Politics is an immoral dead-end

[jaqeboy]

...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've been meaning to address this fallacious assumption, which has come up repeatedly. Of the universe of things that one can do to advance freedom and civilization, Vitruvian merely addresses 1 one should not do. Now, that leaves the universe -1, which is where this conversation should graduate to, but probably over on the secure forum 

[CNHT]

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.

And many here have already shot this argument completely to hell because if we did nothing, SOMEONE would STILL be elected.
And if it's the difference between having a nazi like Hillary in power or a person who wants to roll back government like Ron Paul, I'm damned right well going to support Ron Paul.

I think what was most offensive about your initial rant was not that you think participating in the political process is 'immoral' for yourself but that you deemed the rest of us immoral in a judgmental way and demanded that we renounce our behavior.

I take great offense, as I said before, that while I put my life on the line 24/7 working with many groups, while risking retaliation from the socialists, and while others do in other ways, (such as getting arrested -- and by not using violence to resist, allowing themselves to be part of the system) while you sit there on your high horse and call us 'immoral'.

And so long as you are not using 'violence', but the state is, you are a participant by default.

People will criticize what others do with regard to how effective they see it, but I don't think they feel it's 'immoral'. And it's just this kind of libertarian 'puritanical' crap that turns so many people off to 'libertarianism' and makes discussions like this a ludicrous waste of time. 

[Dreepa]

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.

Here is one of his quotes:

And if you vote, or otherwise participate, you will have been a party to this evil.

I have no problem with people working 'out of the system' but... his saying that is just like seth's comment that Russell is ruining it for the rest of us.

Why can't the 'out of system' people do their thing.. and the 'system' people do their thing and sometimes they can't work on things together?
Otherwise it turns into.... more debatarianism.  who is purer etc etc and nothing gets done.

[anarchicluv]

Why can't the 'out of system' people do there thing.. and the 'system' people do their thing and sometimes they can't work on things together?
Otherwise it turns into.... more debatarianism.  who is purer etc etc and nothing gets done.

Amen to that!

[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.

Here is one of his quotes:

And if you vote, or otherwise participate, you will have been a party to this evil.

Oh, that's just basic libertarian principles. Pretty much everyone on the thread has agreed with that, but has merely offered practical arguments to justify otherwise. I was addressing shyfrog's specific statement, because it appeared to exaggerate for the purpose of misleading - I just wanted him to stop, breathe and play fair (hoping he will, since, according to Dale, the guy seems okay).

I have no problem with people working 'out of the system' but... his saying that is just like seth's comment that Russell is ruining it for the rest of us.

Why can't the 'out of system' people do their thing.. and the 'system' people do their thing and sometimes they can't work on things together?
Otherwise it turns into.... more debatarianism.  who is purer etc etc and nothing gets done.

I know, and you are great on this, so thanks. It just appeared to me that people who disagreed with the newbie were trying to bash him and drive him away! Is that what you'd want the FSP to be all about? I think we need more attenders at NHLF, etc., not fewer. I just thought Vitruvian's attackers were "ruining it for the rest of us" who care about freedom in New-Hampshire 

I'm doing my best to welcome him with open arms and to try to keep the bashers at bay, so we can keep a few more folks in the movement. And, as Russel reminded us, if someone doesn't like what he has to say, they don't have to click here, eh?

[error]

All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.

Beware, when you exit the system, that you do not then do nothing further to advance the cause of liberty.

[Russell Kanning]

but if I use the system ... I am actually doing evil ... so?

[Bill St. Clair]

Ready. Aim. Vote.

I don't really have a dog in this race, but I couldn't resist sharing my little thought.

[Vitruvian]

but if I use the system ... I am actually doing evil.

Russell summarizes nicely.

[Russell Kanning]

maybe you could start a thread and tell people what you think are decent paths to take ... or what you think are the best actions you can take Eric.

It is hard to describe ... just, what not to do

I think big goals, and actual small steps to take ... are easier to follow.

[Vitruvian]

maybe you could start a thread and tell people what you think are decent paths to take ... or what you think are the best actions you can take

That is a good idea.  I have noticed the debate on this thread has subsided somewhat.

[MaineShark]

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.

You started the debate with abusive language.

And were treated politely, given dozens of opportunities to address the issues rather than continue with that.

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.

So an anarchist, someone who actually abides by the ZAP fully, violating it (behaving immorally) voids ones rights.  Accusing an anarchist of aggression is no different from saying, "you have elected to give up your right to be alive, and anyone who gets the urge could kill you with moral impunity."

For an anarchist, its hard to imagine anything more abusive.  Since he is claiming to be an anarchist, that must be exactly what he intended.  Or he's just a megalomaniac child who finds it amusing to call himself an anarchist, without understanding anything about what that actually means, philosophically.

Anarchy isn't a political party; it's a life-philosophy, and controls every aspect of one's interactions with the world.

In my opening post, I was careful to categorize only the political means, not individuals, as immoral: I did not abuse anyone.

Actually, you said no such thing:

I have heard it said that political activity (i.e. voting, running for office, involvement in campaigns) is the most effective way to achieve our goal of a free society.  Some go so far as to suggest it is the only way.  I could not disagree more.

I struggle to understand how, in one breath, some libertarians will condemn the State and all its machinations, and in another, will endorse the very mechanism the State uses to perpetuate itself: politics.  The contradiction is plain to see yet rarely remedied. 

So here is my humble request: I ask everyone currently involved in political activities (including the so-called Ron Paul Revolution) either to renounce said activities or to provide an airtight moral justification for their actions.  Although I do not intend to be mean-spirited, nor to dampen the enthusiasm of my fellow freedom-lovers, I must insist on consistency and moral rectitude: the path to freedom does not lie inside the voting booth or the statehouse, and those who seek it in those places only make the journey more difficult for the rest of us.

And anyway, as I've already stated, and as any anarchist would know, you cannot categorize someone as using immoral means, without categorizing that person as immoral.  There is no way to separate the actions a person takes from himself.

The notion that immoral means can be used without "tainting" oneself is the core of the "ends justify the means" philosophy, which is the antithesis of anarchy.

Thanks for demonstrating my point that you are no anarchist.  An anarchist would not make any such claim.

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.

Really?  Why don't you find the first post in which I did anything you consider a "personal attack" or whatever?  Then read all of the posts prior.  You were treated with far more respect than you deserved.

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.

But paying taxes isn't, right?  Because not paying taxes is difficult, so clearly it's okay to pay taxes, but not voting is easy, so clearly that's the right path...

Here is one of his quotes:

And if you vote, or otherwise participate, you will have been a party to this evil.

I have no problem with people working 'out of the system' but... his saying that is just like seth's comment that Russell is ruining it for the rest of us.

Of course, since Russell has voted (if I recall correctly, from his description of his past), and has offered to vote in the future (in this very thread), I guess Vitruvian is saying that Russell is a party to the State's evil.  Sorry, Russell, but we're going to have to shun you as a Statist, per Vitruvian's excellent examination of the issues...

Yeah, that will be the day!

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

Of course, since Russell has voted (if I recall correctly, from his description of his past), and has offered to vote in the future (in this very thread), I guess Vitruvian is saying that Russell is a party to the State's evil.  Sorry, Russell, but we're going to have to shun you as a Statist, per Vitruvian's excellent examination of the issues...

you are right
I don't know if that means that Eric has to shun me ..... he might not approve of my actions.

[MaineShark]

This will be my new definition of absurdity: any argument that makes Russell out as a supporter of the State pretty much sets the standard for absurdity...

Joe

[Russell Kanning]

I might be the fed though.