No. I gave reasons in these posts why I think voting, as it exists today, is pageantry to placate the masses without actually accomplishing much.

Most Americans don't understand the American voting system and feel it's just a dog and pony show. But by refusing to participate in the ONLY system that's capable or changing it, you're changing nothing. By not participating you're allowing others to run this country in their image without contesting them. You can hate it all you want, but it won't change anything.

At the same time, I agree with your finer point about how voting, when it becomes more hyper localized, can be useful. To me, voting within a neighborhood context makes the most sense. At the same time, I recognize that some things shouldn't be put to a majority vote (such as the classic joke of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner). If we can adopt a shared moral framework such as the NAP (non-aggression principle), then some things are not open to vote (such as, "Hey, if we all vote to beat up or rape that person, then it's okay, right?").

This classic statement of two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner goes something along the lines of:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

If we were truly a 100% Democratic Country then yes the majority vote would have won, and Hilary Clinton would be our president. This is why the Electoral College is in place. When the person receiving the most votes isn’t the winner of the election, then that country is not a democracy. You're mistaken if you think the problem is as simple as the majority rule because five times now our president has not received the majority of popular votes: John Quincy Adams in 1824, Rutherford Hayes in 1876, Benjamin Harrison in 1888, George W. Bush in 2000 and now Donald Trump.

It does not take laws or religion for people to figure out they don't like stealing, raping, and murdering. As a father, would you seriously ever think this way? Americans would never develop morals so loosely driven because social media would destroy anyone in politics that even hinted such a thing.

We're a Representative democracy, and you're not choosing someone to represent you.
Yes, the voting system needs amendments. In fact, a lot of government policies, laws, and regulations do. However, to change them you must be involved in your community and political elections.

Have you considered that some of the youth are over voting not because they are apathetic, but because they see the process as a scam and their values won't ever be accurately represented, especially if those values include an anarchist "no rulers"worldview? How I can I vote in a ruler to make decisions for thousands or millions of people if I think that very concept is fundamentally broken?

We've seen voting in younger generations continuously fall over the years. Thus, every year they are represented even less than the year before. Today, we have more communication tools available to us than ever before. If the youth wants to restructure the government, they can do so better than any generation that has ever existed.

No one said you had to vote for Hilary or Trump. In fact, there were over 30 presidential candidates in the most recent election. In truth, the odds of anyone outside of the Republican or Democratic parties a slim chance at best, but that's because only Generation X is voting. However, the Pew Research Center found that 39% of voters are identifying as independents rather than one of the two primary parties. Change is happening and it's happening from within the system, but it would grow exponentially if everyone did their part.

That's great news! I still have this nagging question: If a mafia family also does really good things in their neighborhood, does that justify their existence? If we're supposed to support the military because they sometimes do helpful things (though it's clearly not their primary mission focus), why not instead support those organizations who do have as their stated mission to do humanitarian work around the world?

I agree that we should support organizations in Humanitarian Relief.However, these organizations are now where near as capable as our military at defending our allies.

If a country is experiencing a bloody civil war or genocide, this government isn't all that motivated to get involved unless there's an upside for themselves.

We cannot forget, The United States has promised to protect numerous countries across the world, including war:

Defense Pacts
Then there is the matter of international trade, and how it's protected by the Navy and Marine Corps. More than 80% of world trade passes through the oceans and Maritime Security is has many threats that our Marines and Sailors are out their defending commodities the entire planet needs.

In addition, the Coast Guard works to protect Marine wildlife, study Marine and Environmental science, clean up environmental disasters, and track and detain polluting vessels.

The world's economy relies on the U.S. military, and if tomorrow we removed them we would have millions of unemployed Americans, local businesses would go under, the international and domestic markets would take drastic hits, and economies worldwide would suffer.

I don't see your point when you say:

This is in support of my point that the military isn't truly a force for good. That's a story to justify its own existence to those who are waking up to the reality of foreign involvement not motivated by compassion but by U.S. Interests.

Yes the United States refused to enter Rwanda partly because the U.S. had no national interest, but also because America had recently pulled out of the disastrous peacekeeping efforts in Somalia; vowing to never to return to a conflict it couldn't understand, between clans and tribes it didn't know.

The White House ranked this decision as one of the top failures of the Clinton Administration. We should have intervened, and the government acknowledges this. At the time however, the American people did not to get involved. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. At least if we had, 800,000 people would be alive today.

All the more reasons why I suspect the motives of those doing the recruiting are not on the level. Those going into military service often do so as a last resort. Their grades won't allow for college and they have no skills to offer in the workplace. I know I'm stereotyping here, but I think it's not all that far off. It reminds me of the police force rejecting applicants who's IQ scores were too high.

You're not completely wrong, that stereotype is accurate in many ways. Many people resort to the military because they chose to not go to college and didn't apply themselves in school. If anything, the military has taken those who failed the first time and gave them a second chance at success.

Veterans are more likely to vote, volunteer, give to charity, assist in community programs, and reach out to public officials.

The truth is, a high school diploma is not enough to compete in the workforce today. In fact, a bachelor's degree holds close to the save power that a high school diploma used did in the past. Technology has changed the world economy and with the advances were seeing today, basic jobs that once required a high school diploma are disappearing.

If they barely understand the situation, are they making a good, logical, rational choice? Shouldn't we highlight that as a reason for them not to go into military service? I completely agree with you that the public school system is fully messed up (My wife schools our three children at home). When I read books like Free to Learn by Peter Gray I think human brains are designed to learn creative skills through completely different mechanisms than the Prussian model of education we have now which is designed to create unquestioning factory workers. From my perspective, the education systems in place now are designed to dumb-down the masses and keep a ready supply of new recruits who have no critical thinking abilities to effectively evaluate the decisions they are making.

The system is not designed to create stupid people for a means of recruiting. I believe it's failing because children in America live in a "bubble", in which they fail to experience or see the rest of the world. They see everything through a filter and fail to understand the state of the world. This is where politics and understanding world issues is important. The youth enters the world angry and confused because they lack understanding, instead of ready to tackle world issues.

Yes many of them don't fully understand what they've signed up for, or where it's going to take them. But the Armed Forces provide educational training, health, housing, and dental benefits, and the post 9/11 G.I. bill. When the rest of the country won't hire or provide any of these benefits to a high school graduate.

As I mentioned previously, the military produces politically and socially engaged veterans that are ready to get involved and enhance the world around them. Team Rubicon is a veteran and first responder collaboration that responds to worldwide disasters using the skills obtained from the military.

I recognize this and understand how it makes this whole conversation so very delicate and difficult. I tried to highlight in my post the fantastic character of many in the military who, by their daily actions, demonstrate incredible ethics and morality. That said, good intentions don't matter as much as the (often inevitable) outcomes. If those who believe they are doing good continue to see the results of their actions as causing more harm in the world, at what point should they re-evaluate their actions? Have you read War is a Racket and if so, what are your thoughts on it?

I absolutely agree that sometimes organizations best intentions sometimes, "often inevitable," result in negative outcomes. From what I can tell you seek out anarchism which by definition is a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups. Yet anarchy has shown itself as violence and destruction of public and private property alike.

Using violence and terror against civilians and police to change government policy, that's textbook terrorism. I understand the right to peacefully protest and this does not look peaceful.

Does that mean you are going to give up on Arachism and seperate yourself from it? At what point should they re-evaluate their action?

Anarchism has already abandon voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups for Terrorism, Violence, and Blac Blocs. But something tells me this isn't going to change your opinion of anarchism because you believe that it can be better than what we have now.

This is a whole separate issue that we could always discuss, but my point is attacking veterans for doing what they think is right doesn't help anyone. Joining is a personal decision that is made for a number of reasons. If you want to change America's political philosopy, disband our military, or claim veterans are the problem; I suggest you find someone to represent you before November 3rd, 2020 for the next presidential election.

I hope you don't think I've bashed on you or your ideas too much here. I truly and sincerely appreciate them! I love your passion to improve the world and thank you for the time you've invested in replying here. Thank you! I know this can be a tough conversation, and I'm thankful there are those who can have it respectfully so we can all better understand ourselves and the world we live in to hopefully improve it.

From what I see in your post, you seem to be apart of a good company that is doing great things. You have a beautiful family, and I can tell you intend to change the way the world works. In that endeavor, I wish you the best. I have no personal vendetta against Anarchism; I merely used these examples to point out the similarities. Thank you for remaining objective and not emotional as well. I agree, it's important that we can openly discuss issues like this.