It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is voting the root of all evil?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 10:57 PM
link   
Well, what do you actually think? Why?

If there were, say, no voting on, whether or not, someone can own and conceal a hand gun, you'd be free to own and conceal a hand gun or be free to simply not. It would be your choice.

There would be more up to each person if there were no voting. We would be treated like "the" individual should be. I dont know about you, but I prefer the individual experience and the individual decision making apart from any majority, whether or not, the majority is for or against my preferrences. I could care less what the majority wants. If everybody voted to jump off a bridge, are you going to do what that everybody majority voted to do?

I want it to be up to me alone, whether or not, I should, say, pay for sex. I dont want any body else's decision to hinder what I choose to do being my own individual. If somebody else doesnt want to pay for sex, then let them not pay for sex since what they prefer not to do should not stop or hinder me in what I may prefer to do with like my money.

If I want to own a machine gun or not it should be up to me the individual.

All this majority vote B.S. is why I see ppl get lacking self-respect and dignity. If you bow down to a majority vote, and you are for that whole majority rule thing, and you get a vote that dont go your way, you are basically showing lack of self-respect for your individual self as if life is a game of chop poker. You willing to die before keeping your self-respect just to prove some kind of B.S. as if you're so down with some kind of crowd or party? It's just like being stupid enough to be in a gang with that kind of way to go. You want to prove your layalty even if it mean jail or less freedom or death?

They got you thinking you should vote and thinking that voting is the STUFF. If you must make a vote that counts, then vote on getting rid of voting in exchange for "INDIVIDUAL CHOICE". I mean, you already are played like a sucker because you didnt get to vote on the decision to go into Iraq. So if that is so that the president can make an individual choice, then why the hell cant we like an individual also make individual choices on local and state and national matters involving each life?

Nationally, you want to smoke in public bars...or pay for sex...or own a gamble related business in home...or be allowed to have intimate relationships with students/teachers...or dig a mine in your own yard...or turn your home into a tall 7 story building on your block...or etc. It should be up to each of you on what you choose for you alone.

So break the mind control they got you heavily under that got you believeing that voting is a must or is the best, when actually it is the root of all evil since it cause you to lose your self-respect for others. Where is your sense of individual, sheep heard?




posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:02 PM
link   
The moment you vote is the moment you give up being an individual. You sure do give up individual choice like a chump suckered.

Like who can not see that?

[edit on 13-9-2008 by Mabus]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Is this libertarian philosophy or anarchy?
If you go all of the way to the right, aren't you just going to the extreme left, or vice-versa?

Political ideology when graphed out is circular construct.

In a world with no voting you are free to "dig mines in your own backyard". . And in front of your house so you can watch the neighbors blow up as they walk by. Sounds like a blast.
(Sorry, couldn't help myself).

Personally, I'm liking the voting society thing better. /shrug/


[edit on 13-9-2008 by clay2 baraka]

[edit on 13-9-2008 by clay2 baraka]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
Is this libertarian philosophy or anarchy?
If you go all of the way to the right, aren't you just going to the extreme left, or vice-versa?

Political ideology when graphed out is circular.

In a world with no voting you are free to "dig mines in your own backyard". . . . . And in front of your house so you can watch the neighbors blow up as they walk by. . . Sounds like a blast. (Sorry, couldn't help myself).

Personally, I'm liking the voting society thing better. /shrug/


[edit on 13-9-2008 by clay2 baraka]


I meant shafts like where they dig for metals.

Now you know.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Mabus
 


Heh.

That is pretty funny. The logic still follows suit. In this case your "mine" creates a sinkhole which caves in and takes your house under as well as the neighbors. And yes, the pedestrians walking down the street.

I think if you are to have a society, some degree of free will must be sacrificed. Unless you want to go it alone in the wilderness. In that case you will not be afforded the protections that living in a society offers. (Also no internet, hence no ATS).




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 01:09 AM
link   
There are certainly good things about voting but its not the Holy Grail so many people make it out to be. I mean people act like the constitution was written by God and that voting makes our government infallible. BS i say.

I mean theres good and bad about democracy dictatorship and anarchy. Hittler obviously sucked but hes hardly the only dictator in the world. Also exterminating races would be just as wrong if people had voted to do it. (and many would.)

I mean certain people will die or be denied rights in our current system. Ditto dictatorship ditto anarchy. Just because people vote on it doesnt make it right.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Why should we limit ourselves to a majority rule?

I know for a fact that many ppl would be able to make a profit with, say, their own home on some block if they could put a commercial built building up right there. There would be no having to look for a space of land to build on if you could use your land your home is on. Maybe I want to have my own new fast food drive-tru place on the block I live and have employed some ppl. Yeah, where I live upstairs because the first floor would be for the resturant workings...

Or... maybe I want to build a kind of slimmer commerical built hotel/motel in my home yard since I cant find any other land nor would want to buy some other land when I can wisely make use of my own land.

Individual ppl being bound on what their community voted on from before is B.S. when you do see it hindering our potential. They sure did vote on how the zoning would be for an area deemed residential.

PPl that are moved around like sheep did let go of their self-respect a long time ago. We should fight for individual self-respect! Do it now, each!

Maybe I want to buy all the homes from individuals in a small area so I can put up my water park in place. Of course I wouldnt pay till I get the goal reached with the certain number of indivual ppl sold into it. But there is flexibility on an individual level, you see? In a nation where we are treated like individuals we could get paid more in more ways.

We need a speedy roll of getting INDIVIDUAL CHOICE in matters (previously matters voted on and future matters that would be voted on) from bottom to top, from top to bottom.

The only vote I'd vote for is a vote that gets rid of voting in exchange for individual choice. That would be the only wise and smart vote in history ever.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by Mabus]

And I maybe, just maybe, I want to convert my home into a luxury movie theater and be able to get movies the same day other movie theaters get them to release em on date's with schedules. Why the hell should I allow some majority vote stop me from my potental in my seeking of happiness and decent living?

Where is my so-called "pursuit of happiness" at?! Just because certain lack self-respect dont mean I want to go down in the same boat. I could care less if you dont stand by the pursuit of happiness for your self alone.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by Mabus]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
reply to post by Mabus
 


Heh.

That is pretty funny. The logic still follows suit. In this case your "mine" creates a sinkhole which caves in and takes your house under as well as the neighbors. And yes, the pedestrians walking down the street.



Individual choice doesnt mean ppl cant sue or be convicted of crimes against individuals who can state freely what they want to charge another with.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by Mabus]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Make this clear:

There would be your individual free choice with respect to others' individual free choice like always.

"Free choice" and "freedom" and "free choice on matters that would be voted on" are three different things.

Individual choice doesnt mean ppl cant sue or be convicted of crimes against individuals who can state freely what they want to charge another with.

There would be laws working for and against every individual on whole, but no laws working for a majority. I couldnt violate someone, individually, without going down for a crime if caught. That's the against aspect of the law that would still be. I could pay for sex in front of a 1000 individuals who are against the whole 'pay for sex' thing, and it would be no crime committed against those individuals, and so, I wouldnt be brought up to face any charges. That's the no law working for a majority.

In anarchy, I take it, some one could freely blast your head off with no penalties because of no laws.

In dictatorship, I take it, one would bind every one else how they alone want.

No one should dictate for another in decison making on any level. Even though you know there is a law against murder, you also know you are still free to choose to do it.

Decisions on certain things have been taken away because they can be. But you mean to tell me everyone's decision on murdering someone isn't taken away just because it can not be?

^^Why should I not be able to buy and own me a machine gun? Just because my being able to CAN be taken away?

Why should a majority rule goer get to make up for their lack in being able to stop a murderer from murdering? It's like a guy with a small frank, making up for it by being a body builder. The majority rule thing is B.S. when it consist of those type of ppl in a sense. Those type of ppl would like to see others lacking like in SOMETHING (like in self-respect) since they are already lacking in what bothers them. Not in all does lacking something bother them to the point of wanting to take it out on others, by the way. So you hate murderers, but dont hate allowing there to be machine gun owners who have yet to have murdered anyone.

All in all, individual choice can work in a more harmonious way than our now free choice. Our now version of free choice is decpetive since you think you're free in choosing when actually it's up to the majority which may not go your way.

[edit on 14-9-2008 by Mabus]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Like Kurt Cobain said: "You're face to face of a man who sold the world".

A world sold that it's sold when it cant be is an illusion. PPl have been sold voting like it's the pleasure of the world. But come to find out, it's only as good as the pleasure in wanting to be dominated in torture by who all wants you to lose your self-respect and degrade yourself willingly for them on top.

Before there was standard money for circulation they surely voted on what would be standard money legally. So it all leads to voting being the root of all evil, since it had and still has power over money itself in many ways. It's like who would have thought? I mean, I cant go into Sears and pay for a CD player with a 1000 penciles. When is the last time you heard of a store accepting something other than standard money voted to be for circulation legally to allow you to purchase something (and not for a drive of some cause) here in the U.S. or wherever you live?



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Truest judgement call pointer ever wrote:

Violating a majority rule and violating an individual are two way different things. One of them is B.S. that's been and still being allowed by the decevied 'proud to be' voters allowing majority rule. There are ppl doing time who shouldnt be doing time because they have not violated any individual in what they did. But because of some majority decision/rule are they only damned.

A would-be murderer set to violate an individual vs a would-be machine gun owner/concealer set to violate a majority decision/rule.

If we are human, with some common sense, we know that the violation of an individual is both worst and different than the violation of a majority decision that is not acting a deterrant over a violation of an individual nor can stop a violation of an individual. Why? Well it's since the majority decision being violated is not violating an individual.

Indeed do disagree with certain laws that hinder individual potential/happiness and take away individual self-respect. But dont think there should be no laws against violating individuals.

The would-be murderer is free to murder as always till caught or prevented, regaurdless of the possible jail time or death or injury for themself that can be a result after their decision is carried out. One man's measure of prevention of a violation should not become law to take away another man's, say, hand gun. I mean, it could be different for different ppl, and that hand gun might be that man's prevention against crime against himself. So who in all wants everyone's guns taken away just because they dont want to get robbed at gun point... it's like who are they to dictate for others? Besides, lack of guns wont prevent ppl from being robbed, so why should we individuals allow majority decisions when it's all B.S. either way you cut it? I see that ppl seem to be allowing more lacking common sense and lacking better judgement and lacking self-respect to rule over them.

It's like should we put up with would-be violators under majority decisions or should we put up with would-be violators under laws against the violations of individuals while also under individual choice? Ha! If you pick the first part, then certain of those would-be violators, that did become violators, would have not even violated any individuals actually, but just those B.S. majority decisions that hinder our potential try for happiness and also cant even stop someone who would violate an actual individual.

If we are allowed the pursuit of happiness, then majority rule doesnt make sense. But individual choice makes perfect sense for the pursuit of happiness common sense would tell ppl.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join