Politics is an immoral dead-end

[J’raxis 270145]

Of course. I'm criticizing him for his penchant debate instead of action. A pacifist could go either way, so that wouldn't even be a determining factor to me.

I have said previously that my particular course of action, my method to advance the cause of liberty, is to persuade those close to me (friends, family, etc.)  It is low-cost, non-violent, and has the benefit of providing immediate feedback as to its efficacy.  I don't really care what your opinion of this method is.  I have already had success in convincing my parents and my sister that the State is immoral.  My present goal is to convince as many people as possible that politics does not hold the key to freedom.

So you basically came here with the explicit intention of causing a schism in our movement.

[Faber]

If Vitruvian is planning on becoming a writer, or a columnist, or a radio host like the FTL guys, or a cartoonist like Dale, or somesuch, in order to spread his message, that may actually count—if he's effective at getting people to pay attention.

How much time did people spend helping Phil Greazzo's unsuccessful campaign?  Did their efforts count?  If your efforts (which are . . . what, exactly?  Making a website and attending a few alderman board meetings to support the rights of sex offenders?  And holding a sign or two for politicians?) fail, will your action have "counted"?  If so, then success can't be your criterion for what "counts," which is the criterion you're applying to Vitruvian.

Phil Greazzo lost but mayor Guinta didn't, and even without Phil he now has an aldermanic board that is slightly more favorable to his tax cut ideas (the big-spender Democrat alderman in my own ward, Pat Long, was replaced by Peter Sullivan, a much more fiscally conservative Democrat, for one). There's a lot more work we'll be doing with the Manchester GOP soon, too.

You dodged the question of "Do the efforts of those supporting Greazzo count, even if they failed?"  That was my main question there.  Not "Will Frank Guinta cut my taxes?"

I and several other people are in the process of setting up a libertarian-leaning local Manchester newspaper, which will perhaps even give Vitruvian a place to publish some of his views, provided he doesn't alienate all his readers with the arrogance displayed in this post.

And mine, too (provided Senor Bradley likes my writing).  I've been hearing about this thing for the past three months, and there was a meeting for those interested a month ago.  I just heard from Braddogg only yesterday about submitting pieces.  Why isn't there a website yet?  He told me in private that it would be done a few weeks ago.

Now that I've showed you mine, how about you show me yours?

Due to professional restrictions, I can't detail that, it'd make me too identifiable.  The most I can tell you is that I write articles that have been published on various libertarian and anarchist sites.   

But I can tell you that I'm a practicing psychotherapist.  I don't talk politics with my patients during their sessions.  But I've found that people who get over their parental issues come about to politics like mine pretty quickly.  They stop trying to protect or reform hegemonic power structures.  They lose the desire to do so, because they see more clearly the totally immoral nature of the system.  They see the parallels that so few see between their parents and their governmental overlords.  Additionally, they are much more empathetic towards victims of those structures, because they've allowed themselves to feel empathy towards themselves when they were the victims of a hegemonic power structure.

I guess that goes into your next point about me living in "fantasy."  There was a reason I used the extremes of "Wake up tomorrow with peaceful people vs wake up tomorrow with a limited government."  Neither could possibly come overnight, and I think it's pretty insulting to suggest I thought them to be anything other than extremes.  You asked what would happen once everyone woke up, and I answered that question you asked.  I know it's a tough, hard slog to change morality, because so many people's moralities are just reflections of their family.  There's a reason we had "Fatherland," "Motherland," "Homeland," and "Big Brother."  Even back to Socrates -- in The Apology, Socrates says he has no more right to resist his death sentence than he does to resist his father when he beats him.

It's a multi-generational project.  It sucks, but I know I won't have liberty in my lifetime, and if I have kids, neither will they.  But we'll be making progress, so maybe my grandkids or great-grandkids won't ever have to deal with this scourge of government -- and other forms of unhappiness and trauma stemming from childhood physical, emotional, and psychological abuse from teachers, parents, and priests -- ever again.

[MaineShark]

Voting might not be particularly effective, but it cannot be immoral.

I'm curious why you would spend so much time and energy defending a practice you consider ineffective.  But that's a subject for a another thread.

I didn't say it is ineffective.  I said it "might" be - an expression of uncertainty on that point.  Such has not been determined conclusively.

As to why I would defend it, that's quite simple: because it is the right thing to do.

From where do you get this idea?  There is no Rube Goldberg contraption between the act of voting and the election of State officials.  The latter is a direct consequence of the former.  State officials, elected and non-elected alike, routinely commit acts of aggressive violence and they bear responsibility for those acts.  But, just as a getaway driver is accomplice to a bank robbery, the voters are accomplice to the crimes of the State.

You claim would only hold if not voting would end that aggression.  The government will continue to commit aggression, regardless of whether anyone votes for officials, or they claim divine inspiration, or they use the fear of terrorism, or global warming, or communism, or capitalism, or any other method to hold onto power.

Your argument is not that the getaway driver is an accomplice, but that the bank teller is an accomplice for handing over the money.

From another angle, if voting cannot engender responsibility for its consequences, how could you claim any sort of cause-and-effect relationship between your voting behavior and the real world?  And if this relationship does not exist, why bother voting? You cannot have it both ways.

This is truly getting silly... moral responsibility and ability to exert some level of control are separate.  I can "control" whether a mugger kills me or not (to some extent, anyway) by my "choice" of whether to not I hand over money without a fuss.  That doesn't mean I am morally responsible for his decision to go around robbing people.

This fact does not vindicate the practice of voting.  Forcing the State to find another justification would make our job much less difficult.

"Making your job less difficult" is a pragmatic (ie, aesthetic) determination, not a moral one.  Arguing pragmatic issues does not over-ride moral ones.  So yes, it does vindicate the practice of voting, regardless of whether your life would be made easier if others did not vote.  I am under no obligation to make your life easy.

How many people still buy this justification?  When the State resorts to overt oppressive violence, as opposed to the secret, cloak-and-dagger violence of a democratic State, people are far less likely to accept their justifications as valid.

I'm sure the tens of millions that the USSR murdered are comforted by the notion that people were "unlikely" to accept their justifications.  Actually, given the propaganda system, most of the population did not question the overt violence, because they either never heard of it, or were given horribly-skewed accounts of it.

No, I don't think that.  However, a similar reaction to such a mass demonstration would remove dispel any illusions people had.  After all, the people themselves would know why they stayed away from the polls.

Is this what is called "ignorance is bliss"?

Any individual might know why they stayed home, or even why a good number of others stayed home, but you can be certain the government would have plenty of propaganda of crying mothers talking about the fear of terror attacks at the polls.  Given that any individual cannot know many others, the story would be plausible enough for the general public to keep their heads in the sand.

And if they didn't, do you imagine that would stop the State from retaining power?  There are enough folks out there who will support the State, even knowing for a fact that it is utterly and unquestionably evil, just because they derive personal benefit (ie, salaries, power, etc.) by doing so.

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

If Vitruvian is planning on becoming a writer, or a columnist, or a radio host like the FTL guys, or a cartoonist like Dale, or somesuch, in order to spread his message, that may actually count—if he's effective at getting people to pay attention.

How much time did people spend helping Phil Greazzo's unsuccessful campaign?  Did their efforts count?  If your efforts (which are . . . what, exactly?  Making a website and attending a few alderman board meetings to support the rights of sex offenders?  And holding a sign or two for politicians?) fail, will your action have "counted"?  If so, then success can't be your criterion for what "counts," which is the criterion you're applying to Vitruvian.

Phil Greazzo lost but mayor Guinta didn't, and even without Phil he now has an aldermanic board that is slightly more favorable to his tax cut ideas (the big-spender Democrat alderman in my own ward, Pat Long, was replaced by Peter Sullivan, a much more fiscally conservative Democrat, for one). There's a lot more work we'll be doing with the Manchester GOP soon, too.

You dodged the question of "Do the efforts of those supporting Greazzo count, even if they failed?"  That was my main question there.  Not "Will Frank Guinta cut my taxes?"

Maybe, maybe not. He didn't win, but he only lost by 200-odd votes. This indicates support for George Smith is pretty weak and this fact can probably be used to our benefit in 2009. And, since the Guinta and Greazzo campaigns were sort of combined, one effort most likely helped the other, which is why I segued into the mayor's victory from Greazzo's mention.

Are you saying that because it failed, we shouldn't have tried in the first place?

I and several other people are in the process of setting up a libertarian-leaning local Manchester newspaper, which will perhaps even give Vitruvian a place to publish some of his views, provided he doesn't alienate all his readers with the arrogance displayed in this post.

And mine, too (provided Senor Bradley likes my writing).  I've been hearing about this thing for the past three months, and there was a meeting for those interested a month ago.  I just heard from Braddogg only yesterday about submitting pieces.  Why isn't there a website yet?  He told me in private that it would be done a few weeks ago.

Everything at this point is entirely a volunteer effort, and some of our volunteers are not finding enough time to work on it.

I guess that goes into your next point about me living in "fantasy."  There was a reason I used the extremes of "Wake up tomorrow with peaceful people vs wake up tomorrow with a limited government."  Neither could possibly come overnight, and I think it's pretty insulting to suggest I thought them to be anything other than extremes.  You asked what would happen once everyone woke up, and I answered that question you asked.

This idea of it all happening all at once didn't come from your post but one of the earlier ones. I wasn't directing the "fantasy" comment directly to you but upward along the entire chain of argument here. I was asking about what would happen once everyone woke up because this is something Vitruvian was dodging answering earlier.

[d_goddard]

Sorry, folks, I couldn't help it. I have to touch my dick again, but only because you all make it look so pleasurable 

Do the efforts of those supporting Greazzo count, even if they failed?

Not as much as if he'd won, of course, but it often takes multiple tries. Just getting the candidate's "name out there" and making his position known is part of the effort.

But the real proof is in the pudding. You want to see specific examples where Free-Staters have reduced the use of force by government? Just have a look at the list of legislative victories:
http://www.freestateblogs.net/victories06

There are plenty of nits to pick, but we can point to a fairly specific list of things where those of us fighting "inside" definitively reduced, deflected or de-fanged government.

The relevant doc for 2007 will come out in about a month.


P.S. I have been applauding Joe. 

[J’raxis 270145]

I was avoiding replying to this thread for almost an entire day. Let's see if I can do it again...

[Vitruvian]

I was asking about what would happen once everyone woke up because this is something Vitruvian was dodging answering earlier.

I never "dodged" the question.  I said, in so many words, that "planning a stateless society" is, apart from being a contradiction in terms, not a moral obligation.

So you basically came here with the explicit intention of causing a schism in our movement.

I came "here" with the explicit intention to dissuade others from using violent means to achieve their ends.  If this causes a schism, then so be it.

"Making your job less difficult" is a pragmatic (ie, aesthetic) determination, not a moral one.  Arguing pragmatic issues does not over-ride moral ones.

Point of order: Before you argue definitions again, I suggest you research the meanings of the words you yourself use.  Aesthetics is concerned with conceptions of beauty as they relate to fine arts.  Pragmatism, a synonym of realism, is defined as "character or conduct that emphasizes practicality;" it is totally unrelated to aesthetics.

I am under no obligation to make your life easy.

You are, however, under obligation not to aggress against me.  You violate that obligation when you cast your vote to elect someone to a position of power over others (including me).  Your claim that "they would take power regardless of my involvement" does not absolve you of that obligation.

And if they didn't, do you imagine that would stop the State from retaining power?  There are enough folks out there who will support the State, even knowing for a fact that it is utterly and unquestionably evil, just because they derive personal benefit (ie, salaries, power, etc.) by doing so.

I have stated repeatedly that non-participation dissipates the fog the State uses to conceal its nature, revealing the ugliness that lies beneath the facade.

Your argument is not that the getaway driver is an accomplice, but that the bank teller is an accomplice for handing over the money.

The bank teller, to continue the analogy, usually has a gun to his or her head.  For the umpteenth time: You are not forced to vote, not by a man with a gun or by anyone else.

Sorry, folks, I couldn't help it. I have to touch my dick again, but only because you all make it look so pleasurable

If you cannot resist making snide and insulting comments like this, maybe you should stay away from this thread.

[dalebert]

People say if you don't like the system, work through the process to change it, but what if you take issue with the process?

There is this machine that is politics and the Democratic process. The reason I'm an anarchist is not simply because I don't like the direction the machine is going. It's because I believe the machine itself is violent.

So this machine was built by others long before any of us were born (even Lloyd). It's been growing ever since. Given that, it's understandable that most individuals don't feel any personal responsibility for what the machine is doing. That's the nature of the beast. It's that illusion that makes it appear to have a life of it's own, but it doesn't really. It's us. It's 300 million people who kind of just trundle along and go along with it. A single cell in a creature is fulfilling a function without any knowledge of how it's enabling the creature's actions, but it is. It's not just voting. It's standing up when a judge walks into a courtroom or showing respect for a policeman and kissing up to avoid a ticket or honoring veterans for aggressive wars or whatever else it is that we do to support the machine.

I'm not comfortable trying to control the direction of the machine anymore. I've heard a lot of justifying and I've even concocted some elaborate justifications myself that sound very similar. I'm familiar with the notions of dismantling it from within and so forth. If your intentions are good and you trust in your own justifications, then you're acting in accordance with your own conscience, but they don't work for me personally anymore.

Clearly I don't intend to just not vote. I intend to actively oppose the process. I aim to wake people up to the fact that the machine itself is violent- this collectivist, mindless will that has formed and is exerting force against innocent people. That's what it means to be for self government. I don't want to preach endlessly to other FSPers or get personal about it or disrupt their political activities. However, if FSPers keep pressuring me to violate my principles, they put me in a position of having to repeatedly remind them that they're asking me to do something that I personally find increasingly... distasteful (I'm using soft words here for tact). I don't think the machine can ever die or even weaken until the individuals it's composed of feel more accountability for their actions. Those of you who think the Democratic process is wrong but still vote "defensively", then I hope you still use whatever chance you can to speak out against the violence of the process. Personally, I can't help feeling my argument is hypocritical and weak if I'm still actively trying to be a part it. Every moment I'm out doing political things, I feel like a lier. I'm saying "Ron Paul should be our next president" when I don't believe it. I don't believe anyone has a right to be president.

Those of you who don't think the Democratic process is wrong, well that's a whole other thread. 

P.S. When I hit "Post" I got a message that 12 posts have been made since I started writing this so keep in mind that I'm not responding to anything recent.

[MaineShark]

"Making your job less difficult" is a pragmatic (ie, aesthetic) determination, not a moral one.  Arguing pragmatic issues does not over-ride moral ones.

Point of order: Before you argue definitions again, I suggest you research the meanings of the words you yourself use.  Aesthetics is concerned with conceptions of beauty as they relate to fine arts.  Pragmatism, a synonym of realism, is defined as "character or conduct that emphasizes practicality;" it is totally unrelated to aesthetics.

I'd suggest that you look up definitions, if you are going to make such claims.  Start with Webster's.

Aesthetics deals with beauty, not just fine art.  Saying, "if find this distasteful, so I won't do it" is an aesthetic judgment, not a moral one.  To the best of my knowledge, no one has ever derived a universal moral principle other than the ZAP, so morality is only those things related to the ZAP.  Anything else (eg, Ghandi-esque pacifism) is an aesthetic judgment of the individual in question.

A desire to emphasize "practical" solutions as better than others is an aesthetic judgement.

I am under no obligation to make your life easy.

You are, however, under obligation not to aggress against me.  You violate that obligation when you cast your vote to elect someone to a position of power over others (including me).  Your claim that "they would take power regardless of my involvement" does not absolve you of that obligation.

When have I ever voted to elect anyone, pray tell?  I write in "none of the above," ans previously-stated.

In any case, you can repeat this assertion of yours until you are blue in the face, but simply stating it over and over again will not make it true.

I have stated repeatedly that non-participation dissipates the fog the State uses to conceal its nature, revealing the ugliness that lies beneath the facade.

And clearly, being seen as ugly will make their guns stop working...

The bank teller, to continue the analogy, usually has a gun to his or her head.  For the umpteenth time: You are not forced to vote, not by a man with a gun or by anyone else

And you certainly have the option to go live in the woods as a hermit.  No one is forcing you to live in modern society, paying taxes and other funds to the State, which they use to oppress me, and billions of others.  Clearly, you have chosen to fund this oppression, and are therefore evil as a result.

There is no magical difference between voluntarily purchasing a taxed product, and voluntarily going into a voting booth and registering an opinion.  Neither one obligates the government to act in some way on your behalf, and neither one confers responsibility onto you.

If you imagine there's some difference, please demonstrate it for all to see...

Joe

[shyfrog]

P.S. I have been applauding Joe. 

+1

I am weary of the young preacher and his religion.

[Eli]

Main Shark's post brings up, to me, a more interesting question, is voting against ZAP?

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
- L. Neil Smith

Does voting constitute the delegation of the initiation of force?

[Rochelle]

P.S. I have been applauding Joe. 

+1

I am weary of the young preacher and his religion.

Hey, I applauded Joe too!
/attention whore

[anarchicluv]

People say if you don't like the system, work through the process to change it, but what if you take issue with the process?

There is this machine that is politics and the Democratic process. The reason I'm an anarchist is not simply because I don't like the direction the machine is going. It's because I believe the machine itself is violent.

So this machine was built by others long before any of us were born (even Lloyd). It's been growing ever since. Given that, it's understandable that most individuals don't feel any personal responsibility for what the machine is doing. That's the nature of the beast. It's that illusion that makes it appear to have a life of it's own, but it doesn't really. It's us. It's 300 million people who kind of just trundle along and go along with it. A single cell in a creature is fulfilling a function without any knowledge of how it's enabling the creature's actions, but it is. It's not just voting. It's standing up when a judge walks into a courtroom or showing respect for a policeman and kissing up to avoid a ticket or honoring veterans for aggressive wars or whatever else it is that we do to support the machine.

I'm not comfortable trying to control the direction of the machine anymore. I've heard a lot of justifying and I've even concocted some elaborate justifications myself that sound very similar. I'm familiar with the notions of dismantling it from within and so forth. If your intentions are good and you trust in your own justifications, then you're acting in accordance with your own conscience, but they don't work for me personally anymore.

Clearly I don't intend to just not vote. I intend to actively oppose the process. I aim to wake people up to the fact that the machine itself is violent- this collectivist, mindless will that has formed and is exerting force against innocent people. That's what it means to be for self government. I don't want to preach endlessly to other FSPers or get personal about it or disrupt their political activities. However, if FSPers keep pressuring me to violate my principles, they put me in a position of having to repeatedly remind them that they're asking me to do something that I personally find increasingly... distasteful (I'm using soft words here for tact). I don't think the machine can ever die or even weaken until the individuals it's composed of feel more accountability for their actions. Those of you who think the Democratic process is wrong but still vote "defensively", then I hope you still use whatever chance you can to speak out against the violence of the process. Personally, I can't help feeling my argument is hypocritical and weak if I'm still actively trying to be a part it. Every moment I'm out doing political things, I feel like a lier. I'm saying "Ron Paul should be our next president" when I don't believe it. I don't believe anyone has a right to be president.

Those of you who don't think the Democratic process is wrong, well that's a whole other thread. 

P.S. When I hit "Post" I got a message that 12 posts have been made since I started writing this so keep in mind that I'm not responding to anything recent.

You remind me so much of myself over the past 4 years or so.  But I realized that waking people up just isn't enough; I've been doing it for years now as a principled anarcho-capitalist and it looks to me as if I've done nothing to get this world closer to where I'd like it to be.  Sitting on the sidelines just won't do a damn thing to change the situation.  Working from within WILL when we have a candidate to get behind that isn't politics as usual (aka, Ron Paul).  And then there's the added benefit that a Ron Paul candidacy, and eventual Presidency, will wake TONS more people up to the ideas of freedom and liberty than I ever could have done on my own.  Getting back to a Constitutional Republic is light years better than letting the system head towards a total police state, don't you think?

All of this comes from someone who is a committed anarcho-capitalist.  So I do understand 100% where you're coming from.  I too hate the political process and realize that in a perfect world, sealed up in a vacuum, I'd rather have no system at all.  But right now, we are so far from living in that perfect world that I feel I have to do SOMETHING to throw sand in the gears of the police state juggernaut.  And working my butt of to return it to a Constitutional Republic is my chosen form of action.  How can we expect people to understand anarcho-capitalism and sustain such a world if they don't even understand Constitutional Republicanism and how to sustain it?  Baby steps, baby steps.

[Eli]

My personal opinion is no (re zap/voting).  Somebody show me a causal link between voting for libertarians and the initiation of force.  Further, voting as a tactical matter makes some sense to me. Baby steps are precisely what can improve the real world, as well as being a great educational tool.

[jaqeboy]

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.

and those who seek it in those places only make the journey more difficult for the rest of us.

How are they making it more difficult for you?

Read New Libertarian Manifesto by Konkin and see if you still have the same questions afterwards. PDF file on all-left.org site, 21st item down in the right-hand column, or direct link. Hard copy available from Koman Publishing Company (Vic Koman in L.A.):  http://www.kopubco.com/nlm.html

Then read Building a New Libertarian Movement, by Konkin and Conger. PDF file at all-left.org, 7th down in right-hand column, or direct link on Wally Conger's blogspot blog, out of step: http://wconger.blogspot.com/.

Or, read Building first because it's quicker and an easy historical synopsis.

Main Shark's post brings up, to me, a more interesting question, is voting against ZAP?

"A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
- L. Neil Smith

Does voting constitute the delegation of the initiation of force?

Yep, you got it. ...and according to L.Neil, the libertarians are the ones that think that's a bad thing and act accordingly and etc.