Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

983

Honestly, I haven't done a ton of research on the topic, but I'm always wary of the government demanding to collect data on it's citizenry.

On the other hand, it's a good idea in that it would reduce illegal voting. Or at least, that's what they tell you.

Maybe I have a borked perspective, but I see certain MSM outlets like Fox pushing for VoterID super duper hard. But, why? What's the motication? Don't pretend to tell me it's because they care, because they don't. Fox is just as bad as CNN. Suck off Tucker all you want, he's still pushing an agenda for foreign billionaires.

So, what are your thoughts? Is VoterID a good idea? Is it just another agenda being pushed for a covertly nefarious purpose?

Honestly, I haven't done a ton of research on the topic, but I'm always wary of the government demanding to collect data on it's citizenry. On the other hand, it's a good idea in that it would reduce illegal voting. Or at least, that's what they tell you. Maybe I have a borked perspective, but I see certain MSM outlets like Fox pushing for VoterID super duper hard. But, why? What's the motication? Don't pretend to tell me it's because they care, because they don't. Fox is just as bad as CNN. Suck off Tucker all you want, he's still pushing an agenda for foreign billionaires. So, what are your thoughts? Is VoterID a good idea? Is it just another agenda being pushed for a covertly nefarious purpose?

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (31).
[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

You make a good point.

Wouldn't ability to force == authority, though? Since they're able to force and other's aren't able to stop them. While their authority isn't consentual, they still retain it.

Those in power are not a just authority, but they are in control. It's essentially dictatorship (or totalitarianism?), with a heavy dose of disception thrown in so people don't realize it.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

You're using a different definition of 'authority'.

I'm going with the basic etymology of it. It comes from 'author'. The author of a written work is the authority on that work - he has authority to edit/revise it, and to provide the correct intended meaning of it. It's his creation. Likewise you are the author of what you make of yourself and everything you create with your labour, so you are the supreme authority over yourself and your property. It's about right, not might.

https://www.etymonline.com/word/author?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonline_v_18965

Edit: If you look up just the dictionary definition of 'authority', it's generally closer to your usage. I think this was done on purpose. It's been increasingly apparent to me that understanding the basic meanings and etymology of words is critically important the understanding of law, and thus the health of a society. Words are used to control.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I like that definition of authority.

In that case, then the "authorities" in place today are anything but.

So are you anti government as a whole, or are you for the original intention of the founding fathers for the US? As in, small federal govt, states and local govts decide most everything?

edit: or something else entirely?

[–] • 1 pt

I am anti-government absolutely, defining government as any entity that claims authority over you without your consent.

Everything good that government might do can be done better by private contractual arrangements, without any NAP violations.

You might consider checking out Hans-Herman Hoppe. https://poal.co/s/hoppeanism is based on him, but the sub seems to be leaning more into an edgy nazi theme now and I think that detracts from the core message of what Hoppe teaches.

Or you're welcome to keep asking me any specific questions you have. I am happy to preach antistatism.