Another day a government failure, another call for the government to fix it. By now we’ve relinquished so much social power, and converted what little responsibilities we used to share with one another into state responsibilities, that I fear it’s too late to do anything about it. So far gone are we that we now pretend voting for this-or-that politician or this-or-that piece of legislation is tantamount helping The Poor, even though politics and charity are wildly divergent activities.

The problem with the class war idea is that it isn’t true, and worse, pegs as good or evil one who may be the opposite—it’s unjust. Better to approach the blame game on an individual basis, to witness if one helps the poor or not, rather than making such determinations from which tax bracket or party they occupy. I wager you’d be surprised.

Yep

Then in terms of wages, benefits, you’ve had what others thought you deserved. It’s like having two employers, except you pay dues to only one of them.

I made the point in the original post that “representative democracy” isn’t rule by the people.

Though it’s true that a right to vote should be universal, and lords and landowners ought not to be the only ones able to elect who has the power and who makes the rules, the representative system, the relationship between a representative and his constituents, differs only in degree to the lords and land owners representing the landless tenantry in the decision making processes. That we get to vote for who should rule us seems more a consolation prize than any tangible enfranchisement.

Anti-social individualist-minded people who constantly feel they're oppressed, and who were heavily brainwashed with Cold War era propaganda, will predictably feel this way -- about any institution, in fact. Not a surprise.

But your feelings and anecdotes don't really say much about the labor movement. I know plenty of people who had bad union experiences who are very much in favor of union efforts -- they see their importance and stick around to make them better. Disowning and fleeing is an option, of course. Comes down mostly to temperament. As I said, anti-social personalities aren't a good fit anyway.

Have you ever worked for a union?

Grasping for straws. It’s so stoic I love it.

No.

It’s still a vote. If a vote is a concession of power to the state, it makes little sense to concede power while at the same time wasting a vote.

I always hated working for a union. Union dues was another tax. Shitty workers never got fired or reprimanded so we all just stooped to their level. It was just another layer of control and bureaucracy. I’d much rather bargain on my own or find better employment.

In my view that the choices are lousy isn't a reason why not to vote.

It isn’t a reason to vote, either.

I think that is a clever point but I have to disagree.

Two politicians, Alice and Bob, are running for city mayor. I refuse to vote. Which one am I indirectly supporting, Alice or Bob?

We were talking about not voting and you said it was an irresponsible political position. Why?

But you won’t say why it is irresponsible. The only one doing the rubbing are your emotions.

Someone is sour and couldn’t come up with anything better to say. Very praxisian of you.

It’s an irresponsible political position, or in a word: libertarian.

I’ll accept that. Statist responsibilities are little different than the slave’s, in my opinion.

Not voting is quite the opposite. Zero support is given. Besides, the effect of not voting is nil, and one doesn’t violate his morality by refraining from participating.

It’s certainly not a winning strategy, and wouldn’t change the results of any election. I think that’s largely the point of refusing to vote.

It’s more a conscientious objection. But it has the potential to effect serious change. In some cases non-voters are a large enough constituency to make moves outside of elections and with other means than the vote, so it’s not a complete waste. The problem is probably organizing other non-voters.

I said there is no mediating factor between experienced and experiencer, between man and the rest of his environment, between A and B. Light is of A which is directly perceived by B, man.

If sense data is of A it is of the rest of the environment. If it is of B it is of man. And if it is of either world or man, it is identifiable, detectable, and measurable. If it does not lie in either, but is a mediating factor between both, where is the evidence for this?

Do you think we directly perceive the light but indirectly perceive apples?

You're not addressing the question. According to your account we don't directly see apples because air, light, and glasses are a mediating factor between the apple and you. Deflecting by saying that we directly experience the light doesn't say anything about whether or not we directly see the apple.

I’ve answered the question already. We directly perceive apples through light. I don’t think we’re viewing sense-data, representations, or images of apples in the light, like we would on indirect mediums like photos and televisions.

How is this relevant to direct or indirect realism and phenomenalism?

I’ve read Stirner and Proudhon and reject both egoism and socialism. I gravitate more towards people like Herbert Spencer, Albert Jay Nock, HD Thoreau, HL Mencken, who are probably more literary than philosophical.

That’s an interesting point about eventually rejecting anarchism, though. I myself haven’t taken the plunge because I’m not quite sure man can govern himself just yet.

That’s what I was looking for. Thanks. I don’t follow too much anarchist literature. There’s often too much collectivism in it for my tastes.

That’s right. We experience light, air, glasses, apples, heat, gravity, pressure, the tree, the leaves and so on. We directly perceive the environment. There is no mediating factor between the environment you experience, and you the experiencer. I’ve said this a few times now.

Then you admit that our visual perception of an apple is mediated by air, light, and sometimes glasses or contact lenses. Therefore, by your own account, we don't directly see apples.

I’m not sure that is the case. We directly perceive apples through light. I don’t think we’re viewing sense-data, representations, or images of apples in the light.

Yes, which is to say that our sensory systems elicit different sense-data.

What sense-data? It’s better to say the biology is different. Then you can point to actual differences.

Air, light, glasses, and contact lenses aren't made up mediums.

Exactly. Sense-data is.

And what does it mean to "see something differently"? It means that we experience different sense-data. I experience white and gold, you experience black and blue. The colours we experience are the medium by which we indirectly see the photo of a dress.

You experience the image your way, I experience it my way. Our bodies are different and occupy different positions in space and time. There is no need to evoke “sense-data” or some other medium to explain it when there are actual things that can account for these differences.

But there's a number of mediums between the apple and the sense receptors in our eyes (air, light, sometimes glasses or contact lenses), so by your own account it isn't direct. You now seem to mean something else by "direct". What is it?

You’re confusing a actual medium in the world with the mediums made up by indirect realists.

We don't know yet, the hard problem of consciousness hasn't been solved. Regardless, there is something which is sense-data, whether physical or not, as proved by the fact that you and I can look at the same photo of a dress and yet see different colours.

It only proves that we see it differently, not that something called sense-data is an emergent phenomenon from the brain.

But do we see the apple directly?

In terms of direct realism, yes.

Sense data is an emergent phenomenon, brought about by brain activity. If you're asking me to point to something that is physically situated between the apple and someone's eyes then your request is misguided.

Does it have a physical structure or chemical make-up? Can we put some of it under a microscope?

The air, light, glasses, and contact lenses are the medium between the apple and one's eyes. Hence why, according to your account, seeing an apple isn't direct.

Of course I’m not speaking of sight only. But you keep limiting it to sight. Nonetheless, we see everything in our periphery, including light, air, glasses, etc. directly.

You can't dismiss the medium of sense data by saying that you can see someone pick up and and eat an apple. As I have repeatedly said, your claim here is irrelevant to the discussion.

Point to me the sense-data. No sense-data appears between observer and observed. Sense-data is irrelevant if it cannot be shown to exist.

Again, viewing things in the world such as air, glasses, light, and so on is direct realism.

The mediums I speak of are the ones that are assumed, made up without evidence. Sense-data is another such medium.

Then explain to me how someone else picking up and eating an apple shows that no medium is involved when they see an apple.

No medium appears at any point in the scenario. The evidence for a medium is zero.

Good point. Maybe the problem is more with representative democracy than voting itself. In America, at least, some constituencies are massive. The conceit that one person can represent the will of that many voters is pure humbug.

“It is compulsory by law for all eligible Australian citizens to enrol and vote in federal elections, by-elections and referendums.”

https://www.aec.gov.au/enrol/

Seems clear cut to me.

True voting isnt synonymous with politics, but I would say its a necessary part of the political system in Canada or the US. Aren’t you opting out of a system based on votes when you refuse to vote? I would compare it to playing baseball but refusing to take the field. Not really playing baseball then. (And likewise the baseball field is not synonymous with baseball).

Yes, refusing to participate would be opting out of the system, in a way. But it’s more like refusing to play baseball but having to remain in the dugout.

What do you mean by this? If you’re saying that apples directly stimulate our sense receptors then except in the case of touch this is false; apples don’t directly stimulate the rods and cones in our eyes, so visual perception under your account isn’t direct.

Or do you mean something else?

“Direct” in the sense that we directly perceive the environment, including the lights, smells, touch, taste, of apples. “Indirect” in the sense that we perceive the environment through some kind of medium.

You’re right that it entails little more than avoiding the polls, except for wherever compulsory voting is in order. But voting isn’t the same as politics, so I would not say refusing to vote entails not being political.

For someone like the OP author who openly wants fascism and corporatocracy, and defends the likes of Donald Trump to the bitter end -- all why pretending to denounce the state -- should most certainly not vote. Their non-voting is a deliverance.

More lies. I openly oppose fascism every time I oppose your political activity.

Protest voting is still voting. I don’t want to stand in their lines and go along with their charade.

I would not want to see a withdrawal from the legal right to vote, only to retain the legal right not to vote.

In a way the vote, at least in elections, is to afford someone the privilege to govern over you. It is also to afford someone the right to represent you, as if such a feat was possible. It seems to me that the refusal to bestow these rights and privileges is the first step to unlinking oneself from their deeds.

Yes it is and for the same reasons I already stated. There is no mediating factor between experienced and experiencer, so the experience is not indirect.

I have read the article, and if you want to quibble about definitions be my guest. The thread is about phenomenalism. I’m speaking of “Perceptual Directness”, section 2.1.3 in your article. We either directly perceive the world or we do not.

But I can watch you directly eat an apple. There is literally nothing between the experienced and the experiencer prohibiting one from directly experiencing the other.