This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Doug Casey's Top Five Reasons Not To Vote

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Doug Casey of Casey Research,

L: Doug, we've spoken about presidents. We have a presidential election coming up in the US – an election that could have significant consequences on our investments. But given the views you've already expressed on the Tea Party movement and anarchy, I'm sure you have different ideas. What do you make of the impending circus, and what should a rational man do?

Doug: Well, a rational man, which is to say, an ethical man, would almost certainly not vote in this election, or in any other – at least above a local level, where you personally know most of both your neighbors and the candidates.

L: Why? Might not an ethical person want to vote the bums out?

Doug: He might feel that way, but he'd better get his emotions under control. I've thought about this. So let me give you at least five reasons why no one should vote.

The first reason is that voting is an unethical act, in and of itself. That's because the state is pure, institutionalized coercion. If you believe that coercion is an improper way for people to relate to one another, then you shouldn't engage in a process that formalizes and guarantees the use of coercion.

L: It's probably worth defining coercion in this context. I know you agree with me that force is ethical in self-defense. A murderer I shoot might feel coerced into accepting a certain amount of hot lead that he did not consent to, but he intended the same, or worse, for me, so the scales are balanced. What you are talking about is forcing innocent, non-consenting others to do things against their wills, like paying taxes that go to pay for military adventures they believe are wrong, etc.

Doug: Right. The modern state not only routinely coerces people into doing all sorts of things they don't want to do – often very clearly against their own interests – but it necessarily does so, by its nature. People who want to know more about that should read our conversation on anarchy. This distinction is very important in a society with a government that is no longer limited by a constitution that restrains it from violating individual rights. And when you vote, you participate in, and endorse, this unethical system.

L: It's probably also worth clarifying that you're not talking about all voting here. When you are a member of a golfing club and vote on how to use the fees, you and everyone else have consented to the process, so it's not unethical. It's participating in the management of the coercive machinery of the state you object to, not voting in and of itself.

Doug: Exactly. As Mao correctly said, "The power of the State comes out of the barrel of a gun." It's not like voting for the leadership of a social club. Unlike a golfing club or something of that nature, the state won't let you opt out.

L: Even if you're not harming anyone and just want to be left alone.

Doug: Which relates to the second reason: privacy. It compromises your privacy to vote. It gets your name added to a list government busybodies can make use of, like court clerks putting together lists of conscripts for jury duty. Unfortunately, this is not as important a reason as it used to be, because of the great proliferation of lists people are on anyway. Still, while it's true there's less privacy in our world today, in general, the less any government knows about you, the better off you are. This is, of course, why I've successfully refused to complete a census form for the last 40 years.

L: [Chuckles] We've talked about the census. Good for you.

Doug: It's wise to be a nonperson, as far as the state is concerned, as far as possible.

L: Not to digress too much, but some people might react by saying that juries are important.

Doug: They are, but it would be a waste of my time to sign up for jury duty, because I would certainly be kicked off any jury. No attorney would ever let me stay on the jury once we got to voir dire, because I would not agree to being a robot that simply voted on the facts and the law as instructed by the judge – I'd want to vote on the morality of the law in question too. I'd be interested in justice, and very few laws today, except for the basic ones on things like murder and theft, have anything to do with justice. If the case related to drug laws, or tax laws, I would almost certainly automatically vote to acquit, regardless of the facts of the case.

L: I've thought about it too, because it is important, and I might be willing to serve on a jury. And of course I'd vote my conscience too. But I'd want to be asked, not ordered to do it. I'm not a slave.

Doug: My feelings exactly.

L: But we should probably get to your third reason for not voting.

Doug: That would be because it's a degrading experience. The reason I say that is because registering to vote, and voting itself, usually involves taking productive time out of your day to go stand around in lines in government offices. You have to fill out forms and deal with petty bureaucrats. I know I can find much more enjoyable and productive things to do with my time, and I'm sure anyone reading this can as well.

L: And the pettier the bureaucrat, the more unpleasant the interaction tends to be.

Doug: I have increasing evidence of that every time I fly. The TSA goons are really coming into their own now, as our own home-grown Gestapo wannabes.

L: It's a sad thing… Reason number four?

Doug: As P.J. O'Rourke says in a recent book, and as I've always said, voting just encourages them.

I'm convinced that most people don't vote for candidates they believe in, but against candidates they fear. But that's not how the guy who wins sees it; the more votes he gets, the more he thinks he's got a mandate to rule – even if all his votes are really just votes against his opponent. Some people justify this, saying it minimizes harm to vote for the lesser of two evils. That's nonsense, because it still leaves you voting for evil. The lesser of two evils is still evil.

Incidentally, I got as far as this point in 1980, when I was on the Phil Donahue show. I had the whole hour on national TV all to myself, and I felt in top form. It was actually the day before the national election, when Jimmy Carter was the incumbent, running against Ronald Reagan. After I made some economic observations, Donahue accused me of intending to vote for Reagan. I said that I was not, and as sharp as Donahue was, he said, "Well, you're not voting for Carter, so you must be voting Libertarian…"

I said no, and had to explain why not. I believed then just as I do now. And it was at about this point when the audience, which had been getting restive, started getting really upset with me. I never made it to point five.

Perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised. That same audience, when I pointed out that their taxes were high and were being wasted, contained an individual who asked, "Why do we have to pay for things with our taxes? Why doesn't the government pay for it?" I swear that's what he said; it's on tape. If you could go back and watch the show, you'd see that the audience clapped after that brilliant question. Which was when I first realized that while the situation is actually hopeless, it's also quite comic…

L: [Laughs]

Doug: And things have only gotten worse since then, with decades more public education behind us.

L: I bet that guy works in the Obama administration now, where they seem to think exactly as he did; the government will just pay for everything everyone wants with money it doesn't have.

Doug: [Chuckles] Maybe so. He'd now be of an age where he's collecting Social Security and Medicare, plus food stamps, and likely gaming the system for a bunch of other freebies. Maybe he's so discontent with his miserable life that he goes to both Tea Party and Green Party rallies to kill time. I do believe we're getting close to the endgame. The system is on the verge of falling apart. And the closer we get to the edge, the more catastrophic the collapse it appears we're going to have.

Which leads me to point number five: Your vote doesn't count. If I'd gotten to say that to the Donahue audience, they probably would have stoned me. People really like to believe that their individual votes count. Politicians like to say that every vote counts, because it gets everyone into busybody mode, makes voters complicit in their crimes. But statistically, any person's vote makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. Thinking their vote counts seems to give people who need it an inflated sense of self-worth.

That's completely apart from the fact – as voters in Chicago in 1960 and Florida in 2000 can tell you – when it actually does get close, things can be, and often are, rigged. As Stalin famously said, it's not who votes that counts, it's who counts the votes.

Anyway, officials manifestly do what they want, not what you want them to do, once they are in office. They neither know, nor care, what you want. You're just another mark, a mooch, a source of funds.

L: The idea of political representation is a myth, and a logical absurdity. One person can only represent his own opinions – if he's even thought them out. If someone dedicated his life to studying another person, he might be able to represent that individual reasonably accurately. But given that no two people are completely – or even mostly – alike, it's completely impossible to represent the interests of any group of people.

Doug: The whole constellation of concepts is ridiculous. This leads us to the subject of democracy. People say that if you live in a democracy, you should vote. But that begs the question of whether democracy itself is any good. And I would say that, no, it's not. Especially a democracy unconstrained by a constitution. That, sadly, is the case in the US, where the Constitution is 100% a dead letter. Democracy is nothing more than mob rule dressed up in a suit and tie. It's no way for a civilized society to be run. At this point, it's a democracy consisting of two wolves and a sheep, voting about what to eat for dinner.

L: Okay, but in our firmly United State of America today, we don't live in your ideal society. It is what it is, and if you don't vote the bums out, they remain in office. What do you say to the people who say that if you don't vote, if you don't raise a hand, then you have no right to complain about the results of the political process?

Doug: But I do raise a hand, constantly. I try to change things by influencing the way people think. I'd just rather not waste my time or degrade myself on unethical and futile efforts like voting. Anyway, that argument is more than fallacious, it's ridiculous and spurious. Actually, only the non-voter does have a right to complain – it's the opposite of what they say. Voters are assenting to whatever the government does; a nonvoter can best be compared to someone who refuses to join a mob. Only he really has the right to complain about what they do.

L: Okay then, if the ethical man shouldn't vote in the national elections coming up, what should he do?

Doug: I think it's like they said during the war with Viet Nam: Suppose they gave a war, and nobody came? I also like to say: Suppose they levied a tax, and nobody paid? And at this time of year: Suppose they gave an election, and nobody voted?

The only way to truly delegitimize a corrupt system is by not voting. When tin-plated dictators around the world have their rigged elections, and people stay home in droves, even today's "we love governments of all sorts" international community won't recognize the results of the election.

L: Delegitimizing evil… and without coercion, or even force. That's a beautiful thing, Doug. I'd love to see the whole crooked, festering, parasitical mass in Washington – and similar places – get a total vote of no-confidence.

Doug: Indeed. Now, I realize that my not voting won't make that happen. My not voting doesn't matter any more than some naïve person's voting does. But at least I'll know that what I did was ethical. You have to live with yourself. That's only possible if you try to do the right thing.

L: At least you won't have blood on your hands.

Doug: That's exactly the point.

L: A friendly amendment: you do staunchly support voting with your feet.

Doug: Ah, that's true. Unfortunately, the idea of the state has spread over the face of the earth like an ugly skin disease. All of the governments of the world are, at this point, growing in extent and power – and rights violations – like cancers. But still, that is one way I am dealing with the problem; I'm voting with my feet. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. It's idiotic to sit around like a peasant and wait to see what they do to you.

To me, it makes much more sense to live as a perpetual tourist, staying no more than six months of the year in any one place. Tourists are courted and valued, whereas residents and citizens are viewed as milk cows. And before this crisis is over, they may wind up looking more like beef cows. Entirely apart from that, it keeps you from getting into the habit of thinking like a medieval serf. And I like being warm in the winter, and cool in the summer.

L: And, as people say: "What if everyone did that?" Well, you'd see people migrating towards the least predatory states where they could enjoy the most freedom, and create the most wealth for themselves and their posterity. That sort of voting with your feet could force governments to compete for citizens, which would lead to more places where people can live as they want. It could become a worldwide revolution fought and won without guns.

Doug: That sounds pretty idealistic, but I do believe this whole sick notion of the nation-state will come to an end within the next couple generations. It makes me empathize with Lenin when he said, "The worse it gets, the better it gets." Between jet travel, the Internet, and the bankruptcy of governments around the world, the nation-state is a dead duck. As we've discussed before, people will organize into voluntary communities we call phyles.

L: That's the name given to such communities by science fiction author Neal Stephenson in his book The Diamond Age, which we discussed in our conversation on Speculator's Fiction. Well, we've talked quite a bit – what about investment implications?

Doug: First, don't expect anything that results from this US election to do any real, lasting good. And if, by some miracle, it did, the short-term implications would be very hard economic times. What to do in either case is what we write about in our big-picture newsletter, The Casey Report.

More important, however, is to have a healthy and useful psychological attitude. For that, you need to stop thinking politically, stop wasting time on elections, entitlements, and such nonsense. You've got to use all of your time and brain power to think economically. That's to say, thinking about how to allocate your various intellectual, personal, and capital assets, to survive the storm – and even thrive, if you play your cards right.

L: Very good. I like that: think economically, not politically. Thanks, Doug!

Doug: My pleasure.

Irrespective of whether one agrees with Doug's politics, his investing record speaks for itself. And just like him, the analysts and editors at Casey Research dig deep in their respective fields and are blunt in their assessments. One thing many agree that the US will have to face, no matter the outcome of the presidential election, is its growing debt crisis.


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 10/22/2012 - 23:44 | 2911758 CH1
CH1's picture

Politics is barbaric.

I'm with Casey.

Mon, 10/22/2012 - 23:49 | 2911765 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture


And tonight when we the sheeple are once again distracted from the real events which will one day directly impact us allow me to post the following wake up call:


Every time The Federal Reserve purchases toxic real estate related products like MBS, is an instance when QE directly funds and aides global terrorists, local financial terrorists and organizations like Al Qaeda. The very individuals who created these real estate CDO products and derivatives worked directly and indirectly with the Russian and Italian mafia as well as Iran and Israel; in fact, Israel is one of the key Hamas/Hezbollah/Palestinian Islamic Jihad supporters. Every time The Federal Reserve props up the markets they are essentially setting up the immanent great crash that Iran, Russia and other financial terrorist players have a direct hand in. The proof is that these very same players were instrumental in the 2008 crash and as well as the DOW tumble on 9-11; in fact many of these global financial players knew and in some instances funded the hijackers of 9-11. If you think that any of this is untrue or somehow farfetched, then I implore you to read carefully the 21 chapters I have posted:


A sample from Chapter 8:


'In short, Kevin Ingram (former head of the Goldman Sachs mortgage bond desk; important errand boy for a network of market manipulators with ties to the Mafia; and a money launderer for an arms dealer with possible ties to both Al Qaeda and to a Pakistani who was in the market for components that could be used to build nuclear bombs) is perhaps not someone who should be handling “financial weapons of mass destruction” (e.g., self-destruct, synthetic CDOs)."


The global financial markets are significantly more frightening than the wildest dystopian doomsday conspiracy theory you may have ever heard. 


Shortly, I will post most on the blog an overview of upcoming geopolitical events with loose timetable, extrapolating in no small part from Mark Mitchell's above 21 chapters. These coordinated global events, merely compounded by the central bankers that print and prop up the very products that the nefarious financial terrorists have created, will ultimately play right into their naked short selling HFT fueled phantom shares and death spirals on a certain upcoming day that could very well take the DOW well below 3000. 


Excerpt from Chapter 9:


"Meanwhile, in the days and weeks following the Al Qaeda attacks, several things occurred. First, Anthony Elgindy helped destroy the largest clearing firm in the United States, dealing a serious blow to the American economy.


Second, Elgindy told the FBI that it was not he, but some of Michael Milken’s other close associates, who had advance knowledge of the 9-11 attacks.


And third, Elgindy threatened and tried to extort a fellow who had access to nuclear bombs."


And one more excerpt:


"As for Shabeh Jomeh, the Iranian social club co-founded by Man Financial’s vice president of trading controls, it might well be nothing more than opportunity for Iranians to get to know each other. But it might also be worth noting that in addition to being tied to the NIAC, Shabeh Jomeh’s third co-founder is Tamilla Ghodsi, a managing director of Goldman Sachs."



Click on the link to read more.

Mon, 10/22/2012 - 23:49 | 2911769 no taste
no taste's picture

You should vote.  Not voting is a defeatist position.  Just don't for either of the two losers. Vote for a third party.

Mon, 10/22/2012 - 23:54 | 2911778 CH1
CH1's picture

I do not authorize anyone to steal, and taxation IS theft. (Okay, more like robbery, but the point is the same.)

It's as clear as can be, so long as you don't decide ahead of time that the state must be sanctified.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:17 | 2911807 One World Mafia
One World Mafia's picture

Vote for Gary Johnson. About half the country is non electronic. If the riggers had it all sewn up they wouldn't be pushing for the National Popular Vote law. The National Popular Vote (NPV) slogan "Every Vote Equal" is dishonest because the NPV proposal is based on legalizing vote-stealing. For example, Texas or Louisiana could be forced to cast its votes for a candidate who won more votes in other states, such as New York.

The NPV is far along. Your state reps have been lied to. Tell them.

And tell them to resist efforts to switch to electronic voting because it can be easily rigged, or tell them to find a secure form of voting if you already have electronic voting.

Don't give in to the defeatists like Casey. Ron Paul's major misstep was he didn't challenge the Iowa vote count immediately. Months went by. There were even lawyers volunteering to challenge the count who were chomping at the bit but were rebuffed by the campaign. Ron Paul actually won Iowa. The riggers couldn't hide it forever because they don't yet have absolute power, but they would love for us all to lay down and roll over.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:54 | 2911842 3rdgrader
3rdgrader's picture

I vote we put them all in jail and start over

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 04:30 | 2911985 merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

The crux of the objections that there are no votes worthy of casting seemingly could be resolved by adding to the ballot the option of voting against any particular candidate, rather than in support of a particular candidate.  Votes for and against each candidate could be tallied, and candidates with negative total tallies would be precluded from taking office.  If no candidate finished with a positive total, there would have to be a new election with new candidates.

If I had such a choice, I'd consider to vote.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 04:38 | 2911989 merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

I neglected to mention abolishing the electoral college.  It's a horrible system and a shame that it still exists.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 06:28 | 2912021 Padrone
Padrone's picture

Vote for one of the alternative parties. Like the green party.

You do not need to vote for blue or red.

The more people vote for a third or a fourth candidate, you divide the power. No one single party should have absolute majority. Make them work together. Create an opposition.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 09:12 | 2912325 goldfish1
goldfish1's picture

No need to vote...diebold votes for you.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:18 | 2912148 JPM Hater001
JPM Hater001's picture

"I neglected to mention abolishing the electoral college."

You clearly don't understand how the original system was designed.

President = Voice of the state as a whole. 

Congress = Voice of the people divided

Senator = Voice of the state legislatures (See the 17th Amendment...that was the lynch-pin)

Removing the electoral college only enables mob rule further.


Do your homework.

Mon, 10/29/2012 - 02:43 | 2927056 merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

"Do your homework."

You arrogant dumbass.  I haven't done my homework?  Eliminating the electoral college would enable democratic election of presidents.  For one example from 'my homework' we can all see that in 2000, Gore tallied more votes than Bush, and the entire Florida sham/debacle would never have happened, not to mention 8 years of Bush.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:52 | 2911896 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

perhaps next election it would be appropriate for the candidates to fight 5 rounds UFC style. i believe this would be more palatable and much easier to comprehend for the sheeple. there is no other way forward. i suspect Jesse Ventura would have the advantage and as such would not be allowed into the ring a la any 3rd party candidate. 


we are doomed.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:09 | 2911785 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

you clearly do not appreciate some rudimentary concepts. perhaps you may want to re-read the above article, because there is no viable 3rd party this year.


the only voting you do is with your dollar. and the ultimate FU vote is converting said dollars to PMs.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:29 | 2911819 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

Simon Black's Top 10 Reasons Not To Vote This Year:


10)   You're In the Sahara

9)     You're In Uganda

8)     You're In Myanmar (Not Burma)

7)     You're In Phuket

6)     You've Got 2 Tickets To Paradise (so pack your bags, you leave tonight)

5)     You've Offshored Yourself

4)     You're Bernie Madoff

3)     You've Reconstituted Yourself As A Bermuda Corporation (You're A Person, But You Can't Vote)

2)     You're In Istanbul (Not Constantinople)


And Simon Black's Number 1 Reason Not To Vote This Year <drum roll>.....


1)    You're The Hon. Jon S. Corzine, with a strong pimp hand, and you can't be bothered, bitchez

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:57 | 2911847 3rdgrader
3rdgrader's picture

What fucking election?

Oh, you mean the pretend election...

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:35 | 2911827 vast-dom
vast-dom's picture

and here is Doug Casey with one of my girlfriends:



Tue, 10/23/2012 - 05:27 | 2912002 GregGH
GregGH's picture

at 10:30 mark in video --woinder what RT blockedout when Casey says he is aspeculator ..and does .... ( blank ... ) ... hmm >?


Thanks vast-dom for posting  .... ( )

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:00 | 2912115 Gazooks
Gazooks's picture

Fuck Doug Casey and his self agrandizing Argentinian cool-aide escapist fantasy bullshit.

Vote because many millions of ordinary humans have died for the right to not have to live voiceless under the thumb of elite privelege-seeking cult-cultivating-cocksuckers like Doug Casey.

Just a fucking Jim Jones by another name with another game.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 10:42 | 2912680 Meatier Shower
Meatier Shower's picture

You already live voiceless under the thumb of elite privelege-seeking cult-cultivating-cocksuckers.

Haven't you been paying attention?

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 04:13 | 2911978 Anasteus
Anasteus's picture

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Benjamin Franklin

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 04:32 | 2911987 merizobeach
merizobeach's picture

Misattributed, and perhaps slightly misquoted, but an excellent sentiment nonetheless.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:49 | 2911834 Alternative
Alternative's picture

You shouldn't vote because it is useless waste of your time because it doesn't change anything.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 03:08 | 2911943 _ConanTheLibert...
_ConanTheLibertarian_'s picture

+1 for 'do not vote' but too bad about the patriotism remark, especially in context with Doug Casey.

I don't think I've ever disagreed with Doug on anything. It's all just common sense but somehow many people are too stupid or emotional (or both) to think clearly.

Mon, 10/22/2012 - 23:54 | 2911773 stocktivity
stocktivity's picture

Four more years of Obama = 4 more years of Bernanke. Romney has already said if he is elected, Bernanke will be fired. Sorry Casey...4 more years of Bernanke we don't need. My vote DOES mean something.

Mon, 10/22/2012 - 23:59 | 2911783 CH1
CH1's picture

Romney has already said...

Clearly you have no prior experience with politicians.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:31 | 2911821 TruthInSunshine
TruthInSunshine's picture

He/She believes "just the tip" and "I'll pull out."

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:32 | 2911823 Aziz
Aziz's picture

Anyone who believes that a candidate whose top donors include individuals affiliated with or employed by Goldman, J.P. Morgan and Citigroup will do anything to challenge or end the Fed is drinking some pretty strong Kool Aid.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:58 | 2911849 ACP
ACP's picture

Sorry, it's too to pull out.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 02:42 | 2911929 SilverFish
SilverFish's picture

What if I vote for Obama, just to negate your Romney vote? Does your vote still mean anything? Does mine? Answer: No, on both counts.


I think everyone this year should go find a friend that plans on voting for the opposite candidate you would have voted for and instead of voting, you both go down to the local bar and get shite-faced while the polls are open. Your two votes negate eachother anyway, right? Might as well save yourself the trouble of waiting in line behind all of the blue-hairs all day and have fun getting drunk instead.


Tue, 10/23/2012 - 10:21 | 2912585 Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

Romney's "economic advisor"/handler is Glen Hubbard.  That is all you need to know about his stance on the Fed.

Yes, he literally said we're "blessed" to have such great, talented people working at the Fed.  If the Bernank does leave, do you really think he's going to be replaced with anyone better?  If so, who, and why do you think this?



Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:33 | 2911825 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

hahaha actually not voting is barbaric. The word barbarian comes from the greek word "barbaros" which meant foreign and the Latin word "barbaria" which meant foreign land. A barbarian was a person not of greek or roman origin. Roman and Greek citizens voted while the "barbarians" did not.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 02:35 | 2911926 Western
Western's picture

"barbar" was the language of barbarians, because it doesn't sound like a language familiar to you.


"barbar" of today's world is spoken by the bar association. the language is sometimes referred to as "legalese".


it's not english.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 03:15 | 2911948 Daily Bail
Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:44 | 2912229 TruthHunter
TruthHunter's picture

Don't vote? What are the alternatives? Shoot? Bow and scrape?

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for ALL the others"


Tue, 10/23/2012 - 10:28 | 2912613 Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for ALL the others"

Yes, we should all resign ourselves to accept the pile of dung as our meal, because at least it was sprayed with Febreze.

You realize you're quoting one of the most diabolically evil human beings in world history, right?

Mon, 10/22/2012 - 23:53 | 2911775 icanhasbailout
icanhasbailout's picture

The virtues of voting to write in Ron Paul:


1) It's a big "fuck you" to both major parties

2) It lets the fraudsters running the show that they're not half as clever as they think they are

3) If the write-in is not tallied it provides incontrovertible first-hand evidence of the falsity of the system

4) Your vote gets used in the way that a vote was intended to be used - to affirmatively state one's preference

5) It's a big "fuck you" to the controlled-opposition fraud called the Libertarian Party

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:04 | 2911788 HD
HD's picture

I'm writing Tyler in. I want the first Avatar President and I want it now. Deer in headlights for VP.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:03 | 2911790's picture

Can you show me results of write in campaigns from past presidential elections? If no one knows the results how can they have any influence?

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:06 | 2911793 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

I would suspect your write-in vote is immediately filed once you leave their site.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:04 | 2911786 q99x2
q99x2's picture

I'm voting for Gary Johnson because I can do so without feeling guilty.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:06 | 2911795 JLee2027
JLee2027's picture

On a diebold machine? If so, you have no idea who you really voted for.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:11 | 2911804 HD
HD's picture

Unfortunately true.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:49 | 2912248 TruthHunter
TruthHunter's picture

"On a diebold machine?"

Reason number six, or reason number 5 rephrased?

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:13 | 2911806 q99x2
Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:04 | 2911792 cranky-old-geezer
cranky-old-geezer's picture



Doug: First, don't expect anything that results from this US election to do any real, lasting good. And if, by some miracle, it did, the short-term implications would be very hard economic times.

Nope, no "very hard economic times" if the right things were done. 

The opposite would happen, the real economy would start improving.

"hard economic times" are happening right now, and it's because Wall Street and the government are sucking the life out of America economically speaking, which means sucking the wealth out of America.

Since '08 over $20 trillion has been sucked out of the economy and people's pockets and given to Wall Street and the government.

That's why the economy can't recover and many people are sinking into hard ecnomic times right now.

Hey Casey, stop drinking the koolaid.  They want you to think doing the right things would make things worse.

It would only be worse fror Wall Street and the government.  Everybody else's lot would improve.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 14:58 | 2913536 _ConanTheLibert...
_ConanTheLibertarian_'s picture

Doug's point is that there will always be short term pain, even if the government would do the right thing and step OUT OF OUR WAY.

But long term it would be extremely bullish for the economy.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:07 | 2911796 Treason Season
Treason Season's picture


What is TYLER? Anonymous reveals details of its own 'WikiLeaks' project


Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:11 | 2911797 alstry
alstry's picture

Both work for bankers that say they are doing God's work

Historically, whenever the American people confronted a leader claiming Divine Right....NOBODY VOTED and we had a revolution.

It's time to milk off technology instead of each other.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:08 | 2911799 reader2010
reader2010's picture

George Carlin Doesn't vote

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:56 | 2911845 Konami Code
Konami Code's picture

Farts=worse than fucking...


...and motherfucker is banned.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 14:58 | 2913541 _ConanTheLibert...
_ConanTheLibertarian_'s picture

indeed, because he's FUCKING DEAD

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:23 | 2911803 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

You should definitely vote, just not for any of the two clowns on television tonight. A loss of ground of the two parties in terms of votes will have positive ramifications on American politics.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:17 | 2911811 duckhook
duckhook's picture

Mr Casey'sd arguments are pretty superficail ans in somw cases do not make sense.What upsets me is that If a voter lives in a democratuc state ,a republican vote is pretty irrelevant.This could be  rectified with popular vote determining the winner

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:19 | 2911812 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

That's because the state is pure, institutionalized coercion

Sure, but the state also provides economic utility through this coercion. Instead of having owners of property sink productive time into securing their property it allows them to delgate that task to the state. It isn't a paerfect system and it surely isn't just all of the time, but it is much more economically efficient than having everyone investing the time and capital into protecting their own property. From an economic point of view having a state is much more efficient than not having one.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:59 | 2911850 CH1
CH1's picture

Sure, but the state also provides economic utility through this coercion.

"Let us do evil, that good may come of it."

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:27 | 2911872 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

This logical fallacy is a classic: the false dilemma of good and evil. One of the earlier, if not the original, uses of this fallacy happened to be when Plato, while trying to define justice and good, eventually advocates a non-democratic "philosopher-kings" system in his book the Republic. All the scientific progress sophists had made before that point comes pretty much to a screeching halt after Plato's point of view becomes more accepted... suicide and religion became the new fad. Just something to chew on the next time you throw around fast food philosophy with the good and evil bullshit.

Coercion is a by product of competition. Humans are wired for competition. It is a biological fact. We are also wired to for violent competition between large groups of humans. Look our closest genetic relative, the chimp for evidence of that. The state allows for that competition to occur in the economic realm, after settling the primal violent competition and agreeing on the victor. It allows for the rule of law. This system didn't happen because people like being oppressed. It happened because it is the best way to channel human competitiveness towards something productive.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 07:29 | 2912071 spentCartridge
spentCartridge's picture

Your whole synopsis is bullshit.

People, normal people, only want to help each other to survive.

You, and your psychopathic buddies are not a part of that interaction. You are the scum that we will purge from our beautiful planet.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 09:37 | 2912436 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

People, normal people, only want to help each other to survive.

Yes, and they fight and kill other people to do it. On the tribal level and on the state level. And it seems like your solution to "purge" me makes you the psychopath here.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:14 | 2912145 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Coercion is a by product of control and influence, not competition. In order for it to exist, one party must accept and approve it. Otherwise, said conpetition will continue. This power will wax and wane, giving impetus to each side. Rather than look at chimps, you might want to look at early clan type social contracts and the occasions for revolution as pastoral groups displaced ruling groups over debt issues. 

The rule of law is a tool of tyranny. Just as the Constitution has been shredded in America, the courts function as the legitimizers of the State. Law becomes a tool in the hands of those with the power and influence to buy and determine legislation. As long as law can be re-written, it is nothing more than the chains that bind the serfs.

The State is merely a progression from other methods of rule, all MORE TYRANNICAL THAN THE NEXT. This is not because it is the best system for the people, but because it is the best system for those that want to amass power and rule. The level of control over individual actions has continued to increase. 



Tue, 10/23/2012 - 09:34 | 2912426 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

Early human history is riddled with warfare. Throughout human history one can see continuous warfare on the tribal and band scale until the state came about. Eventually people grew tired of killing each other and opted for the way of life where they aren't battling the neighboring tribe for survival, hence the state. Just look at China until the Qin unification.

And the state has also progressed to be less tyrannical as time goes on. I would gladly choose to live in the American state now than in pretty much any other state circa 1500 CE. Funny you should mention that law is the chains that binds the serfs since actually it is the other way around. Feudalism sprung up quite naturally in Europe and the law limited the oppression and control of the serfs and eventually overturned it.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 10:16 | 2912480 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Yes, it is, but never on a scale or with as much destruction as occurs with States. Further, the State allows for the killing of its' own people (NDAA, 911, etc) the very definition of what a State should NEVER do as it violates the social contract.

You obviously have no knowledge of debt slavery. You must have missed the rise in slavery, starting in the 1600's to its' current zenith today. Unless you think having every family in America indebted over 400,000 dollars more than their average asset value to be freedom. 

The US has become progessively more tyrannical since 1913. The advent of liability law, presidential directives and commercial code law have all worked in unison to do so. How has the law protected anyone? Single issues merely provide a genteel fascade for the fascism run rampant over the whole. 

Perhaps you want to live in it, because are of a group that directly benefits? 

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 10:21 | 2912578 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

Yes, actually warfare is on a bigger scale but less frequent and less destructive over time when there are states.

Of course those are "bad" things. Nobody is arguing that the state should kill its own citizens and if I have the slightest chance to do so then I will vote in the candidate who would oppose that sort of action.

In an ideal world we would have no legal tender laws, a stateless society full of productive anarcho-capitalists who trade with each other and moderate each other in criminal activity. But we don't live in an ideal world. We do have massive debt (mostly because of the central bank system) We have the state. That is just how the world is. Instead of making up some fairy tale scenario it is much better to reason through what we have today.

Debt slavery is a funny thing... you consider the american population debt slaves yet the standard of living is the higher than any other contry at any other time. Believe it or not this is the pinnacle of civilization. The military/state/financial oligarchy has the scales heavily tipped in the favor of Jor sixpack so even though he is an idiot he can continue to live like a king. I can tell you we have the highest per capita income not because all out workers are so skilled and smart.

And yes I benefit from this system. I have lived in other countries and I see only a few others as having a better system of government. This system also benefits you and your standard of living. All those poor households with their massive debt and huge houses and nice cars chose that life.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 13:47 | 2913263 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

But what would the standard of living be WITHOUT debt slavery?  You have a typical argument, you want to look at what is, but fail to consider what is unseen. Per capita income is a subjective analysis that puts its' emphasis on a basket of values. Value that may have nothing to do with an individual's priorities.

One, the system does NOT benefit me, I feel it is oppressive and criminal. The tyranny easily outweighs any social benefit bought with stolen wealth.As for people choosing this life? What reality do you live in? The ability to change countries, unless you are very wealthy or loaded with capital or both is minimal. People are born into a country with a family unit that serves as an anchor for their entire lives. They don't choose this life, it is thrust upon them, a great weight of propaganda, brainwashing and behavior modification that requires tremendous will to penetrate and dissolve.

Just because YOU may have the ability to transcend the fascist state, does not mean everyone has. It is incumbent upon the wisest and best leaders to provide guidance that benefits everyone- not just a select minority of Elites. If a State fails to do this, it fails to be relevant and must be replaced.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 09:07 | 2912120 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

That economic utility is just as easily secured through voluntary and private approval of private property protections. You are ignoring the proclivity of the State to protect itself before the individual. Consequently, as in America, we no longer have private property as the government requires constant rents. 

Because of their police power, the citizen has zero protection from the State's ability to confiscate property. You might want to think about this a little longer.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:34 | 2911826 GoldmanSux
GoldmanSux's picture

It's amazing to me how many people think Doug Casey is a paragon of virtue.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 15:01 | 2913550 _ConanTheLibert...
_ConanTheLibertarian_'s picture

well, he probably is, kind of

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:36 | 2911829 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

By the way, if voting doesn't matter, while are people voting to give this article a high score?

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:48 | 2911833 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

A big greenie from me for that astute observation.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:50 | 2911835 I am a Man I am...
I am a Man I am Forty's picture

vote and see if it makes a difference

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:53 | 2911839 HD
HD's picture

Voting does matter. If my favorite celebrity doesn't win on "Dancing with the Stars" I will be like, you know, totally devastated. I won't be in the mood to wait in line all day to buy the next iThing.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:28 | 2911877 Heyoka Bianco
Heyoka Bianco's picture

A vote for this article, up or down, has the same relevance as your vote on the future trajectory of this country: absolutely fuck-all.

Nobody knows (at least nobody should know) how you voted, and a "protest" vote just means the winner might have a smaller plurality. After the election, the losers don't count for shit and the winner doesn't give a fuck who voted for him or why, until he needs to hustle their votes again.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:48 | 2911891 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

The Federal Reserve and other currupt legistlation was created by Congress and it there it must end. You can distance yourself from the problems that result from that legistlation but that will not stop the problems from manifesting themselves, to your detriment. Voting for candidates who would end the fed is the best you can do in order to stop these problems manifest themselves in a violent manner.

It has a slim chance of success, but new parties and political movements have never sprung up without votes.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:44 | 2912177 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The Federal reserve was created by a Congress controlled by banking interests ( read "The Creature From Jekyll Island"). When an institution is controlled by outside interests, your "vote" means absolutely nothing. This is the point of the article- you might want to read it. 

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 09:45 | 2912455 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

I have read that book but I wonder if you have. The book and the article you vehemetly defend actually contradict each other. In the Creature from Jekyll Island Griffin in the end argues for a completely legal transition from debt based fiat to a gold standard with no legal tender laws. Through Congress. This requires voting.



Tue, 10/23/2012 - 10:19 | 2912492 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

There is no discrepency at all. Griffith is quite clear on the collusion of banking and congressional interests. 

The movement to a gold standard is a completely separate argument.Further, the movement to other currencies requires only the will of the people to do so. If the people choose to favor one type of money over another, there is little the government can do. Funny, you only choose to highlight logic when it benefits your statements.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 10:47 | 2912595 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

Without the removal of legal tender laws that cannot happen. My memory is a bit hazy since I read that book a few years ago but I am pretty sure that his solution involves Congress and changing the law.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 13:55 | 2913281 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

People already refuse to accept credit cards, checks or bills of higher denominations. The legal tender law says this should not happen, but how do you enforce laws if too many people resist? You can't. 

Congress failing to renew the FED mandate or eliminating legal tender laws would be beneficial to the development of sound money, but first you would need a Congress that has not been captured by banking/corporate interests. However, it can be mitigated by personal action that works to circumvent these limitations. 

You may have to use FDR's for some transactions, but not all of them. If enough people choose to, they can wreck the system and bring about one that better suits the people.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 14:55 | 2913530 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

I agree about pesonal action. Since 2008 there has been an exodus into credit unions and people are voting with their money against giving the Wall St. cartel their deposits to circlejerk with. This is helpful and good in terms of establishing sound money, but these personal choices are not mutually exclusive with voting. Voting is a personal choice. Just like any rational economic activity it should be done in your best interests. 

but first you would need a Congress that has not been captured by banking/corporate interests.

So why not vote? Why is voting with your money more principled than voting on the ballot? If you want a Congress that isn't captured just don't check the box next to the R or the D. All options have to be exhausted when trying to change the state.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 18:36 | 2914271 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Because you are voting for party approved candidates (they receive no funding otherwise), there is no difference in their votes, so party makes no difference. You cannot change this, this is what captured means.

Why must actions that have no potential to yield results HAVE to be tried? What is so precious about a fascist state? 

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 20:22 | 2914549 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

This state is not inherently fascist, in fact far from it. There are more than two parties and the more ground those parties gain, the more likely they are to receive funding and step on the scene to break the democrat/republican capture.

These actions have to be tried because they do have potential. Low potential is not the same as no potential. Most third or new parties have started with low plurality.

There are two ways to change the state, voting and violence. It has to get much worse before most people even consider violence or protesting etc. Food prices are high but they have to get higher. I personally don't want violence. So in order to stop it I will vote with the slim hope of provoking change in the current system. 

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 07:54 | 2912078 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

Not voting in the corrupt political system obviously doesn't necessarily apply in other context.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 15:01 | 2913552 _ConanTheLibert...
_ConanTheLibertarian_'s picture

HA! Nice one.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:52 | 2911837 Strelok
Strelok's picture

I wrote in Ron Paul.  It's the only decision that agreed with my conscience. 

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 00:54 | 2911843 lunaticfringe
lunaticfringe's picture

I think Casey made some excellent points and I agreed with a lot of them. Here is the problem. Not voting, in Casey's world, means you can egoically claim the high ground. Not particpate. And somehow this non participation becomes ethically correct.

Ethics doesn't have a fucking thing to do with any of this. Big ego does. I don't vote, therefore I can maintain that I am beyond the reach of this corrupt system is patent bullshit. Please don't tell me that voting gves the crooks legitimacy and that somehow- I am complicit in this giant conspiracy. I am not. I vote for liberty and freedom.

A third party is our only way out. I spend a great deal of time on my site trying to help others understand that short of killing all of these bastards- the only legal reform available to us is to rid ourselves of these two dysfunctional parties. They suck and their squish candidates suck.

I like Casey but he has TWO major problems. Someone is always going to vote and so 100% participation in a non vote is a complete fantasy. What he is really advocating is getting rid of our government as it exists. And btw Casey, it's a Republic. That's your other problem. You offer no solution. 

So while you bash what we do have- where's your suggestions on how to do it more efficiently...or are you simply concerned with protecting your own ego by taking some fantasy high ground? I asked myself that question once. I landed on Libertarian. I make no apologies for that.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:16 | 2911864 HD
HD's picture

I would contend it doesn't matter who you vote for in America, because regardless to all the screaming and hair pulling - the policies (not what they say but what they actually do) are almost identical. Republicans and Democrats are just as willing to spend like drunken sailors and strip citizens of our civil liberties without a second thought. Not sure a third party would change much besides the optics and the tone, but the result would likely be the same after election day.

The only hope as I see it - is sunshine. A media that is not lead around by the nose by TPTB, who investigate, question and risk being denied "access" are our best bet. People are not stupid as much as they are ignorant of facts and reality because they are spoon fed an endless diet of scripted bullshit. If that changes, all the super pacs in the world won't matter...

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:26 | 2911873 Manipuflation
Manipuflation's picture

"Here is the problem. Not voting, in Casey's[read anyone] world, means you can egoically claim the high ground. Not particpate. And somehow this non participation becomes ethically correct. Ethics doesn't have a fucking thing to do with any of this. Big ego does."

Please let me help you out with your struggle with logic.  The next thing we will all hear about from the likes of you is that you will advise that voting be a state mandated activity.  There is no ego involved in people not voting; some people just do not want to vote anymore and for various reasons.  Perhaps you should ask yourself why that is the case.    


Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:51 | 2911892 TumblingDice
TumblingDice's picture

Please let me help you out with your struggle with logic. The next thing we will all hear about from the likes of you is that you will advise that voting be a state mandated activity. 

Holy strawhat batman. Thanks for the logic lesson.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 14:37 | 2913442 lunaticfringe
lunaticfringe's picture

I have no struggle. I took ego out a long time ago. Logic means doing something different to obtain a different result.

And btw, if you know a damn thing about Libertarians, you might know that the last position any of us would land on is the state telling us what to do.

Bring some ammo to our next gunfight.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 07:42 | 2912090 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

Not voting means you have no trust in the system, and he's right, the system is not worth your vote because it can't be trusted. Your libertarian vote does not matter in a corrupt system. It's better to stay out of it altogether.


Also don't forget Doug is an anarchist. It makes perfect sense for him not to vote.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:45 | 2912232 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

All the best people are. :)

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:57 | 2912271 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Where does ego get involved? If you have certain ethical standards, you act in ways that preserve them. This doesn't mean your ethics are any better than someone else. Nor does it mean you have a high ground, merely that you are being true to your self. 

If no one voted, how much legitimacy would the system retain? This is one of the main thrusts of the article. 

Why is voting third party the only "legal" form? We, as consumers, have many ways to register our disgust with the political system. Powerful methods that can cause real change, because ultimately, they need our labor wages to procure more wealth.

Yes, someone will always vote, but the attempt to educate the masses is still legitimate. Getting rid of government as it exists is an anarchist goal, those solutions fall outside the limits of this article, but the information is available in many political/economic works. 

What we have is fascist tyranny, why wouldn't you bash that? I would never question your right to an opinion, but in this regard, you seem to be defending the undefendable. 


Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:00 | 2911852 CH1
CH1's picture

Ethics doesn't have a fucking thing to do with any of this.

Maybe not for you...

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:05 | 2911855 vix is for kids
vix is for kids's picture

I enjoy voting against every incumbent from the state level up to the national level.  For POTUS, I always enjoy my write-in, or third party challenger.  It's useless to the outcome of any of these large elections, but that's true even if I voted for the eventual winner, unless that winner won by my single vote.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:08 | 2911857 q99x2
q99x2's picture

What Casey expressed as concerns of freedom from government should take place over time as the result of social evolution.

Maybe like this: The collapse takes place. and law and order is restored by individuals around the world that write open source guidelines for survival. Out of those guidelines will come a new form of governance that precludes the necessity of "government."

Quite a natural process of evolution of social systems from waring tribes, to concentrations of power in feudal systems to national governments to attempt at world government to complete disintegration to rule by the individual.

Because at present course, where we are headed, with people so wealthy that they cannot see beyond greed, and having skillsets lacking the ability to see the bigger picture, we may not be long for this world.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:18 | 2911868 Audacity17
Audacity17's picture

In a box somewhere I have a Casey book given to me in 1992.  The title was "surviving the 90's super depression" or some nonsense.  Think I'll pass.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:19 | 2911869 adr
adr's picture

The problem is that thanks to years of over-reaching federal authority, not voting makes no difference. You're still going to get screwed by the Feds. Putting Obama back in power will just further erode any local powers left.

My town had the cheapest water rates in the state. Obama's EPA said that encouraged waste and our town's pumping permits would be revoked unless water rates were tripled over five years. Only voting at the local level would sure help that problem.

The Federal government even forces cities to have a certain percentage of Section8 property or federal and state funding would be pulled from the schools. Of course this is done to spread welfare votes around.

Voting for the lesser of two evils does make a difference if each time a lesser evil is elected. Eventually maybe a Ron Paul actually becomes the guy you don't want to vote for.

By not voting the population has made sure the welfare class actually votes the worst candidates in. Making each politician in power worse than the last. The goal is voting in as many people that want to shrink government as possible. Negating the power of a president like Obama.

It is either that or go to Washington with a gun and start shooting. One way is a lot quicker and will spare a lot of pain, but it doesn't look like anyone is trying it.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:31 | 2911879 RocketScience
RocketScience's picture


Whoever told you that citizenship didn’t require work and self-sacrifice was mistaken.


I want my ten kids to live in a better world than the one I had. An Amish retreat from American society, however personally liberating, does not advance the American ball. 

While I support Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, the fact of the matter is that they lost in the playoffs. We'll try again with Rand perhaps.


We live in a society with bell curves. Not everyone is smart enough to read and understand ZeroHedge, or comprehend that we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy. I do not look at the less fortunate as muppets, or people to discard and ridicule. I find that to be intellectual snobbery of the worst kind. There is always someone out there smarter than you. 


I choose not a life of self-indulgence, I choose a life of sacrifice, hard work, and I choose to fight!


Our calling for greatness is to confront the issues, and to confront them now. The World War II generation was called the greatest generation because they confronted their problems head-on, they put their lives on the line, they charged into machine gun fire to protect our way of life. They are called the greatest generation for a reason: because history judged them in the aftermath and found them to be great. Make no mistake, we too will be judged by our children and grandchildren. At this moment of crisis did we rise to the challenge, did we make the hard choices which preserved our way of life, or did we waste our fortunes on hop scotching the world in a masturbatory self-indulgent cocoon of private jets and five star hotels. Will our children and grandchildren be able to say that we made the hard choices that made possible (for them) a future of greatness.  I know how I want to be judged. 


Tue, 10/23/2012 - 02:46 | 2911928 Shibumi2
Shibumi2's picture

The world war 2 generations sucked dick, for lack of a better term. TOM BROWKOW, a news reader, coined the term, or at least popularized it, based on nothing but a fervent desire to peddle his self-serving drivel. <OST of the current "great society" bullshit happened on THEIR watch, and the great ones are all busy sucking on the government teat and enjoying their $5000 scooters as their kids and grandkids flounder.

If you are not, in fact, a shill then it would serve you well to consider HOW all this government came to pass in the first place. Status for the "lesser of two evils". This isn't a new observation...I've heard it all before.


Living Amish would truly provide all the tools necessary for a grass roots movement to live as free men. Elimination of private credit systems and the societal fraud which supports it is the only solution. You might be out milking ol' Bossy to provide fresh, wholesome milk for your 10 kids rather than the trip to the quickie mart for skimmed shit milk which will dumb down your progeny as you appear to have been.


People pretend to work, and the owners pretend to pay. Various taxes take 70% of all "earnings", state, federal, local, name it. The other 30% is eaten away by inflation, or more correctly, dilution. Then a person dies and the government takes 50% of whatever remains. If this isn't serfdom, I don't know what is. And we are where we are by voting for the lesser of two evils.


Now take that Amish gentleman. He rises at sunrise, milks the cows, chops the wood and grows crops. How the hell is the government going to take the 70%? It's not going to be able to feed the infrastructure necessary to support such confiscation, and the participants would starve. Not to mention, it's more intellectually honest to have the old man watch the trucks roll up and the product of his daily labor being loaded into the back of the government trucks. At least he can see who is removing food from his families table and taking the firewood to prevent them from having a warm home. He also has a more effective "remedy" should he tire of seeing his family cold and hungry.


I'll further wager that if one were paid in gold coin in exchange for honest labor and real goods and services that there would be mre resistance to the confiscatory tax scheme. Again, a man from the government appears at the Amish mans door, and the Amish man is directed, at the point of a gun, to fetch his gold coin box and GIVE the government man 30% of the gold coins. That would get old in a hurry/


Tue, 10/23/2012 - 09:11 | 2912316 pazmaker
pazmaker's picture

well said Shibumi!   Reality sucks... Sad but true.. hopefully if people are on ZH they want to learn and face reality, your post well help one do that if one s humble enough to be open minded to learning.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:31 | 2911881 Heyoka Bianco
Heyoka Bianco's picture

"Why do we have to pay for things with our taxes? Why doesn't the government pay for it?" If this isn't true, it should be. The problem in one sentence, and case fuckin' closed.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:40 | 2911887 DaylightWastingTime
DaylightWastingTime's picture

vote with your money.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 01:54 | 2911894 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

Voting is their way of assuring you will hang your head when they tell you: shut up, it's your fault dummy.

If you compromise for the sake of saving your own pet issue, you forfeit the right to complain later about the corrupt system that bought your vote.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 02:27 | 2911920 Manipuflation
Manipuflation's picture

Prescient observation WB7.(as usual)  It is a culture war.  Reflecting back for the last five years, I sometimes wonder if my efforts were worth it.  I do not know for sure, but what I do know is that I have never given up.... ever.  And I do know that I have effectively disseminated plenty of WB7's artistic license all over the InterWeb.  Thank you for your efforts.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 02:34 | 2911927 williambanzai7
williambanzai7's picture

What is most important is acting consistently with your conscience. It's hard to do that if you sell out to the empty narrative/illusion of choice when you know how corrupt the two party scam is.

Think about what a vapid side show these debates have been. The MSM has done s fine job of convincing the masses that there is some kind of substantive close contest going on.

I think these past four years have been a revelation to many. They have been for me, and I'm already cynical by nature.



Tue, 10/23/2012 - 02:59 | 2911937 janus
janus's picture


janus cannot describe or excuse the way his mind works; but on seein your post, i was reminded of another video, emblematic of the intrinsic flaws in democracy and central planning, that i should have included on my post.

glad to know you're still awake...i feel i'm just getting warmed up.  and with this no-drinking policy, i don't pass-out just when i'm getting warmed up. 

anyway, here's dufusocracy in action:

"we're confident that it'll work..."

imagine if you'd dared to oppose the thoughtfully considered consensus?  you'd probably be waterboarded and detained indefinitely.  you'd have deserved it, too.

p.s. tell tyler that the pop-up ads suck.



Tue, 10/23/2012 - 19:05 | 2914376 kekekekekekeke
kekekekekekeke's picture

hi janus

Wed, 10/24/2012 - 03:02 | 2915059 janus
janus's picture

enchante, kekeke...

keke..., you wanna know what's hot?  yoga instructors, that's what.  wanna know what's doubly-hot?  'hot yoga' instructors.  you could say that janus is firmly resolved when it comes to 'hot yoga' instuctors; i like them.  and at this point i doubt there's anything you could say that would in any way dissuade me from my conviction viz. 'hot yoga' instructors.

i was flattered by your jesture; and as a testament to my feelings concerning 'hot yoga' and its advocates (love the tight pants), i thought i would respond the best way i know how:  being super-fly with my badass other words, i'm going to flirt with you.  i don't think there's any way to avoid it at this point...flirting that is.

keke, it's a little known fact that janus needs help with his flexibility.  i feel i'm farily stong, but deficient when it comes to limberness and such.  so i figured i would stretch so as to connect with you and improve myself.  now, if i knew anything about yoga, i would've gone about the routine with ritualistic reverence; instead, i just modified some of the ole stretches from highschool to make them as yogaesque as possible. 

i was rather impressed with my efforts; i figure you would've been proud, too.

anyway, i thought about some songs to share with ya; each according to a new set of moves i like to call The Janus Lotus of Dynamic Happiness. don't worry, i've got songs for all of them.  some of them are bittersweet.  here goes (btw, you inspired all of these; so this is all your fault -- you foxy lil thing):

i call the first position, "Good Lord, my quads are as stiff as a board."  and as promised, the theme song to "Good Lord, my quads are as stiff as a board." (that's what you call ole-school awesome, keke)

this next move is far more satisfying.  basically, janus puts his hands on his hips all akimbo-like; he then pushes his hips forward as far as possible.  i call this'n the "Janus De-Luxe."  yes, of course it's accompanied by the perfect song:

i was thinkin bout you with this next song/move combo as well.  position 3 is basically a modified version of the "Janus De-Luxe"; inasmuch as it's the same as before, except that i sorta let my arms hang loose.  i got lazy with the naming, though...but not the song pickin.  position 3 is called the "Janus De-Luxe With Dangling Arms":


position #4 is a sad and somber state of affairs.  i call it the "Janus's Contrition Position...A.K.A -- #4".  i've never been able to touch my toes, so to disguise that fact, i make up other hammie stretches to make it look like i've 'moved on'...none of that bush-league hammie stretchin for janus.  i've gone pro.  anyway, one of the derivations i developed involves me sorta bending forward with my legs straight; but there's a twist: i cross my arms across the ole chest.  looks more sophisticated.  anyway, it comes with one of the original janus theme-songs...goin WAY back.  in all honesty, this song does mean quite a lot to it was played to me by somebody who knew me:

this last one is the most important. #5.  i stand up straight, again, arms akimbo, and sorta roll the head around its orbit.  i try to just relax and let the good vibrations commence to cascading.  naturally, i call it the "Loose Lucy."  again, a song that means a good deal to ole janus.  i saw jerry sing this song twice, i did.

well, the european open is upon us.  look forward to seein you around.

loose lucy is my delight/

she comes runnin at the fall of night/

round and round and round and round/

don't take much to get me on the ground/

she's my yo-yo, i'm the string/

listen to the birds on the high-wire sing/

...thank you, for a real good time,



Fri, 10/26/2012 - 18:23 | 2922830 kekekekekekeke
kekekekekekeke's picture

you're my favorite :*

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 02:03 | 2911899 Nobody For President
Nobody For President's picture

Ahem, there IS one candidate that is worthy. Honest, will unite the parties, avoid the fiscal cliff, bring sanity back to the markets, break up the TBTF financial institutions, bring all the troops home by summer, and is respected and admired by all.

I am far too modest to name the candidate, but you are all smart enough to figure it out.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 02:33 | 2911916 The Heart
The Heart's picture

As far as the election is concerned, why bother? It's all bought and payed for corruption. The people of this country no longer have a voice in what they do in the holy name of money. Here is more proof of this fact.



Tue, 10/23/2012 - 02:27 | 2911922 janus
janus's picture

Mr. Casey,

it probably won't shock you to learn that janus has thought these exact thoughts -- at great length and in oboxiously specific detail...but when janus comes across something new and brilliant, i mark it well (mainly because i'm jealous when somebody beats me to something...kinda like they've sinned or committed some nasty misdemeanor). 

mr. casey, i accuse you of illigetimately procured genius...and i believe i have a prima facie case.  open and shut, as it were:

  ": But I do raise a hand, constantly. I try to change things by influencing the way people think. I'd just rather not waste my time or degrade myself on unethical and futile efforts like voting. Anyway, that argument is more than fallacious, it's ridiculous and spurious. Actually, only the non-voter does have a right to complain – it's the opposite of what they say. Voters are assenting to whatever the government does; a nonvoter can best be compared to someone who refuses to join a mob. Only he really has the right to complain about what they do."

this kind of majestic thinking can only be the result of reflection and detachment...the natural function of quietude and focused meditation.  i doubt an ipad was involved.  i don't think it came in your in-box.  and since it requires more than 144 chareters to express, and it further demands an attention span that can keep several thoughts suspended (until they are in one seminal thought blended), i will forego the proceedings and pronounce you guilty.  there's something wrong with you, doug casey.

in homogenized & ultra-pasturized america, thought crime consists not in the dissemination of radical thought; perversely, the high-crime lies in the origination of any thought at all.  thinkers are an existential and sinister menace to the thoughtless.  it has always been so; but these interwebs permit our collusion.  i think we may have a chance afterall. 

back to the particular point i cited.  i always get this blinding headache when i'm forced to discuss politics with the average american dufus.  i once went so far as having it diagnosed.  they wired ole janus up with all these fancy gizmos with three letter acronyms that stand for wiz-bang science practically applied in diagnostic medicine; and they all spit out a pretty consistent result.  it seems my oblongada starts to twitch and spike in indignant fury when i'm confronted with insipid and platitudinous nonsense like wit: "if you don't vote, you don't have a right to complain."  i start to think to myself, 'oh really, that what your unforgiveable excuse for a brain belches as a substitue for genuine thought...if you, you miserable and oh-so forgettably boring wastral, think janus is gonna list his bona-fides of just why I, in particular, feel the RIGHT to complain, you've got another thing commin...instead, i think i'll just hurt your feelings; spook you about the future; and dare you to serve me another invitation to humiliate you.'  yup, that's what i'm thinkin.  not the good ole oblongada.

it wants to bludgeon such intellectually craven ilk.  but not with words.  fortunatly for american politicos, janus is civilized...a beast, sure, but a sapient sorta beast.  homo sapien.  in any event, this is what the ole oblongada wants to do:

see, they (the political forces) have kept the lions all tame and nice (they convinced the lions that things were best when lions were tame and nice).  and then, at about the 3:30 point in the above video, the lions decide it's time for a change.  they decide to take over the political arena. 

so anyway, back again to the point i cited.  i fight back the urge to bludgeon the american political dufus with something heavy and blunt, massage my temples to rechannel blood back to the civilized regions and relieve my thobbing oblongada, take a deep breath, and attempt to usher them through a dialectic bounded on each side with logic and reason.  they will have none of it, as it requires a 144+ charecter brain, and so we are both stranded there, ogling one another in listless and nonplussed consternation.  and so now i can distill my thoughts into a single aphoristic phrase to befuddle their buffonery.  with the added advantage being:  my aphoristic phrase will be true; insofar as it bears the hallmark of Truth -- that'd be Genius (even though it's stolen).  and so i feel very relieved, having pilfered your gem of wisdom, mr. casey.  have you ever seen a chinaman recover from the fog of confused consternation?  well, if you've ever seen a chinaman finally understand what you're saying, and this after suffering from a prolonged bout of confused consternation, that's the level of relief i feel having this in my arsenal.

awww, now, you sensitive-types...don't be so sensitive.  i've come to respect and like the chinaman since i moved to boston.  they're everywhere up can't turn around without running over a chinaman in boston.  owing to the fact that i now like and respect the chinaman (in spite of thier well-deserved reputation for incomprehensibly idiotic behavior behind the wheel), i will now set about describing the relief a chinaman feels at dissolving an enigma for those of you who populate america's provencial and asian-free janus so formerly did.

east and west must someday meet.  we always knew it.  it is rather unavoidable in a hyper-connected and trade-saturated globe.  everybody wants everybody eles's goodies...acquisitveness and curiosity make the world go round.  and whether you set to acquire gold, gizmos or genius, you're always looking for something new.  and so portions of each respective population bleed into one another.  boundaries are blurred and bigotries are blunted; sometimes slowly, but always eventually.  in the end, people are just people.  but a great danger lurks beneath the calm of our commonality.

we start to imagine ourselves interchangable and therefore reconcilable to a normalized standard.  in steps centralization and the authority invested in it by popular consent, commonly expressed by votes.  nothing is more dangerous than limitless masses of humanity zealously striving toward for singular purpose.  it always spells death and doom for those who stand out.  it's clear that God and janus are of a single accord on this matter.  the story of nimrod and the tower of bable will, i think, illuminate my position.

God hates centralization.  witness nimrod:  nimrod was a mighty man, so sayeth the Scriptures.  he'd managed to unite humanity under a single banner -- his own; and have them enlist their efforts to a common end -- his tower to challenge the heavens; and he'd seduced them to worship a single god -- nimrod.  it's fair to say that things were going nimrod's way.  he was, and still is, the envy of all central planners.

nimrod was able to accomplish this in an age of one language.  God looked down on it, and He deemed it boring.  He thought He'd mix things up a bit; you know, confuse the languages and whatnot...because, while babel was big, it lacked style, panache, creativity, was woefully wanting when it came to the good ole je ne sais quoi.  those who were special had long since been subsumed by the mad dash to drown everything awesome in the baptismal of boringness; they buried them beneath the foundations of babel...never to be heard from again. 

and when He was deciding what languages to bequeath to whom, it for some reason pleased Him to make the oriental and occidental tonge as dissonate and discordant as can be.  i mean to say, you've gotta hand it to The Big Fella upstairs...when it comes to confusing languages as a means to foiling central planners, nobody does it like The Almighty.

in spite of God's will and good sense, we are nevertheless impelled by the cravings of our acquisitive and curious selves.  we go on attempting to communicate so to facilitate some sort of exchange.  and so it happens -- and since i've moved to boston it has happened with increasing frequency -- that my commerce with the chinaman involves more than fried rice or heavy starch...which was always easily resolved by pointing at a number and nodding.  not so in our new age.  but, make no mistake, i prefer the new age.

the chinaman and janus are beginnging to expand the scope of our interchange.  the dynamic is more complex...which ever exacerbates the degree of confusion.  now, when confused, the chinaman lets you know, though a series of very severe facial contortions and contemptuous gesticulations, that YOU are to blame for the confusion.  he is saying things plainly and cogently; you are jamming up the works with your unintelligable blather.  and when you attempt to add a detail that only serves to aggrevate the underlying condition, you are immediatly repromanded with an even more convincing routine staged to convey a flared-up bout of apoplectic frustration.  then you go back to basics, and the chinaman calms down.

you may repeat the scene above several times before you start to mine a vein of shared understanding; but once you hit on it, the chinaman will reward you with super-happy enthusiasm and nodding approval.  you will never feel so soothed as when you first start to communicate with a chinaman.  janus can't argue with their methods, though.  enough scoldings from the facial contortions of a chinaman and you'll do all you can to skip ahead to the super-happy enthusiasm. 

just thought you ZHealots should know that...the relief a chinaman feels at clarification and all.


kudos, mr. casey.



Tue, 10/23/2012 - 03:38 | 2911955 Jugdish
Jugdish's picture

O just pray, just pray fer president Romeny this thanks givin, pray he'll un-do the stuff president o'bama has done, just sit around an pray with yer family an friends that president romeny is gonna fix this mess, i just prey, i sit around and pray.

This shit is broke and you are all fucked, especially the mestizos out there pumpin on this thread. Sorry, I'm drunk.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 04:06 | 2911973 Monedas
Monedas's picture

A little less Jug (drink) and a little more Dish (food) .... Dishjug ?  It's all about priorities !

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 03:56 | 2911965 Monedas
Monedas's picture

Voting is getting easier .... I'm a permanent mail in voter !  I'd probably speak out if I went to a polling place and saw them letting people vote with no picture ID .... plus there is the distasteful ambience of being around Obama voters ! Just like my posts .... I tend to speak out inappropriately .... when something bugs me !

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 04:12 | 2911976 Monedas
Monedas's picture

Before I would not vote .... I would vote twice and scam the corrupt vote counters .... it's not immoral to scam the scammers !    I do enjoy voting against every bond issue for more libraries and stupid stuff we don't need !

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 04:15 | 2911979 alfbell
alfbell's picture

Casey is right in one respect... think economically. Concentrate on making your life better and being more and more self sufficient. Be part of a local community that has the same mindset. Do everything you can to not participate and not cooperate with our government (because it is no longer a government that supports its citizenry). Lack of cooperation will send this system into the abyss much faster than anything else. Look what happened to communism in Russia. Don't need to vote for the lesser of two evils, don't need to join the local people's militia to fight the government goons, don't need to burn down The Fed and tar and feather Bernanke, etc. etc. Illogical violence and opposition always backfires on oneself. Do everything to NOT COOPERATE and this system will cave in.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 04:54 | 2911980 jjsilver
jjsilver's picture

Why are people voting at all. The Organic Laws of the United States of America limit federal taxation and legislation to the territory owned by or subject to the exclusive legislative power of the United States of America.

How many people live on federal territory? answer, virtually none. It's all a huge  con people. Below is a great quote from ed rivera, who I highly recommend if you REALLY want to learn the truth.


Voting is just a way of conning you into the democracy.  If I do not have the authority to make laws for my neighbor, and my neighbor doesn't have the authority to make laws for me. Then how does both of us voting for one guy give him the authority to make laws for both of us. It's a fallacy. Ed Rivera


If you just think about it from a criminal mind standpoint, then it is easy to see. We are dealing with a very sick criminal syndicate who have publicly stated we are useless eaters and should be eliminated; and they will succeed if we don't wake up fast. The sooner we all realize this the sooner we can break free and root these sick people out of society


Tue, 10/23/2012 - 04:19 | 2911981 Monedas
Monedas's picture

If the voting pool was only 2, 3, 4 or 5 voters .... I'd bet Casey would vote ?

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 04:30 | 2911984 Monedas
Monedas's picture

Once you try government crack .... you'll never go back !

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 05:20 | 2911992 Anasteus
Anasteus's picture

I do not agree with any single argument mentioned in the interview. It's a mix of defeatist, frightened, frustrated and gutless attitudes veiled by big-headed quasi-intelectual pose, pretty far away from the genuine traditional American national spirit. Pure bullshit in crystalic form.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 07:57 | 2912095 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

pretty far away from the genuine traditional American national spirit.


But of course voting in this corrupt and unfair system (only two parties can debate) is an example of that great 'genuine traditional American national spirit'.

Your hate towards Casey says more about you than it does about him.

Tue, 11/13/2012 - 05:21 | 2912355 Anasteus
Anasteus's picture

I have no hate towards Casey at all. I just disagree with the arguments and the basic attitude. The fact that the system is corrupt doesn't necessarily mean total resignation. You can still express your free will by voting a third-party candidate, at least for being able to sleep well, even if real chance for him or her to win is minimal. I can hardly accept the argument that third-party candidate cannot win so it's waste of time and efforts to go vote. I understand that the two-party voting system has strong tradition but it doesn't mean it must remain such forever. If, for instance, Ron Paul gained 7% or 10% then, believe me or not, the oligarchs would be pretty shocked regardless of who actually won the election; the bottom-up message is clear. In the next term a third-party candidate could gain 12% or 15%, and on and on. If one stays involved this gradual process of decoupling can be taking place unless a more-party system is naturally established sometime in the future. But by resigning - just because of not seeing immediate results - there is no chance to change anything whatsoever. That's exactly where the oligarchs want you to land.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 05:34 | 2912005 giggler123
giggler123's picture

It would help if any of them had policies that people believed in, made a difference and a real contribution to society.  Anything less is a charade and not worth voting for.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 05:40 | 2912007 Amagnonx
Amagnonx's picture

Not voting is one way to at least express something - personally i think not paying tax is a vote that will be counted.

Perhaps someone from here who is in the US could organize people to simply not pay tax.  Considering the name, surely at least some of the Tea Party people would be opposed to the current taxation rape, and some might have the courage to make a stand and not pay?


It only took one guy to start throwing tea into the harbor to start this kind of thing way back when - someone willing to risk the wrath of the scum - imo, that may be all it takes.

Someone who says - "I won't pay a govt that started wars based on lies and continues them for the profit of special interests, I will not pay a govt who can't convict Corzine, I won't pay a govt that guts the economy with taxation and regulation, I won't pay a govt that won't close the Fed .. I just won't pay."  There are so many reasons to withdraw financial support - I don't think it would be hard to find people to go ahead and start this.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 05:50 | 2912012 spentCartridge
spentCartridge's picture

You don't need five reasons.

One is good enough.

And that reason is, .Gov works for the public, voting citizens are not public, they work for the man.


Don't vote = don't roll in legal land.


Fuck them all to Hell ...

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 06:30 | 2912022 toomanyfakecons...
toomanyfakeconservatives's picture

I'm not sure which one is more immoral, voting to bomb women and children, or paying taxes to bomb women and children.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 07:52 | 2912101 TWSceptic
TWSceptic's picture

Definitely voting, not paying taxes means you go to jail for life. It's not really a choice then is it?

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 06:36 | 2912027 Money 4 Nothing
Money 4 Nothing's picture

Or.. Just search:

CBS released Presidential winner 9 day's early... Ooops!!

Shows Obama won with 99% of precincts reported, they accidently loaded the wrong tape, it was supposed to be Presidential debate current results, instead they loaded Presidential race results. *crickets*

Go pull that lever sheep. Presidents are selected, not elected.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 06:40 | 2912034 Sathington Willougby
Sathington Willougby's picture

Pull the L lever in Texas.  It's going to be red.  

Throw the real people a bone.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 07:56 | 2912051 NuYawkFrankie
NuYawkFrankie's picture

Re Reasons Not To Vote.



You'd have to be a fool - a fool with a death-wish - to consent, by voting, to being "governed" by any of these D.C. politicians. 

They serve a different master whose agenda is not yours - it's quite the opposite and is, in fact, antithetical to your well-being. 

And if you don't/can't/won't see that - even at this late stage and with all the evidence - then you are a lost soul and deserve what you most assuredly will get... real good, real hard and real soon.

Time to dig deep  and start making alternative arrangements - from the inside out.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 07:24 | 2912069 northerngirl
northerngirl's picture

Not to vote is to vote.  If you want 4 more years of Obama, not voting or voting for a third party will get him elected.  I'm no fan of Romney, but Obama has already had his turn, time for him to move on now.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 07:37 | 2912081 Old Poor Richard
Old Poor Richard's picture

Writing in Ron Paul gives the finger to the establishment more than voting for a minor party trying to play the rigged game by the establishment's rules. 


I wish either Ron Paul or Gary Johnson would be the next president, but that's not going to happen.  Writing in Ron Paul makes a statement, "Fuck you, Romney and fuck you, RNC."


Tue, 10/23/2012 - 07:38 | 2912084 cjbosk
cjbosk's picture

"not to vote". That may be the single most ignorant thing a citizen of any country with the right to vote can engage. Casey needs to do a "5 reasons not to read Casey Research", it would be more interesting!

Doug, stick with what you know...because it's certainly not your strength.

Andy by the way Dougie, I've already voted for Romney...because we need to throw Obe-Bozo to the curb where he belongs. He's a total lacky and douche bag. Can't run a Dairy Queen but is running the nation, I'm terribly embarassed!

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:17 | 2912152 mendigo
mendigo's picture

Chill, cjbosk.

I now realize it was all sarc - a test really.

But dude, comedy - brevity. Word.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 07:42 | 2912089 cjbosk
cjbosk's picture

Man, the RP crowd needs to wake up. I'm thinking they may be more ignorant than the Obozo crowd.

Writing in RP on the ballot is just plain stupid, stupid, stupid. It gets you nothing!!!!


Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:06 | 2912123 mendigo
mendigo's picture


Write-ins will not be counted.

Third party votes will.

They are so hoping that you will stay home.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:01 | 2912118 mendigo
mendigo's picture

It would be more convenient for everyone if you simply choose not to vote, thank you.

Your reasoning is flawless - no one could dispute it. It must be a burden to be so intellectual and yet live among such an ignorant and unappreciative society. You are a rebel - not sheep-like at all.

Thank you for your patience while they fix the loop-hole that permits third parties. How many choices does a person need really?

Please return to what you were watching.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:08 | 2912129 Fiat Burner
Fiat Burner's picture

I'm tired of hearing this bullshit defeatist argument.  The USA is a constitutional republic; meaning we elect represenatives to protect our constitutional rights.  Voting is a pilar of our once great nation. Voting is the only way for peaceful reform.  There are plenty of candidates outside the status quo Republicans and Democrats that are worthy of a vote.  Start voting for them and encouring others to do the same.  The reason we fucking got into this mess is the PEOPLE starting compromising on their principles and voted accordingly.  This fucking corrupt government didn't come out of nowhere, it was voted in over time. Its gotten so bad now, that it doesn't feel like its the people's government, but it is.  We deserve what we get.  Dropping out of voting all together is a fucking sissy move.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:25 | 2912167 Liposuction
Liposuction's picture

But what about the secret smoke filled back room where they throw out ballots and the explosives at World Trade 1 and chem-trails and radio waves and the fluoride in the water!?!


If you refuse to vote, you deny them your essence FB.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:11 | 2912134 MrBoompi
MrBoompi's picture

I don't want fucking Mitt Romney, or whoever pulls his strings, to have a chance to nominate any Supreme Court justices.  So if you were planning on voting for Mitt, do the country a favor and don't vote.



Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:14 | 2912146 overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

mr boom yu are so the dem candidates protected private ownership and have halted HLS molestation of children and the old and sick of our nation, called for corzine to be charged, what a great group they put on court.


Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:38 | 2912198 Liposuction
Liposuction's picture

Except for the partiot act, guantanamo, destabilizing the middle east, the TSA, giant medical entitlement programs, crony deals and general overal corruption, Obama is totally different than GW Bush.


Totally different.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:37 | 2912197 Invisible Hand
Invisible Hand's picture

Childish attitude of an evidently childish man.

Don't vote so you can feel superior, more moral, and best of all giving the govt the finger?

Pretty gutsy move, not voting.  Why only about half the eligible population performs that brave, defiant act of not voting.  Shows you're not going to be pushed around by the govt anymore, that you're going to stand up and NOT be counted, no matter what the cost (as long as the cost is NOTHING).

If you think the US is so evil, so messed up, so irredeemable, do something significant about it.  Don't pay your taxes and make a real statement.  Sure you'll get hurt but if all your "dramatic" protests consist of non-actions that don't cost you anything, you are showing that you only want to posture, not protest.

Don't get so self righteous about doing something that no one will even notice (like not voting).

If you think that the US will never be perfect, but could be better.  If you think that lighting one candle is better than cursing the darkness.  If you want to exercise the right that most of the planet is denied and millions have died to give to you, then VOTE.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do NOTHING.

You don't get to rule the world, but you get to have a tiny say in what happens.  Use it.

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:43 | 2912220 Liposuction
Liposuction's picture

I always ask this of my friends and family that either can't be bothered to vote, or are threatening to vote libertarian:

“Are you being emotional and trying to make a point, or are you being logical and trying to make the country a better place?”
Tue, 10/23/2012 - 08:54 | 2912262 hawk nation
hawk nation's picture

I say vote for the person you think has a belief in god because this current system is going to fail very soon.

One person ithink will seize the collapse to become a dictator and the other Im not so sure and just maybe he will go bck to th original intent of the constitution

So theres no mistake i think obama is a manchurian candidate

Tue, 10/23/2012 - 09:29 | 2912396 TrumpXVI
TrumpXVI's picture

I agree with Casey that one needs to stop thinking politically and needs to think economically.  Unfortunately, people have been thoroughly brainwashed into thinking politically.  I try to explain to my friends that the only news that matters is the busines and economic news.  Economic conditions; debt and resource constraints are driving the agenda now.  The politicians are purely reactive.  They're not behind any sort of "steering wheel" at all at this point.  And listening to them "debate" is a complete waste of one's time.  Every brain cell I can muster is devoted to trying to understand the ramifications of the macro-economic situation; the real driver of events moving forward.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!