Why gold?
Why not diamonds?
“Will you take half this diamond for your laptop?”
“Why certainly!”
“brb gotta try and cut this damn thing in half.”
Not to mention that even if the diamonds were easily divisible, they would not retain their value. A single diamond of 1 karat is worth more than four diamonds of a quarter karat each (of the same quality).
Unlike gold, diamonds lack the characteristics that make emergent money stable and suitable as currency. As I’ve noted, such ‘money’: “(1) must be relatively imperishable (retain its value over long periods of time without decay), (2) must be easily divisible without losing value, (3) must be malleable and ductile, able to be shaped into more convenient and portable forms, (4) must remain stable in a wide range of temperatures and climates, (5) has never been worth nothing (has intrinsic value, or rather value as something other than an intermediary of exchange), (6) must be fungible (an ounce from one source would be equal and identical to an ounce from another source), (7) supply is finite without being so rare as to be difficult to use (relative scarcity), (8) new supply is relatively uncommon and difficult to acquire, (9) has a long-standing history of being used as currency, and above all else (10) free people have used it as a medium of exchange or intermediary of trade.”
(Moreover, the corporatism and state-sponsored corruption that surrounds the supply of diamonds further makes them a deficient choice.)
Bulletproof Whiteboards and the Marketing of School Safety | NPR
Because an individual 18-by-20-inch ‘shield’ is better protection than revised gun safety laws.
Because American ‘solutions’ must always involve commerce.
Because our national persona is a superhero.
Because guns won’t disappear.
Because bad guys will always exist.
Because criminals who are willing to murder don’t care very much about gun laws (and consequently only the peaceful and responsible will be disarmed).
Because being a helpless clod leads to dead innocents, and as silly as this idea may seem (to be sure, it is quite silly since it will do nothing to stop gunmen and very little to protect victims), it is certainly better than the false security of wishful thinking.
Because “commerce” (as opposed to government coercion) caters to what individuals want much more efficiently than otherwise.
Related: The Ignorance and Naïveté of “Gun Control.”
![First, the billboard you are referring to speaks nothing of “culture.”
It reads: “CELEBRATING HISPANIC VALUES AND THE MARINES WHO ACT ON THEM.”
“Values” and “culture” are not synonyms. A culture can abide by a set of values but the terms are not interchangeable.
Still, hispanic “culture” is as meaningless as hispanic “values.” As the post I linked to noted: “[S]ince Mexicans, Dominicans, Canary Islanders, Argentinians, and Cubans have about as much in common culturally as New Yorkers, Alabamians, Jamaicans, Texans, and Australians - resist the urge to group people, when unnecessary, by something as trivial as their native tongue.” There is no “hispanic culture” any more than there is some unified “anglo culture.”
And as for “hispanic values,” some take that to mean “family values” or putting importance on family. Which is, as I called it, trite. After all, what culture doesn’t place the family as the most important societal unit? Few people outside of fascists and communists wish to dissolve and abolish the “family.”
And even supposing that “hispanic values” mean all the clichéd platitudes we’d expect (that can ultimately apply to any group of people, and is therefore meaningless): family, trust, honor, commitment, etc. - they are not at all what Marines “act on.”
Marines only “act on” whatever the whims of politicians, and often their corporate cronies, wish for them to act on. The only true military value is unflinching obedience.
It would matter nothing if a marine or soldier or sailor acted selflessly or protected innocents or showed commitment to protecting his “brothers” or anything else if he did not follow orders. Absolute acquiescence is the value that trumps all others. And, more often than not, it is the very act of abiding by that fundamental military value of following orders that goes against all other noble values. After all, their ultimate purpose is to kill. Indeed: all bad deeds done by states since the beginning of time - from pillaging to bombing to “spreading democracy” - have been done by troops following orders.
And thus it would be outrageous to ascribe obedience and killing as values held by a group of people whose unifying characteristic is speaking the same language.](http://24.media.tumblr.com/2dc0cd9beda7380567a90bd0ce1875c2/tumblr_mmg400Q6Ak1qbwappo1_500.jpg "First, the billboard you are referring to speaks nothing of “culture.”
It reads: “CELEBRATING HISPANIC VALUES AND THE MARINES WHO ACT ON THEM.”
“Values” and “culture” are not synonyms. A culture can abide by a set of values but the terms are not interchangeable.
Still, hispanic “culture” is as meaningless as hispanic “values.” As the post I linked to noted: “[S]ince Mexicans, Dominicans, Canary Islanders, Argentinians, and Cubans have about as much in common culturally as New Yorkers, Alabamians, Jamaicans, Texans, and Australians - resist the urge to group people, when unnecessary, by something as trivial as their native tongue.” There is no “hispanic culture” any more than there is some unified “anglo culture.”
And as for “hispanic values,” some take that to mean “family values” or putting importance on family. Which is, as I called it, trite. After all, what culture doesn’t place the family as the most important societal unit? Few people outside of fascists and communists wish to dissolve and abolish the “family.”
And even supposing that “hispanic values” mean all the clichéd platitudes we’d expect (that can ultimately apply to any group of people, and is therefore meaningless): family, trust, honor, commitment, etc. - they are not at all what Marines “act on.”
Marines only “act on” whatever the whims of politicians, and often their corporate cronies, wish for them to act on. The only true military value is unflinching obedience.
It would matter nothing if a marine or soldier or sailor acted selflessly or protected innocents or showed commitment to protecting his “brothers” or anything else if he did not follow orders. Absolute acquiescence is the value that trumps all others. And, more often than not, it is the very act of abiding by that fundamental military value of following orders that goes against all other noble values. After all, their ultimate purpose is to kill. Indeed: all bad deeds done by states since the beginning of time - from pillaging to bombing to “spreading democracy” - have been done by troops following orders.
And thus it would be outrageous to ascribe obedience and killing as values held by a group of people whose unifying characteristic is speaking the same language.")
First, the billboard you are referring to speaks nothing of “culture.”
It reads: “CELEBRATING HISPANIC VALUES AND THE MARINES WHO ACT ON THEM.”
“Values” and “culture” are not synonyms. A culture can abide by a set of values but the terms are not interchangeable.
Still, hispanic “culture” is as meaningless as hispanic “values.” As the post I linked to noted: “[S]ince Mexicans, Dominicans, Canary Islanders, Argentinians, and Cubans have about as much in common culturally as New Yorkers, Alabamians, Jamaicans, Texans, and Australians - resist the urge to group people, when unnecessary, by something as trivial as their native tongue.” There is no “hispanic culture” any more than there is some unified “anglo culture.”
And as for “hispanic values,” some take that to mean “family values” or putting importance on family. Which is, as I called it, trite. After all, what culture doesn’t place the family as the most important societal unit? Few people outside of fascists and communists wish to dissolve and abolish the “family.”
And even supposing that “hispanic values” mean all the clichéd platitudes we’d expect (that can ultimately apply to any group of people, and is therefore meaningless): family, trust, honor, commitment, etc. - they are not at all what Marines “act on.”
Marines only “act on” whatever the whims of politicians, and often their corporate cronies, wish for them to act on. The only true military value is unflinching obedience.
It would matter nothing if a marine or soldier or sailor acted selflessly or protected innocents or showed commitment to protecting his “brothers” or anything else if he did not follow orders. Absolute acquiescence is the value that trumps all others. And, more often than not, it is the very act of abiding by that fundamental military value of following orders that goes against all other noble values. After all, their ultimate purpose is to kill. Indeed: all bad deeds done by states since the beginning of time - from pillaging to bombing to “spreading democracy” - have been done by troops following orders.
And thus it would be outrageous to ascribe obedience and killing as values held by a group of people whose unifying characteristic is speaking the same language.
Re: [Statelessness] is chaos
People do not agree on what laws are desirable and what laws are undesirable. An anarchic society would either result in new states taking power or endless combat (most probably both). Furthermore, decentralization is weakness. Good luck defending your small town against a much larger political entity. No, anarchism is simply not realistic.
It’s true that there is a difference of opinion on which laws governments pass are legitimate or warranted or desirable - but there is a minimum that essentially all people agree to be just. As I explained in my post on unjust laws, “the only just law is that which initiates aggression against none. In other words, one that echoes natural law; that is, one that protects and respects the life, liberty, and property of all equally. Any violation of a person’s self-ownership is illegitimate. So laws against theft, assault, battery, murder, slavery, rape, fraud, trespass, destruction of property, and the threats thereof are all legitimate because they would exist irrespective of a state. They are axiomatic consequences of human self-ownership.”
Furthermore, only states fight wars. It’s not the anarchy that would cause combat it would be the states, or rather foolish people believing it is legitimate to force other people to live and behave a certain way, defer authority to the majority’s (or the mighty’s) chosen rulers, and submit to their un-peaceful decrees all in the name of preventing some foreign entity from doing the exact same thing.
In truth, it is your position that is unrealistic: believing humanity is incapable of living peacefully and voluntarily yet granting some of those same ignoble members of humanity great power over others.
Perhaps a power vacuum would quickly be filled, and the toppling of one tyrannical state could leave an opening for another. The weak who believe in the supremacy of a state will blindly fight to maintain the status quo. And again, the problem here is states. But that is why the fight for voluntarism is first and foremost an intellectual one. The desire to be free from force and conflict and servitude (the hallmarks of all states) must first foment in the minds of individuals, before it can manifest itself into anything that lasts.
As the great Étienne de La Boétie beautifully noted nearly 500 years ago:
“Poor, wretched, and stupid peoples, nations determined on your own misfortune and blind to your own good! You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives. All this havoc, this misfortune, this ruin, descends upon you not from alien foes, but from the one enemy whom you yourselves render as powerful as he is, for whom you go bravely to war, for whose greatness you do not refuse to offer your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you? What could he do to you if you yourselves did not connive with the thief who plunders you, if you were not accomplices of the murderer who kills you, if you were not traitors to yourselves? You sow your crops in order that he may ravage them, you install and furnish your homes to give him goods to pillage; you rear your daughters that he may gratify his lust; you bring up your children in order that he may confer upon them the greatest privilege he knows — to be led into his battles, to be delivered to butchery, to be made the servants of his greed and the instruments of his vengeance; you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his filthy pleasures; you weaken yourselves in order to make him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in check. From all these indignities, such as the very beasts of the field would not endure, you can deliver yourselves if you try, not by taking action, but merely by willing to be free. Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”
Actions
don’t reveal preferences, they reveal expectations.
No they reveal preferences ex ante. Whether said preferences actually end up meeting those expectations is an ex post consideration.
But how do you determine if the preferences were based on the actual result or a different expected result? People don’t prefer making one decision to making another decision, they prefer the expected payoff of a particular decision.
For example, back before the FDA or any kind of medical regulation, there were “doctors” who went from town selling snake oil - a remedy that they alleged cured all sorts of ailments. People bought it with the expectation that it would cure those ailments. More often than not, the snake oil did absolutely nothing. If you’re seriously suggesting that people’s purchase of snake oil demonstrated that they preferred snake oil itself to whatever else that money could have gone to buying (food, for instance) - rather than the expected benefit they believed that they could derive from the snake oil - you’re just ignoring truth in order to make reality fit your preconceived theory.
herp derp but when Austrian economists speak of action they are referring to action and preference at a specific moment in time. So when people were buying snake oil they were indeed revealing a preference over food at that given moment in time.
But it wasn’t for snake oil. That’s the point. It was for the expected value they believed the snake oil was going to give them. The problem with the Austrian view is that it leaves no room for disappointment.
Again, as has been repeatedly noted: there is a distinction between ex ante and ex post. Every action reveals preferences ex ante, meaning at that moment of action based on expected results. The future is inherently uncertain. This is a fundamental principle of economics, which - since you claim to be an economics instructor yourself - is something I imagine you understand.
As Ludwig von Mises notes in his opus, Human Action:
The uncertainty of the future is already implied in the very notion of action. That man acts and that the future is uncertain are by no means two independent matters. They are only two different modes of establishing one thing. … [T]o acting man the future is hidden. If man knew the future, he would not have to choose and would not act. He would be like an automaton, reacting to stimuli without any will of his own.
So, man acts because the future is uncertain and wishes to lessen some perceived unease or to attain a greater level of happiness or contentment. As such, every action reveals a chosen means to a specific end but the action cannot guarantee that end: ‘If I buy this water, my thirst will be quenched’, ‘If I wink at this girl, she’ll come home with me,’ ‘If I vote to outlaw guns, there will be no crime,’ ‘If I buy this alarm system, my home will be safer,’ ‘If I invest in this company, I will become rich,’ ‘If I go to the gym, I will lose weight,’ ‘If use this lotion, I will grow 6 inches,” etc.
Mises, ibid. (emphasis added):
Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego’s meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person’s conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. …
Action is an attempt to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory one. We call such a willfully induced alteration an exchange. A less desirable condition is bartered for a more desirable. What gratifies less is abandoned in order to attain something that pleases more. …
Action is purposive conduct. It is not simply behavior, but behavior begot by judgments of value, aiming at a definite end and guided by ideas concerning the suitability or unsuitability of definite means. …
Action is always directed toward the future; it is essentially and necessarily always a planning and acting for a better future. Its aim is always to render future conditions more satisfactory than they would be without the interference of action. The uneasiness that impels a man to act is caused by a dissatisfaction with expected future conditions as they would probably develop if nothing were done to alter them.
So action is hopefully clear, but Austrians do not take for granted the results. To the contrary, that distinction is discussed thoroughly. The nature of humanity itself, beyond an uncertain future, is imperfect human actors and the ubiquity of imperfect knowledge and imperfect calculation (see my post on The Calculation Problem and Price Theory). Austrians discuss this imperfection ad nauseam, and indeed it is why they note that a decentralization of decision-making would yield optimal results.
Mises:
It happens again and again that an action does not attain the end sought. Sometimes the result, although inferior to the end aimed at, is still an improvement when compared with the previous state of affairs; then there is still a profit, although a smaller one than that expected. But it can happen that the action produces a state of affairs less desirable than the previous state it was intended to alter. Then the difference between the valuation of the result and the costs incurred is called loss.
Israel Kirzner:
The Austrian approach does not make the perfect-knowledge assumption the foundation for [the market-clearing price] proposition; quite the contrary, Austrians base the proposition squarely on the insight that its validity proceeds from market processes set in motion by the inevitable imperfections in knowledge, which characterize human interaction in society.
Murray Rothbard not only fleshes out this distinction between ex ante and ex post, but he compares the market in this sense to democracy/government (and dedicated a fair chunk of Power & Market to this discussion):
Error can always occur in the path from ante to post, but the free market is so constructed that this error is reduced to a minimum. In the first place, there is a fast-working, easily understandable test that tells the entrepreneur, as well as the income-receiver, whether he is succeeding or failing at the task of satisfying the desires of the consumer. For the entrepreneur, who carries the main burden of adjustment to uncertain consumer desires, the test is swift and sure—profits or losses. Large profits are a signal that he has been on the right track; losses, that he has been on a wrong one. Profits and losses thus spur rapid adjustments to consumer demands; at the same time, they perform the function of getting money out of the hands of the bad entrepreneurs and into the hands of the good ones. The fact that good entrepreneurs prosper and add to their capital, and poor ones are driven out, insures an ever smoother market adjustment to changes in conditions.
Consumers are not omniscient, but they do have direct tests by which to acquire their knowledge. They buy a certain brand of breakfast food and they don’t like it; so they don’t buy it again. They buy a certain type of automobile and they do like its performance; so they buy another one. In both cases, they tell their friends of this newly won knowledge. Other consumers patronize consumers’ research organizations, which can warn or advise them in advance. But, in all cases, the consumers have the direct test of results to guide them. And the firm that satisfies the consumers expands and prospers, while the firm that fails to satisfy them goes out of business.
On the other hand, voting for politicians and public policies is a completely different matter. Here there are no direct tests of success or failure whatever, neither profits and losses nor enjoyable or unsatisfying consumption. In order to grasp consequences, especially the indirect consequences of governmental decisions, it is necessary to comprehend a complex chain of praxeological reasoning… Very few voters have the ability or the interest to follow such reasoning, particularly, as Schumpeter points out, in political situations. For in political situations, the minute influence that any one person has on the results, as well as the seeming remoteness of the actions, induces people to lose interest in political problems or argumentation. Lacking the direct test of success or failure, the voter tends to turn, not to those politicians whose measures have the best chance of success, but to those with the ability to “sell” their propaganda. Without grasping logical chains of deduction, the average voter will never be able to discover the error that the ruler makes. Thus, suppose that the government inflates the money supply, thereby causing an inevitable rise in prices. The government can blame the price rise on wicked speculators or alien black marketeers, and, unless the public knows economics, it will not be able to see the fallacies in the ruler’s arguments. …
Another critical divergence between market action and democratic voting is this: the voter has, for example, only a 1/50 millionth power to choose among his would-be rulers, who in turn will make vital decisions affecting him, unchecked and unhampered until the next election. In the market, on the other hand, the individual has the absolute sovereign power to make the decisions concerning his person and property, not merely a distant, 1/50 millionth power. On the market the individual is continually demonstrating his choice of buying or not buying, selling or not selling, in the course of making absolute decisions regarding his property. The voter, by voting for some particular candidate, is demonstrating only a relative preference over one or two other potential rulers; he must do this within the framework of the coercive rule that, whether or not he votes at all, one of these men will rule over him for the next several years. …
Indeed, failure itself is an important aspect of the market process:
While success is the engine that accelerates us toward our goals, it is failure that steers us toward the most valuable goals possible. Once failure is recognized as being just as important as success in the market process, it should be clear that the goal of a society should be to create an environment that not only allows people to succeed freely but to fail freely as well.
To suggest that “the Austrian view… leaves no room for disappointment” reveals a gross misunderstanding (or, more likely, straw-manning) of the “Austrian view.”
I seldom engage in facebook debates since few are so blind as those who refuse to see, but every once in a while I suppose I waste my time…
“being a little prick and an asshole”? By… talking? By demanding accountability? By exposing tyrannical policies that put innocents at risk?
Seems the filibuster did what it was intended to do: slow down the process, raise public awareness, and push said public to agitate against encroachments of liberty. As the old simile goes, legislation is poured into the senatorial saucer to cool it.
It is about as noble an act as can be undertaken in that ignoble cesspool that is the District of Criminals (which, I grant, is not saying much). Of the many actual pricks and assholes to choose from, including the one claiming the authority to assassinate you in your home with his flying robot of death without due process, you have a problem with Paul because of his filibuster?
And you’re asking for “transparency”? Is your bar for this president so low that you only ask that he be honest about how he violates rights? If Bush had said “We’re invading Iraq for oil,” would you have given him a pass for being “transparent”? And let’s consider what transparency is supposed to do: cultivate a more-informed populace. Well guess what the biggest outcome of Paul’s marathon filibuster is? A more-informed populace. There is no doubt that far more people today know about the outrageousness of Obama’s drone program than they did yesterday.
“But there are better, and more efficient ways to do it then (sic) talk, and talk, and talk.” Certainly. And while I wait for you to name them, including those in which you have participated in, I’d offer that the filibuster did nothing to counter attempts at transparency. I understand that the leftist hive-mind has programmed you to automatically loathe the filibuster prima facie, but you’re still free to think for yourself and employ logic to reach informed conclusions. In this case, what harm has the filibuster caused to persuade you to have reached the conclusion you have (other than the aforementioned hive-mind, that is)? There are, of course, countless reasons to loathe the state itself, but the filibuster is but a tiny speck of dust in the grease of the infernal gears of government, lending it but a small bit of hesitation in turning.
In fact, if all senators ever did was filibuster, the world would be a happier, healthier, safer, and better place. It is, by far, the most productive thing a senator can do short of resigning.
…
Doesn’t this also show why you don’t need a high cap mags? Just sayin’ if you can reload small mags fast enough why spend the money on the big ones?
The point of the demonstration was to show that limiting the capacity of magazines does not really accomplish the purported aim of slowing down people who wish to do harm (not to mention the fact that someone who is perfectly willing to kill people will no doubt have no problem using an “illegal” magazine in the first place).
If you had bothered to click the link above (after “related”), you’d see that in the real world, potential victims are unlikely to have a supply of spare magazines readily available like a potential attacker would. As such, non-restricted-capacity magazines are more suited as a defensive tool, particularly since would-be victims are caught by surprise, tend to be outnumbered, and have more considerations (protecting family, for instance) than simply reloading.
(Source: youtube.com)
This cartoon failed to note that the captions were written by a potential home intruder, who is increasingly safer the more difficult it is for his victims to protect themselves.
This is incorrect. Civilian rifles are not chambered in 5.56 NATO, they are chambered in .223. They can fit 5.56 NATO rounds but depending on the make that could damage the gun. And btw 5.56 NATO chambered rifles and rounds are strictly for use by the US military, not US civilians.
Nope.
I don’t understand how someone can express an opinion with such conviction when, with a simple browse of the internet, it is so easily verified as untrue.
- Civilian centerfire rifles can be chambered in many different calibers, and 5.56 is in fact one of the more common (probably along with .223, .308, 7.62, and .30-06).
- 5.56 barrels can shoot .223 without issue, but the same cannot be said for the reverse (regardless of the make), much like .357 and .38. A rifle that is rated for .223 only tends to have difficulty processing the different rifling angle of the cartridge and has a barrel that simply cannot handle the higher pressure of a 5.56 round.
- 5.56 NATO ammunition is absolutely available for civilian use. It is, after all, one of the smallest centerfire rifle rounds in existence.
Points 1 & 2 refuted nothing I said.
As a matter of fact, they did. And for your convenience, I listed them in order of your false contentions. #1 refuted your claim that “Civilian rifles are not chambered in 5.56 NATO, they are chambered in .223.” #2 refuted your claim that only some .223 rifles would be damaged by 5.56 (all would, otherwise they’d be 5.56).
Point 3 is misleading at the best.
No, it’s pretty straight-forward. You said “5.56 NATO chambered rifles and rounds are strictly for use by the US military, not US civilians.” That is demonstrably false.
There is a 5.56 NATO round available for civilian use but it is not the same as the military version.
Incorrect. 5.56x45 is 5.56x45. There are different loads, but it is the same bullet in the cartridge.
Military ammo must be FMJ so it has a greater ability to penetrate and cause damage.
FMJ does have greater penetration, but this does not necessarily equate, eo ipso, to greater damage. Also, 5.56 in stores is commonly available in FMJ, so it is a meaningless distinction. In fact, I’d probably guess that FMJ (ball) is more common than ballistic tip (hollow).
The size of the round is irrelevant in this conversation because even the non FMJ 5.56 rounds can do some serious damage to a human.
By pointing out that it is one of the smallest rifle rounds available, I am highlighting the outrageousness of your fallacious claim that the 5.56 is only available for military use.
And yes, it can do “some serious damage to a human.” So can a .22 lr in the right hands. But this “conversation” wasn’t about that, was it? Are you changing the goalposts of this debate now that your original counters have been shown to be incorrect?
The fact remains the AR-15 was made to do one thing, fire as many rounds possible into a target while remaining a single shot weapon.
That’s a pretty meaningless statement. Firstly, a “single shot” weapon is actually a firearm that can only hold one round at a time and requires a reload after every shot. I assume you mean fire one round at a time. But with that, you’ve literally defined every single firearm in existence that is not fully automatic (which is illegal for civilian use).
It is not an ideal hunting weapon nor an ideal personal defense weapon.
Untrue, since that depends completely on the situation. I would definitely use an AR-style rifle (aka a so-called “assault weapon,” which encompasses AR’s, AK’s, PDW’s/AR-pistols, etc.) to defend a large property. Home defense of an apartment with thin walls would probably demand the use of a shotgun with birdshot or buckshot to prevent over-penetration (though, incidentally, high-velocity .223 ball ammo out of an AR may actually be a good option for someone concerned with over-penetration). For quick access in home defense, a large-caliber handgun can be procured pretty quickly and can have good stopping power. For every day carry, obviously a lighter handgun would be best. For hunting very small game, like squirrels, a decent rimfire .22 does the trick. A shotgun is, of course, best for waterfowl, but for hunting larger game, a .270 or .308 rifle with a 24” barrel would probably be better.
But the fact remains that the AR-style rifle is not only serviceable in most defense and hunting scenarios, but in many circumstances it can excel - particularly in defense against multiple attackers.
It is only popular because it looks cool and it’s highly customizable.
It’s popular because it can be chambered in various different rounds, customized for both defensive and hunting purposes, is light, can be operated and handled by various body types, is accurate, is versatile (as noted above), and the small .223 round is relatively affordable.
But you’re right that its looks are a key distinguishing characteristic, mostly by those who wish to ban it. Statists agitate against it precisely because it looks scary, even though it is not much different, functionally, from other rifles (as the original image you responded to noted).
And I would like to see you go bear hunting with a .223, lemme know how that goes.
.223 is known as a varmint round, meaning it’s used for hunting smaller game. A bear is not a varmint. But an AR-style rifle chambered in .308 or 7.62 could take down a bear, if a more appropriate firearm were not available.
(via nolife-likelowlife)
The part that makes the difference is made of flesh and blood, not plastic and metal.
-
*(Note: I do not mean “superficial” as “cosmetic” - though in many cases, gun control advocates simply agitate against firearms that are scarier-looking, because their appearance resembles military weapons - I mean “superficial” in that those differences ultimately have no affect on the mechanical operation of the gun: they both fire the same projectile at the same speed and the same rate of fire.)
This is incorrect. Civilian rifles are not chambered in 5.56 NATO, they are chambered in .223. They can fit 5.56 NATO rounds but depending on the make that could damage the gun. And btw 5.56 NATO chambered rifles and rounds are strictly for use by the US military, not US civilians.
Nope.
I don’t understand how someone can express an opinion with such conviction when, with a simple browse of the internet, it is so easily verified as untrue.
- Civilian centerfire rifles can be chambered in many different calibers, and 5.56 is in fact one of the more common (probably along with .223, .308, 7.62, and .30-06).
- 5.56 barrels can shoot .223 without issue, but the same cannot be said for the reverse (regardless of the make), much like .357 and .38. A rifle that is rated for .223 only tends to have difficulty processing the different rifling angle of the cartridge and has a barrel that simply cannot handle the higher pressure of a 5.56 round.
- 5.56 NATO ammunition is absolutely available for civilian use. It is, after all, one of the smallest centerfire rifle rounds in existence.
(via nolife-likelowlife)
IM TIRED OF THESE. Seriously TAKE it DOWN right now. So disrespectful. Can we not just have a HAPPY day without these fucking FACISTS trying to tear down our President??
Let’s put aside the irony of demanding the silencing of an opponent’s opinion while decrying the opponent as fascist. Did this put a damper on your joy today? Imagine the sucky days these people have had:
Too bad they’re all unreachable now. Otherwise, I’d relay your request that their grievances be saved for another day in order to preserve your happiness.
And since you proudly claim veganism as “a murder free lifestyle,” does your stance here mean that you value the life of a cow more than the life of a Pakistani child?
(Source: laliberty)
It’s about music, not the Music Industry
Here is my comment in its entirety: “Torrents are the new radio. People who torrent tend to spend *more* on music. The industry is changing: there will always be music but the musicians themselves will have greater control.”
Clearly, I did not claim that torrents “improved” the industry. I said that people who torrent tend to spend more on music than those who do not. This massive study revealed, as Gizmodo summarized, “that on average file-sharers buy 30 percent more music than their non-sharing counterparts. That suggests that the record labels’ self-declared enemies are in fact their best customers.”
In any case, the health of an “industry” is immaterial - particularly the way you seem to define the industry’s health. It’s about music, artists, and the consumers who appreciate them - not corporate label hegemony. Labels served a crucial role for many years: they provided the upfront capital for recording, distribution, and marketing, that allowed artists who were either unable or unwilling to do so themselves to still pursue the career of their choice. The internet has allowed artists to break free of that paradigm and reach their listeners directly, circumventing the “middle-men” if they wish. While media sharing may be a curse to labels accustomed to an antiquated business model, it has been a net blessing to the musicians, music, and consumers.
Furthermore, as the modern advent of sampling can attest, the free cross-pollination of music leads the evolution of styles and tastes. In fact, had current intellectual property laws been in effect during Shakespeare’s time, he’d no doubt have been buried under a mountain of legal fees for having peppered his work with derivations of works that have come before.
You equated someone downloading music to stealing, adding: “I don’t fucking come to your house and take food out of your fucking pantry. I don’t walk into your office and jack your petty cash envelope.” Except what is being taken, in the case of downloads and as opposed to the food in your kitchen, still exists in your possession. The FBI warning before many DVDs states “You wouldn’t download a car.” Well, I’d certainly consider it… if downloading that car worked the same way as downloading a song or movie in that no actual car would be physically taken from someone who then loses use and control of it. Downloading is not zero-sum, and that which is being downloaded is not scarce. Here’s a short summation of both the moral and utilitarian shortcomings of intellectual property.
Still, it’s an admittedly difficult topic. Even libertarians and anarcho-capitalists are torn. I think the case against patents, for example, is much stronger than that against copyrights for creative works. And in a theoretical anarcho-capitalist society, some an-caps see courts emerging to offer some protections for original content creators. But in no case should downloaders simply be equated to thieves.
I worked in radio and at record labels for a number of years myself, from 1998-2004. I also helped write and produce a handful of songs during that time (short of your 22 million records, to be sure). Since 2004, I have worked in television/film. I know full well about business models drastically being altered by the internet’s dissemination of media, seeing as I’ve been in the business of producing creative content for almost 15 years. Ranting against this change is simply swinging swords at windmills. Standing athwart the free exchange of information and media is a losing battle based, perhaps, on faulty concepts of property - and using the state to further these ends only further propagates violence in society.
Makers And Takers
David Frum makes an important point that often gets lost in the rhetoric of who “contributes” to society and who doesn’t:
America is not a society divided between “makers” and “takers.” Instead, almost all of us proceed through a life cycle where we sometimes make and sometimes take as we pass from schooling to employment to retirement.
…
Receiving is not the same as taking.
You’re falling for that politicalprof trap (here, here, and here) of disregarding the primacy of consent. Though I suppose you must accept the initiation of aggression if you are to believe that the state is a legitimate agent of the people’s goodwill.
Los Angeles City Council endorses 'Meatless Mondays' →
Feeling oppressed by a government that democratically suggests individual action with no enforcement attempt at all is late-stage anarcho-capitalism.
Like, what could be better than a government which did nothing but suggest?
Are you so threatened by the idea of people eating less meat you’re mad about a suggestion?
I thought it was neat.
I’ve read your work. You’re an exceptionally smart individual. I think you should know better than to come to this conclusion.
Of course a government that does nothing but suggest would be a phenomenal improvement. But no government, and this city government in particular, does. So we must understand them within the context of reality.
As I already noted: (1) when an entity with the exclusive monopoly on force makes a suggestion, it carries more weight than any average person’s suggestion - and does not often stay a suggestion for long (already, promotional materials have been paid for through forcefully-extracted taxes - and since there’s a history of such suggestions becoming moreso, there is solid reason to be concerned). (2) Eliminating meat does not eo ipso improve the quality of a meal.
There is no expression of oppression at a mere suggestion, but a contention of indigestion at an entity known for intervention for making such a suggestion, especially when the beneficial intention is in question. (Come on, that was cool…)
(Source: laliberty, via intheoryandinpraxis)
Election 2012: Think Outside The [Ballot] Box
Here we are, on the morn of Election 2012<TM>. The media will have us believe that there are only two options. And while it’s true that there are only two likely outcomes, your choices are far greater.
But first, let’s briefly analyze the two major party candidates.
The Big Two: Obamney
Obama and Romney, for all their agitations and finger-pointing, are truly two sides of the same coin. Butler Shaffer calls them fungible.
The disconnect between their rhetoric and reality is astounding, both in highlighting their differences and obscuring their true positions.
Peter Suderman flatly noted that both candidates are “full of it.” Romney, or rather Robo-Romney, is a serial flip-flopper. Though in many ways, Obama out flip-flips Romney.
But duplicitousness is nothing new - from Bush Sr’s “no new taxes” to Bush Jr’s “humble foreign policy” to Obama’s, well, pretty much everything. Broken promises are standard operating procedure for presidents. You may be psychologically likely to believe political lies, but do try to shake yourself free of this shortcoming.
When not distracted by deflections of opposition, their positions are strikingly similar.
As I noted back in June, Romney is a central-banking Keynesian corporatist who supports The Fed and (some, though admittedly not all) bailouts. Romney believes that economic stimulus can be engineered by government spending. His presumed cabinet and advisors will, like the current administration, be filled with Wall Street lobbyists (both have been heavily supported by the likes of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan). Romney does not understand that price inflation is merely, and always, a by-product of monetary inflation (expansion of the money base). He is supportive of automatic increases to the minimum wage. He agitates about foreign countries “stealing jobs” and threatens free trade by continuing or erecting protectionist policies. He is willing to wage war, even humanitarian and so-called “preventive” war, and will leave “all options on the table.” Indeed, he plans to increase military spending and his budgets will continue the current trend of outrageous expansion. He is a drug-warrior supportive of prohibition and passing legislation against peaceful people for their “own good.” He opposes online gambling. He presided over one of the first “cap and trade” legislations in the country. He supports the Patriot Act and the NDAA. He’d continue, and perhaps even intensify (if that’s even possible), the current administration’s harsh immigration and deportation policy. Like Obama, Romney supports REAL ID. He supports “enhanced interrogation techniques” and will continue “extraordinary rendition.” He wants to increase Guantanamo’s capacity and keep prisoners from legal counsel. Romney may be willing to make tiny tax cuts, but he does not question the legitimacy of the income tax (In fact, he’s a progressive redistributionist: Contrary to popular rhetoric, Romney (1) doesn’t want to reduce net revenues to the federal government because he (2) doesn’t want to cut government, and he particularly wants to (3) fund medicare now more than Obama and even (4) make benefits progressive so the poor receive more than the wealthy (even increasing lower-income benefits)… but he might (5) lower taxes a little bit on the middle class and pay for it by (6) making the rich pay more because, as he says, he wants to “maintain the current progressivity” in the tax code. Indeed: Romney understands how the big government he loves must be paid for, which is why he is against “austerity measures.”). And, of course, we all know that Obamacare was modeled after Romneycare. He wants to increase subsidies to “power generation, fuel cells, nanotechnology, and materials science” industries.
Any of that sound familiar? It should, as it’s essentially Obama’s record.
They could be running on the same ticket.
Romney is highly protectionist, and Obama is no different. Neither seem to understand international trade.
Both support a foreign policy of arrogant meddling. Neither are interested in defense cuts. Romney is a big fan of Obama’s drone warfare. Obama and Romney are both conceited enough to think a U.S. president can and should orchestrate events in the Muslim world. Their imperial grand strategies are overwhelmingly indistinguishable. Former CIA anti-terrorism expert Michael Scheuer offers: “vote for whoever you want [between Romney and Obama], but vote with the certainty that all Americans are joining you in voting for a president whose interventionism will bring all of us more war.”
But above all, it is Obama and Romney’s mutual support for indefinite detention and assassination of american citizens without due process that make them truly unfit for office. Grounds for immediate repudiation.
With the two-party status quo, whether the red team or the blue team wins often won’t make much difference anyway. Obama has killed children. Bush killed children. Clinton killed children. The death of innocents is all but guaranteed. Republicans and Democrats have both supported the expansion of the welfare state, the warfare state, the surveillance state, the corporatist state, etc. Fiscally, observe the steady increase in per capita expenditures and see if you can spot party differences.
But there are some areas of disagreement between the two candidates, to be sure. Abortion in particular is a big wedge issue for many (or, rather, what the debate is mostly about: when life begins). And although Romney once shared Obama’s position, they are now ostensibly opposed. And naturally, those who are pro-life or pro-choice will be disgusted with the other option. Often, they feel this issue is most important - above all others - and that if it takes voting for a lesser evil to stop such a greater evil, so be it. But both sides should keep in mind that if the über-neoconservative George W. Bush with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress wasn’t able to overturn Roe v Wade, once-pro-choice Romney won’t do it with a likely split Congress. Not to mention that five of the six conservative justices at the time voted in favor of Roe v Wade. Concerns on this issue seem unfounded.
On possible outcomes
The worst of all possible outcomes - which is, in my opinion, the most likely outcome - is an Obama re-election. However such an outcome is analyzed or parsed, it will stand as an affirmation and approval for all the atrocities Obama has already committed. Romney may be worse, of course, in many of the ways I’ve already mentioned - particularly with the pro-war republicans goading him on. But Obama is at least a confirmed killer of innocents. Wherever anyone draws the line, we should all be on the same side of killing children.
But not far behind this outcome is Romney as president, and not simply because he vows to escalate Obama’s foreign policy foolishness (which were themselves a continuation of George W. Bush’s). The false narrative has been promulgated by the left that Romney/Ryan champion “free market” principles and would “slash” spending. Of course, they don’t. They’re central-banking Keynesian corporatists whose so-called ‘draconian’ budget plan “doesn’t actually slash the budget.”
As Danny Sanchez explained, one may be less disastrous in the short run but would be moreso in the long run in the very same area:
“Romney’s big-government economic policies would sow the seeds of further crises and depression. Yet this failure would be blamed on his ostensibly “free market” orientation, thereby giving capitalism a bad rap. This has happened before. The reputation of, and prospects for, capitalism are still reeling from the presidency of George W. Bush.
Similarly, Obama’s continued foreign meddling would sow the seeds of further conflict and global instability. Yet this failure would be blamed on his ostensibly “soft” foreign policy, thereby giving peace a bad name. We have already seen this as well. The current wave of unrest in the Arab world is due largely to Obama’s recent meddling in Libya, Egypt, and elsewhere. It is the U.S.-sponsored Arab Spring recoiling, as springs inevitably do. Yet, this Arab Recoil is being blamed by many on America’s failure to “lead” (i.e., meddle even more) under Obama.”
This is an argument I made with another blogger over the summer, when he claimed that Romney ‘would buy the liberty movement some time’: “How much of the minuscule and short-lived gains to liberty that might be gained by a Romney presidency be offset by all the effects of his other liberty-crushing policies being blamed on the ideals of “small government”? That would not be buying the liberty movement time, it would be setting it back.”
The least bad outcome of all possible candidates, by far, is Gary Johnson. He represents greater fiscal sanity, a moderate taming of the police state, a significant retreat in the drug war, and relative peace. He is a significant departure from the status quo. But I cannot quite endorse him outright. For starters, while his foreign policy is a stark improvement over Obama and Romney, he still maintains that the United States should play an interventionist role in the world. He may want to audit the Fed but he doesn’t think ending the fed would do any good. He has shown a lack of fundamental economic principles (though certainly not to the extent of the other candidates). His support for a fair tax falls well short of Ron Paul’s pledge to end all federal taxation. And even Romney sounded more libertarian on disaster relief. In discussing prohibition, he further demonstrated some intellectual disconnects, as I noted at the time: “This is what’s wrong with Gary Johnson. He skirts right up against a true libertarian stance, but then his lack of philosophical fundamentals keeps him from coming to the proper, educated conclusions.”
Still, I can understand that some may not want to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Since it is all but assured that he wouldn’t win regardless, Johnson would make a very strong protest vote. Indeed, if one is compelled to vote, it is certainly the most effective form of registering dissent (short of not voting, of course). Furthermore, a successful Johnson disruption to the outcome could have strategic considerations to the consequential machinations that would ensue. Not only could it mean greater support the next time around, but, most importantly, it could mean greater exposure to libertarian ideas.
On Voting
Republicans argue that a vote for a third party (or no vote at all) is essentially a vote for Obama. Democrats argue that a vote for a third party (or no vote at all) is effectively a vote for Romney. But how can both be true?
The statists argue that sometimes a vote for a lesser evil is necessary to stave off a greater evil. But the current government is the direct result of many generations supporting lesser evils. If you endorse or vote for “lesser evils,” don’t be surprised when evil claims your consent.
Voting is often referred to as a duty, but in truth it is nothing more than a state ritual - complete with all the faux pomp and regality required to render it a “serious” event. But the only serious treatment of an election is contempt, ridicule, and subversion.
This is what Albert Jay Nock was referring to back in 1958:
[A man] can take our national politics as supplying him with a recurrent sporting event, a sort of extravaganza, in which the actors appear to him as more or less clever mountebanks, and his own relation to it is that of a spectator who is only mildly stirred. He may walk out on it, and usually does so whenever anything more attractive comes along; that is to say, as a rule, when he is not wholly idle. He may use it as an occasion for the display of resentment; indeed, the returns seem generally to show that this is the most nearly serious use he ever makes of it. To expect more than this of him seems to me unreasonable
Therefore, not only is there no shame in refusing to vote, but it can be argued that it is the most moral option. After all, it is the only option in which you are not forcing others to conform to your ideals. People who voted for George W. Bush believed they were getting a “compassionate conservative” who believed in a “humble foreign policy.” Instead, the world was saddled with eight years of one of the worst presidents in history, who expanded the every aspect of the state, at great cost to individual liberty. More wars, more deaths, more laws against peaceful behavior, more corporatist favors, much more government in general. And the voters are responsible.
On the tumblr election blog, Ernie of shortformblog offered the following: “Votes don’t work like line-item vetoes, so you’re allowed to vote for someone even if you disagree with [some policies]. It does not make you a terrible person that you vote for someone based on 51 percent of what they represent.”
Such an opinion simply serves to absolve voters of any responsibility for the consequences of their actions. Because a vote for a candidate is not the expressing of an opinion on a single issue, all the candidate’s positions must be considered. Voters may - and of course will - disagree on some issues, but by voting for a candidate they are accepting and permitting that which they disagree with in the mere hopes that the candidate will follow through with that they do agree with.
Because a vote for Obama is not “a line-item veto,” it therefore validates his signing of the NDAA, his unitary power to assassinate American citizens, his penchant for murdering innocents - including children - with drones, his record of deportations, his escalation of the war on drugs, his favors for banks and certain corporate interests, his broken promise of a more transparent and accountable government, and so on.
And a vote for Romney works the same way: a voter cannot support only the parts he agrees with anymore than he can drink the water out of the wine bottle and leave behind the alcohol. A voter is either all-in or all-out - and thus is culpable for all inevitable attacks on liberty perpetuated by his candidate.
As I noted early last year, voters are enablers:
“The state is only as powerful as the people who make it so. Ergo, it’s the statists who enable and use the state as a tool to harass and aggress against me. I hold them accountable for the state’s actions because their votes, their support, their acquiescence, their fears, their beliefs make it so. Their actions have directly lead to erosions of my family’s liberty, wealth taken from my daughters’ futures, and compromised the safety and wellbeing of us all. How can I not look at the statists as aggressors?
If you agree that there are two types of evil people - those who commit it and those who permit it - then how are the enabling statists [which include voters] not at least one of the two?”
If voters are comfortable with that, then we’re at an impasse (at the very least) - but the important first step is to acknowledge that voting for tyrants makes them willing accomplices to countless atrocities, even murder.
I appreciate the urgency to want to do something, to not feel powerless. After all, there will be an outcome whether you vote or not. But your choosing not to vote - to not participate in an illegitimate popularity contest choosing new masters (and new rules) for you and your neighbors - is doing something. Besides - and this is absolutely true - it will be the same outcome whether you vote or not. And that knowledge itself is empowering.
“In all of American history, a single vote has never determined the outcome of a presidential election. [T]he chance of a randomly selected vote determining the outcome of a presidential election is about one in 60 million. In a couple of key states, the chance that a random vote will be decisive creeps closer to one in 10 million, which drags voters into the dubious company of people gunning for the Mega-Lotto jackpot.”
This is a matter of simple mathematics: the greater the number of participants, the less important any single vote is. This, ultimately, renders your vote meaningless.
“Voting is a highly marginal activity because (a) the voter obtains no direct benefits from his act of voting, and (b) his aliquot power over the final decision is so small that his abstention from voting would make no appreciable difference to the final outcome. In short, in contrast to all other choices a man may make, in political voting he has practically no power over the outcome, and the outcome would make little direct difference to him anyway. It is no wonder that well over half the eligible American voters persistently refuse to take part in the annual November balloting.”
“No matter who wins, the government gets elected. The millions of government employees will wake up on Nov. 7 and trudge off to their assigned work areas. They will march to the beat of their bureaucratic drummer — just like any other day. They will do all they can to spend their budgets, keep their jobs, and convince elected officials they are important. They never go away. The elected politicians and their political appointees are transitory decorations; the real structures of the nation-state are permanent and constitute the core of what is called “the state.”
The idea that you can change all this by spending a few quality minutes making your enlightened choices in a voting booth is complete fantasy. There comes a time in a person’s life when they should face the facts and stop believing in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and change through politics.”
But we can take this reasoning a step further. Not only is voting a mostly futile endeavor, but it often represents the “hiring” of a third party (the government) to initiate aggression on a neighbor in order to coerce him to comply with your wishes.
An election, then, “is one method of legitimating the use of violence of one human being against another.”
And there’s no ned to feel alone: many people already recognize the futility of the entire charade. About 40-50% of all eligible voters skip elections, and have for the last half-decade.
And so the next refrain is often, “What do you expect to change or achieve with your protest vote or your non-vote?” Well, it is just as crucial to the outcome as your vote - which is to say not at all. Except I can live with myself afterward, having not registered support for evil, even if it may be lesser than another evil. I can sleep soundly knowing that I did not give my blessing for any aggression against peaceful people. And in the event of a non-vote, I will find great comfort in having withdrawn my consent from the entire illegitimate enterprise.
A Better System
There’s a man I care deeply about who is a lifelong-democrat and a staunch Obama supporter. He often cites the stupidity and selfishness of the masses as the raison d’être for government’s existence. To paraphrase, he believes “most people” are uninformed, selfish, stupid, gullible, reactionary jerks (and often racists, too). But if this were the case, why would he champion turning over decisions to those very same “most people”?
The answer is the same the slave-owners gave not that long ago, “it’s not perfect, but it’s the best system we’ve got.”
But in fact, it’s not the best system. There already exists a system that is diametrically opposed to force and is defined by consensual, mutually beneficial exchanges: the free market.
“Thus, we see that the free market contains a smooth, efficient mechanism for bringing anticipated, ex ante utility into the realization of ex post. The free market always maximizes ex ante social utility as well. In political action, on the contrary, there is no such mechanism; indeed, the political process inherently tends to delay and thwart the realization of any expected gains. Furthermore, the divergence between ex post gains through government and through the market is even greater than this; for we shall find that in every instance of government intervention, the indirect consequences will be such as to make the intervention appear worse in the eyes of many of its original supporters.
“In sum, the free market always benefits every participant, and it maximizes social utility ex ante; it also tends to do so ex post, since it works for the rapid conversion of anticipations into realizations. With intervention, one group gains directly at the expense of another, and therefore social utility cannot be increased; the attainment of goals is blocked rather than facilitated; and, as we shall see, the indirect consequences are such that many interveners themselves will lose utility ex post.”
Jim Fedako fleshes out the idea some more:
“In a free market, those at the margin perform an essential task. It is their individual decisions to enter or abstain from buying and selling in the market that decide future prices. Their choices direct scarce resources toward the desired wants of consumers. But the choice is not A or B, the choice is A or B or C, or any of a number of choices, limited only by man’s imagination and the then-current capital structure.
The decision is not Pepsi or Coke for the next four years. The decision is the factor pricing that leads to the enjoyment of Pepsi, Coke, RC, apple pies, and automobiles by all. And that decision is subject to recall votes on a daily basis.
But the ballot is different. Both presidential candidates have designs for my money and my freedom. One side may tilt toward taking more freedom than money, but neither candidate desires to return either. And in all of this, the guy who has no real interest in the matter decides the issue – a man who is more concerned about returning to regular programming than understanding the concepts of liberty and property.
In my house, I favor Pepsi, while my wife favors Coke. In fact, I will not drink Coke. So an electoral win for Coke is a loss for me. But instead of letting my juice toting neighbor decide which pop we drink, we buy both and are happy. We both can choose and neither loses.
Of course, the market is voluntary while politics are force. So the marginal voter, on a whim, hands the gun to one of two thieves. While the margin serves a purpose in politics, that purpose is pernicious.”
As I’ve explained, political democracy is illegitimate:
Why is “democracy” legitimate? Subset A has more numbers than Subset B or Subset C, ergo all must abide by the wishes of Subset A? That’s tyranny of the majority. That’s a lynch mob. That’s, as the old adage with the unknown originator goes, two wolves and a lamb deciding on what’s for dinner. There is no minority smaller than the individual, and no majority can usurp the individual’s fundamental claims to his self-ownership, his rights to life, liberty, and property.
How individuals wish to live their lives should not be subject to majority opinion.
Now in some circumstances, voting can be an act of self-defense - particularly in local elections and single-issue ballot measures where the effects are greater and the act of voting less ambiguous. And a principled stance explicitly against the totalitarian status quo is without doubt the least wasted of all votes.
But in a truly free, stateless society, only voluntary associations would be legitimate and no one - not even a majority - may initiate aggression against any peaceful individual. There’s be discussion and debate and advertisements and studies and counter-studies and demonstrations and trade and countless other peaceful interactions between autonomous individuals - but naturally, there would be no voting for new masters. Why not practice the ideal, and withdraw your consent? After all, your vote won’t count anyway.
