Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

4

NEOalquimista wrote

Voting is as useless as pressing a button to tell Microsoft to not track you. There can never be trust in capitalist environments.

3

ConfettiEggnog wrote

What is your better alternative?

2

tapeworm wrote (edited )

Plant a tree? Whatever you do would be more productive than voting. Voting has no effect because you don't actually get to choose your king.

2

Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

I'm not sure why, but "plant a tree" is also my go-to preferred throwaway thing to say whenever someone asks what to do instead of voting. My other one is to go get to know your neighbours better.

2

ConfettiEggnog wrote

Have you planted many physical trees so far? Or you're talking about the manly activity of clicking replies?

3

Tequila_Wolf wrote

No trees, actually. It's just a throw-away comment I give to voters, as I said, because I think it's more worthwhile than voting.

I do other things.

-2

ConfettiEggnog wrote

So, in a way your perception of the vote as a waste of resources equates with your inactivity. Sad. But I see your point.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

A king is hereditary. Now, many presidents are at least for life. Anyway, that's besides the point. You get to vote for the options you have. Only Christianity gets to vote about things that do not exist. Still, in most Western World you can be a candidate. Failing to impress the electorate is not a conspiracy.

2

NEOalquimista wrote

You're not an anarchist, are you?

Instead of forcing a change in a written rule to everyone, the individuals would gather only to feed discussion and then take individual action to make it happen. It would be up to each one to make a change happen, as no rules would exist to enforce it. No one would represent anyone except themselves. Community would work individually, not in masses. But don't get it wrong. Individually means whatever you think it's right, it is your thinking. It should not be forced as a policy on others. The others will agree with you if that's their conclusion. But no one would be able to force rules.

Being independent (and that is the goal for everyone) will ensure you can live your life without interference from the choices of others. You would be the only person responsible for your survival.

Having no property means you cannot deprive someone from a resource. You can only eat what your body needs. You don't need to accumulate things. If you need to build technology to assist you or experiment with anything new, you'll have to look for the resources yourself. You'll learn a lot more along the way.

1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

" But no one would be able to force rules."

That's one rule already. Soon there will be more. And than a committee just to organize the independents.

"Having no property means you cannot deprive someone from a resource."

In short: dying of hunger, cold, and most treatable diseases.

2

NEOalquimista wrote

When I say "no one would be able to force rules", it means that no one would obey a rule if someone tried to implement it. We obey rules because we need the rulers to provide things. Become independent and no one can rule you. There would be no reason to cooperate. One individual wouldn't be able to bring fascism if everyone is independent.

About the second part, if no one owns anything, everything is available.

-1

ConfettiEggnog wrote

It reminds me of the peasant revolts of the 18th and 19th century Europe. A bunch of guys raping and pillaging "because". Scary shit. Are you sure mob rule is better?

-1

TigrisMorte wrote

It is precisely this apathy that makes voting ineffectual. Fact of the matter is if we had 80%+ turn out, what was in the people's best interest would matter far more as corrupt politicians fear an engaged and informed active voting populace.

The powers that be love your using "voting is useless" as a cowardly means to excuse your failure to exercise the civic duty of voting. It makes their control easier and less costly.

Only an idiot does not vote.