Politics is an immoral dead-end

[David]

When you resist something gov't does, you or somebody has to come up with some voluntary alternative.  Some of the services that gov't provides are actually quite popular, and in high demand.  Some less so.  The high demand ones will be met by entrepreneurs, the others by charities or mutual aid.  Both of these require individuals to choose to do them.  If the gov't can be pushed back long enough. 

[picaro]

By your choice of methods, we'd all be sitting around with Jim Crow laws still on the books, until the state as a whole collapses. People would of course be free to opt out and drop out, but every now and then the State would keep coming along and crushing people with these odious laws.

People need to suffer to prove their purity.   

[J’raxis 270145]

When you resist something gov't does, you or somebody has to come up with some voluntary alternative.  Some of the services that gov't provides are actually quite popular, and in high demand.  Some less so.  The high demand ones will be met by entrepreneurs, the others by charities or mutual aid.  Both of these require individuals to choose to do them.  If the gov't can be pushed back long enough. 

Strategically, this is definitely true. Advocating the repeal of social assistance programs, for example, when there are no private charities in place to take up all the people thrown off of the dole, is incredibly irresponsible and just asking for a huge backlash.

[picaro]

Moral indignation is the practical specific action!

Everyone is full of moral indignation.  It doesn't do you a damned bit of good unless you put your ideas into effect. 


"We must spread our principles, not with words but with deeds, for
this is the most popular, the most potent, and the most irresistible
form of propaganda.
--Mikhail Bakunin
"Letters to a Frenchman on the Present Crisis" (1870)

[David]

How about we stick with the morality for a moment . . . there are plenty of threads on this board discussing "oh shit what do we do." 

Morality moves the world.  People don't do what they believe to be evil.  That's not an original insight of mine, but it's one a lot of people forget.  Unfortunately, the people who know that best are our enemies!  The enemies of liberty use morality all the time.  While we're here twiddling our thumbs and selling soap and buying handguns, they're out there throwing all kinds of morality at our kids!  Obey the state, patriotism is moral, obedience is moral, public education is moral.  Emotional, moral arguments are really all our enemies have -- AND THEY KICK OUR ASS!

Moral indignation is the practical specific action!

You are so right.  It is the reason the intellectual arguments fail almost every time.  But most people haven't' completely lost their moral compass. They know rape is wrong, but sex is not.  They know that force is wrong, and choice is right, at least in regards to themselves.   Every person claims his/her own rights.  Every child knows this.  It doesn't matter how much propaganda they feed people, humans in general are not going to exist for the benefit of others, and an assertion of individual rights eventually emerges.   They are less respectful of others rights.  Yet with some small level of pressure, I believe we can encourage a higher level of respect for others rights than we currently have.  Politics is nothing more than forcing your preferences on others, as such it is detrimental to encouraging a respect for others rights. 
We can thunder as much as possible- 1. Do all that you have agreed to do, and 2 Do not encroach on other persons or their property. I believe it is an issue of getting others to simple assert their own rights louder, and still respect the Reciprocal rights of others.  We can undo a lot of damage by saying what others believe already but are uncomfortable saying it because they have been taught that they are wrong.  Preaching capitalism or economics is a non starter.  No society has ever gained more freedom or prosperity by believing in either.  They were prosperous only by respecting others rights, thus allowing others to be productive. 

[CNHT]

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. 

Does this include attending anti-war protests, demanding 911 investigations, or abetting impeachment processes?

I'm still curious if you think the above counts as 'political activities'.

[KBCraig]

Wow, to come home and find a brand new, 4-page thread!

Anything I have to say on this subject, I've already said many times in other threads. Anarchy is preferable, but government is inevitable. So to sum up, let me borrow someone else's words, and say:

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.

^ This!

+1, Jeremy.

[David]

This has got to be the fastest that 6-7 people have ever posted.   

[dalebert]

This thread grew way too fast. I have seen about half a dozen posts I wanted to respond to and I just feel overwhelmed. I prefer to read an entire thread before responding so I don't just repeat someone. By the time I get around to responding to some of the posts on the first page, I feel like there will be several more pages. Each time I start to post, I get that warning that someone else just posted. ...sigh.

[Russell Kanning]

and then there will be 2 elections before you get the next post in

[J’raxis 270145]

It's 02:49 (EST) in the morning and I'm going to sleep. I'm going to wrap up my own involvement in this by just pointing out that:—

• I am an anarchist.
• I agree with the statement that politics is force.
• I also believe it's preferable to have less force than more, as soon as possible, thus I work within the political system in order to accomplish this. Specifically:—
  
  
  • Electing a candidate who will do less harm is preferable to letting others elect more harmful candidates.
  • Getting a law repealed is preferable to just ignoring the law and hoping you don't get victimized by it.
  • Resisting bad new bills is preferable to just letting them pass and then trying to ignore the law they created.
• I am more concerned with fixing things than my own moral purity.
• I am more concerned with fixing things citywide or statewide, than just dropping out myself and trying to convince others, one by one, to follow.
• None of the above prevents non-political activists from engaging in their own form of activism.
• I agree with and support non-political activism, too.

They know rape is wrong, but sex is not.

Aagh, let's not even go there... I'll just point to the links in my sig (1, 2) rather than go off on a rant about this, seeing as how I already accidentally derailed the thread once arguing semantics of ought...





Good night, endless debate thread!

[David]

quote<Good night, endless debate thread!>
this issue will not be solved today, possibly never.  I hope to see some semblence of anarchy im my lifetime.  I am wary of the compromises my political friends may choose to make, but I don't let it interfere in my life as I cannot control it. 
Also, good night friends, political and non.   

[dalebert]

I'll just try to sum up my thoughts since quoting and responding is just going to be too tedious at this point. Libertarianism is best defined by what it opposes; not by what it tolerates because it tolerates so much. You should be able to do whatever you please as long as you don't violate someone's rights.

Governments as we commonly know them are synonymous with crime because they initiate force all the time. I know crime is likely never going to end completely but that doesn't mean I believe some crime needs to exist or that I will ever support it's existence. I will always oppose crime in any form despite the fact that I know it will never go away completely.

Anarchy is not a form of collective government or a state of society. It's an individual philosophy of self-government. It guides how an individual behaves. The name for my website, Anarchy In Your Head, is derived from this notion. The idea is to attempt to rattle deeply held false beliefs about the legitimacy of the state. You need the right frame of mind to start out with before you can effectively challenge the power of the state. If you believe an aggressive state is acceptable, then you're feeding into the illusion. You're feeding the beast.

Anarchy is not the end of the movement. It's the beginning.

[Rochelle]

I missed the whole thread, only read part of the first post and parts of various ones continuing, but I'm going to play off of the thread title and just say:

Life is an immoral dead-end.

[CNHT]

I missed the whole thread, only read part of the first post and parts of various ones continuing, but I'm going to play off of the thread title and just say:

Life is an immoral dead-end.

And I never got my question answered. Because, well....I have my reasons why I think that's true.
And you Rochelle, have much better things to look forward to than to feel guilty about carrying a sign for Dr Paul now and then eh? Geesh.