Politics is an immoral dead-end

[CNHT]

Ever hear the expression 'freedom is not free'?

I am happy to spend my whole life fighting for the freedom for others, even if they are too lazy to do so themselves.

RTKBA and freedom from taxes are my priorities.

[Vitruvian]

Ever hear the expression 'freedom is not free'?

Freedom most definitely is free.  It is my and every person's right.

[CNHT]

If you didn't think you have any "say over what other people do with their own lives," then why start this thread?

Good one Granite.

Answer: So he can demand you explain why you aren't doing what he says you should be doing. LOL

[picaro]

In the words of Henry David Thoreau, "the only place for a just man in an unjust society is the prison house."  If we are serious about our ideas, we had better take them seriously.

Agreed.  Why aren't you in prison?

1. You let slip something very important here: elections--all of them--end with someone in possession of power over others.  And if you vote, or otherwise participate, you will have been a party to this evil.

This is no more immoral than switching a oncoming train to kill two people to avoid the deaths of 5 people.

2. Any libertarian worth his or her salt is an anarchist.  There is no way around it.

This is not an argument.

5. I advance the cause of liberty by persuading those near and dear to me: my friends, family, and anyone else within earshot.


Ok, What networks are you building influence with so your opinion is given weight?  Are you creating media? writing articles?  or just bitching here?

[Vitruvian]

If you didn't think you have any "say over what other people do with their own lives," then why start this thread?

Well, I'm certainly not going to hold a gun to your head and tell you what to think.  The purpose of this thread is to persuade you and others against doing just that.

[J’raxis 270145]

the path to freedom does not lie inside the voting booth or the statehouse

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I am most curious as to where you think the path to freedom does lie.

I am of the opinion that the State only exists because most people want it to exist.  If (and this is a big "if") we can persuade enough people, not only that the State is an unnecessary evil, but also that they would be better off without it, we would achieve our goals with no further effort.

How are they making it more difficult for you?

Participation in the "system" preserves the illusion of its legitimacy.  This obstructs all who strive to convince others that it is illegitimate.

A big part of why the State exists is because people continue to confer "legitimacy" on it. Another big part of why they exist is they have a lot more guns than you do, and won't hesitate to use them if you start trying to act like they don't exist when they still do. People who are getting involved in politics—either electing more freedom-oriented candidates, or trying to repeal the worst of our laws—are trying to fix that second part for you.

I'd like to know what your solution to all the laws we have. The way I see it, there are three courses of action you can take for any given law that interferes with your freedom:—

• Ignore it, hoping you don't eventually get caught, until the State finally collapses
• Follow it, until the State finally collapses
• Try to repeal it as soon as possible, so you're a bit more free until the State finally collapses

The first choice is all well and good when the law in question is a minor violation, something that might result in a ticket, a small fine, or a short stint in jail, but I don't see it as much of a viable choice if the law in question is a more serious one that involves major fines, a felony conviction, decades in jail, placement upon a public registry, &c.. Thus, we're left with the second and third choice—which do you think is preferable?

For me it's simple: Someone is going to get elected in the next election, so we ought to try to make sure that person is only a minor threat to freedom and not a major one.

When you play in the mud, all you get is dirty.

Hah, that sounds so similar to the metaphor I've used to describe involvement in politics, but with opposite meaning: If you want to unclog a toilet, sometimes you have to stick your hands in a bowl full of shit.

Jraxis, you're right they have the guns, but that is only one form of power.  Few in politics believe taxation is really stealing.  The difference between taxes and holding up a bank is legitamacy. 
The gov't had guns in the 60's, and did on occasion use them against the civil rights protesters, but they failed to realize the power of legitamacy.  When bull conner turned on the firehoses against children, and video showed the hoses tearing off bark from trees, he, lost any legitamacy he had.  he was a thug to be resisted.  Racism didn't disappear, but the willingness to use violence lessened noticably. 

The civil rights movement is actually a pretty good example of a movement that employed both civil disobedience and political action.

Unfortunately, it's also a good example of how not to use political action—the end result was more laws in order to prohibit racism, and a vast expansion of government power in order to enforce those laws—which is something I'm quite cognizant of in my political involvement. I only want to see current laws repealed in their entirety, or bills passed that replace current laws with new laws of a smaller scope.

[DC]

No, I do not have to ponder what comes next.  I may, of course, and often do. 

When I ponder what comes next it's the same as if you keep a dog locked in a fence it's whole life and one day it gets out. It runs out in the road and gets run over by a car. Most people have no idea how to live without a government nanny state because they never have.

[CNHT]

The airtight moral justification that I provide to you is that participating in the political process is my right.  I must insist on your exhibiting some moral rectitude and consistency, not to mention constancy.  Please renounce all non-political freedom activities forthwith, as you are making the journey immensely more difficult for those of us who walk the true path of freedom.  Or at least please stop trying to tell people what to think and do.

Amen Granite. And don't feed the trolls.   

[Faber]

What will the slaves do once freed?!  Better keep them in chains . . . .

[J’raxis 270145]

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.  Although I do not intend to be mean-spirited, nor to dampen the enthusiasm of my fellow freedom-lovers, I must insist on consistency and moral rectitude: the path to freedom does not lie inside the voting booth or the statehouse, and those who seek it in those places only make the journey more difficult for the rest of us.

The airtight moral justification that I provide to you is that participating in the political process is my right.

Unfortunately, since he believes that all politics is force, under a libertarian philosophy, you don't have a right to engage in politics. What we need to convince him is that less force—achieved by getting pro-liberty candidates into office and repealing some if not all laws—is preferable to more force.

[Vitruvian]

The airtight moral justification that I provide to you is that participating in the political process is my right.  I must insist on your exhibiting some moral rectitude and consistency, not to mention constancy.  Please renounce all non-political freedom activities forthwith, as you are making the journey immensely more difficult for those of us who walk the true path of freedom.  Or at least please stop trying to tell people what to think and do.

Participation in the political process is not a right, no matter how much you wish it to be.  It is a violation of rights: in other words, a wrong.

Unfortunately, since he believes that all politics is force, under a libertarian philosophy, you don't have a right to engage in politics. What we need to convince him is that less force—achieved by getting pro-liberty candidates into office and repealing some if not all laws—is preferable to more force.

I agree: less force is preferable to more force.  But I will not be the cause of either one.

[David]

quote<Unfortunately, it's also a good example of how not to use political action—the end result was more laws in order to prohibit racism, and a vast expansion of government power in order to enforce those laws—which is something I'm quite cognizant of in my political involvement. I only want to see current laws repealed in their entirety, or bills passed that replace current laws with new laws of a smaller scope.>

It was the political activists who helped write the new laws.  The marchers in the street were resisting tyranny.  I agree that there was some overlap, but without the civil unrest, the politicians would not have been anymore successful in the 60's and 70's than in the 40's and 50's. 

I am an anarchist.  Anarchy is a lifestyle.  You have to make choices everyday, (it gets easier with practice) to achieve your ends, including safety and security, without the use of violence.  The political system is strategy, planning, marketing, and has historically almost never been a friend to liberty. 

[J’raxis 270145]

If you have the goal of removing the government, you have to ponder what comes next.
To set something so profound in motion without even considering its effects is, in my view, quite immoral.

No, I do not have to ponder what comes next.  I may, of course, and often do.  But the idea that I should have some say over what other people do with their own lives is exactly the idea I oppose.

You may not have to, but, being someone so concerned about moral purity, you certainly ought to.

Besides working to eliminate the State here, we're also doing pretty well at setting up voluntary structures that hopefully would be what people would use and rely on after the State is gone—homeschooling, an informal economy based on precious metals and barter, bearing arms for one's own self-defense, networks of friends supporting and defending one another, and so on. Is this something you're participating in, or are you only maybe sitting around and pondering this, even?

[David]

Quote<I agree: less force is preferable to more force.  But I will not be the cause of either one.>
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still a choice. 

[Faber]

No, I do not have to ponder what comes next.  I may, of course, and often do.  But the idea that I should have some say over what other people do with their own lives is exactly the idea I oppose.

You may not have to, but, being someone so concerned about moral purity, you certainly ought to.

Didn't he say he did?