Politics is an immoral dead-end

[anthonybpugh]

Voting is far from innocuous.  I agree with Carl Watner, when he writes that voting is actually the most violent act most "normal" people ever commit (source: http://users.aol.com/vlntryst/wn103.html).  I focus on voting and other forms of political action because it is my opinion that, apart from their being immoral, they are holding us back from achieving the ultimate goal of a free society.

The most violent act?  That is simply absurd.  Carl Watner probably said it specifically because it is absurd and did it to get noticed.  Voting is just one act in a long string of events which can lead to violence.  Sanctioning is not the same as participating in violence. 

I also do not like this expanded definition of violence.  Violence is overt use of physical force to hurt someone.  While you might be able to make the case that certain actions like voting might eventually lead to violence, it is not itself a violent act. 

[anarchicluv]

Voting is far from innocuous.  I agree with Carl Watner, when he writes that voting is actually the most violent act most "normal" people ever commit (source: http://users.aol.com/vlntryst/wn103.html).  I focus on voting and other forms of political action because it is my opinion that, apart from their being immoral, they are holding us back from achieving the ultimate goal of a free society.

The most violent act?  That is simply absurd.  Carl Watner probably said it specifically because it is absurd and did it to get noticed.  Voting is just one act in a long string of events which can lead to violence.  Sanctioning is not the same as participating in violence. 

I also do not like this expanded definition of violence.  Violence is overt use of physical force to hurt someone.  While you might be able to make the case that certain actions like voting might eventually lead to violence, it is not itself a violent act. 

Exactly.  Voting is not violent, no matter how far you stretch reality.  Now, what someone does once voted into office can be violent, but that doesn't mean those who voted him in sanctions EVERYTHING this person does. 

[Russell Kanning]

I use the term "political" in the sense that Nock contrasted it to "social" .... or as in political correctness ... or office politics. It aways has a bad connotation to it for me.

[Vitruvian]

The most violent act?  That is simply absurd.  Carl Watner probably said it specifically because it is absurd and did it to get noticed.  Voting is just one act in a long string of events which can lead to violence.  Sanctioning is not the same as participating in violence.

I also do not like this expanded definition of violence.  Violence is overt use of physical force to hurt someone.  While you might be able to make the case that certain actions like voting might eventually lead to violence, it is not itself a violent act.

Exactly.  Voting is not violent, no matter how far you stretch reality.  Now, what someone does once voted into office can be violent, but that doesn't mean those who voted him in sanctions EVERYTHING this person does.

Voting, because it assisted him or her to a position of power, is the ultimate cause of any action a politician takes.  Therefore, you assume responsibility for every action he or she takes once in power.  Since any politician, as an agent of the State, commits, or delegates others to commit, acts of violence, the voter is ultimately responsible for that violence.  Q.E.D.

[CNHT]

Voting, because it assisted him or her to a position of power, is the ultimate cause of any action a politician takes.  Therefore, you assume responsibility for every action he or she takes once in power.  Since any politician, as an agent of the State, commits, or delegates others to commit, acts of violence, the voter is ultimately responsible for that violence.  Q.E.D.

Since most people here are smart enough not to agree with such absurdities that voting is violent, why not just accept that fact and put a sock in it?
Most of us who 'vote' feel that by NOT doing so, it's people like YOU who are contributing to the violence, slavery, increased amount of state, etc. by not at least trying to stop it.

So I guess we're even as to whom we think is acting irresponsibly and immorally..

[Vitruvian]

Since most people here are smart enough not to agree with such absurdities that voting is violent, why not just accept that fact and put a sock in it?
Most of us who 'vote' feel that by NOT doing so, it's people like YOU who are contributing to the violence, slavery, increased amount of state, etc. by not at least trying to stop it.
So I guess we're even as to whom we think is acting irresponsibly and immorally..

You neglected to respond to srqrebel's posts, jaqeboy's posts, or my own.  Calling us stupid does not count.  Our arguments stand.

[CNHT]

Since most people here are smart enough not to agree with such absurdities that voting is violent, why not just accept that fact and put a sock in it?
Most of us who 'vote' feel that by NOT doing so, it's people like YOU who are contributing to the violence, slavery, increased amount of state, etc. by not at least trying to stop it.
So I guess we're even as to whom we think is acting irresponsibly and immorally..

You neglected to respond to srqrebel's posts, jaqeboy's posts, or my own.  Calling us stupid does not count.  Our arguments stand.

You have not resolved the assertion that you are still recognizing the state by eating in restaurants, buying gas, using electricity, all of which have taxes associated with them. Until you are living in the woods on your own, totally naked like an animal, even devoid of clothing that was manufactured, bought, and taxed, then your arguments hold no water about having completely dropped out of the 'state'.

I don't take utopians like yourselves very seriously because they are no different than the utopians of the 60s  who felt the state should provide everything for them on the backs of the 'rich'.

[anarchicluv]

The most violent act?  That is simply absurd.  Carl Watner probably said it specifically because it is absurd and did it to get noticed.  Voting is just one act in a long string of events which can lead to violence.  Sanctioning is not the same as participating in violence.

I also do not like this expanded definition of violence.  Violence is overt use of physical force to hurt someone.  While you might be able to make the case that certain actions like voting might eventually lead to violence, it is not itself a violent act.

Exactly.  Voting is not violent, no matter how far you stretch reality.  Now, what someone does once voted into office can be violent, but that doesn't mean those who voted him in sanctions EVERYTHING this person does.

Voting, because it assisted him or her to a position of power, is the ultimate cause of any action a politician takes.  Therefore, you assume responsibility for every action he or she takes once in power.  Since any politician, as an agent of the State, commits, or delegates others to commit, acts of violence, the voter is ultimately responsible for that violence.  Q.E.D.

I've read all of Watner's works, multiple times.  And I've read plenty of other works about the "violence" of voting.  I still strongly disagree with them all.  My vote for Ron Paul, for instance, is a vote to support him when he says he will pare the government down to its Constitutional responsibilities.  It is not a vote that is saying anything else, or supporting any other action he may choose to take.  A politicians actions are their OWN responsibility, just like any other individual; my vote does not sanction anything he chooses to do.

[Dreepa]

Vit.. are you familiar with local NH town policies?

They charge a certain amount of money in taxes.

At the town meetings you vote almost line by line on the town budget.
Would voting no on all the spending be immoral?

In certain towns.. activists have been able to vote DOWN certain budgets thereby saving many people lots of money.

[error]

I have a piece of paper here. I write my opinions down on this piece of paper. Later, someone who thinks of himself as in a position of power reads my opinion and decides to oppress someone, in direct opposition to my expressed views. Yet somehow I am responsible for HIS action, though I not only disagree with it but also expressed my disagreement to him?

That's what this argument is all about, and that is why I cannot possibly agree with Vitruvian on this issue. He is simply mistaken to think that I bear any responsibility for the actions of other people who were influenced by my expressed opinions.

In 2004, I voted. Yet, I didn't vote for George W. Bush! My opinion of him was the same as it is now. Vitruvian would hold, if he were correct, that I therefore still bear responsibility for George W. Bush's actions since then, including his ordering people to die in a pointless foreign war, his stealing billions of dollars from virtually every American, and his many other crimes against humanity, because I expressed an opinion, and other people acted far out of accordance with my opinion.

This is clearly absurd.

[anthonybpugh]

Voting, because it assisted him or her to a position of power, is the ultimate cause of any action a politician takes.  Therefore, you assume responsibility for every action he or she takes once in power.  Since any politician, as an agent of the State, commits, or delegates others to commit, acts of violence, the voter is ultimately responsible for that violence.  Q.E.D.

Voting is the cause of violence?  No.  Violent people cause violence.   

Then why is it that those countries which people do not vote are more violent society? 

Also, why is it that the place where voting occurs the most often is also one of the freest, most peaceful and prosperous societies on Earth? 

This debate has seen just a simplistic argument of voting = sanctioning violence but it ignores that what typically occurs in any society where voting frequently occurs is accompanied by many political institutions while far from ideal have accomplished a significant task in that it has restrained the most savage tendencies of government.   voting is a package deal and it comes with a variety of things such as Due Process of the Law, Freedom of the Press, Transparency, Habeas Corpus etc. etc.

In fact, that is one of the main problems with the current government that we have.  It is not that we are seeing the end result of what happens when we have a system where people can vote for leaders.  What we are seeing is a case of the political elites in our society working to undermine the democratic institutions.  When you have the government shutting down the freedom to be a dissenter.  Shutting down the ability of the people to even know what the government is doing.  That it is the voting and the political institutions which accompany the voting process which the elites fear.   

In fact, not only would I strongly disagree with your assertion that voting is an immoral act but I would suggest that the process of voting is one of the few moral acts in politics because it is one of the few acts which does have a tendency to restrain government. 

You seem to view voting as just a means of delegating authority and that they may act on our behalf.  The political elite does not need a vote to accomplish that.  Look at any dictatorship and they believe that they are the embodiment of the will of the people.  That seems to be one of the common claims of all despots that they and they alone are the true embodiment of the collective will.    While voting does do this to some extent it also serves to remind the politician that he is being watched and that he can be held accountable for his actions.  You frequently have cases where some politician wants to do something but can't because he is afraid of the reaction of his constituents.    That is why such things like Campaign Finance Reform, Free Speech Zones and other things like that is so important.   

Don't make the best the enemy of good.  We have to make use of the tools and methods which are on hand.  Democratic institutions may not be the most ideal system to have but it will simply have to do for now.  but if we abandon the political process all we are doing is abandoning the field to the most vicious and ruthless.     

[dalebert]

I quit following this thread about 12 pages ago, but Anthony posted this on FTL and I was just wondering if he posted it here too. It's kind of a funny coincidence. This thread really needs to lighten up.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/americans_announce_theyre_dropping

Americans Announce They're Dropping Out Of Presidential Race

[J’raxis 270145]

(It is still worth mentioning that the purpose and intent of purchasing restaurant meals is to obtain sustenance, not to support the State.)

My purpose and intent in voting is to get pro-liberty candidates into office, repeal laws, downsize the government, &c., not support the State. For some reason, though, you guys keep insisting my purpose and intent is irrelevant; I support the State anyway.

Why is this logic different for taxes?

[Russell Kanning]

you will have to make a lighter thread ... I think Eric wants it heavy.

I prefer lighter fare.

[Alex]

Mark is a slave, chained to prevent escape and whipped daily. Mark convinces his master to only whip him 6 days a week. Does doing this mean that Mark supports being whipped 6 days a week? Does it mean he supports being a slave? Is Mark doing something immoral? Does Mark need some moral justification for his behavior?

If "Mark" were making such a choice only for himself, I would agree with you.  However, as I said before:

When a person, by voting, chooses to place the power of the State into the hands of another, or, by holding office, takes it into his own hands, he purports to make choices for others, whether or not those others have given him their consent.

So if instead it was me and you chained and whipped and I convinced our master to only whip us 6 days a week that would mean that I supported you being whipped 6 days a week and supported you being a slave and was doing something immoral and needed some moral justification for my behavior? The situation is not at all different and the answer is still bloody obvious.