Don't Vote! (Rational Ignorance Remix)—the ultimate celebrity statement on civic duty

Embed this video at your own site by going here.

View original "5 Friends: Don't Vote":

Comments

BigGreenMonkey | October 5, 2008, 5:30pm | #

So, I surmise the reason staff is as depressed as the rest of us over the bailout. This is the only content for a Monday? I usually get home from work to see a slew of new content. I hope there wasn't some cultish group suicide.

Kunal | October 5, 2008, 5:32pm | #

Umm, dude? Still Sunday here.

Eric Haskell | October 5, 2008, 5:32pm | #

I agree. This is really strange for a Monday.

In fact, it almost seems as if....it's Sunday. Weird.

Just Plain Brian | October 5, 2008, 5:35pm | #

Even weirder, according to the "Feels Like Forecast", it's even supposed to feel like a Sunday today.

David E. Gallaher | October 5, 2008, 5:35pm | #

I thought she'd pull a little bit sexier bra through her arm hole... maybe even a couple of pasties?

Anyhow, was this some sort of slick reverse psychology ad?

I really am serious: Don't vote. Then continue down the slippery slope and become a peaceful anarchist.

Jean Bart | October 5, 2008, 5:41pm | #

It's already Monday for most of the world's population. Do you cheeseburger-eating invasion monkeys think the world revolves around America?

Grant Gould | October 5, 2008, 5:42pm | #

Does this mean that Hollywood -- or at least Reason -- is going all agorist on us? 'cause that would rock.

Bingo | October 5, 2008, 5:52pm | #

Well, I'm convinced!

J sub D | October 5, 2008, 6:06pm | #

It's already Monday for most of the world's population. Do you cheeseburger-eating invasion monkeys think the world revolves around America?

Yes we do. In our defense, that's only because politically, economically and culturally it does.
;-)

Jay | October 5, 2008, 6:06pm | #

Any chance the MSM picks this up?

J sub D | October 5, 2008, 6:10pm | #

I'm voting third party in any federal race that it's possible. If it's a Democrat, a Republican and a Communist on the ballot, I'll vote for the pinko, commie bastard. Not voting could (would?) be misinterpreted as being satisfied with the status quo.

Just Plain Brian | October 5, 2008, 6:12pm | #

Not voting could (would?) be misinterpreted as being satisfied with the status quo.

True, but voting could be misinterpreted as being satisfied with the system.

David E. Gallaher | October 5, 2008, 6:33pm | #

The difference between a peaceful anarchist and an agorist is that an agorist smears her naked body with agar agar and frolics in public places.

rhywun | October 5, 2008, 6:36pm | #

Anyhow, was this some sort of slick reverse psychology ad?

Yeah, WTF was that?

David E. Gallaher | October 5, 2008, 6:37pm | #

J sub D,
Not voting is most often interpreted as assuming it doesn't make any difference. It is further interpreted that that assumption is a pretty good one.

James Anderson Merritt | October 5, 2008, 6:37pm | #

I wish the congress hadn't voted on Friday.

Richard | October 5, 2008, 6:39pm | #

To the hamburger-hating person who lives in a country west of the dateline: It is Sunday in Los Angeles. If you want to read new Libertarian content on your Monday because you can't wait until Reason's staff makes it to their office, perhaps you should get an entrepreneurship loan or grant from your country's government and start your own magazine + website.

Ray G | October 5, 2008, 6:45pm | #

Cute, but most people with an IQ higher than room temperature tend to not care what celebs think about politics.

What's next? Medical advice from Paris Hilton?

Episiarch | October 5, 2008, 6:55pm | #

It must be a remix of them scolding people for not voting, like saying "fine, don't vote, but then P. Diddy will shoot you" and taking only the "don't vote" part. Right?

If so, very well done.

Kyle Jordan | October 5, 2008, 7:19pm | #

Just showed this to some (democrat) friends and it pissed them off real good.

Thanks Reason! I love this place.

Jim Walsh | October 5, 2008, 7:37pm | #

Cute, but most people with an IQ higher than room temperature tend to not care what celebs think about politics.


We're screwed.

BMGF | October 5, 2008, 7:39pm | #

Hmmmm. Wasn't there a senate race in Missouri some years ago where there was a dead man on the ballot? That's legal, right?

I'm going to write in Thomas Jefferson for president.

Robbie | October 5, 2008, 7:54pm | #

Not reverse psychology. Its the same as the original for the most part, just the original has no captions and is 4 minutes longer. The original, however, eventually has the celebs tell you to not to vote...unless you care about all these things that they then list.

As for not voting, I will always vote for a 3rd party. Otherwise, you are saying nothing at all. It may be futile, but at least it's a statement that is not encouraging the norm.

t. j. | October 5, 2008, 7:58pm | #

the thing that offends me about this video and should offend anyone else watching it is that they're using the kinda reverse psychology a parent would use on their 5 year old. like i'm gonna vote cause ashton kutcher made me feel bad about not doing it.

during the bush years, the right has pretty successfully demonized activist actors for middle america but the thing that conservatives don't understand is that it isn't just conservative working class folkes who don't care what tim robbins or alec baldwin have to say about politics..NOONE cares. liberals don't give a crap either. i have a lot of liberal friends who probably agree with most or all that most leftist actors think who still don't give a shit about hearing them talk on tv or in internet videos. does anyone hear honestly know anyone who pays respectful attention to what actors think? i can't say i have. noone's voting for barack obama cause george clooney is excited about him. NOBODY.

the only mockery of smug know it all actors i like is "team america". everything else is just whiny conservative pundits and writers complaining about barbara steistand and susan sarandine like anyone cares what they think. and for the republican party which is the only party to elect celebrities with questionable levels of experience for the job..i really don't have much patience to listen to them whine. stop worshiping ronald reagon and maybe a little consistancy will enable your arguement some validity.

Hazel Meade | October 5, 2008, 8:10pm | #

Yes, the only people who care what celebrities think are conservatives. Who care because they believe that other people care.

Then again, Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwartzneggar were both celebrities, and turned out to be pretty good politicians too. (And fairly libertarian ones to boot.)

So it's possible that they are on to something. i suspect though that Arnie and Reagan just got toughened by opposition. The left-liberal Hollywood celebrities don't have to deal with adversity, and hence aren't forced to defend and refine their arguments very much.

annihilist | October 5, 2008, 8:12pm | #

Yeah, J sub, I can just see the Beltway power brokers poring over the raw precinct data trying to come up with an interpretation of what the 0.5% of voters who vote 3rd party care about. And if they don't care, you can bet no one else does.

Face it. No one cares what you think. Not when they can swing 10x that amount of the electorate by changing their marionette candidate's hairstyle or word usage. But by all means go ahead and rattle your chains if you like.

David E. Gallaher | October 5, 2008, 8:19pm | #

Isn't anyone else here offended by the fact that voting is merely a scheme to socialize/pacify the hoi polloi?

Sparky | October 5, 2008, 8:26pm | #

Here's the full(er) video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UaRXvRwhOk. It's exceptionally self-absorbed and condescending, but the fat dude with curly hair and glasses is funny.

Sparky | October 5, 2008, 8:32pm | #

Meanwhile, here's a cautionary tale about voting from Homer Simpson:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aBaX9GPSaQ&feature=related.

Nick | October 5, 2008, 8:34pm | #

Did anyone here watch the original? Let me re-phrase that, did anyone actually get through the original without wretching their eyes out and puncturing their eardrums? And should it surprise anyone that it's filled with Obama links? (Or is this just a get-out-the-vote as long as you support Obama and are dumb enough to believe whatever celebrities think?)

It would have been funnier if Reason had interspersed Drew Carey giving extremely rational arguments why you shouldn't need to vote. (i.e. "Vote for the winner, they would have won anyway without your vote. Vote for the loser, your vote doesn't count anyway. So why waste your time?")

Wes Gilreath | October 5, 2008, 9:00pm | #

Wow.. I just watched the orginal and I'm kind of upset. It's actually a video pretty much promoting Obama. For a second I thought those guys actually made a don't vote video.

prolefeed | October 5, 2008, 9:13pm | #

For a second I thought those guys actually made a don't vote video.

Really? You think Hollywood actually contains a significant smattering of libertarian anarchists?

Mark Borok | October 5, 2008, 9:15pm | #

About the "2nd amendment and gun control?" comment; if you pay attention (let's say you're a masochist) you'll notice they also talk about "right to choose" and the "right to life". They're trying to maintain an appearance of impartiality.

texas_libertarian | October 5, 2008, 9:20pm | #

They're trying to maintain an appearance of impartiality.

Any voter campaign that has celebrities endorsing it is always a Democratic mouthpiece.

d | October 5, 2008, 9:23pm | #

Were there subliminal messages flashing Obama's name across the screen, or something? Because this was virtually the same crew that sang in the Obama "We are the World" knock-off vid, wasn't it?

Clever. They don't actually come out and say "You gotta vote...for Obama", but that's the dipshit apathetic college freshman crowd they're courting, and we all know who Hoffman, Whittaker (sp?) and "Leo" are rooting for.

Reason should come back with a Penn and Teller version of this, saying shit like "Don't let them BARR you from voting!".

Jerry | October 5, 2008, 9:54pm | #

If voting would make any difference, they would make it illegal.

Ryan Mulkerin | October 5, 2008, 9:58pm | #

The "Register to Vote" campaign that I always see around campus seems to try to appear impartial. They assume that by registering just any college student they are going to get more Obama supporters than McCain. (Not a bad bet really around here.) I get asked just about everyday whether I am registered to vote. I get the urge sometimes to inform them that, yes, I am registered, but don't plan on voting out of principle to see whether they can grasp the concept. Unfortunately (or fortunately), I usually have to get to class.

Occam's periodontal scaler | October 5, 2008, 10:00pm | #

I'm at a very liberal university in a swing state, and it's just friggin disgusting how much ostensibly nonpartisan voter registration "encouragement" is going on here. The other day I had two professors ask people whether they were registered **during class**. What's even more disgusting is that like 80% of the students in those classes were international students, so they're being bugged about something they can't even participate in! And then they're ragging on those of us who have permanent addresses in other states to make sure we register in *this* state.

Jeremy Kareken | October 5, 2008, 10:04pm | #

Where are these guys for, like, municipal elections? You know the ones with all the corruption and low turnout? Talk about your summer soldiers.

you can take my gerbil...from my cold dead rectum! | October 5, 2008, 10:06pm | #

Isn't anyone else here offended by the fact that voting is merely a scheme to socialize/pacify the hoi polloi?

Facts don't offend people. People do.

Occam's periodontal scaler | October 5, 2008, 10:10pm | #

Yeah, what Ryan said. The image of the one professor going through the classroom like he was playing duck-duck-goose looking for actual US citizens will be forever seared into my memory.

And of course it shouldn't have been that hard; American students always sit in the back desks. Duh.

Elemenope | October 5, 2008, 10:39pm | #

I get the urge sometimes to inform them that, yes, I am registered, but don't plan on voting out of principle to see whether they can grasp the concept.

Well, if you have the time now, I'd really like to hear about the great principles behind not voting.

You know, if you don't have to run to class or anything.

Elemenope | October 5, 2008, 10:45pm | #

I'm at a very liberal university in a swing state, and it's just friggin disgusting how much ostensibly nonpartisan voter registration "encouragement" is going on here. The other day I had two professors ask people whether they were registered **during class**. What's even more disgusting is that like 80% of the students in those classes were international students, so they're being bugged about something they can't even participate in! And then they're ragging on those of us who have permanent addresses in other states to make sure we register in *this* state.

It's almost like...one guy trying to convince another to do something! And then the guy deciding whether or not to do it!

Seriously, on the absolute scale of disgusting, encouraging people on a "liberal college campus" to vote is somewhere between asking a favor without saying "please" and not washing your hands with soap after taking a piss.

economist | October 5, 2008, 11:00pm | #

Elemenope,
I personally consider not washing with soap after taking a piss (or worse, a shit) to be an unforgivable sin for which the person will rightly burn in hell for all eternity (assuming one exists, and children + people to poor to buy soap excepted).

economist | October 5, 2008, 11:08pm | #

I'm still deciding on whether or not to vote. I'm mainly in a dilemna about whether if the candidate that I vote for wins, will it make me responsible for his actions in office, because if it does, I'm not going to vote, because, while I've done things I'm not proud of in my lifetime (weaving through traffic, laughing at retarded children, and getting drunk and pissing on someone's lawn), I'll never sink so low as to be an accomplice in the actions of a President McCain or a President Obama. Ever.

economist | October 5, 2008, 11:10pm | #

On a brighter note, new episodes of South Park start airing this week.

economist | October 5, 2008, 11:12pm | #

I saw the original videos before the remix, so I didn't even bother watching the second remix. I was really hoping there would be someone like Drew Carey parodying the video or something. Something that was at least a little less faggy.

economist | October 5, 2008, 11:13pm | #

Of course I care about the second amendment. Why do you think I own so many guns?

economist | October 5, 2008, 11:15pm | #

Finally,
I think what Ryan was trying to point out is that his (presumably liberal) professors are wasting class time to encourage (presumably liberal) students to vote.

Sparky | October 5, 2008, 11:46pm | #

You haven't really lived until you've drunkenly pissed on someone's lawn while laughing at a retard weaving through traffic.

Mike Laursen | October 5, 2008, 11:48pm | #

Let me re-phrase that, did anyone actually get through the original without wretching their eyes out and puncturing their eardrums?

I did make it about 30-40 seconds in, to the point where Jennifer Aniston was berating me about polar bears. I had to stop the video or pound my laptop to pieces with a brick. My brain just couldn't see any other way out.

Mike Laursen | October 5, 2008, 11:51pm | #

I'm still deciding on whether or not to vote. I'm mainly in a dilemna...

You've already put way, way too much fretting into it. Your vote counts way, way little.

Elemenope | October 5, 2008, 11:58pm | #

I think what Ryan was trying to point out is that his (presumably liberal) professors are wasting class time to encourage (presumably liberal) students to vote.

Oh, I got it. I Just think it one straw shy of stupid to imply that one guy seeking out like-minded guys and encouraging them to vote is some sort of great crime.

And since there are actually conservatives in classrooms, both professors and students (I know! the Horror!), I find the notion of a vast liberal collegiate conspiracy to encourage people to exercise civil power somewhat thin and preposterous. If a liberal professor encourages a conservative student to vote, how does that factor into the morass?

T | October 6, 2008, 12:00am | #

Ryan, how is it disgusting to encourage students to vote? Voting is something tht most professors find important whether you're voting for democrat or republican. They are professors, they are trying to help you develop life skills, not only lecture you. And I bet those 80% of international students know more about our politics than you and are scared to death that your dumbass will vote. By the way, registering to vote in the state you're physically present in isn't a bad idea, as away balleting often causes many problems and disgusting skewed results(much like your brain seems to produce).

Kolohe | October 6, 2008, 12:06am | #

To repeat what I write whenever this topic comes up:

I never understood how people who are normally bullish on 'the wisdom of crowds' are so bearish on voting.

SIV | October 6, 2008, 12:20am | #

Kolohe,

Individualism

I preach not voting but I've practiced third party Presidential voting.I'll vote in any election I am aware of. Even a school bond referendum.I think it is a waste of time but I consider it my civic duty.Seeing as how I refuse/can't be seated on a jury voting is an outlet for my "patriotism".

I argue morally, ethically, ideologically for not voting."If you consent to be governed you shouldn't complain about how it is effected."
Of course that doesn't stop me, I'm opposed to the whole concept.

Brandybuck | October 6, 2008, 12:21am | #

I'm mainly in a dilemna about whether if the candidate that I vote for wins

If you're voting for either of the two guys who have a shot at winning, then you're voting for the wrong guy. The guy I'm voting for has absolutely no chance of winning, so it doesn't bother me in the least that he might be a covert conservative in libertarian clothing.

Elemenope | October 6, 2008, 12:22am | #

I never understood how people who are normally bullish on 'the wisdom of crowds' are so bearish on voting.

Because the same ideology that motivates them to "love the market" also motivates them to "hate the government", and the second impulse is stronger than the first.

SIV | October 6, 2008, 12:25am | #

Of course that doesn't stop me, I'm opposed to the whole concept.

I mean of everything, democracy and the State.
I consider all of my rights non-negotiable.

SIV | October 6, 2008, 12:29am | #

he might be a covert conservative in libertarian clothing.

Pragmatically, that is not a bug but a feature.
I don't see the country adopting a libertarian government unless it is implemented as a conservative one. Liberal/leftists have that collectivism albatross.

Franklin Harris | October 6, 2008, 12:37am | #

I never understood how people who are normally bullish on 'the wisdom of crowds' are so bearish on voting.

Because the same ideology that motivates them to "love the market" also motivates them to "hate the government", and the second impulse is stronger than the first.

Tsk. Tsk. People are fundamentally irrational, unless given a sufficiently powerful feedback loop that punishes irrational behavior.

If I make widgets for $5 and sell them for $3, the feedback loop will let me know pretty soon that I'm an idiot. There is no equivalent feedback loop for voting.

It's more costly to be irrational in the marketplace than in the voting booth. So, you're more likely to get wisdom from crowds in the market than in elections.

Elemenope | October 6, 2008, 12:59am | #

It's more costly to be irrational in the marketplace than in the voting booth. So, you're more likely to get wisdom from crowds in the market than in elections.

I'm not sure that's true. In many respects, the costs are almost always higher and the effects are sometimes more direct. You make a wrong choice in the market place and you will be punished economically. You make the wrong choice politically, and it could kill you in any number of ways.

There is a more severe problem of incomplete information in a political voting situation than there is in a market because politicians don't necessarily do *exactly* what they say they will. However, the temperament of the candidate and their decision-making strategies (which to me are more important than what they might do given XYZ hypothetical policy scenario) are demonstrated amply by a rigorous and competitive enough campaign.

In any case, all this grousing about not voting around here suggests to me sour grapes about both candidates turning out to be [shock! dismay!] fairly un-libertarian on either one set of pet issues or another. If everyone that whined about their choice and didn't vote instead voted for that person closest to their stated ideals, we might have a more sane political landscape.

Which is why I have no patience or sympathy for those who choose the low road and bitch without voting. They are part of the problem.

Mike Laursen | October 6, 2008, 1:22am | #

I never understood how people who are normally bullish on 'the wisdom of crowds' are so bearish on voting.

You can't equate the libertarian beliefs that the individual usually knows better what is right for him or her than a central planner and that the complex interaction of all of those individuals acting in their own interests usually promotes the general well-being of society with some sort of belief in the "wisdom of crowds."

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | October 6, 2008, 1:46am | #

You make the wrong choice politically, and it could kill you in any number of ways.

Only if your vote changes the outcome of the election, which it won't.

It's really just a matter of significant figures. One vote out of however many are available in your state really doesn't make a bit of difference. I mean, it's a minor cost (of time), but it's a cost nonetheless.

Unless you have some other reason for voting than caring who wins that outwieghs the time cost, there really isn't a good reason to waste the time.

Naga Sadow | October 6, 2008, 1:47am | #

Wisdom of the crowds? Bah! (waves hand dismissively)
Let them eat cake!

Relying on stupid, though admittedly large, groups to stumble on the "right" candidate with the "right" policies is foolish. Vote you fools! And if you feel like, preach/bitch a little too.

GM | October 6, 2008, 2:56am | #

Watching you (us) libertards flail about during this election season only confirms for me that most of you (us) libertards are just lonely, pointed-headed asocialites, who spend long hours in solitary mental and genital masturbation.

I am as free-market, get-off-my-lawn as the next gay, upper-middle-class, white California lawyer dude. But I recognize something in Barack Obama that is sorely needed after eight years of really the closest thing to an evil presidential administration as has been foisted upon us in this nation's history. I know that Obama probably wants us all to give LOTS to our country -- whether that means time or cash -- that he has a concomitant faith in the power of government to deal with social ills that is not to my liking. But I also recognize him as just about one of the smartest people ever to have a chance to be president of these United States (a role, lest we forget, that the Founders themselves chose to enshrine in the Consitution, not, as I think some would imagine, some mythical princeling figure dreamed up by FDR as a way to grow government programs). I think Obama will listen to people, to varying viewpoints, and use his intellect to find the best way forward.

There are many forms of capital -- and chief among them in this increasingly shrinking world is the capital of having the rest of civilization respect and even envy us as Americans. Much of that capital has been squandered since September 11 by this really bat-shit insane crusade to which Bush, Cheney, Rove et al. have set us. I feel that Obama can help us regain some of that -- in no small measure by simply showing the rest of the world and by showing our nation itself that we are not all or even mostly a nation of know-nothing mouth-breathers who fear the dark man because of his difference. This is of vital importance because after the last eight years of theocratic fear-mongering, anti-scientific bias, outright lying, contempt for civil liberties, and championing of intentional ignorance, I was beginning to doubt that myself.

Sometimes I feel totally out of place among libertarians and even the LA-based Reason crowd because of the blatant Freeper/Michelle Malkin-sympathizing tone that appears on this blog and in other fora at times. There is something to be said for getting along with other people, for not locking yourself in your cabin with your guns and your dogs and viewing heterogeneous society as something sick and scary, for believing somehow that you're going to out-think everyone else and snidely thumb your nose at the CW that you pondered and rejected back in 8th grade.

Maybe it's just the standard paleo-libertarian versus cosmo-libertarian divide. But there is something just frankly misanthropic in this approach to the world that says that nothing matters, that no one can make a difference, that it's all for naught unless you can keep it in the space between your ears. To deny our ability to render change on big and small levels, whether individually or collectively, is to deny that we have progressed as humans.

Utilize, don't analyze. I never have had need or desire to go through AA or any other program, thankfully, but I understand that particular piece of their philosophy. How many of the people who post here regularly are alcoholics, I wonder. Constant perseverance on topics totally out of one's control does drive people to drink. It also leads to displaced and generalized anger and general antisocial behavior.

Democracy sucks. But it's all we've got at the present time. It's imperfect but how the hell do we know that anarcho-capitalism or agorism will be any fucking better? So instead, we should just lock ourselves away and simultaneously deride and poke fun at others out there trying to make the world a better place?

I really try not to afford special consideration to the opinions of celebrities. But you know what? They have an opinion, too. No one on this board is holding his or her tongue regarding their own viewpoints. Why should the celebrities? I think it's mere envy that drives a lot of the vitriol -- because when the celebrities speak, for better or for worse, there is often a camera or a reporter at the ready to record the celebrities' thoughts. Meanwhile, the armchair Buckleys and Rands and Mises that populate this board are afforded only a measure of white space, courtesy of Reason.

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | October 6, 2008, 3:19am | #

How many of the people who post here regularly are alcoholics, I wonder.

I'm not an alcoholic! I can quit whenever I want!

Actually when I read your first paragraph I thought "well, at least I'm not the only one who's a little drunk."

Asharak | October 6, 2008, 3:57am | #

I don't see the country adopting a libertarian government unless it is implemented as a conservative one.

Thanks, SIV, I needed a good laugh.

Todd | October 6, 2008, 5:28am | #

To all the people who claim voting doesn't matter -- you do realize that there are other matters on the ballot besides the presidential election, yes? So while your vote may not "matter" at the federal level (although I'd point to the close vote count in Florida in 2000 to show how close elections can be), it almost certainly does at the local level.

And if you aren't voting as a way to show your disgust for the system in general, what are you doing to affect change in said system?

prolefeed | October 6, 2008, 5:29am | #

I don't see the country adopting a libertarian government unless it is implemented as a conservative one.

The lefty version of this:

"I don't see the country adopting a libertarian government unless it is implemented as a statist, socialist, big nanny-state tax hell one."

See how this doesn't really make sense, SIV?

Chad | October 6, 2008, 6:58am | #

Ok, it is time to change the constitution and bar anyone with less than 130 IQ from voting or running for office.

Enough is enough.

A. Turcu | October 6, 2008, 8:08am | #

"Vote for the lesser evil" they say. Well, FUCK EVIL!
Give me a good man and I'll vote for him. Until then, get the fuck off my Internet lawn with your stupid clip!

Max Stirner | October 6, 2008, 8:10am | #

I am glad for the bailout, I dont know of anything else that could make the system seem less legitimate. By all means, lets invade iran!

herodotus | October 6, 2008, 8:18am | #

Is there a candidate who stands a chance of winning who doesn't think I should go to jail or forced treatment for smoking pot?

Find me that candidate and I will vote for them. Otherwise I just feel sick when I vote for anyone who isn't a libertarian.

People who get all righteous about demanding that I vote for one of two people from one of two parties that both want to put me in jail are just not getting how dirty this makes some of us feel.

It's like picking from one of two rival gangs in prison: they are both going to fuck you up the ass no matter what you do, so why give your tacit approval to either of them?

ed | October 6, 2008, 8:35am | #

They still count non-votes, don't they?

bigbigslacker | October 6, 2008, 8:51am | #

Because the same ideology that motivates them to "love the market" also motivates them to "hate the government", and the second impulse is stronger than the first. - elemenope

Functionality?
Because it (market) works?
Because it (govt) doesn't work?
I'm going to have to agree. Things that don't work get me more worked up than things that do.

Tulpa | October 6, 2008, 9:33am | #

So while your vote may not "matter" at the federal level (although I'd point to the close vote count in Florida in 2000 to show how close elections can be), it almost certainly does at the local level.

Uh, no it doesn't. Even at the local level it's rare for a single vote to matter, unless you're living in a town of 15 people or something.

Now, if you can convince 100 people to vote your way at the local level, that might make a difference. But that's not what we're talking about.

Tulpa | October 6, 2008, 9:44am | #

Elemenope, if I run a business that needs large numbers of widgets and strongly believe Widget A is far superior to Widget B, I would buy 20,000 of Widget A and none of Widget B. Meanwhile, the person who doesn't care about widgets probably doesn't buy either.

But in the voting scenario, if I do my homework and follow the campaign and come to the conclusion that one candidate is much better than the other, my vote is cancelled by that of the fool who votes for the other candidate because he played football in high school.

Mike Laursen | October 6, 2008, 9:57am | #

No one on this board is holding his or her tongue regarding their own viewpoints. Why should the celebrities?

Alright, I'm sorry I poked fun at Jennifer Aniston.

SIV | October 6, 2008, 10:11am | #

See how this doesn't really make sense, SIV?

The closest this country cam to electing a libertarian President in the past century was Goldwater in 1964.What did he run as?

Most people don't understand libertarianism or think we are crazy.Half the country would go along with "returning to the principles of the founding fathers",the Constitution as written, small government, individual liberty, personal responsibility,etc.

I'm not saying a conservative government would lead to a libertarian one but the only way to sell libertarianism is as conservativism.

economist | October 6, 2008, 10:21am | #

GM,
It would have been more succinct, to say "I'm voting for Obama because I think he's smarter than McCain, and I don't what you fucktards think."

Note: the above message does not reflect my views on any of the issues presented in said message.

economist | October 6, 2008, 10:28am | #

I personally see no wisdom in "the crowds". I just think that in a free market, irrational fucktards only have power in so far as you need to associate with them, whereas in government they have theoretically limitless power over my life. Therefore, I prefer the market to government.

economist | October 6, 2008, 10:29am | #

Oh, yeah, and what Franklin Harris said.

Kant feel Pietzsche | October 6, 2008, 10:35am | #

Celebrities have as much right to their opinion as anyone else (even Epi :-). What galls me is their attitude that their opinion is somehow more relevant than mine because they have face recognition from their craft of faking emotion.

Nawwww, that's not true. What really galls me is the concept of celebrity in the first place.

economist | October 6, 2008, 10:36am | #

By the way, I have mentioned before that there's nothing inherently more legitimate about democratic government than any other form of government. Both still involve the use of aggression against individuals. I actually think that in some cases nondemocratic governments are better, because it makes clear to people the difference between themselves and the government, rather than viewing the government as an expression of the "people's will". In terms of what could be done to improve on our current system, I've always thought that it would be a good idea to have a house of Congress elected by taxpayers, with each voter getting his vote weighted according to how much he or she pays in taxes.

Kant feel Pietzsche | October 6, 2008, 10:54am | #

I also don't quite understand the wisdom of a 4:45 video for a target audience with a 0:30 attention span. Only masochists, and edgy conservatives waiting for the other shoe to drop would sit through the whole thing.

Ryan Mulkerin | October 6, 2008, 12:24pm | #

"Well, if you have the time now, I'd really like to hear about the great principles behind not voting.

You know, if you don't have to run to class or anything."

I'm not a principled "never vote" person. I just don't see a reason to vote for anybody in this election. I'm still considering voting libertarian, but Barr hasn't convinced me yet.

I am Spartacus | October 6, 2008, 1:16pm | #

I don't vote because I feel it to be ethically wrong.

Five horny guys and one petite woman deciding what to do for fun this evening doesn't strike me as especially fair to the petite woman.

I am Spartacus | October 6, 2008, 1:18pm | #

Unless she really wants to entertain 5 guys...

Mike Laursen | October 6, 2008, 2:13pm | #

I'm not saying a conservative government would lead to a libertarian one but the only way to sell libertarianism is as conservativism.

Libertarians have wasted tons of time and money on that idea. Libertarianism is an offshoot of the liberal family tree, and everyday-people liberals (as opposed to hardcore idealogues) are capable of grokking libertarianism if explained in their language. They've grown up exposed to a quasi-religious view of government and have a lot of dogma to unlearn, so you have to be patient.

Probably the best strategy is to infiltrate either the liberals or the conservatives, depending on which dominates your local area's politics.

Mike Laursen | October 6, 2008, 2:16pm | #

By the way, I have mentioned before that there's nothing inherently more legitimate about democratic government than any other form of government.

I'd say democracy is somewhat more legitimate than other forms of government. Don't take that as a glowing joe-like view that democracy always works out in the long run.

KD | October 6, 2008, 2:38pm | #

Franklin Harris | October 6, 2008, 12:37am | #
It's more costly to be irrational in the marketplace than in the voting booth. So, you're more likely to get wisdom from crowds in the market than in elections.

Elemenope | October 6, 2008, 12:59am | #

I'm not sure that's true. In many respects, the costs are almost always higher and the effects are sometimes more direct. You make a wrong choice in the market place and you will be punished economically. You make the wrong choice politically, and it could kill you in any number of ways.

Following this framework: It seems to me that if you make a mistake in the market and are punished economically you have been given an opportunity to learn. If you make a mistake politically and are killed in any number of ways (actually only one way should suffice) any potential learning opportunity is pretty much a moot point.

I say that because, though it is a common enough cultural meme that people can learn from the mistakes of others, few actually do. It appears to me that a personal lesson/punishment/result is necessary before most folks get some eddycation about their choices choices. Markets can be useful that way; being killed for a political choice... not so much. History supports this conclusion.

Tulpa | October 6, 2008, 3:30pm | #

Five horny guys and one petite woman deciding what to do for fun this evening doesn't strike me as especially fair to the petite woman.

Well that's where individual rights protections in the Constitution come in. Our system is (luckily) not one of absolute democracy; there are some things that even a huge majority is not permitted to legislate.

Not defending voting here -- I consider it futile -- just questioning whether it's immoral.

Notgonnasay | October 6, 2008, 3:33pm | #

I agree that a free market is in many ways more reliable and functional than a government (even democratic). But some of you have a little too much faith in the market.
Let's use the example of food. Say much of the food made by Company X contains a powerfully reinforcing and tasty, yet neurotoxic, flavor-enhancer; cheap cow s**t (that's labeled "bovine excretionary powder," or some such nonsense); and other nutrient-devoid, processed ingredients. Now say many consumers buy this company's food in hoards because it's so cheap and it tastes so g.d. good. Then other companies start to use the same ingredients. Then more and more people buy these types of foods, and more and more foods contain these types of ingredients-- in an upward cycle. Then the prices of decent/ more healthy foods increase, as demand for them is reduced (owing to the allure of cheaper and tastier novel junk foods). This is essentially more or less what has been going on in America for some time (with the exception of the cow dung).
And so what are people such as myself left with, who want to eat healthy, avoid neurotoxins, cow crap, etc., and yet still save money on food? Well, we're left having to choose between the more preferable of two evils: paying high prices for healthier foods or eating crap foods for less money. And it's all thanks to all those other consumers out there who don't care enough to shop around for the ideal foods, to say no to cow feces or wonderfully delicious neurotoxins in their food, or to foods devoid of any nutritional value, and etc. etc. And okay, yes, if enough people become aware that they're eating cow crap and neurotoxic flavor enhancers in many of their foods, they may eventually stop (then again they may not). But, without the government stepping in and banning the ingredients or enforcing mandatory cautionary labels, and/or without the media informing us about the truth of said ingredients, then the vast majority of consumers will NOT become aware.
In a free market, we are still subject to the ignorance, stupidity, and apathy of our fellow consumers-- just as we are subject to the ignorance, stupidity, and apathy of our fellow voters, in a democracy.

(PS I'm not saying that people who eat junk food are stupid. But they may at times be ignorant-- i.e., uninformed-- about the ingredients, lack of nutrition, and overall detrimental effects of eating certain foods. And they are certainly apathetic on some level about their food purchases-- as we all are at times. But, also, there are many instances of consumerism where the consumer is just being downright stupid.)

Mike Laursen | October 6, 2008, 3:48pm | #

And so what are people such as myself left with, who want to eat healthy, avoid neurotoxins, cow crap, etc., and yet still save money on food? Well, we're left having to choose between the more preferable of two evils: paying high prices for healthier foods...

I don't think you can simply assume that junk food being cheap would directly lead to your preference in food being more expensive. Granted the two market segments would interact with each other in complex ways, but it's far from a single variable relationship.

economist | October 6, 2008, 5:31pm | #

Notgonnasay,
That was a bad example, because it's not really so hard to find relatively healthy foods at a reasonable price. And it's not the fact that the majority of consumers like shitty food alone that makes better food expensive, a lot of the costs of these foods (such as organic food) are simply higher to begin. In any case, you can still get around other consumers' idiocy in this case, albeit at higher cost, whereas in a democracy you are absolutely stuck with the stupid choices of your fellow voters.

Ben1 | October 6, 2008, 5:48pm | #

Well, if you have the time now, I'd really like to hear about the great principles behind not voting.

Choosing A or B (or inserting a futile cry for C) will have no effect whatsoever on the system. We'll still lack efficient healthcare. We'll still prosecute wars overseas. We'll still see the constitution ignored or interpreted in an Alice-in-Wonderland fashion. We'll still have ridiculous numbers of military outposts. We'll continue to see our rights eroded. We'll continue to see corporate cronyism and bailouts. We'll continue to be victims of wars against various personal choices. We'll continue to experience obvious and unstoppable manipulation of things like oil, food, material goods. We'll continue to see credit espoused as a rational choice over savings. We'll continue to have an education system that produces barely functional, manifestly misinformed citizens who - by and large - can't even balance a checkbook, much less offer an informed opinion on the government's use of funds.

Voting says "I'm participating, I think I can make a difference"

Which is, according to all the evidence, not the case.

Not voting says "The system is a sham. I walk another way."

Mike Laursen | October 6, 2008, 10:20pm | #

I would never advise someone not to vote, but:

* You shouldn't have any illusions about what your vote is -- a very, very tiny share of the political power pie. Especially in national elections. The more local you get, the more your vote counts. Back when I was active in the Libertarian Party, I won a state senate primary by two votes.

* Don't vote if you have no idea what/whom your voting for or against. Don't vote if you don't like any of the choices. You can leave parts of your ballot unmarked, even the Presidential part. I'm not going to vote for anybody for President, and never will as long as most Americans continue to regard the President as Protector and Emperor.

* Don't stress out that much about whether you vote or not. It doesn't count for much, anyway. I go down to the polling place partly because I like chatting with my neighbors and the poll workers.

Someone Who Doesn't Want to Lose His Job | October 6, 2008, 10:31pm | #

Tulpa:
Not defending voting here -- I consider it futile -- just questioning whether it's immoral.

Ben1:
Voting says "I'm participating, I think I can make a difference"

Which is, according to all the evidence, not the case.

Not voting says "The system is a sham. I walk another way."

That's sort of true, and I generally don't vote (in fact 1992 was the only Presidential Election in which I ever voted). However, voting is SO futile that the statement made by either voting or not voting is a very very minute one, unless it's just a statement to yourself. So I wouldn't worry about statements made - just make them aloud, so people can actually hear them.

Like I said before, there are valid reasons to vote regardless of how worthless the actual act is. It's just that you better make sure that you are getting something out of it that is worth the (admittedly not too great) time cost, which WON'T be a change in the result of the election.

And as far as viewing voting as implied consent to be governed (for you other anarchists out there BOO-YA! a shout out to the kids from Emma Goldman - Murray Rothbard Elementary School's 3rd grade class - you will get extra credit for reading this thread) - voting only actually grants consent if you intend it to. If you're doing it for another reason, people might view it as implying satisfaction with the system of government, but they can do that regardless of whether or not you vote.

In conclusion, then, if you vote, just make sure they're paying you a decent wage for it, or it's a really funny joke, or your girlfriend is promising you some amazing sex.

kdr81 | October 7, 2008, 12:32pm | #

I'd vote if Nevada didn't require 3 forms of ID just to get my license which is necessary to register.

Having made 3 trips and spent an hour and a half in line to learn each time I visited that they needed yet another form of ID, along with license plates, smog tests, and state inspections…I don’t think I care enough to go through that annoyance again.

Big government wins. It creates laws and regulations to annoy the hell out of the populace so they won’t vote.

Paul | October 7, 2008, 7:06pm | #

Jeez, I thought this MTV Rocks the Vote type of stuff went out with grunge rock.