Damn…

Tried to read through “Billy’s” ridiculous hypothetical situation put forward to explain his no voting stance. The stupidity of the very first “vote” (are we gonna break into that house over there and steal stuff?) should have had you walking away immediately.

He wants to have an argument for the sake of arguing. Period. When the premise makes no sense – it’s merely a ploy to pull you in and keep you angry. When the person keeps twisting things and never agreeing on any point – big red flags go up all over the place.

Remember the adage “don’t feed the trolls”. That’s a troll if I ever saw one. There is no logic – there will be no resolution – it’s mere baiting to see how angry he can make you and how twisted he can make the argument.

If I were you, I’d leave off any discussions with “Billy”. It wastes your time and energy and gets you nowhere. And really what’s the point of that?

Of course you could tell Billy if he really doesn’t want to vote to just move to China and that will all be taken out of his hands and he won’t have to worry about it. Heh. But then he’d come back at some weird tangent because it’s all about keeping you angry not talking about differences.

I will defend your right to say what you feel is right in RL, but my number one rule is not to argue on the Internet. Seriously. It’s just like Teresa said, they want to pull you in. There’s only debate when people are open to other’s opinions. That is rare here, my friend. Mostly non-existent. Just click the X and play with my buddy Stretch.

Yabu,

I’ve been closely following the conversations at my place.

Billy is not beating the shit out of you, he is forcefully, and repeatedly, attacking the idea you hold true as a core belief.

Some time ago, in a comment at WRSA, an individual noted Billy’s direct, and seemingly vituperative, method of speaking. I responded; and I must paraphrase my comment because I cannot recall my exact words; “When I first began reading Billy almost 10 years ago, I felt as if I was being bastinadoed, mercilessly. But it was not I that was being bastinadoed, but rather my sloppy thinking.”

I’m grateful for this.

I can only suggest that you just step back from the conversation and wrestle with the idea, and the principle, Billy is speaking to.

You are my friend, Yabu, though we disagree on the idea generating your unease. You are wrong about voting, and in regards to Billy attacking you. It is the idea under attack, not you.

I waded through through that entire exchange and what I came away with is that Billy Beck flies the Black flag and offers no viable alternative to our current system.
I fully understand the concept that he’s trying to present, ‘There simply is no such thing as a right to vote on others’ rights’, but voting for someone who’s running for political office is not voting to limit anothers rights; in my case it’s voting to protect those rights as set forth in our Constitution. Further, the example of casting a vote with a mob at the end of your neighbor’s driveway, whether or not to break in and steal his shit, is a stretch (no offense to Stretch).
Billy has his deep thoughts and they’re interesting to ponder from a philosophical perspective. The bottom line for me was his stepping on your right to have an opinion that differed from his.

Sounds like a discussion college sophomores have after a dozen or so beers.

Others have said it, this Beck guy wants to argue for the sake of an argument. There are two choices. Man can live under a set of rules or in anarchy. There are tons of philosophers smarter than I who have discussed this, but man will choose to live under a set of rules, because under anarchy there are no rules, the strong will take what they want. The weak (and I do not mean this as any insult) will band together for protection and government of its simplist form is created.

Man must then decide what freedoms he chooses to surrender to ensure he is protected from those who will take his freedoms away. Government is a tradeoff. We all want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but we are willing to trade a little of the last two in order to keep alive. The issue is how much liberty and happines are we willing to give up?

Under a King, or the rule of Lennin and Mao, people were willing to give up a lot of freedom. Here in America, not so much. When men come together and decide what freedoms they are willing to subjugate , a vote is how the decisions are made among the collective of the community. Collectively we all decided a long time ago that what is mine is mine and what is yours is yours. I can’t steal Stretch ’cause I want him for my dog. As such, we all did the ‘vote at the end of the driveway’, whether Mr. Beck likes it or not.

We vote every day. That is the price of civilization. Beck is the fool if he believes we can live in a utopian society without agreeing on a set of rules. That agreement in itself is a vote. the only alternative is total and complete anarchy.

Beck needs to spend some time with Lock, Descartes, Jefferson and Paine.

Don’t you get it? Billy decided you’re wrong…and his vote is the only one that counts. So enough “sloppy thinking” and just nod your head in agreement.

</sarcasm>

After reading ‘Damn’ when it first posted I went to Beck’s blog, Two Four to see what he was all about. Actually I’ve spent a fair amount of time there. I found him to be intelligent, very well read, a decent writer, and while I can’t bring myself to use the word profound, he does present some fairly unique thought.

Unfortunately his pomp and arrogance, his ‘I’m smarter than you and therefore obviously right’ attitude put him on the same plane as every asshole politician who seems to think they know what’s best for me.

Present to me your thoughts and ideas, but don’t browbeat me with the assumption that I’m not as gifted or educated as you when I disagree.