Politics is an immoral dead-end

[Russell Kanning]

Maybe, what the tree needs is a damned fine pruning. I'm just offering another perspective. Going along with the liberty tree analogy, I don't want to kill it, I want it healthy. I want the tree to thrive.
As a gardner, I know the obvious way to accomplish this is by trimming off the growth that is retarding the plant from springing new, healthy growth. With a little nurturing, we could have fruit.

I don't think there is a living liberty tree in the heart of the current system that needs care. We have to grab liberty tree and ram the door down of the governmental institutions enslaving the world. You can't grow trees very well inside.

[Russell Kanning]

The only other option is to build it from the ground up after a societal crash, God forbid.

not after a societal crash ... a governmental crash
our society will be strongest when the thugs are not effecting it

[MaineShark]

From my second post in this thread:

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

I think I have been quite consistent on this point.

Which is not the same as calling voting immoral.

Yes, you were speaking in that context.  I was speaking as an anarchist.

You are not the only anarchist posting here: my profile and previous posts say as much.

Calling yourself an anarchist does not make you one.  There are plenty of communists that claim to be anarchists, even as they specifically call for the creation and perpetuation of government.

That's an amusing notion.  Of course, since "sizable" is not defined, it's a semantically-null statement.  In other words, talking for the sake of talking, without saying anything...

You have not defined any words thus far; does that make them "semantically-null," "talking for the sake of talking"?  Find a dictionary if you want a definition.  Are you also suggesting that historical dictators lacked any support among the populations they claimed to rule?  And, if not, what measurable forms could this support possibly take?

Sigh... we're not talking about defining a word.  We're talking about defining a mathematical quantity.  0.0000001% has a size and, therefore, is a "sizable" quantity.  The same can be said for 99.9999%.  Or anything in-between.  Making claims that support was "sizable" is semantically null, as it merely defines the support as non-zero, which we know to be a fact because the dictator clearly supports himself, even if no one else did.

The State is not legitimate, and nothing can ever make it legitimate, including voting.

As you must know, the vast majority of people on this planet view governments as legitimate entities, otherwise States simply could not sustain themselves.  Their legitimacy is an illusion.  But the larger issue remains: I claim that voting is immoral because it enables aggressive violence against innocents not because it perpetuates this illusion.

You claim that, but you cannot seem to demonstrate it in any way...

If voting does not legitimize the State's actions, then it does not cause the voter to bear responsibility for them.

If that is true, then the same could be said for other things, such as paying income tax: If one pays the income tax demanded by the State (regardless of whether or not there is an actual law), does that legitimize the State's actions?  If not, then does it follow that one does not share any responsibility for the acts of war, torture, etc. that the State commits, when one chooses to hand them the funds to do so?

While it does not actually give the State legitimacy, funding it through payment of taxes at least appears to perpetuate its existence.  The same can be said for voting.

The same could be said of many things.  And it boils down to that issue of duress.

Let's take taxation to its simplest form: some thug jumps out from behind a bush and demands your wallet, while pointing a shotgun at your head.  Let's say you hand over your wallet, to avoid getting your brains splattered on the shrubbery.  Did you just "legitimize" his mugging of you?  Of course not - you were a victim.  The same goes for taxes.  And that includes all taxes, not just income taxes.  Income taxes are easy to avoid paying (comparatively-speaking), so they are a favorite to jump on.  But the total tax burden is on the order of 90%, once inflation of the money supply, taxes on products, regulatory expenses, etc. are added in.

If voting legitimizes the State, so does paying anything into the State.  That means that anyone believing that sort of claptrap would have to go live in the woods as a hermit, because any use of FRN's or purchase of any manufactured goods, or purchase of foods, etc. is going to end up delivering some funds to the government.  This notion that duress plays no part in the equation has only that result.  It's funny, but I don't see the proponents of that notion actually doing what they claim is right.  If Vitruvian is serious about his claims, he certainly shouldn't be posting on an Internet forum, because he's delivered all manner of funds to the government by that act.

This is the point that Vitruvian has been making all along, and I have yet to see any attempt at a rebuttal.

If there is no sound rebuttal of this argument (which I personally can think of none), I have no choice but to adopt this view as my own.

It's not a moral argument, merely an aesthetic one.  Arguing that voting makes you feel icky, or you don't like the image of voting, does not make it wrong.  That particular "point" is like voters arguing if supporting Ron Paul is good because it may stave off civil war, or if supporting Hillary is good because it may hasten civil war.  It's trying to decide on the lesser of evils.

Does voting do more good by registering discontent and slowing growth (eg, my typical practice of writing in "none of the above" for all applicable places, and voting "no" to all spending), or does it do more harm by "maintaining the illusion of legitimacy"?  That's a pragmatic debate, not a moral one.  It's up to you to decide which you feel is the best option, but it is not appropriate to declare others "evil" for taking the other option when the discussion is pragmatic, not moralistic.  Vitruvian can discuss that all he wants, and I will not take issue.  But when he starts declaring others to be evil, he damn well better have the ability to back it up.

Joe

[error]

Without the voters, the politicians would be able neither to claim legitimacy nor to achieve their criminal ends.

This is absolutely untrue. And it's where the entire argument about not participating falls apart. Government bureaucrats don't need an explicit act by the people, or any of them, in order to appear legitimate, and sometimes they don't even care about appearing legitimate, just about their power.

I suggest you study your Lysander Spooner some more.

[shyfrog]

It's up to you to decide which you feel is the best option, but it is not appropriate to declare others "evil" for taking the other option when the discussion is pragmatic, not moralistic.  Vitruvian can discuss that all he wants, and I will not take issue.  But when he starts declaring others to be evil, he damn well better have the ability to back it up.

Joe

This is why I came to the free state. I came from Utah where the practice of declaring people "evil" is alive and well. I jumped right in to this thread because after living in that atmosphere for years, it tends to slap me in the face and say "Hey look! Tyranny (communism) in disguise (anarchy)!"

edit: the Utah version being "Tyranny (religion) in disguise (spirituality)!"

[Russell Kanning]

I am listening to ftlive .... boy Mark is really excited. I wonder what brought it on. Kinda interesting
oh no ... they have dada as a wookie

[dalebert]

I'm on hold at FTL. Ian says there's a call ahead of me. This message is at 8pm so if people tune in quickly maybe you can hear it.

BTW, did Eric actually use the word "evil"? Questioning the morality of a certain action is really not the same as calling someone "evil" is it? Goodness gracious.

[Russell Kanning]

I don't know. Maybe you will just have to speak for yourself.

the wookie had a good point

[shyfrog]

BTW, did Eric actually use the word "evil"? Questioning the morality of a certain action is really not the same as calling someone "evil" is it? Goodness gracious.

Several times

[dalebert]

Several times

Oh, my bad then. 

[Russell Kanning]

hey .... we can talk about dale while he is busy on ftl

[Russell Kanning]

alright ... delete all the posts before he gets back

[Rosie the Riveter]

Damn it!! I missed Dale live, just got home from-- yes, a Manchvegas "politico" event....the wookie was on again?! 

I'm really looking forward to the podcast.

[FTL_Ian]

I am listening to ftlive .... boy Mark is really excited. I wonder what brought it on. Kinda interesting
oh no ... they have dada as a wookie

Call when you feel motivated...

[Russell Kanning]

gotcha