Politics is an immoral dead-end

[d_goddard]

I feel no need to "turn over the tables" at say .... a nhla meeting

That's good to know, especially since the NHLA meetings are all on private property 

[anarchicluv]

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.

So if a vote reduces the violence of the state by great magnitudes (such as in voting for Ron Paul, if and when he is elected), is it still violence?  If you're voting for a man who would do the exact opposite of what the government has been doing for 100 years, is it still violent?  Or is it non-violent because you're helping to REDUCE the amount of violence perpetrated by the state?

[Vitruvian]

So if a vote reduces the violence of the state by great magnitudes (such as in voting for Ron Paul, if and when he is elected), is it still violence?  If you're voting for a man who would do the exact opposite of what the government has been doing for 100 years, is it still violent?  Or is it non-violent because you're helping to REDUCE the amount of violence perpetrated by the state?

Even if Ron Paul were elected and were successful in reducing the power of the State in any meaningful way, as an agent of the State he will no doubt be responsible for some degree of aggressive violence against innocent people.  After all, he will fund the federal government through some form of taxation: the Constitution authorizes it.  Everyone who voted for him, and therefore enabled his rise to power, becomes complicit in those crimes.  Carl Watner, in his essay Is Voting an Act of Violence?, described this act (of voting) as the most violent that most people ever commit.  On this basis alone, ignoring the fact that the practice only further entrenches the false conception of the State's legitimacy, one should abstain from voting.

   

[error]

The assumption being, of course, that committing acts of violence is never justifiable. Many people will disagree with that.

NOW can someone please move this thread back to Endless Debate and Whining?

[Vitruvian]

The assumption being, of course, that committing acts of violence is never justifiable. Many people will disagree with that.

The number of people who agree or disagree on issues of morality is of no consequence whatsoever.  This "assumption" is the heart and soul of the libertarian insight, that aggressive violence is never justifiable.

[d_goddard]

A gang of thugs armed with Uzis is running rampant in town.

A group of people is working to replace the Uzis variously with .22 pea-shooters, and, in some cases, a short Swiss army knife. Doing so requires stealth, learning the gang lingo & gestures, a lot of time, and a lot of patience.
Are they guilty of "arming" the gang with .22's and Swiss army knives? Absolutely.
Is that bad? I don't see how.

Another group of people is purposely throwing themselves into the line of fire, in the hopes the gang throws down their weapons in disgust or is overwhelmed in numbers. Doing so requires extreme bravery, and exacts a heavy price on those putting themselves in the line of fire (though the best of them do this with a smile on their lips).
Are they angering some members of the gang into redoubling their violence? Absolutely.
Is that bad? I don't see how.

[anarchicluv]

So if a vote reduces the violence of the state by great magnitudes (such as in voting for Ron Paul, if and when he is elected), is it still violence?  If you're voting for a man who would do the exact opposite of what the government has been doing for 100 years, is it still violent?  Or is it non-violent because you're helping to REDUCE the amount of violence perpetrated by the state?

Even if Ron Paul were elected and were successful in reducing the power of the State in any meaningful way, as an agent of the State he will no doubt be responsible for some degree of aggressive violence against innocent people.  After all, he will fund the federal government through some form of taxation: the Constitution authorizes it.  Everyone who voted for him, and therefore enabled his rise to power, becomes complicit in those crimes.  Carl Watner, in his essay Is Voting an Act of Violence?, described this act (of voting) as the most violent that most people ever commit.  On this basis alone, ignoring the fact that the practice only further entrenches the false conception of the State's legitimacy, one should abstain from voting.

I would much rather be complicit in the crimes committed under a Ron Paul presidency than be complicit in what will happen if I do nothing and stand idly by with my airtight moral arguments backing me up.

Again, I have read all all of the arguments you're bringing to the table, I have stood exactly where you stand for many years, and I have come to realize that to participate in the system in a way that brings it back to a Constitutional Republic is infinitely better than standing idly by.  I can work towards an anarcho-capitalist society, educating people and all, while fighting to reduce the size and scope of government from within.  I'm more concerned about being effective than being right.  Those fewer people who are violated when Ron Paul is the president will thank me for that, I'm sure.

[error]

The assumption being, of course, that committing acts of violence is never justifiable. Many people will disagree with that.

The number of people who agree or disagree on issues of morality is of no consequence whatsoever.  This "assumption" is the heart and soul of the libertarian insight, that aggressive violence is never justifiable.

So it's aggressive violence that's never justifiable, not just any violence.

But what makes voting in self-defense aggressive?

[shyfrog]

My vote is with error on this one ... 
move to endless debate

[shyfrog]

But what makes voting in self-defense aggressive?

nothing.

[Russell Kanning]

The assumption being, of course, that committing acts of violence is never justifiable. Many people will disagree with that.

NOW can someone please move this thread back to Endless Debate and Whining?

I recommend you start your own forum .... oh wait ... that already happened ... so why are you complaining about mine?

[Russell Kanning]

My vote is with error on this one ... 
move to endless debate

just stop visiting it ... I know it is possible
I want it here .... is that going to be a problem for some people?

[Vitruvian]

But what makes voting in self-defense aggressive?

To answer this question I will quote from a recent post of mine:

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.

The act of voting constitutes aggressive violence because the innocent third parties, mentioned above, are harmed when a person, no matter who that person may be or how much less evil than the opposing candidate, is elected to a position of power over their lives and property.

A group of people is working to replace the Uzis variously with .22 pea-shooters, and, in some cases, a short Swiss army knife. Doing so requires stealth, learning the gang lingo & gestures, a lot of time, and a lot of patience.
Are they guilty of "arming" the gang with .22's and Swiss army knives? Absolutely.
Is that bad? I don't see how.

Shooting and killing a person with a .22 is no better than shooting and killing a person with an Uzi.  I doubt the victim of your gang would thank you for having provided his murderers with a less powerful weapon: it makes no difference to him, he's dead.

I want it here .... is that going to be a problem for some people?

No problem here. 

[CNHT]

You are clinically diagnosing one of my friends as a megalomaniac? Do you need a license for that?

No, because I'm an anarchist.  I don't "need" a license to do anything.

Joe

Hee hee! Good one JOE! Seems to be a lot of narcissists/megalomaniacs around here.
You know the, 'I preach freedom but it's really my way or the highway (or I'll smite you all day and night)' types?

[jaqeboy]

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

If that's a bug with you shyfrog, you should go re-read that first post. There is no apparent abuse in it. The "preaching" comment, though I guess it's intended to be perjorative, seems out of place as a description of an intellectual discussion.