How would you react? What to say.

so you'd be ok with it.

I share much the same opinion of things. The jugglers will toss the balls, and no matter how they're stacked to begin with, they are skillful enough to arrange things just the way they want it.
That way they can make claims and commit all sorts of deeds on my behalf, all because of a piece of paper.
So I figured, they will play their game regardless, but if I don't vote there will be one less stone to throw. All in the interest of seeing how well they'd do with nothing.

Everybody who votes encourages them to carry on talking to us as if we are yikkle babas who are happy when our dummy is dipped in the syrup.

As long as "just do nothing but bitch" isn't your sole alternative to voting, I see your point.

Oh no. I'm doing nothing most vigorously.

Besides, my ideas are so radical that they cannot be fully uttered before they are rejected. The idea of letting people actually walk the path they've chosen, for better or worse, is apparently outrageous in our enlightened society.

Yup. In it's ultimate consequence, that means Anarchy. And that is not exactly a desireable state IMHO.

No, it doesn't neccesarily mean anarchy. There can be laws and punishments for breaking them. The main difference would be that if a person wants to do drugs, then he should be allowed to, even if it kills him.

In short; As long as you activity does not harm anyone else, you should be free to explore your own destructiveness/creativeness.


Btw, I am always surprised by the fact that the people shouting the loudest about anarchy are always the ones who's behavior renders it a grim prospect.

Thanks for the dig, Cyracuz...

So I ask you. By who'se measure can one determine whether something doesn't hurt others? YOU may think it's ok to OD on drugs, but perhaps your 7 year old kid might feel quite different. Or your wife. Etc.

najmelliw wrote:


That is the key point. The freedom to decide is what makes us stronger, or kills us, and sometimes it is neccecary to go all the way down to come up. To deprive someone of this freedom is to deprive them of consequence, and to my mind there really is no worse kind of determinism.


So we should be free to hurt, and throught the pain and the reconciliation we'd gain the deeper knowledge needed to find the path forward. This is true growth, and I believe it would benefit our society greatly to allow every one of it's members the total freedom to pursue this path.

Some pretty murky garbledy-gook, trying to pass itself off as progressive thought, IMO.

It's actually not a very easy thing to measure - where your freedom to hurt yourself stops and mine not to be hurt by you begins. You can flail your arms to your heart's content, but that freedom ends when you graze my nose.

4. I'm too cowardly to be a criminal and not handsome enough to be a whore ;-)

Yet half of the female A2K population seems to swoon over your answering macine...

maybe I could propose a compromise: give both decent and indecent people two votes!

Phaps the decent people can get to vote for the Senate, and the indecent ones for the House. See how their preferences compare ;-)