Politics is an immoral dead-end

[J’raxis 270145]

Voting, because it assisted him or her to a position of power, is the ultimate cause of any action a politician takes.  Therefore, you assume responsibility for every action he or she takes once in power.  Since any politician, as an agent of the State, commits, or delegates others to commit, acts of violence, the voter is ultimately responsible for that violence.  Q.E.D.

You can arbitrarily trace back the "ultimate cause" of any action a politican takes as far as you want to. Why not trace it back to the fact that they were born in the first place?

[Alex]

Your next argument (

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.

), has also been addressed, in Wendy McElroy's essay, Why I Would Not Vote (http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/085b.php), which, again, you would have found if you had bothered to read this thread before insulting the intelligence of the people with whom you disagree.

That actually only half addresses my argument and basically can be summed up by the following:

"Voting for or against Hitler would only strengthen the institutional framework that produced him"

And this is completely and totally false. Only supporting the system strengthens it. Voting != support. If every single person opposed the system but voted anyway out of self defense, those votes wouldn't do a damned thing to keep the system in place and their opposition to the system would make it crumble.

[J’raxis 270145]

Mark is a slave, chained to prevent escape and whipped daily. Mark convinces his master to only whip him 6 days a week. Does doing this mean that Mark supports being whipped 6 days a week? Does it mean he supports being a slave? Is Mark doing something immoral? Does Mark need some moral justification for his behavior?

If "Mark" were making such a choice only for himself, I would agree with you.  However, as I said before:

When a person, by voting, chooses to place the power of the State into the hands of another, or, by holding office, takes it into his own hands, he purports to make choices for others, whether or not those others have given him their consent.

So if Mark convinces his master to only whip him six days a week—and convinces his master to also reduce the number of whippings doled out to his fellow slaves to six days a week, too—he's now illegitimately making choices for others and engaging in aggression against them?

[Alex]

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.

More like trying to show the "conscientious non-voter" that his morals have nothing to do with voting and his ideas of what voting represents are nonsense. Voting simply does not have all the extra meaning that such people want to attach to it.

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.

I have no idea who Joel Winters or Dan Itse are. 

[Alex]

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. 

Yep, and the best way to accomplish this is through voting.

[enloopious]

I fully understand what you three are saying and it has merit. I have never voted and I have always felt the way that you do but, that being said, in 36 years nothing has ever come of not voting. I think your argument is much stronger than those who seem to disagree with you but at the same time, we live in the united states and it's supposed to be a republic, which is MUCH different than the democracy we have now.

A republic GUARANTEES the freedom of the individuals while a democracy votes them away. In a real republic you are only 1 step away from anarchy but at the same time you have a government body that can deal with other countries.

Anarchy is NOT a utopia because a utopia can NEVER be reached. My utopia is completely different than anyone elses and so can therefor only exist fictionally or for 1 person at a time. Anarchy allows for everyone to live as freely as possible. It brings authority back to every single person whether they want it or not. For some people this is a nightmare. They need people telling them what to do. For others, it is the ultimate freedom and the ultimate goal.

It is also the first form of government and the most pure, but, I live in the US and they guarantee us a Republic so that is what I am shooting for. If and when I can achieve that it will be the best step towards anarchy there is because I don't see ANY possibility for an anarchist society, just an anarchist lifestyle. A republic is VERY close to anarchy so if people can get to that point, they just might be able to understand anarchy.

Tell me how a proper Republic conflicts with anarchist morals?

[Alex]

If you really try to avoid all taxes ... then you will be in jail shortly.

Possibly, but you can do everything you can. Find some state with no property taxes, buy a piece of land and live off of it. The fact is that anyone with this moral opposition to voting should be doing this kind of this and probably only doesn't because they don't want to give up the comforts associated with living in society. Their comforts > their morals.

[jaqeboy]

I use the term "political" in the sense that Nock contrasted it to "social" .... or as in political correctness ... or office politics. It aways has a bad connotation to it for me.

I know what you mean. I'll have to go re-read Nock's usage.

I think it's important to influence other people and institutions (politics in some definitions) - so much so, that I've spent immeasurable time, a million miles on my cars, hundreds of hours on the phone, all the breath in my body and tens of thousands of dollars doing it. I'm trying to counter the notion that if you oppose parliamentary politics and voting, you're in favor of doing nothing and just lying about watching Oprah and eating Bon-Bons.

[jaqeboy]

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.

I have no idea who Joel Winters or Dan Itse are. 

Locals - state reps. Good guys for sure!

[jaqeboy]

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.

Yep, and the best way to accomplish this is through voting.

Sorry, but that's a contradiction like fighting for peace or fucking for virginity 

[Alex]

With that in mind, consider what would happen if everyone who is interested in accomplishing true freedom of the individual, which can only exist in the complete absence of State, would withdraw altogether from the illegitimate political system, instead focusing on other forms of activism such as civil disobedience. This would leave only centrist and statist types to participate: Not only would the size of the State grow by leaps and bounds (think boiling frogs), but it would also bring the true essence of the State into sharp focus for the average person, if they can see that all who struggle for freedom operate entirely outside of the political system.  The illusion that the State can be used to advance freedom of the individual would dissolve, and with it the State's veil of legitimacy.  Conceivably the State's very existence would soon follow. 

This has already been tried and the state isn't going anywhere, it's just gonna keep growing and growing until we are all quite literally slaves. The fact is that the average person is a statist and they're not going to see the true essence of the State before it's far too late. They don't see non-voters as having some moral superiority or being disgusted with the system or disenfranchised despite the fact that that's why most people who don't vote don't vote. They think they're all lazy. Simply put, the system isn't going anywhere, but we can at least hope to make it less tyrannical. (not really, but we can at least try!)

freedom lovers who participate in the machinery of the State are no doubt the most powerful influence for preserving the very veil of legitimacy that the State derives it's power from, and bear the major responsibility for the continued existence of the State

If we stopped we'd just become complete slaves all the faster.

[Alex]

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.

Yep, and the best way to accomplish this is through voting.

Sorry, but that's a contradiction like fighting for peace or fucking for virginity 

Not really. The system has given us some power, however tiny, to influence the system, and that power can be used to dismantle it.

[jaqeboy]

I fully understand what you three are saying and it has merit. I have never voted and I have always felt the way that you do but, that being said, in 36 years nothing has ever come of not voting.

Not voting alone is like not purse-snatching. It's not in itself a positive good, just a refusal to do harm.

I think your argument is much stronger than those who seem to disagree with you but at the same time, we live in the united states and it's supposed to be a republic, which is MUCH different than the democracy we have now.

A republic GUARANTEES the freedom of the individuals while a democracy votes them away. In a real republic you are only 1 step away from anarchy but at the same time you have a government body that can deal with other countries.

Just for clarification, because I think many fall on this point, a republic doesn't "guarantee" the freedom of the individual. A republic is just a system that uses representatives, rather than a direct, "everyone votes on laws" system. It's an attempt to moderate the system somewhat by interposing representatives between the people and the lawmaking. Having a constitution attempts to clearly define and delineate the powers of the state. In the case of the Constitution for the united States of America, having the constitution written down all in one place, attempts to make it really clear (as opposed to the English constitution). This constitution was not going to pass, because they didn't delineate some rights of the people (already recognized in the English Common Law), hence the first 10 Amendments (which did not disparage other rights (at common law) reserved to the people). In all, it defined a Constitutional Republic with democratic (in the majoritarian sense) selection of officers by the body politic (which was not democratic enough (in the equality sense) in the beginning to include non-landowners, women or black African slaves.)

The main point being that it was an accommodation, an attempt to create a limited government that was democratic (in the sense that it was fair to all). It was not a perfect design and has obviously suffered manipulation, stretching and tearing.

Anarchy is NOT a utopia because a utopia can NEVER be reached.

Anarchy is just a word for the concept that is the core of the American (well Paine and Jefferson anyway) ideal - that "All men are created equal" (before the law), ie, that no one had an inherent right to be the ruler, ie, the monarch (mon=one, arch=ruler). The word has, of course, suffered much abuse and is not meaningful in the same sense we might use it.to most people.

My utopia is completely different than anyone elses and so can therefor only exist fictionally or for 1 person at a time.

I usually use the word "utopia" to refer to a plan that requires a change in human nature, hence non-workable. Might just be my usage.

Anarchy allows for everyone to live as freely as possible. It brings authority back to every single person whether they want it or not. For some people this is a nightmare. They need people telling them what to do. For others, it is the ultimate freedom and the ultimate goal.

I usually don't use the term "anarchy", but in my understanding of the proper usage, it would be a condition where you really reached the point of functionally having "no ruler."

It is also the first form of government and the most pure, but, I live in the US and they guarantee us a Republic so that is what I am shooting for. If and when I can achieve that it will be the best step towards anarchy there is because I don't see ANY possibility for an anarchist society, just an anarchist lifestyle. A republic is VERY close to anarchy so if people can get to that point, they just might be able to understand anarchy.

Tell me how a proper Republic conflicts with anarchist morals?

A properly constituted and functionally operating republic with a democratic intent (in the sense of everyone being equal before the law) is an attempt to reach that state, but that doesn't mean it works as intended (or in the case of the republic formed here, some framers did not have that intent and, so, to a great extent, it doesn't, in reality, work to protect the peoples' rights, but rather to promote and increase a commercial and banking elite's power.)

[Alex]

I fully understand what you three are saying and it has merit. I have never voted and I have always felt the way that you do but, that being said, in 36 years nothing has ever come of not voting.

Not voting alone is like not purse-snatching. It's not in itself a positive good, just a refusal to do harm.

No, not voting is like standing around and watching a purse-snatching and not doing anything to stop it because you think that if you did try to stop it you would somehow be supporting the purse-snatcher.

[jaqeboy]

Vit.. are you familiar with local NH town policies?

They charge a certain amount of money in taxes.

At the town meetings you vote almost line by line on the town budget.
Would voting no on all the spending be immoral?

In certain towns.. activists have been able to vote DOWN certain budgets thereby saving many people lots of money.

Can I answer? OK, I will anyway.

Towns are municipal corporations, empowered by State statutes. They would exist in some form without State authorization and, of course, some form of social organization has existed (towns, cities, etc.) for a long time. The institution named Town of Hopkinton is not a government, but a corporation (municipal) that has a charter (like other corporations) and decisions are made by the people as a body politic (political body - corporation => corpus => body), ie, the people allowed to vote (qualified) and who do vote (participation) make the decision by majority (or other fraction in some cases, usually as defined in the charter). The Town is not a government and doesn't pass laws (statutes). It, as a body, governs its expenditures and policies, etc.

Now, here's the rub:
1) People don't know that's actually what's going on - ie, you aren't told that by moving there and registering to vote there you are agreeing to abide by the outcome of elections and town meeting votes,
2) The state defines the method of paying for the town (corporation) expenses (taxes calculated by Dept. of Revenue Admin), and
3) Your property is pledged as essentially collateral for the expenses of the town, and
4) The town (corporation) can go in debt (sell bonds) with your property as security and your future earnings pledged to make payments (the taxes).

What's good about it here is that it is more democratic (in the sense that you do have a voice and can practically affect things because of the small scale).

What's not good is that pledging your property is not practically voluntary (though some say there is a way to opt out), and people in towns seem to love to have the quick fix of more stuff, better school buildings, etc. with no concern for the debt load.

I think people in every town should attempt to rein appetites in to the point where they have no debt and save for contingencies.

What you're doing sounds great!