Synaptic Sparks

Examining Voting

Last File Save

Myths of Voting

Voting Examined

Voting is an act that the voters believe gives them control over some aspect of their lives. This is only true for the voters in the majority. When the voters are in the minority, those voters are being controlled by the majority.

This can be proven with an examination of any vote regarding any topic.

Voting For Cake

If a group of people are asked to vote for either a chocolate cake or a vanilla cake, the majority group's decision controls what the minority group gets. If you absolutely hate the taste of chocolate cake and that's what the majority wants, then you eat chocolate cake or nothing.

Unlike the results of other votes, 'government' people with guns don't come and force you to eat the chocolate cake.

Local Referendum Voting

If your locality has a funding referendum to increase funding for the local schools, those with children in that school will likely vote FOR the tax increase. Those who do not want their taxes increased will likely vote AGAINST the tax increase. If, for sake of example, the voting splits along parental and non-parental lines, one of two situations will result.

Either the referendum fails and taxes are not increased with the result that the school does not get increased funding; The parents do not get what they want; More money spent on their children. Or conversely, the referendum passes and taxes are increased with the result that the school gets increased funding; The non-parents do not get what they want; They are then forced to pay more for something they don't need or use.

If the referendum passes and the non-parents refuse to pay the tax, 'government' people with guns come and make them pay or take their homes away from them.

This proves that voters want the criminals called government to rob their neighbors so that they can get the benefits of the robbery. In this case, their neighbor's money spent on the parent's children.

Voting for a Representative

You have been taught to believe that you have a right to vote to choose a Representative. There are logical flaws and delusions in this fairy tale.

Imagine two candidates trying to get elected. Candidate A is running on an anti-Lilac platform and has promised to enact legislation making it illegal to have Lilac bushes growing in your yard. Candidate B is running on a pro-Lilac platform and has promised to oppose any anti-Lilac legislation.

If the anti-Lilac Candidate wins, then the anti-Lilac majority of voters will have representation in Congress; the pro-Lilac voters will not have any representation in Congress.

Conversely; If the pro-Lilac Candidate wins, then the pro-Lilac majority of voters will have representation and the anti-Lilac minority of voters will not.

The majority controls who is going to allegedly represent the minority.

As a matter of logic, the winning candidate can not and does not represent the losing voters. So much for No Taxation Without Representation fairy tale.

Continuing the examination of voting for a Representative:

An elected alleged Representative will write, dicker, and then vote with other alleged Representatives regarding a new law and if 51% of the alleged Representatives voting agree that thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property, then that is the law and thou shalt have no lilacs growing on your property.

In legal terms, such laws are known as a malum prohibitum laws.

Malum prohibitum is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, (by virtue of being a politician's opinion) as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.

There are many laws that are functionally the same as this hypothetical anti-Lilac law in the law books commanding that acts or omissions are illegal because of some politician's written opinions; Act or omissions that do not cause harm to any other human in that society.

Any person who represents another is called an agent. The person being represented is called the principal.

In a true principal - agent relationship, the agent can not command the principal. The agent is required to obey the principal's wishes and protect the principal's interests. Also, if the agent fails to represent the principal and the principal's interests, the principal can terminate the agent's employment immediately.

Calling Congressional Legislators "Representatives" is a lie, regardless of the dictionary definitions doing just that. Newspeak anyone?

The term newspeak was coined by George Orwell in his 1949 anti-utopian novel 1984. In Orwell's fictional totalitarian state, Newspeak was a language favored by the minions of Big Brother and, in Orwell's words, designed to diminish the range of thought. Newspeak was characterized by the elimination or alteration of certain words, the substitution of one word for another, the interchangeability of parts of speech, and the creation of words for political purposes. The word has caught on in general use to refer to confusing or deceptive bureaucratic jargon.

Legislators can not be immediately terminated for failing to protect any voter's interests. True representative agents can not command their principals, which is exactly what Legislators do with their laws. Laws that Legislators enact are commands.

So why call them Representatives?
They're not and they don't.
So why vote for them?

The record of alleged Representatives sure looks to me like they just do what they want anyway.

And you idiots just keep right on voting. (sic)

Voting is Majority Tyranny

Voting is where a collective of individual humans perform an act that allows the majority of those individuals to control the minority of those individuals. Voters have somehow become convinced that it is their duty to be controlled by what the majority has chosen for them.

This is proven by observing minority voters honoring and obeying the result of the majority vote; whether it is to eat chocolate cake; pay extra taxes; or be represented by an elected alleged Representative who provably does not represent the minority.

Since none of the majority has any non bogus authority over the minority, what the majority wishes and votes for creates no legitimate demand on any of the minority.

Which means that voting will always be the majority controlling the minority until people awake to the fact that none of the majority was born with non bogus authority over them or anybody else.

And you idiots just keep right on voting. (sic)

Voting is Not Magic

  1. It is claimed that all are born with equal rights.
  2. Therefore none are born with non bogus authority over any other.
  3. Therefore none can delegate authority they don't have.
  4. Therefore voters were not born with non bogus authority over any other.
  5. Therefore voters can not delegate authority they don't have by voting.
  6. Voting can not magically conjure up authority over others that the voters do not have.

Addressing the Myths

Voting allows you make a meaningful choice.

Your vote counts / matters.

Voting allows you to have a say in how you will be governed.

Voting is your civic duty.

If you don't vote, you can't complain.

Why I Won't Vote

  1. I refuse to legitimize the voting hoax.
  2. I refuse to legitimize the criminal syndicate called government.
  3. I do not consent to being governed by the criminal syndicate calling themselves government.
  4. Voting for the lessor of two evils is still voting for evil.
  5. I don't have any right to choose a tyrant to have authority over you.
  6. I don't have any authority over you that I could delegate to a tyrant anyway.
  7. I refuse to condone the evil that the criminal syndicate called government has done in the name of The People.
Rulers rule. Leaders lead. What's the difference? Rulers lock you in a cage of kill you if you don't obey. If you think you are voting for a leader, YOU'RE AN IDIOT.