on voting

Byzantine:

Nor is immigration, since welfare requires an ever larger tax base.

"Welfare State" also requires a large base of people advocating it, demanding it, defending it. Given what kind of immigration one gets, the required power base for doing so can grow.

macsnafu:

It would be a small step in the right direction of anti-immigrationists would at least recognize that welfare, education, health care, etc., are not rights, and therefore there's no problem with government not offering these things to illegals.  But to do that, they would have to recognize that there's no problem with government not offering these things to citizens, too, since they're not rights.

That's not their argument.  Their argument is that the welfare state uses immigration to perpetuate its existence.

I think that not voting is interpereted by most as meaning you are happy with either choice.

Many people voting third party, or writing in someone, would send a much bigger message than staying at home. How great would it be if the percentages for the R and the D added up to much less than 100? If the R and the D only added up to 50%, that would undermine the legitimacy of the system far more than a low voter turnout.

Harksaw:

I think that not voting is interpereted by most as meaning you are happy with either choice.

 

Many people voting third party, or writing in someone, would send a much bigger message than staying at home. How great would it be if the percentages for the R and the D added up to much less than 100? If the R and the D only added up to 50%, that would undermine the legitimacy of the system far more than a low voter turnout.

The legitimacy of the system consists of other people's opinions of it. What I do isn't going to do much to change that. I refuse to vote because I refuse to give any positive, explicit sanction to any of the candidates, even the so-called "libertarian" ones. If an outspoken anarchist were to run, I would give him/her my sanction. But not to anybody who would preserve the state by their actions in office.

Harksaw:

I think that not voting is interpereted by most as meaning you are happy with either choice.

All the birds can fly in the WRONG direction. Such an 'interperetation' reminds we of the saying that assumptions make an A$$ out of U and ME (assume). This is way too lemming an attitude too. Or is it an ostrich one? Either way it denies the reality of what 'voting' means to those that don't choose to participate in the cess-poll that are called elections. I have come to regard my choices and actions as my 'vote' - every day in all that I do. The (free) market recognizes and 'counts' my input, but the coerced enFORCEment bunch don't want to honor that which does NOT 'support' what they want. Too flaming bad ;-)

Jain

Harksaw:

Many people voting third party, or writing in someone, would send a much bigger message than staying at home.

Yeah, Perot and Nader won the hearts and minds of America, eh?

As far as I've seen, people are more engrosed in the "lesser of evils" thing because of it.

Harksaw:

How great would it be if the percentages for the R and the D added up to much less than 100? If the R and the D only added up to 50%, that would undermine the legitimacy of the system far more than a low voter turnout.

How great would it be to see all those people that voted instead defy the state in black market activities? In fact you'd just need a fraction of the people (than you would need to vote) to do it successfully.

Byzantine:

kingmonkey:

Of course no one should receive welfare benefits but I don't see that going away anytime soon.

 

Nor is immigration, since welfare requires an ever larger tax base.

Oh, so how does that work? I was under the impression that you thought immigration drained more from the state’s budget than it contributed.