employees are people*.
Therefore, to prevent the unsafe situation of people having guns, people will be given guns to prevent people from having guns.

* You might argue that IRS agents are not human but in the logical sense, they are people.

(((P ^ G) --> (~S)) ^ (~ (~S)) --> ~ (P ^ G)
~~P ^ ~G
~ (P ^ G) --> (E ^ G)
 E --> P
(~ (~S)) --> ((P ^ G) ^ ~ (P ^ G))

To be continued . . .

Guns and Control (Part 3)

So,

One thing that I have learned while standing outside the cage labeled “False Dilemma” watching the unfortunate zoo animals trapped within is that it doesn't take a whole lot of mental acrobatics to dismantle most of their arguments, such as the one for stricter gun control laws. In fact, it takes no effort at all because they will do all of the work for you.

Awfully kind of them.

Isn't it?

The proposed "solution" to the "problem" (maybe the cage should be labeled “Hegelian Dialectic”) of gun ownership follows the same absurd thought process as so many of their arguments:

1. People with guns are dangerous.

2. Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.

Therefore, we will issue guns to people to prevent people from having guns.

Ummm, http://youtu.be/j9ndS6yu3Kk

Yes, yes you are.

As is the norm with these Pavlovian creatures and their close cousins, the sociopaths that see the contradiction but propose the “solution” anyway, the proposed “solution” immediately violates the stated goal of the proposed “solution”. As soon as they issue the first gun to a person, they have done the opposite of preventing people from having guns. If they had a solution that didn't involve issuing guns (or other, even more dangerous weapons) to people in an effort to reduce the number of guns owned by people, that would be different.

How about this? After we issue guns to people to disarm people, we issue guns to the disarmed people to take the guns away from the first group that we issued guns to.

I think you are now qualified to vote in the next presidential election.

As you can imagine, going around stealing guns from people carries with it a certain amount of risk.   Even if violence and threats of violence weren't the habitual choice for gun control proponents as an ironic "solution," it's fair to say that arming robbers who have orders to steal guns would be necessary in order to carry out the plan.

The plan of arming people to disarm people?

I can't quite put my finger on it but something doesn't sound right with that plan.

Truthfully, many of the people arguing in favor of this "solution" are ignorant of the absurdity that they are spouting. They have been raised to view USA, Inc. as an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-powerful, ethereal entity with superhuman powers, which is free of the ethical bounds of mere mortals. In short, to these people, USA, Inc. is a god.

According to Mittler Romney, corporations aren't gods, just regular people.

Maybe he meant to say, "Corporations are personages, my friend . . . of course, they
are."

I could probably write several posts on the ramifications of this belief and the benefits gained by the rulers and their subjects by participating in this religion but for this post, it's enough to note the existence of the belief. Deifying the rulers' corporation causes a mental disconnect which blinds people from the reality of what they are truly saying. It's what leads to the most clichéd question asked when discussing freedom with a statist.

"Who will build the roads?"

"Well, who's building them now?"

"God."

They have grown so accustomed to referring to this abstract concept of government as an actual physical being with supernatural powers that they have forgotten that it's just a corporation that employs people to accomplish things.

In the name of god.

Amen.

Any "solution" they propose to deal with a "problem" they have with people is going to have those same people utilized as part of the "solution."  This obvious contradiction undermines any argument they may make and makes the rebuttals in Part 1, while still valid, completely unnecessary.  The simple answer to calls for stricter gun control is, "So, let me get this straight, you're going to issue people handguns, assault rifles, sonic weapons, energy-directed weapons (heat rays), armored personnel carriers, tanks, and who-knows-what-else weapons in order to take weapons away from people?" 

Not people, the government.

Who are reptilian aliens?

The argument is ludicrous but these people have apparently made a vow not to ever be outdone as holders of the Guinness Book of Records for Absurdity.  Guess which people they want to give the guns to?  The same type of people who have killed over 10,000,000 people in the last 75 years, employees of the US government.  Now, I don't know about you but if I suddenly became demented and decided to impose my will on over 300 million people, I would still hope that my ideas sounded like they might possibly be in the vicinity of Rationalville.  Employees of USA, Inc. and despots receiving billions of dollars in US tax money each year probably kill more people in one month than nonemployees do in an entire year.  The plan proposed by gun control advocates is actually:

People with guns are dangerous.

Dangerous situations should be avoided or prevented.

Therefore, we are going to say, "Screw that!" and issue guns to those people with a predilection toward violence or who have been so fully indoctrinated into the religion that they will blindly follow orders to commit violence against innocent people . . .

I don't know the rest.  What motivates these people is beyond me.  I'm still guessing that it's because their high priests tell them what to do and what to think.  It's clear that it has nothing to do with rationality, reasoning, logic, or facts.  Perhaps it's the combination of obedience to their religion along with the emotional delivery of the message.  Employees of USA, Inc. killed more children at Waco than were killed in Sandy Hook and they do this all the time all over the planet.  Shouldn't gun control activists be advocating for control of those people? 

It's against their religion.

If they did that, their souls may be condemned to Guantanamo Bay for all eternity.

Or until they starved themselves to death to escape the brutality of people employed by the US government.

Related articles

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)

Guns and Control (Part 2)

So,

In part 1, I discussed two rebuttals by gun owners in response to calls for more gun control laws.  In part 3, I'll point out the inherent absurdity of the proposed gun control "solution" but today, I'm going to discuss the rebuttal from gun owners that I find lacking and the reasons why I find it wanting.  One of my reasons is fairly common sense and the other shows how gun owners are helping to perpetuate a system hell-bent on seizing their guns. 

The 1% have more control than ever and their actions, such as having their butt-puppet, The Great and Powerful Oz, sign NDAA into law demonstrates that they are afraid the people aren't going to take much more.  Much of the hype by corporate media surrounding recent sensationalized incidents of violence in the United States has been fabricated or exaggerated while ongoing, massive violence by employees of the United States government is ignored by the same "concerned" media sources.  The purpose behind the hype is to persuade those who are too stoopid to know better into supporting the 1% in disarming their enemy, the 99%.

They are just concerned about our safety.

Yes, that's obvious.  Disarm the citizens and dissolve entire police departments.  I'm feeling safer already.

Not to worry.  When the police prove to be inadequate, expect to see the military called in to "protect" American citizens.

Who is going to protect the American citizens from the military?

You.  Without.  A.  Gun.

Do you think they would be content with a 2 out of 3 bout of rock, paper, scissors?

Not likely.

However, there is a push by quite a few people to reach out to military and law enforcement officers in an effort to convince them that attacking Americans violates their oath (in addition to being just plain evil).  Speaking of oath, if the two of you are quite finished hogging my blog, it's an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.  The Constitution, or rather the 2^nd Amendment, is the third common argument that I see put forth by gun owners as a rebuttal for stricter gun control and it is by far the weakest of the arguments.  I understand the desire to throw into the mix.  The two, more powerful rebuttals, are rejected so there is this feeling that adding another argument may help.  However, in addition to lacking the strength of the other two arguments and continuing a defeating mindset, it acts as a distraction from the better arguments.  While the two sides bicker about the meaning of the oddly worded amendment and attempt to read the minds of people long since dead, better arguments sit idle.

The common sense problem with using words written on a piece of paper by the rulers of the country is that the rulers can write new words on a piece of paper (or simply just ignore the "god damned piece of paper").  When the rulers do write new words on a piece of paper and your argument was based on the previous words on a piece of paper, your argument is gone.  The possibility that the rulers will write new words on a piece of paper brings up a new argument from gun owners.

Whether or not the new piece of paper is made out of recycled materials.

Or from the skin of someone who stood in the way of ExxonMobil.

Our rulers would never do that, would they?

I'm pretty sure I heard Obama say, "It puts the lotion on its skin," before his last drone attack. 

"This drone attack was brought to you by ExxonMobil.  ExxonMobil, bringing you a brighter tomorrow."

Unless you were the family hit by the drone.

The main thrust of the new argument is on the sacred nature of the Constitution and how changing it would be very, very, very, very wrong.  However, if you bring up changes that abolished slavery or allowed women to vote, the response is, "Well, yeah, those changes were right."  This drops the entire discussion into the realm of the subjective with both sides arguing about the nature of allowable or "right" changes.  Neither side can win this debate because it's a matter of personal opinion.  Easily changed or ignored words on a piece of paper that invokes debates based on a person's point of view completely deballs the Constitutional argument against gun control. 

Yeah, but what if I used the Constitution to make a paper airplane drone?

Then you'd have an argument that was lost in the next gust of wind.

Not only does the 2^nd Amendment rebuttal to gun control score a zero, it has the potential to reaffirm an insidious belief system in those making the argument.  This paradigm is anchored more deeply each time a statement is uttered such as, "The 2^nd Amendment gives me the right to . . ."  This creates or continues the illusion that people have 2^nd Amendment rights.  They don't and it's a very dangerous belief.

WhuchyoutalkinboutWillis?

I hate to say this but I'm with the goofball on this one.

People are constantly discussing their Constitutional rights (in fact, I have done so often in the past) as if they exist.  The danger of this mindset, of believing that the Constitution gives people rights, goes back to the heart of what the Constitution is: words on a piece of paper written by the rulers.  If it were the case that people were given the right by the words on the paper to own a gun, all the rulers would have to do to take away that right is change the words on the paper (or write new words in the form of a "law" that "nullifies" the right).

The truth is that you have human rights based on the fact that you are human.  You might call these inalienable rights.  You have them by the mere fact of being you.  They aren't granted to you by words on a paper.  You have these rights, period, not because they were bestowed upon you by some corporation (even one with an impressive name like The United States of America, Inc.).

Can I buy stock in that corporation?

You are the stock in that corporation.

What people habitually call a "Constitutional Right" is actually a "Constitutional Restriction" on the allowable actions by the rulers.  You don't have a right to own a gun because of the 2^nd Amendment.  You have the right to own a gun because humans have the right to own property.  People do not have the right to take your property without your consent.  Since the rulers exempted themselves from this basic moral principle, they had to put some assurances down in writing (2^nd and 4^th Amendments) for the people that they, the rulers, wouldn't just take stuff from people without a good reason.

But don't the rulers get to decide what amounts to a "good reason?"

Very good, Grasshopper.

By incessantly arguing about the 2^nd Amendment granting the right of the people to bear arms, the false notion that the government gives people rights is ingrained even deeper.  The truth of the matter is that governments can't grant rights which are inalienable, they can only violate those rights.  In fact, their whole existence depends on violating the rights of people.  If the rulers can somehow get the people to believe and act like their rights are derived from the government, the people can be more easily controlled.  If the people trap themselves in this mindset, the rulers don't have to openly expose the true basis of their control, their willingness to initiate violence against the people.

To be continued . . .

Related articles

Guns and Control Redux (Part 1)