Do Not Vote
MonopolyOnReason
in our country. Even the worst among us would not suggest people pass
up the opportunity to have their voice heard. Endless numbers of
nameless heroes died just to bring you the right to vote. No matter
what irrational ways are used to pick a candidate, the more important
thing is apparently to vote. I don’t vote and I will tell you why.
I entirely reject the idea that by gathering a plurality or even a
majority of votes gives anyone rightful dominion over the choices I
can make as long as I do not infringe on the same rights of others.
It is as simple as that. If I voted, I would betray the principles by
which I live my life by attempting to visit the same coercion that I
deplore on others in the form of my favored candidate.
The Rest > http://monopolyonreason.com/blog/?p=153
John J
> [...] I don’t vote and I will tell you why.
>
> [...]
On his site he writes, ". I have no greater right to try to force my
ideas on others than anyone else."
But he is doing the same here.
Shut the fuck up!
Maxwell's demon
If posting is forcing ideas on others, then you are doing the same thing.
John J
Yes. I was wrong. I really messed up.
Michael Gordge
How would voting for a libertarian candidate violate your admirable
principle of "live and let live" given that to be libertarian means to
give peaceful people back their lives and their choices?
Its not always a bad idea to attack and defeat your enemy using the
means they provide.
Michael Gordge
curmudgeon
*Anarcissie*
In a national election where 100 million or so vote, your vote
will have an infinitesimal, that is, zero, effect on the outcome.
So I don't think you need to worry about the practical effects
of your vote in that case. If you feel like voting, vote, if not,
don't.
Many people -- all of the ones I am aware of are leftists --
have given some thought to the defects of winner-take-all
democracy and tried to come up with solutions for situations
in which collective decision-making is necessary or at least
thought to be desirable. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making
for instance.
tg
> On Oct 18, 3:43 pm, MonopolyOnReason <reasonop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The phrase “I don’t vote” has become one of the new unspeakable taboos
> > in our country. Even the worst among us would not suggest people pass
> > up the opportunity to have their voice heard. Endless numbers of
> > nameless heroes died just to bring you the right to vote. No matter
> > what irrational ways are used to pick a candidate, the more important
> > thing is apparently to vote. I don’t vote and I will tell you why.
>
> > I entirely reject the idea that by gathering a plurality or even a
> > majority of votes gives anyone rightful dominion over the choices I
> > can make as long as I do not infringe on the same rights of others.
> > It is as simple as that. If I voted, I would betray the principles by
> > which I live my life by attempting to visit the same coercion that I
> > deplore on others in the form of my favored candidate.
>
> > The Rest >http://monopolyonreason.com/blog/?p=153
>
> In a national election where 100 million or so vote, your vote
> will have an infinitesimal, that is, zero, effect on the outcome.
Ummm---is this an attempt to revisit Zeno's paradoxes?
-tg
*Anarcissie*
> On Oct 20, 10:02 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 3:43 pm, MonopolyOnReason <reasonop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The phrase “I don’t vote” has become one of the new unspeakable taboos
> > > in our country. Even the worst among us would not suggest people pass
> > > up the opportunity to have their voice heard. Endless numbers of
> > > nameless heroes died just to bring you the right to vote. No matter
> > > what irrational ways are used to pick a candidate, the more important
> > > thing is apparently to vote. I don’t vote and I will tell you why.
>
> > > I entirely reject the idea that by gathering a plurality or even a
> > > majority of votes gives anyone rightful dominion over the choices I
> > > can make as long as I do not infringe on the same rights of others.
> > > It is as simple as that. If I voted, I would betray the principles by
> > > which I live my life by attempting to visit the same coercion that I
> > > deplore on others in the form of my favored candidate.
>
> > > The Rest >http://monopolyonreason.com/blog/?p=153
>
> > In a national election where 100 million or so vote, your vote
> > will have an infinitesimal, that is, zero, effect on the outcome.
>
> Ummm---is this an attempt to revisit Zeno's paradoxes?
>
I don't see Zeno's paradox in it. My observation is practical,
not mathematical. Mathematically, one vote in an election in
which 100 million participate does have a calculable chance
of deciding the election.
In a two-candidate election, there is just one arrangement
of votes which will make one's vote the deciding one. The
chances of this arrangment, given a random distribution of
votes, is 100 million to one. If the distribution is not random
it may increase or reduce the chances of the single vote,
but the choice of uneven distribution is random given
our knowledge and powers, so it does not alter the
situation in the single vote's favor.
Practically, then, the odds are so astronomically against
the voter that we can reasonably assign them a value of
zero.
Dan Clore
First, votes have more effects than simply deciding an election. They
are taken as sending a message about what the voters want and support.
Votes are interpreted as giving politicians a "mandate", for instance.
Second, for voting to work, it requires a lot of people to vote a
certain way. So while your analysis is correct in its own terms, that
may not be the right way to look at it. If everyone looks at it that
way, they won't vote, and it will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. On
the other hand, if they think in terms like "what if I and many others
vote for (or against) such-and-such"? -- then they will likely vote and
that could become a self-fulfilling prophecy, too.
I don't want to advocate a Pollyanna type belief in voting, but it does
strike me that the world would be a much better place if more people
thought in the latter terms.
--
Dan Clore
My collected fiction, _The Unspeakable and Others_:
http://tinyurl.com/2gcoqt
Lord Weÿrdgliffe & Necronomicon Page:
http://tinyurl.com/292yz9
News & Views for Anarchists & Activists:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smygo
Strange pleasures are known to him who flaunts the
immarcescible purple of poetry before the color-blind.
-- Clark Ashton Smith, "Epigrams and Apothegms"
jigo
news:6m3pvaF...@mid.individual.net...
That would not really address the basic problem: Even if more people felt
that way, unless there were a large number who happened to believe
differently than the present voters, it would only result in a continuation
of the status quo. It does not change the basic fallacy of forcing everyone
to accept the results of majority vote.
jigo
news:0cb038d3-3305-47b4...@b31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 20, 10:02 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 3:43 pm, MonopolyOnReason <reasonop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The phrase “I don’t vote” has become one of the new unspeakable taboos
> > in our country. Even the worst among us would not suggest people pass
> > up the opportunity to have their voice heard. Endless numbers of
> > nameless heroes died just to bring you the right to vote. No matter
> > what irrational ways are used to pick a candidate, the more important
> > thing is apparently to vote. I don’t vote and I will tell you why.
>
> > I entirely reject the idea that by gathering a plurality or even a
> > majority of votes gives anyone rightful dominion over the choices I
> > can make as long as I do not infringe on the same rights of others.
> > It is as simple as that. If I voted, I would betray the principles by
> > which I live my life by attempting to visit the same coercion that I
> > deplore on others in the form of my favored candidate.
>
> > The Rest >http://monopolyonreason.com/blog/?p=153
>
> In a national election where 100 million or so vote, your vote
> will have an infinitesimal, that is, zero, effect on the outcome.
~>Ummm---is this an attempt to revisit Zeno's paradoxes?
It is nothing like Zeno's paradoxes.
tg
> On Oct 20, 10:10 am, tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 20, 10:02 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 18, 3:43 pm, MonopolyOnReason <reasonop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The phrase “I don’t vote” has become one of the new unspeakable taboos
> > > > in our country. Even the worst among us would not suggest people pass
> > > > up the opportunity to have their voice heard. Endless numbers of
> > > > nameless heroes died just to bring you the right to vote. No matter
> > > > what irrational ways are used to pick a candidate, the more important
> > > > thing is apparently to vote. I don’t vote and I will tell you why.
>
> > > > I entirely reject the idea that by gathering a plurality or even a
> > > > majority of votes gives anyone rightful dominion over the choices I
> > > > can make as long as I do not infringe on the same rights of others.
> > > > It is as simple as that. If I voted, I would betray the principles by
> > > > which I live my life by attempting to visit the same coercion that I
> > > > deplore on others in the form of my favored candidate.
>
> > > > The Rest >http://monopolyonreason.com/blog/?p=153
>
> > > In a national election where 100 million or so vote, your vote
> > > will have an infinitesimal, that is, zero, effect on the outcome.
>
> > Ummm---is this an attempt to revisit Zeno's paradoxes?
>
> I don't see Zeno's paradox in it. My observation is practical,
> not mathematical. Mathematically, one vote in an election in
> which 100 million participate does have a calculable chance
> of deciding the election.
Which is not zero.
>
> In a two-candidate election, there is just one arrangement
> of votes which will make one's vote the deciding one. The
> chances of this arrangment, given a random distribution of
> votes, is 100 million to one.
The use of 'arrangement' here clouds your argument. There are a very
large number of *arrangements* of votes that would yield a tie, if we
are talking about individual decisions.
> If the distribution is not random
> it may increase or reduce the chances of the single vote,
> but the choice of uneven distribution is random given
> our knowledge
No, our knowledge tells us that elections tend to be close. Some
States have been decided by a few hundred votes---do you make the same
argument in that case?
> and powers, so it does not alter the
> situation in the single vote's favor.
>
> Practically, then, the odds are so astronomically against
> the voter that we can reasonably assign them a value of
> zero.
In which case, there is no reason for anyone to vote---which does put
you in Zeno-land.
-tg
tg
In the US, people are not forced to accept the results of majority
vote. Perhaps you live in Cuba?
-tg
Shrik...@gmail.com
People are never forced to accept the results of
majority vote in Cuba -- least of all the leadership.
Shrik...@gmail.com
Wouldn't it send quite a message if nobody voted?
What if they threw an election and nobody came.
Would there be endless recounts? A runoff?
Shrik...@gmail.com
This brings to mind this South Park Vote or Die clip from 2004:
*Anarcissie*
Mathematically no, practically yes. The chance of your vote
determining the outcome of 100-million elector election is
akin to your chance of winning a large lottery, except for
being smaller.
> > In a two-candidate election, there is just one arrangement
> > of votes which will make one's vote the deciding one. The
> > chances of this arrangment, given a random distribution of
> > votes, is 100 million to one.
>
> The use of 'arrangement' here clouds your argument. There are a very
> large number of *arrangements* of votes that would yield a tie, if we
> are talking about individual decisions.
If you go voter by voter you will have a ratio of two monster
factorials which will divide out to 100000000:1 -- I think. I'm
not going to try it.
> > If the distribution is not random
> > it may increase or reduce the chances of the single vote,
> > but the choice of uneven distribution is random given
> > our knowledge
>
> No, our knowledge tells us that elections tend to be close. Some
> States have been decided by a few hundred votes---do you make the same
> argument in that case?
The closest recent relevant election was the vote in
Florida in 2000, which Gore apparently won; but then
several thousand votes were thrown away, and the
issue was resolved by a contest of power. This
introduces another argument to the disadvantage of
belief in a significant vote: the likelihood that the
procedure will be corrupted. I did not want to raise
that point, however; I'm pretending that every vote
is counted equally.
> > and powers, so it does not alter the
> > situation in the single vote's favor.
>
> > Practically, then, the odds are so astronomically against
> > the voter that we can reasonably assign them a value of
> > zero.
>
> In which case, there is no reason for anyone to vote---which does put
> you in Zeno-land.
There is no instrumental reason to vote. (That
is, you can't make some particular thing happen.)
There are many other reasons to vote, however,
such as expressing your opinion, exercising some
sort of religious belief, and so on. Happily, for these
there is no instrumental reason not to vote, either.
That is, voting will do no harm.
Zeno's paradox is more on the side of the person
who believes voting is significant, I think. Zeno
paralyzes Achilles, the tortoise, the arrow, etc., by
cutting time into smaller and smaller fragments.
In the case of voting, the vote has already been
cut into tiny fragments, and people try to pretend
that these fragments cohere into some kind of
coherent entity in which they share. It works
only if you believe in it, which is why I used the
word "religious" above.
Shrik...@gmail.com
> "tg" <tgdenn...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0cb038d3-3305-47b4...@b31g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 20, 10:02 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 3:43 pm, MonopolyOnReason <reasonop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The phrase “I don’t vote” has become one of the new unspeakable taboos
> > > in our country. Even the worst among us would not suggest people pass
> > > up the opportunity to have their voice heard. Endless numbers of
> > > nameless heroes died just to bring you the right to vote. No matter
> > > what irrational ways are used to pick a candidate, the more important
> > > thing is apparently to vote. I don’t vote and I will tell you why.
>
> > > I entirely reject the idea that by gathering a plurality or even a
> > > majority of votes gives anyone rightful dominion over the choices I
> > > can make as long as I do not infringe on the same rights of others.
> > > It is as simple as that. If I voted, I would betray the principles by
> > > which I live my life by attempting to visit the same coercion that I
> > > deplore on others in the form of my favored candidate.
>
> > > The Rest >http://monopolyonreason.com/blog/?p=153
>
> > In a national election where 100 million or so vote, your vote
> > will have an infinitesimal, that is, zero, effect on the outcome.
>
> ~>Ummm---is this an attempt to revisit Zeno's paradoxes?
>
> It is nothing like Zeno's paradoxes.
It's okay. He's just trying to drop a name.
tg
I was just trying to clean up your language there---your case is weak
enough without the ambiguity, :-)
I will stipulate that the probability of a tie is low. That doesn't
make any difference though (see below).
But you *can* increase the probability of it happening. Buying a
lottery ticket makes your probability of winning infinitely higher
than if you don't buy one.
> There are many other reasons to vote, however,
> such as expressing your opinion, exercising some
> sort of religious belief, and so on. Happily, for these
> there is no instrumental reason not to vote, either.
> That is, voting will do no harm.
>
> Zeno's paradox is more on the side of the person
> who believes voting is significant, I think. Zeno
> paralyzes Achilles, the tortoise, the arrow, etc., by
> cutting time into smaller and smaller fragments.
> In the case of voting, the vote has already been
> cut into tiny fragments, and people try to pretend
> that these fragments cohere into some kind of
> coherent entity in which they share.
You haven't answered my question. Is it your position that if there
are only 3 voters, your vote *is* significant? How about 101 voters,
or 1001 voters? 10,001? As I pointed out, there are real cases where
the numbers are in those ranges.
-tg
ta
> The phrase “I don’t vote” has become one of the new unspeakable taboos
> in our country. Even the worst among us would not suggest people pass
> up the opportunity to have their voice heard. Endless numbers of
> nameless heroes died just to bring you the right to vote. No matter
> what irrational ways are used to pick a candidate, the more important
> thing is apparently to vote. I don’t vote and I will tell you why.
>
> I entirely reject the idea that by gathering a plurality or even a
> majority of votes gives anyone rightful dominion over the choices I
> can make as long as I do not infringe on the same rights of others.
> It is as simple as that. If I voted, I would betray the principles by
> which I live my life by attempting to visit the same coercion that I
> deplore on others in the form of my favored candidate.
>
> The Rest >http://monopolyonreason.com/blog/?p=153
Re: "Furthermore, when one endorses the lesser of two evils, they
still have endorsed evil. I cannot endorse evil."
I agree with your general point, but let's not get carried away. When
you start talking about "evil", you're sounding religious, not
reasonable. There's no such thing as "evil".
My main objection to voting, like yours apparently, is that my vote is
an endorsement of a corrupt system where we get to choose between one
of two power-mongers buying their way to power.
But you're never going to have any other choice, because politics is
always going to exclusively attract power mongers -- and I'm talking
about both the politicians themselves and the politicos who so
fervently insist that we, like them, choose among them.
Politics is nothing more than a distraction. Those of us who aren't
primarily concerned with trying to control other people understand
that real change takes place in the day-to-day choices we make in our
lives. Those who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives
will continue to look to their so-called "leaders" for direction and
control.
Besides, politics is always a lagging indicator; individuals make a
difference, and politicians follow their lead.
So voting does indeed matter, and not voting matters as well.
I'm going to do something productive on election day . . . perhaps
paint my kitchen, go for a hike, or take a nap.
Wordsmith
Yes, you should vote. Do a write-in.
W : )
Dan Clore
Mass voter abstention, if done as a conscious strategy and loudly
proclaimed as such, might also be an effective tactic. But as things
are, abstention is interpreted as apathy, fallacious as that
interpretation is.
Dan Clore
> "Dan Clore" <cl...@columbia-center.org> wrote in message
> news:6m3pvaF...@mid.individual.net...
>> I don't want to advocate a Pollyanna type belief in voting, but it
>> does strike me that the world would be a much better place if more
>> people thought in the latter terms.
>
> That would not really address the basic problem: Even if more people
> felt that way, unless there were a large number who happened to
> believe differently than the present voters, it would only result in
> a continuation of the status quo. It does not change the basic
> fallacy of forcing everyone to accept the results of majority vote.
That, of course, is true: I did not address that fallacy.
turtoni
"However, some countries, such as Argentina, Australia, Belgium and
Brazil, have compulsory voting systems."
publius2k
If one reads the platform of the Libertarian Party, it is plain that they do not intend to
'live and let live'. Their primary principle is unlimited privatization. Water rights,
dams, roads etc.. They intend on being landlords in a wonderful world where they, the
opulent minority, are entitled to decide who will eat and who will be eaten.
Privatization of the commons is theft from the unborn. Our babies are born into great
debt service now. Continuing on a course of lazy-unfair capitalism will only exacerbate
the situation.
The game Monopoly is not so much fun when played as a continuum. It is best to fold the
board and start fresh with a equal share of capital and opportunity periodically.
--
Said American [Indian] Chieftain Acuera in reply to
the invader de Soto's demand for submission to
the king and the church so as to 'enjoy the benefits
of 'civilization' and service:
"I have long since learned who you [European Christians] are,
through others of you who came years ago to my land;
and I already know very well what your customs and
behavior are like. To me you are professional
vagabonds who wander from place to place,
gaining your livelihood by robbing, sacking and
murdering people who have given you no offense.
... Accordingly, I and all of my people have vowed
to die a hundred deaths to maintain the freedom
of our land. This is our answer, both
for the present and forevermore."
-- "Florida of the Inca" (1591)
by El Inca [aka Garcilaso de la Vega]
- First American Author to be published.
publius2k
>Vote *None of the Above* and make your dissatisfaction known.
>
>
In 1924, Canada passed their 'Indian Act' which outlawed the traditional, egalitarian,
consensual governmental system of the 'First Nations'. Of the over 10,000 people on the
Six Nations reserve [largest in the Canadian Sector of the British Occupation Zone of the
Americas], only 125 decided to participate in the new imposed corporate style system and
they elected their friends. The vast majority voted against it in their traditional way,
by 'turning their backs', not participating. When the traditional leaders refused to
recognize the newly elected 'band councilors', the latter called in the RCMP and had the
peoples representatives evicted from their own governmental offices.
James A. Donald
> In 1924, Canada passed their 'Indian Act' which outlawed the traditional, egalitarian,
> consensual governmental system of the 'First Nations'.
The traditional government, while certainly consensual, was far indeed
from being egalitarian - the rich and the warriors had most say, and
the rest had very little say - what made it consensual is that the
warriors could decline to enforce what was decided, and the rich could
decline to pay for what was decided.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/ James A. Donald
Baldin Lee Pramer
Look, everyone: a real man. Pay attention -- when you make a mistake,
admit it and move on, like John.
Pramer
*Anarcissie*
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:23:07 -0400, publius2k <pub?@?li.us> wrote:
> > In 1924, Canada passed their 'Indian Act' which outlawed the traditional, egalitarian,
> > consensual governmental system of the 'First Nations'.
>
> The traditional government, while certainly consensual, was far indeed
> from being egalitarian - the rich and the warriors had most say, and
> the rest had very little say - what made it consensual is that the
> warriors could decline to enforce what was decided, and the rich could
> decline to pay for what was decided.
In other words there was no government. But I
think political arrangements actually varied a
good deal.
tg
> > In 1924, Canada passed their 'Indian Act' which outlawed the traditional, egalitarian,
> > consensual governmental system of the 'First Nations'.
>
> The traditional government, while certainly consensual, was far indeed
> from being egalitarian - the rich and the warriors
How do you define these classes?
First, the rich---did they own land in a modern sense? Who enforced
that ownership?
And then the warriors---did they constitute a modern military with a
chain of command and advanced weapons unavailable to others?
Absent those conditions, it would seem that egalitarian is a fair
description.
-tg
publius2k
>On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:23:07 -0400, publius2k <pub?@?li.us> wrote:
>> In 1924, Canada passed their 'Indian Act' which outlawed the traditional, egalitarian,
>> consensual governmental system of the 'First Nations'.
>
>The traditional government, while certainly consensual, was far indeed
>from being egalitarian - the rich and the warriors had most say, and
>the rest had very little say - what made it consensual is that the
>warriors could decline to enforce what was decided, and the rich could
>decline to pay for what was decided.
What rich?
Their's was a society that honored giving, service and sacrifice for others and abhorred
selfishness. Certainly successful hunters/providers garnered respect, but only because
they gave away their 'wealth', the bounty of their abilities. Great disparities of wealth
cannot be sustained without a police state and the glaring absence of the infrastructure
for such an enforcement mechanism speaks to the egalitarian, generous nature of the
peoples.
With thousands of tribes/bands/nations lots of variability existed...but individual
freedom not to follow was a hallmark of their existence overall. Force as in enFORCEment
was usually a foreign concept and construct.
"I am convinced that those societies (as the Indians) which live without government enjoy
in their general mass an infinitely greater degree of happiness than those who live under
the European governments. Among the former, public opinion is in the place of law, &
restrains morals as powerfully as laws ever did anywhere." - Thomas Jefferson
"The new idea of total liberty retained a leading place in these accounts. Léry, from
personal observation: ". . . they have neither kings nor princes, and consequently each is
more or less as much a great lord as the other." Macer, drawing conclusions from what he
had heard and read: "They do not recognize a King or any superior, and will not subject
themselves to the orders of anyone. Each is a King, master and Lord." [p 13 - New Worlds
for Old - Reports from the New World and Their Effect on the Development of Social Thought
in Europe, 1500-1800 by William Brandon [1986] Ohio University Press]
Greed and personal wealth was not their 'American Dream'. It was not the foundation of
their society as it is with Europeans. Most were matriarchal and therefore tended to be
nurturing and generous people. Such humility and sharing was another 'trademark' of the
Indians of the Americas, which intrigued the Euro-invaders.
Columbus stated in his log and report of first contact:
[The Indians] "are ... so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed
them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the
contrary, they offer to share with anyone...."
Ask any knowledgeable historian where they would have preferred to live and raise their
family in 1491-Europe or the Americas? The latter would be the near unanimous reply.
Why?
"It is a nation, would I answer Plato," so reads "Des Cannibales" in its first English
translation (1603) ... "that hath no kinde of traffike, no knowledge of Letters, no
intelligence of numbers, no name of magistrate, nor of politike superioritie; no use of
service, of riches or povertie; no contracts, no successions, no partitions, no occupation
but idle [modern French scholarship makes the meaning of this phrase 'no occupation but
that which is agreeable'] . . . no use of wine, corne, or mettle. The very words that
import lying, falsehood, treason, dissimulations, covetousness, envie, detractions, and
pardon, were never heard of amongst them."
"In his Journal entry for Christmas Day 1492, Columbus declared with some solemnity that
in all the world "I do not believe there is a better people or a better country; they
love their neighbors as themselves" and was moved to add that "they have the softest and
gentlest speech in the world and are always laughing."
The Haudenosaunee are often pointed to as an example of a very sophisticated social
society. The elder women, the Clanmothers, would choose from the experienced men just who
was to serve on the deliberative council as Sachems/Statesmen [errantly translated as
'Lords' in the following]. This is a summary of what they were guided by in their choice:
"24. The Lords of the Confederacy of the Five Nations shall be mentors of the people for
all time. The thickness of their skin shall be seven spans -- which is to say that they
shall be proof against anger, offensive actions and criticism. Their hearts shall be full
of peace and good will and their minds filled with a yearning for the welfare of the
people of the Confederacy. With endless patience they shall carry out their duty and
their firmness shall be tempered with a tenderness for their people. Neither anger nor
fury shall find lodgement in their minds and all their words and actions shall be marked
by calm deliberation.
25. If a Lord of the Confederacy should seek to establish any authority independent of
the jurisdiction of the Confederacy of the Great Peace, which is the Five Nations, he
shall be warned three times in open council, first by the women relatives, second by the
men relatives and finally by the Lords of the Confederacy of the Nation to which he
belongs. If the offending Lord is still obdurate he shall be dismissed by the War Chief
of his nation for refusing to conform to the laws of the Great Peace. His nation shall
then install the candidate nominated by the female name holders of his family.
26. It shall be the duty of all of the Five Nations Confederate Lords, from time to time
as occasion demands, to act as mentors and spiritual guides of their people and remind
them of their Creator's will and words. They shall say:
"Hearken, that peace may continue unto future days!
"Always listen to the words of the Great Creator, for he has spoken.
"United people, let not evil find lodging in your minds.
"For the Great Creator has spoken and the cause of Peace shall not become old.
"The cause of peace shall not die if you remember the Great Creator."
Every Confederate Lord shall speak words such as these to promote peace.
27. All Lords of the Five Nations Confederacy must be honest in all things. They must
not idle or gossip, but be men possessing those honorable qualities that make true
royaneh. It shall be a serious wrong for anyone to lead a Lord into trivial affairs, for
the people must ever hold their Lords high in estimation out of respect to their honorable
positions."
If in the unlikely event one of these chosen ones hardened his heart and became abusive, a
well defined process would provide protection and relief for the people:
"19. If at any time it shall be manifest that a Confederate Lord has not in mind the
welfare of the people or disobeys the rules of this Great Law, the men or women of the
Confederacy, or both jointly, shall come to the Council and upbraid the erring Lord
through his War Chief. If the complaint of the people through the War Chief is not heeded
the first time it shall be uttered again and then if no attention is given a third
complaint and warning shall be given. If the Lord is contumacious the matter shall go to
the council of War Chiefs. The War Chiefs shall then divest the erring Lord of his title
by order of the women in whom the titleship is vested. When the Lord is deposed the women
shall notify the Confederate Lords through their War Chief, and the Confederate Lords
shall sanction the act. The women will then select another of their sons as a candidate
and the Lords shall elect him. Then shall the chosen one be installed by the Installation
Ceremony.
When a Lord is to be deposed, his War Chief shall address him as follows:
"So you, __________, disregard and set at naught the warnings of your women
relatives. So you fling the warnings over your shoulder to cast them behind you.
"Behold the brightness of the Sun and in the brightness of the Sun's light I depose
you of your title and remove the sacred emblem of your Lordship title. I remove from your
brow the deer's antlers, which was the emblem of your position and token of your nobility.
I now depose you and return the antlers to the women whose heritage they are."
The War Chief shall now address the women of the deposed Lord and say:
"Mothers, as I have now deposed your Lord, I now return to you the emblem and the
title of Lordship, therefore repossess them."
Again addressing himself to the deposed Lord he shall say:
"As I have now deposed and discharged you so you are now no longer Lord. You shall
now go your way alone, the rest of the people of the Confederacy will not go with you, for
we know not the kind of mind that possesses you. As the Creator has nothing to do with
wrong so he will not come to rescue you from the precipice of destruction in which you
have cast yourself. You shall never be restored to the position which you once occupied."
Then shall the War Chief address himself to the Lords of the Nation to which the
deposed Lord belongs and say:
"Know you, my Lords, that I have taken the deer's antlers from the brow of
___________, the emblem of his position and token of his greatness."
The Lords of the Confederacy shall then have no other alternative than to sanction
the discharge of the offending Lord.
20. If a Lord of the Confederacy of the Five Nations should commit murder the other Lords
of the Nation shall assemble at the place where the corpse lies and prepare to depose the
criminal Lord. If it is impossible to meet at the scene of the crime the Lords shall
discuss the matter at the next Council of their Nation and request their War Chief to
depose the Lord guilty of crime, to "bury" his women relatives and to transfer the
Lordship title to a sister family. The War Chief shall address the Lord guilty of
murder and say:
"So you, __________ (giving his name) did kill __________ (naming the slain man),
with your own hands! You have committed a grave sin in the eyes of the Creator. Behold
the bright light of the Sun, and in the brightness of the Sun's light I depose you of your
title and remove the horns, the sacred emblems of your Lordship title. I remove from your
brow the deer's antlers, which was the emblem of your position and token of your nobility.
I now depose you and expel you and you shall depart at once from the territory of the Five
Nations Confederacy and nevermore return again. We, the Five Nations Confederacy,
moreover, bury your women relatives because the ancient Lordship title was never intended
to have any union with bloodshed. Henceforth it shall not be their heritage. By the evil
deed that you have done they have forfeited it forever.."
The War Chief shall then hand the title to a sister family and he shall address it
and say:
"Our mothers, ____________, listen attentively while I address you on a solemn and
important subject. I hereby transfer to you an ancient Lordship title for a great
calamity has befallen it in the hands of the family of a former Lord. We trust that you,
our mothers, will always guard it, and that you will warn your Lord always to be dutiful
and to advise his people to ever live in love, peace and harmony that a great calamity may
never happen again."
***
"58. There are now the Five Nations Confederate Lords standing with joined hands in a
circle. This signifies and provides that should any one of the Confederate Lords leave
the council and this Confederacy his crown of deer's horns, the emblem of his Lordship
title, together with his birthright, shall lodge on the arms of the Union Lords whose
hands are so joined. He forfeits his title and the crown falls from his brow but it shall
remain in the Confederacy.
A further meaning of this is that if any time any one of the Confederate Lords choose
to submit to the law of a foreign people he is no longer in but out of the Confederacy,
and persons of this class shall be called "They have alienated themselves." Likewise such
persons who submit to laws of foreign nations shall forfeit all birthrights and claims on
the Five Nations Confederacy and territory.
You, the Five Nations Confederate Lords, be firm so that if a tree falls on your
joined arms it shall not separate or weaken your hold. So shall the strength of the union
be preserved.
59. A bunch of wampum shells on strings, three spans of the hand in length, the upper
half of the bunch being white and the lower half black, and formed from equal
contributions of the men of the Five Nations, shall be a token that the men have combined
themselves into one head, one body and one thought, and it shall also symbolize their
ratification of the peace pact of the Confederacy, whereby the Lords of the Five Nations
have established the Great Peace.
The white portion of the shell strings represent the women and the black portion the
men. The black portion, furthermore, is a token of power and authority vested in the men
of the Five Nations.
This string of wampum vests the people with the right to correct their erring Lords.
In case a part or all the Lords pursue a course not vouched for by the people and heed not
the third warning of their women relatives, then the matter shall be taken to the General
Council of the women of the Five Nations. If the Lords notified and warned three times
fail to heed, then the case falls into the hands of the men of the Five Nations. The War
Chiefs shall then, by right of such power and authority, enter the open council to warn
the Lord or Lords to return from the wrong course. If the Lords heed the warning they
shall say, "we will reply tomorrow." If then an answer is returned in favor of justice
and in accord with this Great Law, then the Lords shall individually pledge themselves
again by again furnishing the necessary shells for the pledge. Then shall the War Chief
or Chiefs exhort the Lords urging them to be just and true.
Should it happen that the Lords refuse to heed the third warning, then two courses
are open: either the men may decide in their council to depose the Lord or Lords or to
club them to death with war clubs. Should they in their council decide to take the first
course the War Chief shall address the Lord or Lords, saying: "Since you the Lords of the
Five Nations have refused to return to the procedure of the Constitution, we now declare
your seats vacant, we take off your horns, the token of your Lordship, and others shall be
chosen and installed in your seats, therefore vacate your seats.".
Should the men in their council adopt the second course, the War Chief shall order
his men to enter the council, to take positions beside the Lords, sitting between them
wherever possible. When this is accomplished the War Chief holding in his outstretched
hand a bunch of black wampum strings shall say to the erring Lords: "So now, Lords of the
Five United Nations, harken to these last words from your men. You have not heeded the
warnings of the women relatives, you have not heeded the warnings of the General Council
of women and you have not heeded the warnings of the men of the nations, all urging you to
return to the right course of action. Since you are determined to resist and to withhold
justice from your people there is only one course for us to adopt." At this point the War
Chief shall let drop the bunch of black wampum and the men shall spring to their feet and
club the erring Lords to death. Any erring Lord may submit before the War Chief lets fall
the black wampum. Then his execution is withheld.
The black wampum here used symbolizes that the power to execute is buried but that it
may be raised up again by the men. It is buried but when occasion arises they may pull it
up and derive their power and authority to act as here described."
excerpted from: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE IROQUOIS NATIONS: THE GREAT BINDING LAW -
GAYANASHAGOWA - http://www.constitution.org/cons/iroquois.htm
The Epic Story:
http://www.wampumchronicles.com/creationstory.html
Firelock
> The Haudenosaunee are often pointed to as an example of a very sophisticated social
> society. The elder women, the Clanmothers, would choose from the experienced men just who
> was to serve on the deliberative council as Sachems/Statesmen [errantly translated as
> 'Lords' in the following]. This is a summary of what they were guided by in their choice:
>
> "24. The Lords of the Confederacy of the Five Nations shall be mentors of the people for
> all time.
Note that the governing principles of the Five Nations
also detailed the proper method for assassinating peace
envoys from other tribes who didn't agree to surrender
their way of life to the kind and loving mentorship of the
Haudenosaunee. I know we all love underdogs, but
don't be too eager to paint the Amerindians as paragons
of virtue just because the European invaders subjugated
them.
--
Walt
James A. Donald
wrote:
> On Oct 22, 2:37 am, James A. Donald:
> > The traditional government, while certainly consensual, was far indeed
> > from being egalitarian - the rich and the warriors
> How do you define these classes?
>
> First, the rich---did they own land in a modern sense? Who enforced
> that ownership?
As anarchissie says, varied and complex.
In the Northwest, lineages owned stuff, including slaves. A lineage
was about the size of large extended family, say twenty to fifty
people or so and a few people in the lineage were high rank, and some
were low rank, and quite a lot were slaves.
So for the most part did not own land in the western sense, but some
people were a great deal richer and more powerful than other people.
The 1924 intervention was in part motivated by indignation, real or
pretended, against slavery.
James A. Donald
> > The traditional government, while certainly
> > consensual, was far indeed from being egalitarian -
> > the rich and the warriors had most say, and the rest
> > had very little say
publius2k
> What rich?
>
> Their's was a society that honored giving, service and
> sacrifice for others and abhorred selfishness.
Their's was a society in which many people were slaves,
and most of the important people owned slaves.
*Anarcissie*
>
> >On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 02:23:07 -0400, publius2k <pub?@?li.us> wrote:
> >> In 1924, Canada passed their 'Indian Act' which outlawed the traditional, egalitarian,
> >> consensual governmental system of the 'First Nations'.
>
> >The traditional government, while certainly consensual, was far indeed
> >from being egalitarian - the rich and the warriors had most say, and
> >the rest had very little say - what made it consensual is that the
> >warriors could decline to enforce what was decided, and the rich could
> >decline to pay for what was decided.
>
> What rich?
>
> Their's was a society that honored giving, service and sacrifice for others and abhorred
Some did and some didn't. One of the West Coast nations
had a culture in which the highest value was the accumulation
of a kind of money. Others (or maybe the same one) practiced
slavery. I probably don't need to go into the unpleasant habits
of some of the nations further south.
Societies of the tribal phase are mostly small and highly
divergent.
> ...
James A. Donald
wrote:
> On Oct 22, 3:55 pm, publius2k <pub?@?li.us> wrote:
> > Their's was a society that honored giving, service and sacrifice for others and abhorred
> > selfishness. ...
"*Anarcissie*"
> Some did and some didn't.
Exactly so. Primitive societies were different from us and different
from each other.
Slavery and genocide tended to be more local than they were for modern
societies in the twentieth century, but on the whole, were probably
more prevalent for the most part.
*Anarcissie*
I suppose I would find one vote in a hundred
reasonably significant. Unfortunately votes of
that size are seldom concerned with important
issues. One way we can measure
significance is to compare the cost of an action
with the probability-weighted benefits (including
negative benefits, detriments) of its outcomes.
Buying a lottery ticket involves not only the cost
of the ticket, but the trouble of going to the place
where the tickets are sold and maybe waiting
on line. There is no charge for voting, but many
districts require people to wait on line for
a long time, perhaps in an effort to discourage
working-class voters.