Politics is an immoral dead-end

[Lloyd Danforth]

Thirty years from now I'll be dead.  You guys will still be slaves still arguing about this crap

[Vitruvian]

Thirty years from now I'll be dead.  You guys will still be slaves still arguing about this crap.

The sooner politics is abandoned, the sooner we will truly be free.  Unfortunately, many seem literally to be "political junkies" and to need their fix to feel alive.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Its less about being a political junkie and more about being inclusive.  Politics isn't going to be abandoned any time soon.  When a  candidate like RP comes into the national spotlight and gets the coverage he gets, some general 'small l'  libertarian philosophy squeezes into the national discussion.  This is the hope I, an Anarchist, had about  the LP when I helped start the CT LP in 1972.  Didn't happen.  RP has gleaned more national attention since February than all 35 plus years of the LP. One doesn't have to be a political junkie to see the value of running with RP.

[jaqeboy]

When you vote for Ron Paul, you concede that he should have this power over ME, that he should be able to steal from ME.

False.

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being...."
- Lysander Spooner

If there were an election to make either Ron Paul or Hitler dictator of Earth and somehow you knew that if you didn't vote that Hitler would win and if you voted for Ron Paul that he would win, can you honestly say that you wouldn't vote? Do you really think that anyone would believe that this meant you supported Ron Paul and approved of anything he might ever do? As far as I'm concerned, the only immoral action here would be having the power to stop a Hitler dictatorship and choosing not to do so.

Spooner is so wonderful on so many issues, but here he is making the argument for "voting as self-defense", if I may reduce it to one category of the arguments FOR voting. Many have succeeded Spooner and developed libertarian thought further, but many others still cling to this argument, in it's many forms. The Ron Paul v. Hitler election example (now that would be something to watch! Hitler's Brownshirts would probably just club and shoot all the RP supporters up until election day.) is a variant of the self-defense argument. It's an argument in extremis - a temptation to the conscientious non-voter to see if you can tug enough at his emotions (fear, in this case) to see if you can make them override his morals. There are famous cases of how this has worked to get people to compromise their moral beliefs (separate topic, though).

How about Joel Winters or Josef Stalin - who would you vote for?

Let's see, how about Dan Itse versus Mao Tse-Tung - who would you vote for?

All are just in extremis examples for the exercise of "can you be tempted?" ... but don't address the moral question.

[jaqeboy]

Vit... do you buy gas?  Why?  that means you pay the gas tax... which is used by the government..NH and Fed... and that is 'immoral'.

Have you eaten in a restaraunt in NH?   You paid a sales tax... which is used by the government ... and that is 'immoral'.

This is the question of "Do you pay tribute to the occupiers of your land when it is demanded of you (punishment threatened)", not the question of "should I vote for these goons to legitimize their occupation" (They're likely to claim "See, we have a mandate to rule!").

Good question, but separate topic still.

[anarchicluv]

You know, arguments against voting for moral reasons are pretty hollow when they come from individuals who still pay all sorts of taxes which support the coercive state.  As soon as these individuals stop paying those taxes by not buying electricity, food, gas, clothing, housing, etc. then their supposed "air tight moral arguments" become much more relevant.

[MaineShark]

It's an argument in extremis - a temptation to the conscientious non-voter to see if you can tug enough at his emotions (fear, in this case) to see if you can make them override his morals.

Actually, it's reductio ad absurdum.  Demonstration of the absurdity of an argument by taking it to the extreme of its implications, where it is harder for folks to be wishy-washy about it.

This is the question of "Do you pay tribute to the occupiers of your land when it is demanded of you (punishment threatened)", not the question of "should I vote for these goons to legitimize their occupation" (They're likely to claim "See, we have a mandate to rule!").

You can't legitimize government.  Ever.  By any method.  Including voting.  "Voluntarily" voting has no difference at all from "voluntarily" paying taxes.

Joe

[shyfrog]

Two words keeps popping into my head repeatedly as I read this thread.

China
UN (or does that count as two words alone?)

I think I'll vote RP instead of "flushing" and waiting around to see what the other two might do.

There is no such thing as a state
There is no such thing as a collective
There is only the individual

[srqrebel]

I just sat down and read this entire thread, from beginning to end. What a read! It's amazing that a thread this long has stayed on topic without diverting in to many tangents.

Is that a good thing? It's twenty-eight pages long, and no one's opinion was really changed—Vitruvian still doesn't consider political action valid, and no political activists have come around to his point of view, either.

Respectfully, Jeremy, I beg to differ: My understanding of this issue has vastly improved from reading the various insights presented here, and as a result, I have changed my own position to gain firmer footing.

Opinions rarely change dramatically overnight by any means -- especially opinions that are long held and/or well grounded.  Debating for the sake of mutual edification, regardless of whose beliefs get challenged, is one of the most efficient ways to improve opinions -- both those of others' and one's own.  If even one small, invalid notion gets debunked, it makes the entire exercise worthwhile.

[Russell Kanning]

As soon as these individuals stop paying those taxes by not buying electricity, food, gas, clothing, housing, etc. then their supposed "air tight moral arguments" become much more relevant.

So you can't think politics and voting sucks ... until you give up dealing with anyone who deals with the state?
If you really try to avoid all taxes ... then you will be in jail shortly.

[Russell Kanning]

I think I'll vote RP instead of "flushing" and waiting around to see what the other two might do.

Why do some people think that by not voting .... some people are just flushing or sitting on their hands?

[anarchicluv]

As soon as these individuals stop paying those taxes by not buying electricity, food, gas, clothing, housing, etc. then their supposed "air tight moral arguments" become much more relevant.

So you can't think politics and voting sucks ... until you give up dealing with anyone who deals with the state?
If you really try to avoid all taxes ... then you will be in jail shortly.

No, you can think they suck (as I do), but to argue that you're totally morally airtight because you oppose voting is ridiculous if you still pay all of these taxes.

[srqrebel]

Geesh... this is such a fast moving thread, it is difficult to keep up with it!

I see that I was wrong about Vitruvian's main point being a pragmatic one.  It appears the morality of voting is the other big issue here.

Here is my take on the morality of voting, after reading the responses here, and giving it careful consideration (before, I had never given the morality of it any thought at all):

It makes sense to me that voting constitutes delegating the initiation of force, which force is in turn used to violate the rights of others.  If voting only had an impact on oneself, it would clearly be moral.  Since it also affects the lives of others, because political voting always results in imposing the will of the majority on the individual, I do not see how it can be considered morally right.

The argument that one is in fact aiming to lessen the amount of force that gets initiated against others as well, ignores two important facts:
1) There is no way to know for sure that the desired outcome will be the actual outcome.  History is full of examples of people who campaigned under the pretext of smaller gov't/ greater individual liberty, yet ended up increasing the size of gov't once in office -- in fact, the current American president is a brilliant example.
2) This is the most important fact: No one has the authority to decide for others who gets to initiate force against them -- or not iniate force against them.  It is simply not morally justifiable for you to make a decision involving my life or my property without my permission, and vice versa.  The fact that I can vote just the same as you does nothing to change this fact, because if I end up in the minority thanks to your vote, the end result is still that you are deciding things for me that are none of your business to decide.

The argument that voting occurs under duress, the same as paying taxes, is absolutely absurd.  When you face the threat of jail for abstaining from voting, then and only then can I accept that argument.

[shyfrog]

I think I'll vote RP instead of "flushing" and waiting around to see what the other two might do.

Why do some people think that by not voting .... some people are just flushing or sitting on their hands?

Because "some" are.

[anthonybpugh]

How about Joel Winters or Josef Stalin - who would you vote for?

Joel Winters the weather guy? 

Why do you all focus on voting?  Of all the ways to participate in the system, that is about the most innocuous.  This is something that occurs once every few years and is likely to not have any impact about what occurs. 

If you don't like other libertarians engaging in politics, then why not provide us with a better solution.  The solution of dropping out and convincing others to drop out is quixotic. 

It is like it is a matter of faith.  If we can get enough converts and are pure and faithful enough we will have a second coming of the anarchist messiah and we will all finally be free. This will happen because our doctrine says it will.  We will then move to the next historical stage and the state will simply wither away.