[rationalbiker]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But even in areas where people want more reliable power, and new local job sources, they still turn down nuclear plants "in their backyard."

Ahh, perhaps the ignorant fear I was talking about.

(Whether or not they should be more concerned about other things, is another matter.)

No, it's exactly the point that I'm making.

Really? Then why do you bother voting? And why do you care if other people vote?

Yes, really. However, I vote because that involves taking responsibility for my situation rather than relegating it to other people. I would hardly be in a position to criticize a process, a law, or an official if I had simply thrown up my hands and surrendered my fate to the masses. "Becoming more indistinguishable over time" and being entirely indistinguishable are two different things. This particular comment refers mostly to elections on the federal level (whereas on the local level politicians may be somewhat more individual). There may exist one significant difference between two different candidates that makes it worthwhile to vote for that one. Or, it may be that one candidate will lead us down a bad road slower than the other one. And I care if other people vote because it tends to have an impact on me.

However, the larger point lost in translation is the notion that there are only two ways to lead this country; Democrats or Republicans. I would much prefer viable candidates that evaluate each issue on it's own merit rather than boxes their set of views to fit into one or the another of those two categories.

If you knew a vote on such a measure were forthcoming, wouldn't you vote against it? (I'm betting yes.)

Yes, but not out of your notion of my "duty" to the country or to others, out of my own self interest. It goes without saying (I would hope) that in order for my rights to be protected, some notion of rights must exist on a legal level. This does nothing to contradict what I have already said. When I say "rational self-interest", it does not involve taking a world view that I'm the only person that exists and that every one else walking around is just a figment of my imagination. Reality demands that I consider the existence of other people in my evaluation of my self-interest. I assume you understand the idea that a person can act in their self-interest and that other people can secondarily benefit from such action.

Since it is relevant and you left it off the quote, let me requote myself;

But because it is in my self-interest, I do "take action" in the form of discussing such issues on internet forums, discussing issues with people I know, and by staying somewhat informed before I vote.

Back to you;

Saying you "don't violate other's rights" is a far cry from "doing your duty."

No, that is my only duty (as in the meaning "unchosen obligation"). Your notion of my "duty" is what I suspect is wrong here. You may have a whole package deal of things you think involve "doing my duty" that I do not share. As I said, my only "duty" as a citizen is not to violate the rights of others. Any other duty you imagine that I have towards other people or this country is just that, imagined. Please understand that that sounds more confrontational than I intend it to be, I'm just trying to get you to check your premises before you tell me what you think is my "duty".

You do have a duty, as an American citizen

No, I don't.

It's your duty to participate in elections

No. I do choose to do so though in so much as it serves my self-interests.

... to pay your taxes,

No, but I do so under threat of force.

... and to obey the law (even when it is not violating someone else's rights).

No, but I do so under threat of force and frequently because it still serves my rational self-interest not to waste my life paying fines or serving time.

Are there any other duties you think I have?