Politics is an immoral dead-end

[MaineShark]

What I don't like to see is people who are trying to reduce the harm the system does to others being labeled "evil" and "immoral."

I was not labeling them or their intentions immoral, only the means they're using to achieve those intentions.

The means someone uses are indistinguishable from the person's intentions.  If you label my means immoral, you've labelled me immoral.

And then there's MaineShark/Joe, who expended all that effort defending his behavior, only to reveal late in the game that he never votes for an actual person.

I never stated that.  Do not attempt to put words in my mouth.

I will state now that I never vote for anyone, and that I usually vote "none of the above," but I do occasionally vote against the most heinous politicians on the ballot.  If you were involved around here, you would know that, as it's been my stated position for years.

Now all I've got on him is the "voting is counterproductive" argument. 

You don't have anything on me.  You're a statist masquerading as an anarchist because you think it's "hip" to call yourself that.  When pushed to stand by your claims, you defend the government as legitimate, and try to argue that the things you find easy to not do (eg, voting, possibly paying income tax) are immoral, but that the things it would be difficult for you to avoid are perfectly acceptable.  There's no philosophy behind what you say - you simply declare that the things that you find easiest are the "right path," and anything else is wrong.

Of course, every time you are pressed, you change the subject and fall on "just 'cause" nonsense, because you have no actual philosophical basis for your position.  It's simply what you find easiest and most glamorous, and you expect respect for that.

So, again, how do you imagine that voting is any different from any other voluntary activity which in some way transfers "support" to the government, such as purchasing taxed goods?  Can't come up with an answer, can you?  Because simply not voting is easy, whereas not buying taxed goods (or using FRN's, for that matter) would be difficult, so of course there is nothing wrong with it...

Joe

[Vitruvian]

OK.  I've had enough.  Welcome to my ignore list, MaineShark!  I was wondering who would be the first.

[Fragilityh14]

aren't people in Manch trying hard to take over the city council and both local parties, and if so, why such serious intentions in sabotaging their plans?


Also, I haven't read the majority of this thread (from hell) but want to mention that Rothbard support Paul in '88 (from the Libertarian primaries) and Buchanan in 92/96...but I'm sure all of you market anarchists consider Rothbard an immoral statist for that...

[Russell Kanning]

aren't people in Manch trying hard to take over the city council and both local parties, and if so, why such serious intentions in sabotaging their plans?
...but I'm sure all of you market anarchists consider Rothbard an immoral statist for that...

which people?
splitter!!!!!!

[jaqeboy]

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.

It's also "attacking the poor," as if they were the cause of "the problem" - to do so would make one appear mean-spirited, and it, in fact, would be.

[jaqeboy]

Maybe later when I have time... but I only consider this a valid use of my time because I don't want activists and potential activists to be subverted by your arguments against effective political activism.

Bad means cannot and will not yield good ends.  By participating in what you call "effective political activism," even if you succeed in winning some token battles, you preserve and indeed strengthen the veil of legitimacy clothing the State.  I fail to understand why so many "libertarians" are seduced by politics, when we above all others should be immune to its charms.

Carl Watner, of the Voluntaryist fame, has a great article on this - (gotta find) - his byline is:  'If one takes care of the means, the end will take care of itself.'

Since I can't find that article quickly, but will in the coming days, here's a good one: Without Firing A Single Shot: Voluntaryist Resistance and Societal Defense.

[jaqeboy]

The civil rights movement is actually a pretty good example of a movement that employed both civil disobedience and political action.

Unfortunately, it's also a good example of how not to use political action—...

Don't forget that they shot the leader to stop his approach, eh?

[MaineShark]

OK.  I've had enough.  Welcome to my ignore list, MaineShark!  I was wondering who would be the first.

Oh, the horrors.

Ignored by a child who can't answer even simple questions about his justifications for calling others immoral.  Whatever will I do?

Edited to add: I guess Vitruvian deserves some credit for being the only member infantile enough to ignore me.  That has to count for some sort of award, right?

Joe

[Rochelle]

If you need to set up a support group, Joe, I think everyone here will understand...

[dalebert]

Maineshark, your little games of semantics to attempt to make V out to be a statist are pretty transparent. You've repeated it like four or five times now. I don't have you on ignore, but I stopped reading the rest of your posts each time I saw the same tedious mind game starting back up.

[jaqeboy]

...
Discussing the actual topic of that, the number of people who supported those dictators was extremely small, in most cases.  More just went along for the ride out of apathy or an unwillingness to stand up to authority....

Joe

A little history-challenged, are we?

THE GERMAN NATIONAL DEMOCRATIC ELECTIONS MARCH 29th 1936
TOTAL QUALIFIED VOTES    45,453,691    
TOTAL VOTES CAST    45,001,489    99.0%
VOTES 'NO' OR INVALID    540,211    
VOTES FOR HITLER'S NSDAP    44,461,278    98.8%

[shyfrog]

I'm sorry Dale. I really like you and consider you a friend, but V is the transparent one. He's a religious zealot and a statist.
I support most of Joe's views on this one. He's a true anarchist and individual not bent on converting everyone to a collectivist mindset.

I really can't believe that individualists are falling for this tripe. It saddens me.



Please ignore me now V. I would really find it appropriate that you would shut out honest dissent.

[dalebert]

He's a religious zealot and a statist.

Yes, and Russell is a violent psychopath who just CLAIMS to be a pacifist. I can tell where "religious zealot" comes from but the statist argument was a ridiculous game of twisting his words around. Clearly V's confrontational style has not exactly won him a lot of friends and 20 pages later, emotions are talking more than reason right now.

[Vitruvian]

He's a religious zealot and a statist.

Actually I am an atheist and an anarchist.  You're 0 for 2.

converting everyone to a collectivist mindset

Who's the collectivist?  You are the one supporting the democratic process, a thoroughly anti-individualist idea.  But seriously, name-calling gets old very quickly.

[David]

Tension is the motivation for change.  violence can cause tension, and can sometimes lead to change, but also makes gov't grow.  Dr. King intentionally created tension, for the purpose of providing a motivation to change.  Without the tension, there would still be jim crow on the books.  People resist oppression.  Peaceful resistance neuters the violence somewhat, yet still provides an organized outlet for the oppressed, and of course, creates the tension needed to cause change.