Politics is an immoral dead-end

[anthonybpugh]

The fictitious nature of the state is exactly what The Law is about, that and broken windows .  There is no state in reality.  There is a belief in the state, which has a great effect in the world, making people act as if there were a state.  But that does not mean that there is a state.  There are people who act as though there is a state, who pretend to take orders from it and act on it's behalf.  But there are only people who act on their own moral authority.

Are you sure that is what The Law was about?  State is mentioned many times in The Law but in every passage the context suggests that it exists.  It is about the misuse of the powers of the state.  I don't think think it is  the state that is the fiction but the underlying philosophical justification for the state.  Things like the Divine Right of Kings, Will of the People, equality, socialism and other justifications advanced by many political philosophers. 

[buzzard]

Whattaya say we put this thread to bed?

[anthonybpugh]

Why?  I think some parts of this thread is interesting

[Russell Kanning]

Whattaya say we put this thread to bed?

you can stop any time ... I think these guys have a little more fight in 'em

[Russell Kanning]

this thread has more tenure than some members of this site

[anthonybpugh]

Whattaya say we put this thread to bed?

you can stop any time ... I think these guys have a little more fight in 'em

I have not yet begun to fight.  Damn the torpedoes.  Tally ho.  Excelsior. 

[shyfrog]

moo

[anthonybpugh]

moo

Them are fighting words where I come from. 

[Faber]

moo

Why do you do that?

[shyfrog]

moo

Why do you do that?

It's a very long story. Perhaps I will recount (or maybe recant) it around a campfire at PorcFest.
It is a nickname of mine and also considered a greeting by some indigenous tribes (very small ones consisting of only 7 members).
Honestly though, I do it because...well...because.



[edit] Russell should remove this post of mine and lock the thread at Faber's last post, #666

or not

[Vitruvian]

Since the Wikipedia definition of State ("a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area") was introduced, MaineShark has claimed repeatedly (see below) that it is inaccurate because it also applies to voluntary communities.  This claim can be supported only by perverting the contextual meaning of the terms political association and dominion.

A voluntary society likely would not be witness to political associations as we know them.  In context, the term political association should be taken to mean "one of various factions vying for monopolistic coercive power."  A polity of unanimous consent would obviate the formation of political associations because no coercive power would exist.  Similarly, the concept of dominion, with the contextual meaning of "rule, domination, or control," each a synonym of coercion, is inimical to a voluntary society, where no person or group rules, dominates, or controls another.

Furthermore, the one alleged quality of the State that MaineShark has called "logically impossible" (the one that, oddly enough, cannot be found in any definition but his own) is the "right to initiate force," which, I have already concurred, is indeed contradictory.  However, as I have said previously, no one on this thread has ever claimed that the State has or should have such a "right."

A "political association" could be a band of anarchists who mutually agree to certain rules for themselves.  It is not a "State" until it specifically asserts a "right to initiate force" and exert dominion over others.

that definition is overly-broad, and includes even completely-voluntary communities.  According to that definition, an anarchic society, based solely upon unanimous consent, is a "State."

The State is a particular form of governance which does all those things you just described, but also asserts a "right" to initiate force against those who do not choose to participate.  That's when you get the shift from "government" to "State."

A government could obtain "dominion" over an area by the consent of those who live there.  No need to initiate force to do that.

*****

I've been trying to discuss in good faith but I think maybe V has me on ignore.  I'm beginning to seriously doubt his good faith.

Eli, you have been civil throughout this thread.  I have no reason to ignore you; in fact, I am not ignoring anyone currently.  I started this thread knowing that some people would probably take offense with its content, but my motivation was to persuade, not to offend.  I have attempted to remain civil but firm, and to avoid resorting to abusive language and tactics.  I can do no more to persuade you that I approach this debate in good faith.

Indeed.  Anyone who cannot discuss things without using a computer to screen his incoming messages cannot be acting on good faith.  "La, la, la, I only want to hear things that agree with me!"

The whole purpose of having the "ignore" functionality is to screen abusive posters.

Your original statement called the participation in State-sponsored political systems evil. Do you believe that property (land) ownership is inherently evil? Are you also a Georgist?

I forgot to respond to this earlier, shyfrog.  No, I am not a Georgist.  As I have explained above, the word dominion, in the context of the Wikipedia definition of State, should be understood to mean coercive "rule, domination, or control," not the legitimate ownership of physical property.

I wonder if I should quote Konkin using the same definition for "State" that I have?  Not that it would do any good, with folks who are determined to twist the world to fit their skewed minds, rather than accepting objective reality...

That's funny... in this interview, Konkin makes repeated references to the State as a real entity:http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/610

I also find it funny that you would appeal to SEK3's opinion on the matter, after having said this:

Appeal to authority is not a proof.  It is, however, a good demonstration of the maturity of the one doing it, since it is essentially the same as the whole "the law is right, because it's the law" nonsense that statists are inclined to spout.

[shyfrog]

Your original statement called the participation in State-sponsored political systems evil. Do you believe that property (land) ownership is inherently evil? Are you also a Georgist?

I forgot to respond to this earlier, shyfrog.  No, I am not a Georgist.  As I have explained above, the word dominion, in the context of the Wikipedia definition of State, should be understood to mean coercive "rule, domination, or control," not the legitimate ownership of physical property.

Do you believe that I am responsible for anyone else's actions other than my own?

[David]

My daughter "borrowed" my copy of "The Law" and it hasn't come back

And that is a bad thing???  That is an excellent book.  Particularly the first half. 

[Nick Danger]

So here is my humble request: I ask everyone currently involved in political activities (including the so-called Ron Paul Revolution) either to renounce said activities or to provide an airtight moral justification for their actions.

This is an extremely silly request. You could not provide an "air-tight moral justification" for making it.

Here's a *good* reason to support Ron Paul -- things will be much, much better if he is elected than if he is not. And *good* reasons are all anyone can ever give, not "air-tight" ones.

[Lloyd Danforth]

"Ruthlessly, He walks the streets!"