Politics is an immoral dead-end

[Faber]

Haha, so all I have to do to win is to have the last word?  Interesting.

[jaqeboy]

Putting your opponent on ignore in the middle of a debate is the online equivalent of stomping out of the room in a huff.

He effectively ended the debate by resorting to abusive language.  I am not going to take that sitting down.

Yeah, probably the best thing to do in a case of abuse. Abuse isn't logic, reason, etc. it's a power play to psych you out. It has no place in an intellectual discussion. Good riddance - on with reasonable discussion.

[shyfrog]

Agreed. The original post began with abuse and apologies for the abuse, but that it's for our own good. Preach on.

[Faber]

I don't think saying "What you're doing is immoral, and you should stop doing it," is particularly abusive . . . .  Otherwise, Russell would be one of the most abusive people I know.

[shyfrog]

Russell doesn't "insist on moral rectitude"

I like Russell's approach.

[Faber]

He surely insists upon it from IRS office workers who are violent by proxy.  So I guess as long as he's not demanding it from you, you're fine with it . . . .

[Russell Kanning]

I feel no need to "turn over the tables" at say .... a nhla meeting or something. I can just not participate. The IRS requires more extreme methods. Just not voting seems like a reasonable response against the state. I can't imagine berating someone for voting either ... it just seems like a waste of time.

[Russell Kanning]

... our morality is extremely simple: The non-aggression principle and/or the golden rule.

I think Eric was pointing out that he believes politics is not following the golden rule. He might be right.

[error]

I am simply going to paste, since few seem to have acknowledged it, some words on this very topic by Lysander Spooner in his essays, No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority.

In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having ever been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defence, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot --- which is a mere substitute for a bullet --- because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency, into which he had been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defence offered, he, as a matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him.

Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot, would use it, if they could see any chance of thereby ameliorating their condition. But it would not therefore be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or ever consented to.

Therefore a man's voting under the Constitution of the United States, is not to be taken as evidence that he ever freely assented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Consequently we have no proof that any very large portion, even of the actual voters of the United States, ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution, even for the time being. Nor can we ever have such proof, until every man is left perfectly free to consent, or not, without thereby subjecting himself or his property to injury or trespass from others.

In case you haven't guessed, I strongly disagree with Vitruvian's assertion that voting, in this specific set of conditions, is immoral. Indeed, I could make a case for exactly the opposite: that dropping out of the system entirely is immoral. Such case would hold up to scrutiny at least as well as Vitruvian's opposite case, I am confident.

But I am not going to do that today. It would be counterproductive, to say the least. Indeed, this whole discussion has been counterproductive.

I believe if we are going to make any progress in defeating "the cult of the omnipotent State," we must attack it on multiple fronts and in a variety of different ways. We need both those in the system, and those outside the system, to challenge the State in their own ways. Neither approach alone is likely to have a significant impact, but  with both approaches we can make progress at dismantling the overbearing State much, much faster than with either approach alone.

[Russell Kanning]

Putting your opponent on ignore in the middle of a debate is the online equivalent of stomping out of the room in a huff.

He effectively ended the debate by resorting to abusive language.  I am not going to take that sitting down.

Actually ... I have found that sitting down in a tense situation sometimes works well.
A lot of people will attack you in your life if you follow a straight course of nonagression. They will call you names and yell at you. Sometimes it makes sense to close the door, sometimes to sit there and take it. Sometimes to drown them out. I bet there are other responses that will work also.

[Russell Kanning]

I don't think saying "What you're doing is immoral, and you should stop doing it," is particularly abusive . . . .  Otherwise, Russell would be one of the most abusive people I know.

I have been accused of being abusive. They might be right.

[Faber]

I don't think saying "What you're doing is immoral, and you should stop doing it," is particularly abusive . . . .  Otherwise, Russell would be one of the most abusive people I know.

I have been accused of being abusive. They might be right.

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.  Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

I used to be a Christian; had that verse memorized when I was a wee lad

[Russell Kanning]

I don't think
"to vote or not to vote"
is the main question.

But overall ... are we going to use social or political means?

I don't know if a heated debate is the best method to get people to not use force on each other, though.

[Russell Kanning]

Blessed are you when men revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account.  Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

not coincidentally, I was reading that again yesterday. My main inspiration is Matt 5-7.
He also talks about how if you get along with everyone and seek their acceptance ... you are just like false prophets of history.

[Vitruvian]

Agreed. The original post began with abuse and apologies for the abuse, but that it's for our own good.

In my opening post, I was careful to categorize only the political means, not individuals, as immoral: I did not abuse anyone.  MaineShark's replies, on the other hand, were chock-full of condescension (repeatedly referring to me as a child), personal attacks (presuming to diagnose me with a mental illness; see Rothbard's Psychoanalysis as a Weapon: http://www.mises.org/story/2330), and other frippery.

Also, I agree with Faber and Russell: calling a spade a spade does not equate with abuse.

He sees, too, that other men practise this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave.

Preferring not to be a slave does not grant one the right to become a master.  The "voting as self-defense" argument falls flat, as Wendy McElroy points out in Why I Would Not Vote (http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/085b.php), because "a ballot attacks innocent third parties who must endure the consequences of the politician [the voter has] assisted into a position of unjust power over their lives."  Therein lies the violence of the vote.