Politics is an immoral dead-end

[Russell Kanning]

Aside from the occasion quip and a couple of posts in this thread (since it presented the opportunity) I try not to harp on people too hard about choosing to engage in an activity which I consider to be an aggressive act of force, i.e. politics. ...

The reason we're in NH is to attempt some things that have never been done before because previous attempts have been failures. Some of us are just taking that a step further. I believe we're right but I'll try not to be too preachy about it.

I really like the way you are explaining your position.

[Russell Kanning]

Humble request or insist? You sound confused. Are you sure your path is the absolute best path for everyone?

Once again, I do not claim that my method is the One True Method nor did I start this thread to flatter my own ego.  My aim is to dissuade others from employing immoral and obfuscatory methods.

I agree that politics is not a moral path for me to take. I probably should not force that idea on others, since I may be wrong. I used to vote and hope that the government could be changed by decent people.
I have changed my mind.
I bet you will convince more people ... especially those that don't know you personally, by living according to your principles and lead the way for others.

[KBCraig]

I think I'm sounding preachier than I mean to. My post is too long.

I think you said it just fine. You made your point quite eloquently, and kindly.

What I'm trying to say is go do what you believe to be right and don't pressure me to do it.

I think the responses to Vitruvian are a little harsh, because he sounds like he's trying to do exactly what you don't want done to you: pressure people into adopting a stance they don't necessarily agree with.

[Russell Kanning]

It seems like threads like this come about because those that love politics are pressuring others to join them. I guess those of us that hate government and the strange game of politics will have to weather the enthusiasm surrounding each election.
I look back with fondness to living in places where presidential primary candidates didn't visit.
The State likes it when people jump on the  . I enjoy seeing people jump back off of it. I hope to see a few of you again soon, and I hope you don't mind that I stop by every once in a while   and remind you that your steps are leading nowhere.

[Vitruvian]

I bet you will convince more people ... especially those that don't know you personally, by living according to your principles and lead the way for others.

Of course.  I try to do this always.  But I am getting rather tired of people, especially those involved in politics, excusing their actions.

[CNHT]

2. Any libertarian worth his or her salt is an anarchist.  There is no way around it.
If you want to change thing thru non political means, I suggest you stop talking and start protesting and getting arrested.  These methods, particularly, when more people start applying them will have a greater multiplying effect than talking to you friends.

Lloyd, really? So the definition of libertarian is an anarchist?
Also, we are waiting to see when you will be putting your money where your mouth is...and get yourself thrown in jail. It's really easy to do....

[dalebert]

Also, we are waiting to see when you will be putting your money where your mouth is...and get yourself thrown in jail. It's really easy to do....

This is true. We were threatened with jail at Lauren's trial for not standing up when the judge entered and left. I was preparing myself for that possibility.

[CNHT]

I think I (and David) already introduced a definition of politics: "forcing one's own preferences or beliefs on others." 

A totally bogus definition that undercuts most of your argument.  (I am very involved in politics, and I am not an agent of force.)

He doesn't understand by his very existence he is 'engaging in politics'. It's unavoidable, not to mention the 911 truther, anti-war and impeachment activities. Those are definitely political, just because they are not 'elections'.

[Russell Kanning]

you do understand .... that these are not two equal paths

It is much easier to follow the political path in many ways. They will even pay you to play the game often. It is the broad path that leads to destruction.

[CNHT]

I bet you will convince more people ... especially those that don't know you personally, by living according to your principles and lead the way for others.

Of course.  I try to do this always.  But I am getting rather tired of people, especially those involved in politics, excusing their actions.

Well did the thought ever occur to you that some get tired of people's apathy?  Yet they haven't demanded they denounce the fact that they don't vote and explain themselves.   

[Kat Kanning]

But to be berated daily for what you're calling apathy isn't particularly nice or helpful.  Doing things differently from you isn't equal to apathy.

[CNHT]

But to be berated daily for what you're calling apathy isn't particularly nice or helpful.  Doing things differently from you isn't equal to apathy.

No one has been berating anyone for apathy or doing things differently. However, this guy charges in here under a new alias and like a troll starts berating people for their participation in political activity, demanding we explain to him, as if that matters, why we do it and how we justify it.

[CNHT]

It seems that your aim is to use your intellect and self-proclaimed high moral position to bully people into adopting your beliefs.  And if they don't, then they're immoral.  Sounds like unwarranted initiation of force to me, and a pretty arrogant one, too. 

What Granite said...  ^^^^^

[CNHT]

Good morning, endless-debate thread!

The phrase create tension between two or more target groups comes from a 1993 book by Paul H. Nitze: Tension Between Opposites: Reflections on the Practices and Theory of Politics. Alleged to be connected with the Council on Foreign Relations, the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University is said to be a spy school.

Creating tension between two or more target groups, perhaps originally a technique more commonly employed for political and military purposes, is often employed as a propaganda tactic. Typical forms this tactic takes include:

• Creating a dummy or shell group that has no purpose except to advocate a view bystanders will see as compatible with that of another target group and which is also opposed to the view of the manipulating group; Then legitimate groups can be drawn into turf wars, be discredited by visible engagement in unappealing confrontations with the new rival, and ultimately discredit their "shared" view - which is of course the opposite of the manipulator's view.
  
  


• Finding legitimate but incompetent or purist advocates of a view roughly compatible with that of another target group, and funding the incompetents or purists or extremists to become the dominant voice on the issue. Not dealing with the issue is thus easy to excuse, as the dominant view is more extreme than the public's own.
  
  


• Dealing directly with moderates and requiring concessions that will be found unacceptable by purists, thus co-opting the middle and alienating purists. If purists can be simultaneously drawn into dummy, shell, incompetent or extreme groups, preferably many of these, then an entire movement can be splintered.

(Source)

That this divisive and energy-sapping thread started up immediately after we've dealt with a spate of the more common form of agents provocateurs (those who try to incite or promote violence in order to discredit us), followed by a sudden influx of new posters whose sole purpose seemed to be to disrupt, confuse, and anger long-time forum posters, is suspicious to say the least.

I have no idea what you're really up to. What I do know is that this thread won't result in any sort of effective activism, only more endless debate and whining that at the end of the day accomplished absolutely nothing. If you're interested in non-political activism, great. Do it. If you're interested in political activism, great. Do that instead. The Free State Movement was intentionally designed as a "big tent" movement to encompass both forms of activism and everything in between. If all you're interested in is arguing with activists who don't employ the same purist methods as yours, please, take it somewhere else, lest people begin to think you're wasting our time on purpose.

Ditto on that one J!

[Russell Kanning]

I guess from all the post that cnht doesn't agree with you Eric