Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[d_goddard]

Will anyone be actually offended if I "tag" this masturbatory thread with an explicit, pornographic image of that act?

[error]

I'm surprised the smiley is missing...

[shyfrog]

Anyone else gonna be at Murphy's tonight?
I'm dropping by to pick up some Ron Paul signs to attack people with...err deliver to people in the South-Western region of the Shire so they can engage in the immoral act of stabbing the poor defenseless lawns with those stabby wire frames. 

Liberty is the goal no matter the method.
Focus on the prize, not the means.
Do what you do and do it well.

[error]

Everybody's going to be at Murphy's tonight, political and apolitical alike.

And anybody who brings up this topic at Murphy's tonight will ruin my good time. Just don't do it.

[CNHT]

Everybody's going to be at Murphy's tonight, political and apolitical alike.

And anybody who brings up this topic at Murphy's tonight will ruin my good time. Just don't do it.

Aw now see, this is why error is among those people I 'like'. 

[CNHT]

Dale, this part here is what I have trouble with:

"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."

I guess someone with his views who is demanding 'moral rectitude' seems to be quite an oxymoron.

[Vitruvian]

Given that I am such an infrequent poster here (though not a troll, and not new [registered in February 2007]), I may have been presumptuous in using such high-toned language to make my point.  However, my esteemed opponents in this debate continue to show their colors:

Focus on the prize, not the means.

This one statement encompasses the central issue of the current thread.  The political types seem all too willing to don the blinders where means are concerned, preferring instead to focus solely on the ends.  From such an attitude, one can easily derive that old chestnut, "the ends justify the means." 

[Russell Kanning]

I agree Eric. The means are what lead to the goal. Some of us might disagree what they are, but I do think every step you take is part of reaching the prize.

I would think reasonable discussion of this topic at a taproom might actually make for better relationships.

[dalebert]

I just got off the phone with the FTL broadcast. I was on the entire last hour of the show discussing this topic. I'll briefly repeat what I said there. The means is what Libertarianism is all about. Do we not argue that entitlement programs are inherently wrong and that no amount of voting changes that?

So anyway, after Mark and I agreed that I wasn't going to change his view of the morality of voting, I pointed out that wasn't the point of my call. My reason for calling is that Mark was pressuring principled anarchists in the FSP to go ahead and vote to support their political friends. So now I'm just trying to convince him to accept that he shouldn't be urging someone to act against his or her own conscience. That seems very disrespectful and an unreasonable expectation.

So we're in this weird place where most of us seem to believe in letting people work for liberty in their own ways and yet Mark insists that principled anarchists should vote, i.e. work toward liberty in HIS way. It's funny how worked up this topic got him. I still like Mark a lot even though we will probably never see eye to eye on this.

[MaineShark]

Okay, forgive me if this has already been said, as I didn't read all the pages of this thread...

If you accept that "voting legitimizes the state," then you have already accepted the State.  The notion that voting makes the system legitimate is part of that system, and accepting that means accepting that system.  And, more to the point, given the propensity for voting among the general population, if you accept that notion, then you have actually claimed that the State is legitimate.

An anarchist does not, by definition, accept the State as legitimate.  No amount of voting, by anyone, including himself, will ever legitimize the State.  It is an available tool, and can be used or not used, as he sees fit.

Voting is force, but that only restricts pacifists - not anarchists - from using it.  If it is used for defensive purposes, then it is fully legitimate force, and not a violation of the ZAP.  That is where the "ends" and the "means" come in.  No ends can possibly justify aggression.  However, no moral principle that I've ever heard of can restrict the use of non-aggressive force.  Certain some folks (eg, pacifists) have aesthetic objections to the use of force, but aesthetics are personal and cannot be considered on-par with morality, which must be universal.

To sum up: here is nothing immoral about voting, per se, and no amount of voting can ever justify the existence of an aggressive entity, such as the State... there is no "principle" restricting anarchists from voting in defense of themselves or others against aggression.  Only voting for aggression would be unprincipled.

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

who knows ... you might be disagreeing with a character mark plays on the show

...obviously we need to allow others to "work for liberty" in their own ways .... how can we have freedom if we don't even have them in our friendships?

during every election guys get really worked up about us all helping them .... then they go back to normal afterwards This is my first primary season in NH and it is uglier than I imagined. Lucky the trees look nice.

[Russell Kanning]

Okay, forgive me if this has already been said, as I didn't read all the pages of this thread...

However, no moral principle that I've ever heard of can restrict the use of non-aggressive force.

We cannot forgive your lack of attention to every page of this thread. Now go copy the entire text of the Ed and Elaine Brown thread on the chalkboard and put out your hands, so I can rap your knuckles.

There are some of us that try to repay evil with good, but that cannot "restrict" anyone that has not chosen to follow in Christ's footsteps. It is just an even better way in my opinion.

I think refraining from voting is just a little bit better way to follow, but slipping is not the end of the world .... just not a giant step forward.

[MaineShark]

There are some of us that try to repay evil with good, but that cannot "restrict" anyone that has not chosen to follow in Christ's footsteps. It is just an even better way in my opinion.

I think refraining from voting is just a little bit better way to follow, but slipping is not the end of the world .... just not a giant step forward.

Aesthetically, I would class defensive violence as "good," in that it displays love of society by defending it against predation.

Morally, violence, in and of itself (as with any mere action) cannot be good or evil.  An act can only attain moral status when in context.  Aggressive violence is evil.  Non-aggressive violence could be neutral or good, depending on the context.

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

I agree Joe.

I have also found my decision making process has gotten easier, when I am not even using defensive violence.

[MaineShark]

I agree Joe.

I have also found my decision making process has gotten easier, when I am not even using defensive violence.

That's certainly the case.  I just don't like taking the easy way

Joe