RE: Where has "pure libertarianism" worked?
You could consider them the majority that doesn't vote, in turn casting their vote against democracy, as democracy is always Majority Rule, and in paradoxical fashion they denounce democracy and have done so for a long time, in fact I wonder when the last time a Majority of the population elected a representative to Congress or Senate, and we're not even talking about the Continental Congress and Senate, but the look-alike impostor, and usually when you don't use force with people that are forcing you, if you sit quietly and don't object even they will call it consent, and equally if you know an impostor is an impostor, treating them as legitimate afterwards is completely on you, because you aprove and you wish to be deceived, so why shouldn't we let you be deceived?
I actually do consider that, but we live in the reality of how it works and not how we wish it would. In the US, the voting system is the majority that shows up. I recognize we basically never get a true majority of those registered to vote much less of people in general.
It would be far more meaningful if those who actually wanted to protest turned in blank ballots. At best non voting is an ignored abstention at at worst simply recognized as not caring enough to even have a voice in the process.
People who do not vote are absolutely not "casting a vote against democracy". They lack of participation doesn't damage it one iota. Making a statement involved action. Not non participation and acceptance.
It's not the reality of How we wish but the reality of what Democracy is. It's either Majority Rule or it's not and reality doesn't come into play because we never went on a wishing trip.
It's a vote on principle, and regardless of blank ballots, and your inferring on what people "care", because clearly it's recognized that the Majority didn't Vote whichever way you slice it, so it's not Democracy.
If 11% gather to vote is it still Democracy, if 1% of 11% gathered is it still a democracy? The Beard Argument.
I think there is great irony in telling me what I am inferring from peoples votes :)
The reality is... no one cares and its not talked about except at the rare dark corner of the internet.
If you want to be counted take an action that can be. :) Thats my point.
It's only ironic if you assume you inferred correctly.
The point was that the action is to Not Play The Game, and a point you've not contested with logic, so at what point is the game no more? 11%?
Thats why its ironic. You are accusing me of inferring when im simply pointing out that you don't know. You are assuming everyone not voting is a protest. You simply have no clue.
And if you don't know how many non participates it would take to theoretically "stop the game" then you don't know that either.
You are making massive assumptions about stuff that you have no actual information on or limit.
Clearly some percentage of the population will keep on voting. You plan is so extreme as to be meaningless. Also you haven't recognized that your protests aren't even recognized because again, you are assuming everyone that doesn't vote is a protest. False.
Democracy isn't democracy without a majority, and when the majority doesn't participate, for whatever the reason, consciously or not, it's a majority or a Mandate in a very visceral and undeniably democratic way.
I don't know because I don't know, despite that I was questioning you rhetorically with any arbitrary percentage below that at which a majority could Theoretically be a Democracy, a threshold that hasn't been reached in as long as a majority haven't all cast their votes for one person or one issue.
Such as what a Democracy is and isn't and what or am I making assumptions on what majority does when they don't participate like you who claim that despite their non-participation it doesn't mean anything and can mean everything, but certainly not that it's either democracy or majority, or a valid choice even.
I made no suggestions.
It's not my business what others recognize, it's evident to anyone that a choice to not vote doesn't necessitate a protest, but non-participation and the questions is at what point does a Democracy stop being a democracy and why is the choice of non-participation not recognized and clearly so as NON-PARTICIPATION?
I thought that libertarians live by the NAP rules. So if someone uses force, then it's okay to use force on them, strip them of their freedom. As long you are not the initiator of force, or better said, not the one who breaks the NAP rule, then it becomes unethical to use force on you.
What I'm trying to say is, yes there will always be people who try to force others to do stuff, but there should be rules in place to deal with those who are dangerous. When are they dangerous, when they break the NAP.
Yet if you approve of democracy and argue that regardless of what democracy is, "reality" is different so "deal with it" or "play the game" you agree that democracy or Might is Right, Majority Rules, is ok, and, even if that's only a "majority that chose to play the game", you cannot abide by NAP, wouldn't you agree?
I don't approve of democracy. For the reasons you gave. If the majority wants to attack you, yes, in a democracy it might be ethical, but it breaks the NAP. The NAP should be the supreme rule, not the majority. So I do agree.
I am a capitalist, so I think people should rather vote with their money.