Politics is an immoral dead-end

[SethCohn]

There is a VAST difference between the two.
Obligation - you must, because you owe/promised/contracted
Moral Responsibility - you should, because it's the ethical/moral/right thing to do.

A moral responsibility is an obligation, the only obligation one has no choice but to assume.  Because it is an unchosen obligation, a moral responsibility must also be negative, i.e. one is obliged only to refrain from certain activities, marked by the presence of aggressive violence.  Therefore, voting cannot be a moral responsibility because to vote is a positive act.  On the contrary, I submit that voting, as a violation of the ZAP, is immoral (or unethical, if you prefer).

No, I entirely disagree with you... A moral responsibility is NOT an obligation.  Breach of Contract is violation of an obligation, and while you might have moral issues, the obligation is the factor that a judge would look at.  Not going into a burning building will NEVER be a crime, no judge will ever charge with failure to act, but the moral responsibility is still there.

Let's not confuse with negative and positive actions - you can have obligations for both OR moral responsibilities for both.

[SethCohn]

i see that no one has refuted the voting in a town meeting where you can LOWER your taxes and your neighbor's taxes with a simple no vote.

So in that case voting is not only moral... not voting is immoral.

Ding Ding Ding.  Exactly.

[Vitruvian]

Then making a choice at the ballot box cannot be considered force.

A choice is merely a thought, a particular configuration of the brain, having only internal effects; an act has external consequences.  Voting is an act.

i see that no one has refuted the voting in a town meeting where you can LOWER your taxes and your neighbor's taxes with a simple no vote.  So in that case voting is not only moral... not voting is immoral.

No, I did address that point.  To vote in such a setting is to accede that property may rightfully be confiscated should the majority so vote.  Whatever your vote may have been, one does not have the right to make such a decision. The whole process is wrong and should be avoided.

No, I entirely disagree with you... A moral responsibility is NOT an obligation.  Breach of Contract is violation of an obligation, and while you might have moral issues, the obligation is the factor that a judge would look at.  Not going into a burning building will NEVER be a crime, no judge will ever charge with failure to act, but the moral responsibility is still there.

Let's not confuse with negative and positive actions - you can have obligations for both OR moral responsibilities for both.

Neither I nor anyone else has unchosen positive obligations.  To claim the opposite would be to claim ownership of our bodies.  It is you, SethCohn, who seems to be confused regarding morality: only one universal moral responsibility exists--the zero-aggression principle.

[Dreepa]

i see that no one has refuted the voting in a town meeting where you can LOWER your taxes and your neighbor's taxes with a simple no vote.  So in that case voting is not only moral... not voting is immoral.

No, I did address that point.  To vote in such a setting is to accede that property may rightfully be confiscated should the majority so vote.  Whatever your vote may have been, one does not have the right to make such a decision. The whole process is wrong and should be avoided.

So we can just let our property taxes go up? 
Doesn't seem so smart.
I think I will continue to vote no... even though you 'demand' that I stop.  I would rather spend my money on other things rather that taxes that I could have avoided it I had just voted no.

[Russell Kanning]

Not to get all zen, or even yoda-ish.

I was thinking more like ..... you know

[J’raxis 270145]

i see that no one has refuted the voting in a town meeting where you can LOWER your taxes and your neighbor's taxes with a simple no vote.  So in that case voting is not only moral... not voting is immoral.

No, I did address that point.  To vote in such a setting is to accede that property may rightfully be confiscated should the majority so vote.  Whatever your vote may have been, one does not have the right to make such a decision. The whole process is wrong and should be avoided.

So we can just let our property taxes go up? 
Doesn't seem so smart.
I think I will continue to vote no... even though you 'demand' that I stop.  I would rather spend my money on other things rather that taxes that I could have avoided it I had just voted no.

Vitruvian is the kind of person who would happily ride the a sinking ship to the bottom of the ocean just because they were voting on who to allow to board the lifeboats first. At least he gets to drown morally.

[Vitruvian]

I think I will continue to vote no... even though you 'demand' that I stop.  I would rather spend my money on other things rather that taxes that I could have avoided it I had just voted no.

If you prefer to validate the process by which your and your neighbors' wealth is stolen from you, then go ahead, cast your vote.  If not, then strike at the root (in Russell's parlance) and convince others of the evil of taxes (and voting on them).

Vitruvian is the kind of person who would happily ride the a sinking ship to the bottom of the ocean just because they were voting on who to allow to board the lifeboats first. At least he gets to drown morally.

I could even rearrange the deck chairs in the meantime.

[Russell Kanning]

i see that no one has refuted the voting in a town meeting where you can LOWER your taxes and your neighbor's taxes with a simple no vote.

I don't want to participate in any local towns ... so I shouldn't vote in one of their elections.

[Russell Kanning]

It is very likely that V and I could be the last guys on a sinking ship.

[MaineShark]

1) The initial claim was that involvement in politics (ie, voting or otherwise assisting a candidate in getting elected) is immoral, as a violation of the ZAP, since that candidate will violate the ZAP.  Is that a reasonable summary?

Yes.  I agree with this statement.

Okay, one down.

2) So, in reality, we have a pre-existing entity (government) which does harm to innocents, and will not stop due to a lack of voting.

Agreed, with the slight caveat that non-voting is necessary, though insufficient, for the dissolution of the State.

I don't accept that caveat, unless you are willing to use "State" correctly.  The government could certainly be destroyed, by simple brute force, even if certain individuals voted.  Not that I'm suggesting mass executions would be beneficial, but it would be hypothetically feasible.  If you are using "State" correctly, then your caveat is accurate, as the idea  cannot be destroyed as long as "democracy" still exists.

3) In order for a ZAP violation to exist, there must be harm (ie, force against a person) caused by some moral actor (ie, a person, not the weather or somesuch), and that actor must have intended to act in such a manner (turning on a light switch in a room filled with flammable gas does not make you an arsonist, if you had no way to know the gas was there), and the act must be an initiation of force, not a response to an act of force.

Mostly agreed.  My opinion on the issue of intention, as it pertains to the ZAP, is still unsettled.

I wouldn't be inclined to accuse others of immoral behavior if my understanding of moral theory was "unsettled"...

What is "unsettling" you about that?

Remember that ethics are aesthetic, not moral.

Actually, normative ethics, the branch of ethics we have been discussing, is concerned with "developing theories that determine which human actions are right and which are wrong" (Free On-line Dictionary of Philosophy): in other words, theories of normative ethics are theories of morality

"Normative ethics" attempts to apply personal ethics to society, as if they were morals (obviously, a gross simplification).  Basically, at the core, it is a democratic theory, where "right" and "wrong" are equivalent to "popular" and "unpopular" action.  It is pretty antithetical to liberty, in most cases.

Getting off-topic, though.

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

Here is how the anarchist  strategy would work.  You simply sit back and not do anything in the hopes that the yoke of government will become so burdensome and severe that other people will do all the work of overthrowing the government for you.  After going through all the work of overthrowing their oppressive government, they will then turn to the anarchists who were too busy rotting in some government gulag or performing stunts during the period when the government was still democratic enough to allow for things like free speech. 

[Russell Kanning]

not this anarchist

[Dreepa]

i see that no one has refuted the voting in a town meeting where you can LOWER your taxes and your neighbor's taxes with a simple no vote.

I don't want to participate in any local towns ... so I shouldn't vote in one of their elections.

Yet you still get taxed by them whether you participate or not.

[Vitruvian]

I don't accept that caveat, unless you are willing to use "State" correctly.  The government could certainly be destroyed, by simple brute force, even if certain individuals voted.  Not that I'm suggesting mass executions would be beneficial, but it would be hypothetically feasible.  If you are using "State" correctly, then your caveat is accurate, as the idea  cannot be destroyed as long as "democracy" still exists.

Certainly, a government can be destroyed by "simple brute force."  However, the government (what I have called the State), the institution whose membership may change but whose essential character persists, cannot be destroyed in this fashion.  The State will survive as long as people continue to delude themselves and their children into believing that robbery is just, when it is called "taxation"; that slavery is just, when it is called "national service"; that murder is just, when it is called "war."

Here is how the anarchist  strategy would work.  You simply sit back and not do anything in the hopes that the yoke of government will become so burdensome and severe that other people will do all the work of overthrowing the government for you.  After going through all the work of overthrowing their oppressive government, they will then turn to the anarchists who were too busy rotting in some government gulag or performing stunts during the period when the government was still democratic enough to allow for things like free speech.

Anthony, you know better than that.  What "work" do you imagine is required to overthrow the State?  A paradigm shift among the general population (not to mention our own) must precede such a dramatic change.

[MaineShark]

I don't accept that caveat, unless you are willing to use "State" correctly.  The government could certainly be destroyed, by simple brute force, even if certain individuals voted.  Not that I'm suggesting mass executions would be beneficial, but it would be hypothetically feasible.  If you are using "State" correctly, then your caveat is accurate, as the idea  cannot be destroyed as long as "democracy" still exists.

Certainly, a government can be destroyed by "simple brute force."  However, the government (what I have called the State), the institution whose membership may change but whose essential character persists, cannot be destroyed in this fashion.  The State will survive as long as people continue to delude themselves and their children into believing that robbery is just, when it is called "taxation"; that slavery is just, when it is called "national service"; that murder is just, when it is called "war."

Uh, didn't you just repeat what I said?

Incidentally, this is why the State doesn't exist.  It is not a group of individuals, like the government.  It is an idea, as you've just admitted.

Sounds like we're at least making headway, although I'm still concerned about your "unsettled" comment regarding intent.

You cannot be "guilty" of consequences you had no reasonable knowledge would occur.  In this case, "reasonable" being either possible (certain things might not be within your ability to know, based upon sensory limitations), or obtainable through normal actions.  For example, you can see a leaking can of gasoline sitting on the ground and shouldn't light a camp fire next to it, and you acquire that knowledge automatically by looking at the area, whereas detecting a flammable, odorless gas in a room would require an extra effort in terms of carrying around a gas detector, which you certainly aren't obligated to do.

Joe