Politics is an immoral dead-end

[Russell Kanning]

man ... I better brush up on my learnun ... cause they were quoting maineshark on ftl last night .... all I could get was a couple of laughs

[Russell Kanning]

I thought that was what you were getting at, just wanted to make sure

Though I'm not so sure Lauren has convinced any of the politicos here to kick their habit.  So far, at least

obviously not .... but I think her methods are simple and do work

[Russell Kanning]

I remember when you got kinda excited a while back.
dada was facing down a state trooper at the time.
I thought that was kinda interesting as well.

I wasn't complaining .... just letting people know ... in case they wanted to check it out.
I don't get excited with worry about the fsp breaking into 2 pieces .... I hope it will.
I get much more excited than Mark about almost everything.

[shyfrog]

[MaineShark]

man ... I better brush up on my learnun ... cause they were quoting maineshark on ftl last night .... all I could get was a couple of laughs

What time into the show?  I don't typically listen to FTL, and the archived show is pretty long...

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

second hour .... near the end I think

[Vitruvian]

You seem to have a huge problem understanding what duress actually is.

And you also seem to have a problem grasping the meaning of words.  I have said numerous times that the State is illegitimate to every anarchist, but people give it a veneer of legitimacy for themselves and for other statists through certain activities, such as voting and running for political office.  I have also said numerous times that voting is an ultimate cause of violence, in a way that purchasing gasoline is not.  When you vote, you are committing a violent act not only against me but also against every other person who suffers under the elected person.

Kings were not (and are not) elected.  Doesn't mean they didn't attain power.  Kings claimed "divine authority" supported their rule, and held on quite well for millennia without an elections.

And so they still had the illusion of legitimacy, only from a different source: the Church.  Most people bought that illusion, and only then because they were largely illiterate, and the kings were able to maintain their position of power.  After the Bible was translated into vernacular languages and literacy began to rise, the "divine authority" vanished and the kings could no longer implement that ruse.  So they found a different one and called it voting.

No, you've made all manner of aesthetic and pragmatic arguments, but no moral arguments.

You seem to be reading my posts selectively.  "Voting is a violent act that ought to be avoided" is a moral argument, is it not?

Sigh... we're not talking about defining a word.  We're talking about defining a mathematical quantity.  0.0000001% has a size and, therefore, is a "sizable" quantity.  The same can be said for 99.9999%.  Or anything in-between.  Making claims that support was "sizable" is semantically null, as it merely defines the support as non-zero, which we know to be a fact because the dictator clearly supports himself, even if no one else did.

Would you prefer considerable, major, large?  I don't want to get sucked into a petty argument over word definitions, but the word sizable, while not precise, is far from vague.  Again, find a dictionary if you want a definition.  My intention was to show that a majority, i.e. more people than not, support the existence of the State.  I dare you to disagree with that.

Oh, so now it's a majority?   But now you're talking about the current State, and not the dictatorships we were discussing.  Interesting change of subject to avoid the issue.  Infantile, but interesting.

Discussing the actual topic of that, the number of people who supported those dictators was extremely small, in most cases.  More just went along for the ride out of apathy or an unwillingness to stand up to authority.  I suggest reading up on Milgram's experiments with obedience.  Most of the population will obey authority, even when it is in no way "elected" or even governmental.  Sad but true.

No, I was suggesting that historical dictatorships enjoyed the tacit support of a majority of the populations they ruled, not just the current regime.  I was not changing the subject: you misunderstood me again.  Hitler bought off the masses with a welfare state and gifts of privilege, as did most other modern tyrants.

In Milgram's experiments, the subjects were much more likely to accept the commands of the "authority" figure when his authority was one they had been conditioned to accept.  When the dummy authority figure was merely an assistant, the subjects were more reluctant to follow his commands.

I suggest you start by ending this notion you have of repeatedly arguing that the State is legitimate.

I never said that.  Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? That is an abusive tactic.  I stated, quite simply, that when people vote, they contribute to the ILLUSION of State legitimacy.  I'm sorry I had to resort to all-caps, but maybe that is the only thing that will attract your attention.

Let's try a very blunt question: do you think that the State can ever, under any circumstances, be legitimate?

The State, as you and I define it, cannot be legitimate because it is grounded in coercion.  However, it is you, participant in the State-sponsored practice of politics, who should answer this question.

[dalebert]

OK, I'm just playing arbitrator / moderator. Continue. 

...I like Dale and it apprears he is offering to be a moderator 

To be fair, I do have a position and am arguing it so I can't rightly claim the title of "moderator", but I'm trying to cool things some in this heated debate. 

[Russell Kanning]

heat is fine .... as long as the cooking comes out tasty

[MaineShark]

second hour .... near the end I think

Cool.

You seem to have a huge problem understanding what duress actually is.

And you also seem to have a problem grasping the meaning of words.  I have said numerous times that the State is illegitimate to every anarchist, but people give it a veneer of legitimacy for themselves and for other statists through certain activities, such as voting and running for political office.

Sigh... try addressing what's actually said, instead of attempting to change the subject.  It's childish.

The State is illegitimate.  Nothing can make it legitimate.  Only by making it legitimate could a voter be responsible for its actions.  Since it is not legitimate, and cannot be made so, the voter cannot be responsible for its actions.  End of story.

I have also said numerous times that voting is an ultimate cause of violence, in a way that purchasing gasoline is not.  When you vote, you are committing a violent act not only against me but also against every other person who suffers under the elected person.

Yes, because clearly the thing that you want to do (purchase gasoline) is mystically different from things that others want to do.  At least when I vote, I'm not handing them money to buy tools of torture.  What about when you buy gasoline?

Kings were not (and are not) elected.  Doesn't mean they didn't attain power.  Kings claimed "divine authority" supported their rule, and held on quite well for millennia without an elections.

And so they still had the illusion of legitimacy, only from a different source: the Church.  Most people bought that illusion, and only then because they were largely illiterate, and the kings were able to maintain their position of power.  After the Bible was translated into vernacular languages and literacy began to rise, the "divine authority" vanished and the kings could no longer implement that ruse.  So they found a different one and called it voting.

Indeed.  They can get the illusion of legitimacy from many sources, as you've just acknowledged.  So voting is irrelevant to that subject, as they could find another method if voting ceased.

No, you've made all manner of aesthetic and pragmatic arguments, but no moral arguments.

You seem to be reading my posts selectively.  "Voting is a violent act that ought to be avoided" is a moral argument, is it not?

It's a unilateral statement, not an argument.  Nor could it be a moral argument, even if you bothered to try and prove it, since "violent" is an act without context, and actions have no moral standing outside of context.

No, I was suggesting that historical dictatorships enjoyed the tacit support of a majority of the populations they ruled, not just the current regime.  I was not changing the subject: you misunderstood me again.  Hitler bought off the masses with a welfare state and gifts of privilege, as did most other modern tyrants.

I didn't misunderstand you.  You were quite clear.

And quite false.  Look at the Communists in Russia.  They took power from the Tsar, then declared that elections would be held, to let the people choose their leaders.  The people voted the Communists out of power.  So the Communists just ignored the results.

They just obtained their "illusion of legitimacy" by "protecting the people from the threat of capitalism," instead.

If you convinced every person in America to stay home and not vote, do you imagine the government would just say, "well, we se that we aren't wanted, so we'll go away"?  Of course not.  I'll predict exactly what they would do: announce that people were afraid to go to the polls due to the threat of terrorism, and that they were therefore declaring a national emergency and would stay in power until the "war on terrorism" had been won, so people would feel safe at the polls again.

In Milgram's experiments, the subjects were much more likely to accept the commands of the "authority" figure when his authority was one they had been conditioned to accept.  When the dummy authority figure was merely an assistant, the subjects were more reluctant to follow his commands.

Did they, on average, accept the authority, or not?  Noting, of course, that they are accepting the "authority" of a researcher (or his assistant), not the State which they have been conditioned to accept to a far greater degree.  Even so, they accept that "authority" willingly, in most cases.

I suggest you start by ending this notion you have of repeatedly arguing that the State is legitimate.

I never said that.  Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth? That is an abusive tactic.  I stated, quite simply, that when people vote, they contribute to the ILLUSION of State legitimacy.  I'm sorry I had to resort to all-caps, but maybe that is the only thing that will attract your attention.

I insist on repeating it, because you keep saying it.  The only way that voting can make the voter responsible for the actions of the State is if the vote confers legitimacy.  Therefore, you keep claiming that the State can be made granted actual - not merely illusory - legitimacy.

Let's try a very blunt question: do you think that the State can ever, under any circumstances, be legitimate?

The State, as you and I define it, cannot be legitimate because it is grounded in coercion.  However, it is you, participant in the State-sponsored practice of politics, who should answer this question.

If you claim that the State is not legitimate, then the direct corollary of that is the claim that voting cannot be immoral, as I've demonstrated numerous times.  Voting might not be particularly effective, but it cannot be immoral.

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

Do you think the movement is a big tent ... but it doesn't have room for say .... a pacifist?

Of course. I'm criticizing him for his penchant debate instead of action. A pacifist could go either way, so that wouldn't even be a determining factor to me.

You seem to be quite content with other people paying this cost. It reminds me of the sort of dangerous extremists throughout history who've led their society into ruin.

wow .... do you really think that Eric's actions will lead to that?

He has the right mindset. I don't think he'd be such a leader, but the followers of such leaders usually share that mindset.

[J’raxis 270145]

If Vitruvian is planning on becoming a writer, or a columnist, or a radio host like the FTL guys, or a cartoonist like Dale, or somesuch, in order to spread his message, that may actually count—if he's effective at getting people to pay attention.

How much time did people spend helping Phil Greazzo's unsuccessful campaign?  Did their efforts count?  If your efforts (which are . . . what, exactly?  Making a website and attending a few alderman board meetings to support the rights of sex offenders?  And holding a sign or two for politicians?) fail, will your action have "counted"?  If so, then success can't be your criterion for what "counts," which is the criterion you're applying to Vitruvian.

Phil Greazzo lost but mayor Guinta didn't, and even without Phil he now has an aldermanic board that is slightly more favorable to his tax cut ideas (the big-spender Democrat alderman in my own ward, Pat Long, was replaced by Peter Sullivan, a much more fiscally conservative Democrat, for one). There's a lot more work we'll be doing with the Manchester GOP soon, too.

We're close to killing the RSO residency-restrictions bill in Manchester. We've pushed it out by at least 3–4 months now, so all the people who would be unjustly subjected to it have had 3–4 months more of freedom. Attending the aldermanic committee meetings is also very useful to find other things to attack, and the aldermen themselves are very aware there are now 2–4 people in the room at each meeting, who don't work for the city, and who are taking notes on their doings. There's no way to be sure, but this alone has probably introduced some restraint into the system.

I'm also doing some stuff for the NHLA now, and planning to be more active with them in the next legislative session, doing the same stuff I've done on the city level but on the state level.

I and several other people are in the process of setting up a libertarian-leaning local Manchester newspaper, which will perhaps even give Vitruvian a place to publish some of his views, provided he doesn't alienate all his readers with the arrogance displayed in this post.

I've also been helping out with some of the canvassing for the Ron Paul campaign, and plan to do more when I have time.

Now that I've showed you mine, how about you show me yours?

Having everyone realize that the government is immoral violence accomplishes nothing if the government is still there. Once everyone's woken up, what are they going to do to rid themselves of this government?

Well, they wouldn't pay their taxes, and no one would make them do so.  Without moral authority, there is no government as a concept.  If anyone tried to enforce the tax laws, for example, people would see it for what it was -- a hold up -- and fight it.  The reason it's suicide to do that now is because the leaders have so many thugs backing them up.  The thugs are only there because they think it's moral to be there.  Take that moral comfort away from then, and the thing falls.  Today, parents discourage their children from going into the army by saying, "But you could be killed!"  When they focus instead on, "But you could KILL," then the state will collapse from its loss of moral authority.

This is true, and a fantasy. The assumption here is that "everyone" is going to wake up all at once, or quickly enough that the State doesn't have time to respond. People will wake up a bit at a time (as we ourselves are), and as they do the State will have ample people still supporting it in order to react, perhaps successfully. That is what we're contending with, and what need be planned for, not "everyone" waking up all at once and the State suddenly finding no defenders.

[J’raxis 270145]

I thought that was what you were getting at, just wanted to make sure

Though I'm not so sure Lauren has convinced any of the politicos here to kick their habit.  So far, at least

What I'm hoping is that some sort of legislative activity comes out of her protest, like it did with the manicurist-licensing protest a while ago. Her actions have got the right-to-travel crowd stirred up again, and that topic is entirely about law: the common law vs. statutes, how each is interpreted and applied, and so on.

[anarchicluv]

 A Non-Voter's Thoughts on Ron Paul: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/shaffer-br3.html

[Vitruvian]

Of course. I'm criticizing him for his penchant debate instead of action. A pacifist could go either way, so that wouldn't even be a determining factor to me.

I have said previously that my particular course of action, my method to advance the cause of liberty, is to persuade those close to me (friends, family, etc.)  It is low-cost, non-violent, and has the benefit of providing immediate feedback as to its efficacy.  I don't really care what your opinion of this method is.  I have already had success in convincing my parents and my sister that the State is immoral.  My present goal is to convince as many people as possible that politics does not hold the key to freedom.

Voting might not be particularly effective, but it cannot be immoral.

I'm curious why you would spend so much time and energy defending a practice you consider ineffective.  But that's a subject for a another thread.

I insist on repeating it, because you keep saying it.  The only way that voting can make the voter responsible for the actions of the State is if the vote confers legitimacy.  Therefore, you keep claiming that the State can be made granted actual - not merely illusory - legitimacy.

From where do you get this idea?  There is no Rube Goldberg contraption between the act of voting and the election of State officials.  The latter is a direct consequence of the former.  State officials, elected and non-elected alike, routinely commit acts of aggressive violence and they bear responsibility for those acts.  But, just as a getaway driver is accomplice to a bank robbery, the voters are accomplice to the crimes of the State.

From another angle, if voting cannot engender responsibility for its consequences, how could you claim any sort of cause-and-effect relationship between your voting behavior and the real world?  And if this relationship does not exist, why bother voting? You cannot have it both ways.

Indeed.  They can get the illusion of legitimacy from many sources, as you've just acknowledged.  So voting is irrelevant to that subject, as they could find another method if voting ceased.

This fact does not vindicate the practice of voting.  Forcing the State to find another justification would make our job much less difficult.

They just obtained their "illusion of legitimacy" by "protecting the people from the threat of capitalism," instead.

How many people still buy this justification?  When the State resorts to overt oppressive violence, as opposed to the secret, cloak-and-dagger violence of a democratic State, people are far less likely to accept their justifications as valid.

If you convinced every person in America to stay home and not vote, do you imagine the government would just say, "well, we se that we aren't wanted, so we'll go away"?

No, I don't think that.  However, a similar reaction to such a mass demonstration would dispel any illusions people had.  After all, the people themselves would know why they stayed away from the polls.