FREEDOM FEENS talk radio show (ARCHIVES)

Laughing while statism collapses

Voting is for Suckers!

Turn your friends into wormkin by sharing:

30 Rock’s “If you see anything, do everything!”, pod pee, Parcs And Rec, Who will build the roads? Ron Swanson will build the roads!, Feeding trolls as art, and why voting is for suckers.

This is an archive of The Freedom Feens Agenda live call-in show, on Adam Curry’s network, No Agenda Global Radio.


28 thoughts on “Voting is for Suckers!

  1. I am listening to this cast now and I love it,which is the usual feeling I get when listening to the Freedom Feens.

    I am glad you brought up the valid statement that owning guns is a right and is real right and superior in importance then voting is. I wrote the following a long time ago when it was influenced by a past podcast of the Freedom Feens, in which you, MD, touched on the same subject.

    This is a very short essay and has gotten good reviews. Perhaps it will help to enlighten anyone who comes here who does not agree or understand the premise behind the statement that “the right to bear arms is more important than the ‘right’ to vote.”

    Posted link for edification.

  2. It’s a call in show. Call in, feens. I’ve called 3 or 4 times. Sometimes it goes really well, sometimes not. But I love the live cast and I like the off the cuff feel. Rather than endless comments, call the show. Especially if you disagree. Hell, call in and tell us the strangest place you’ve woken up. If you can’t come up with anything else, call up and say, “MWD looks like the type of guy who would water his driveway,” hang up, and wait for laughter. I might do that in the future. This is the only place in the world where you can brag about turning a shotgun into a bong. Please call in with other nonsense, when these guys get put on the spot with weird shit they come back with brilliance. You don’t have to be the best radio guy to support the call in show. Just be polite and friendly. And for the love of Pete watch “Guns and Weed” on youtube.

  3. They are taking my money and spending it to kill people. If I have the chance to vote for an anti war person, I do it. If my vote can save lives, then fuck my moral code. Lives are more important.

  4. I just wanted to note that after many years of studying the Art of War, Urban Defense, and Gorilla Tactics in history, if a state/government wants to occupy all of its own domestic population and territory, they can increase dramatically the chances of success by using non-domestic forces appose to its own military or law enforcement forces. So, if applied to us here in the US they would more likely use NATO thugs or even try using law enforcement from outside jurisdictions, which I think is less likely.

    Keep up they great work!

    Ross Gramatikas

        1. I understand. I am sorry If I said anything that wasn’t appropriate. I know you are extremely busy and I know I’m not entitled to it, but I would like to know what is I said that brought this on. I’m a reasonable guy, I never post anything hateful, offensive, disrespectful, or inappropriate and I’m left a little confused by all this.

          1. If I’m gonna get Brandon Raub’ed, it’s gonna be for something I said, not something you said. Before I edited it, your post sounded like a call to arms, or could easily be confused as one.


  5. note: I don’t check my email. I just use it for sites.

    I would comment on how great you guys are, cause I like you two and your show. but this is a comment of a bit of a disagreement. Just some of my thoughts. I hate the lesser of two evils argument on voting. But I do think that Romney could end up being even more aggressive in the Middle East or even more aggressive on other ends do to his comments on prosecuting pornography in court ect.. However a difference between the state and the market is you can compare services in real time in the market but with government you can”t compare an Obama second term which never happens with a Romney first that does. Now I will present a non-aggression ethic against voting the lesser of evils but first I will talk voting in general. If no-one votes the state doesn’t leave. It just becomes an unelected state. To me saying “voting is consent and aggression” is like saying, “If you don’t resist arrest you are consenting to the system” or “If you are an anarchist you won’t use the roads or pay taxes. You will live off the land in the mountains and shoot at cops”. Now, I don’t know how we would reach libertopia or a stateless society. Ben is right to be skeptical of the political process in reaching that end. But he isn’t a prophet either in his predictions. That we would need “a market for liberty” sure he would be correct. And I’m glad you guys are involved in the educational process for people and an entertainment medium for us already sold. Now it is right that if you vote for one candidate that you are forcing that candidate on the rest of the population. But how can it be said that forcing Gary Johnson over Obama is aggression? because after all, Obama voters are the ones who want to use the aggression of the state much more often. When one votes for Romney to stop the gays, or for Obama to steal more money, they are advocating aggression. If Gary Johnson is the better choice in regards to how much aggression he would exert than how is it aggression against a first aggressive Obama/Romney voter? People who do lipspeak the principles of liberty certainly annoy me when they don’t vote for the least totalitarian candidate on the ballot. It’s like they want to force an Obama/Romney on the rest of us libertarians who didn’t choose it. Basically my position is- if they are on the ballot- whoever you vote for you are consenting too. However libertopia vs. statism is not on the ballot. Sorry, you don’t have a moral high ground by not voting at all. Certainly it can be argued that voting third party at this point is about as useful as voting for Obama or Romney. In that it’s of no use at all. Even Nonvoting anarchists will likely remain in the minority and even if a Ross Perot of libertarian candidates came along, your vote Michael and Neema would still be insignificant to the outcome. Anyway, jury duty is always a hella of a ton more useful/important than voting. Peace out. 🙂

    1. If people who won’t vote on moral grounds remain a minority, I don’t care. I’ll still not vote and still encourage others to not vote. Voting is evil, so are governments. Me not voting, and encouraging others not to vote, is far less about “a plan to change the world” and more about doing what is right.

      I don’t have to have a central plan to fix the world. I am not a central planner. I just do what I think is personally correct, and explain to others why I do that.


      1. o.k that is fine. I still don’t feel that reply address’s my main concerns. That people like you would remain a minority was more of my observation than any zinger argument on why to vote. Hence why it follows the point when I start talking about how voting doesn’t change anything is a decent critique. I was saying that since you will be in the minority , it probably wouldn’t make a difference in outcome if you decided to vote. I respect you very much. Thank you for taking the time to read my critique. and please weigh every point I wanted to give you. 🙂

        1. ” it probably wouldn’t make a difference in outcome if you decided to vote.”

          It wouldn’t make a difference anyway. I live in Wyoming. It will go GOP for Romney, all electoral votes, no matter how I vote, if I voted.

          In fact, the way the GOP here in Wyoming, led by Cheney and Romney’s son, knocked Ron Paul out of the running, is part of what drove me to never vote again. This shit is unfixable. It has been going on forever, they’re just now more bold about not hiding it. Check out this interview I did:

          That is just the icing on the top of the moral reasons not to vote. But even to people who cannot embrace the moral reasons, the reason you should look at is that old thing of “If voting changed anything, it would be illegal.”

    2. You saying: “To me saying “voting is consent and aggression” is like saying, “If you don’t resist arrest you are consenting to the system” or “If you are an anarchist you won’t use the roads or pay taxes. You will live off the land in the mountains and shoot at cops”.”——-
      —That whole part is a red herring/strawman logical fallacy. Resisting arrest can get you killed. Using the roads, well, there’s no option if you want to function in society. Not paying taxes will get you jailed. Shooting cops will get you killed. Whereas not voting is simply staying home, and has no negative, violent or lethal consequences. So it’s NOT like those other things. I correctly call red herring/strawman on your argument. I didn’t catch that earlier because you wrote one huge, long block of text with no paragraph breaks and it was very hard to read easily.


      1. lol. Red herring and straw man are different things. It would be red herring you should want to accuse me of in this case I believe. I felt I was presenting a question of how far we want to take this not consenting. Of course the argument was always “give me liberty or give me death” and you don’t have to function in society. but anyhow, I only draw the line somewhere else. If I was to present another “red herring” I would emphasize my point that voting for Gary Johnson is not voting for the state. So your new red herring is how I find this “your voting for the state” argument the same as the Christians “your choosing hell” argument. In both cases there was no choice. I was never presented with that choice.

        1. I know that Red herring and straw man are different things, and I used them correctly. A red herring is dragging something across the path of logic to make people run off chasing in a different direction. A straw man is substituting a different enemy and arguing for it as if it’s the real argument. They often occur together, as they do with your argument here. Your argument is straw man for the reasons you recognize in your reply. It’s also a red herring because you are switching the focus and pretending it is the original argument. Driving on roads has nothing to do with not voting, and you saying I should do other things you think equate my argument that are not in my argument is a red herring. Your straw man was raising it to the level “If I believe in not voting, you should believe in violence against the state”, which I do not.

          You use other logical fallacies in your run-on paragraph, the most obvious being Appeal to Authority. I really don’t have time to deconstruct all this further. It’s not a worthwhile discussion: you’re not using logic (and you admit this), and when you are, you aren’t presenting it well (and you admit this).


          1. You don’t have to continue but I will reply. First. when I “admit this” (not using logic) I do jokingly. and my distractions I do think of more as comparisons. I could see how wrong it would be if I said “MWD believes in this” and argued against that. But I never said you believed in violence against the state ect. When I typically think I want to root out all of the places my thinking should also lead. If I am talking to a pro-choicer and their position is that it is not murder up until the point after the fetus is born I will of course point out, “but the baby is developmentally the same before birth as after”. Pointing that out is not using a red herring. When I say “why not after birth than” to them I am not presenting a “straw man”.

          2. part of my “admitting” being illogical may seem to be my helping figure out which logical fallacy I appear to be using. It can be annoying when someones main argument against yours, is that you are using a logical fallacy. The way that people do this is they seem to find which logical fallacy your argument most resembles and declare it is that logical fallacy, whether it really fits or not. I could start using a strategy of accusing people of logical fallacies. I only need find one I can misconstrue it to be. I do think that you are not applying your knowledge of logical fallacies correctly. You can see them where you want to see them but it appears to be the result of cognitive bias.

        2. maybe think of voting like that. most of the time it is of no use. but if there can be a movement of enough individual voters- they might prevent some inconveniences. You don’t want to be shot by cops. Well, some people don’t want to be arrested for marijuana. So, it is probably better to elect people who would not arrest you for that.

          1. Politicians who won’t arrest you for pot will screw you in some other way: higher taxes, more nanny laws, etc. And politicians don’t have all the power. People’s blind belief in the government is where the power comes from. Your statement about Jury Duty was the one thing you said that makes sense.

            I maintain my positions, they’re not for you, duly noted on my end. But you’ve admitted you’re using logical fallacies, I don’t have time to argue under those conditions. I’m trying to get some actual work done. If you really think that we’re on equal footing in this argument, I’ll “let you get the last word” and think you’ve won. Go for it, sir. And let me know in a few years if voting is still working out for you.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

^ Shop Amazon US through the Freedom Feens link. Bookmark and use whenever you shop Amazon. The Feens get a little money each time and it costs you nothing extra!

^ Shop Amazon UK through the Freedom Feens link. Bookmark and use whenever you shop Amazon. The Feens get a little money each time and it costs you nothing extra!

^ Shop Amazon Canada through the Freedom Feens link. Bookmark and use whenever you shop Amazon. The Feens get a little money each time and it costs you nothing extra!

Check out Michael W. Dean's old show, Michael Dean After Dark (has some missing Feens episodes too.)

BUY OUR DVD "Guns and Weed: The Road to Freedom"

DONATE Cash through PayPal, or donate Bitcoin
Creamy Radio Audio - audio tips from the Feens.
Freedom Feens on Facebook
We use and loveBoleh VPN virtual private network (Now offering Torrent seedboxes too!)

Torrent seed us to keep us drone proof!

DONATE for Feens expenses via Bitcoin or other cryptos:

(Wanna send a different crypto? Email us and tell us what and how much and we'll get a wallet.)
Donate via

Learn free how we get great spoken audio; live, recorded, and/or both, & we spend almost no money:


Everything on this site covered
BipCot NoGov license.

Listen live during show times (Noon-2 PM, Central Sat and Sun) on or GCN


The free TuneIn app is available on just about every phone platform. Grab the app here. Once it’s installed, just search for Freedom Feens!

--->Get the latest episode

24/7 random stream of Feens episodes on Roku:

Get the great inexpensive mic our co-hosts use:

Get our DVD "Gun Training with the Non-Aggression Principle:

Copyright © 2019 FREEDOM FEENS talk radio show (ARCHIVES)