Politics is an immoral dead-end

[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.

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.

We differ.

[Dreepa]

So jageboy you are saying it is ok to vote in local elections.

[jaqeboy]

So jageboy you are saying it is ok to vote in local elections.

Yeah, with qualifications.

1) I mean, you (as long as you go in eyes open that you are agreeing to abide by the outcomes) are choosing how to spend your own money - it's like a club, except (see below)...

2) another qualification being that you ought to be able to opt out totally or make a line item opt out, which you basically can't.

3) another qualification being that you should not have to have your property pledged (ie, lose it if taxes overdue) - problem with this is that is just a collection of debt, since you agreed to it (paying your share), except that most people don't know that that's what they've agreed to.

4) The other qualification being that you usually aren't voting to give someone power (since it is a corporation, not a law-making government). In the cases where someone you selected through election became corrupted by their illusion of power and grabbed money or privilege, you ought to vigorously go after them and drive them out of office (and other penalties, as available).

Come to think of it, that's a lot of qualifications... hmm... maybe you ought to draft a warrant article to fix the concerns above!

[Dreepa]

The problem is you have to pay the property tax no matter what passes... so you might as well try to lower your bill right?


NH is VERY unique in this regard.

[jaqeboy]

It's your money. (It's just a little out of your control when you move there, register and vote, ie, agree to abide by the results)

The other big problem, of course, is there is no practical choice - no square foot anywhere in the state (I don't think) - that operates under any other system, so you have no practical choice, and the designers of the commercial side of the corporate town system have got you by the balls no matter where you move. We ought to be revolutionizing the towns to allow the opting out and forbidding debt - which might pit you against some state laws (that's where the oppressors are).

[jaqeboy]

Hafta lower town expenses to lower the bill.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Move to Grafton where there is some shot at pulling this off

[Insurgent]

Wow, I'm impressed with the informative replies that Jaqeboy AKA "Jaqepedia" and others have been posting! Thanks, Vitruvian for getting this discussion started  I love a lively debate!

[Russell Kanning]

A republic GUARANTEES the freedom of the individuals while a democracy votes them away.

[Russell Kanning]

Possibly, but you can do everything you can. Find some state with no property taxes....

[Russell Kanning]

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

that is what The Man wants you to think.

conspiracy brother taught me that

[error]

Neither voting nor paying taxes confers legitimacy to the state. It cannot be legitimate except by superstitious belief in people's minds, including many of those here who think they are anarchists and have moved beyond that.

You have not.

The issue is not just that the state is illegitimate. The root of the issue is that the state does not exist. It is a shared hallucination, a mental delusion unfortunately suffered by a majority of people which, if it were suffered by a minority, would likely be pronounced a mental illness, or a religion.

It is because the state does not truly exist that voting cannot be a violent act nor immoral. It is merely casting an opinion in the general direction of other people who, for reasons of their own, take actions which are violent and immoral. Someone else's superstitious beliefs, and the actions they take because of their superstitious beliefs, are not my responsibility, even if I choose to humor them for my own reasons. To argue otherwise is to argue that those other people do not bear responsibility for their own violent and immoral acts.

P.S. Vitruvian, you should read this.

[Tom Sawyer]

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

that is what The Man wants you to think.

conspiracy brother taught me that

This post made me put down the pistol and not blow my brains out 

A pox on both your houses the pure anarchist and the politician... Well that's a bit harsh, but there I said it. 

Cool on the activists that do stuff, rather than argue about it. 

[MaineShark]

Really?  They threaten you with jail if you abstain from going to restaurants (meal tax), buying gasoline (gas tax), etc?  You don't need to do any of those things.  You choose to.  So you are "voluntarily" paying taxes, with no threat of jail if you do not, right?

This certainly is a valid point, but as far as I can tell it is virtually impossible to participate in our current civilization (or anticivilization, as Dr. Frank R. Wallace dubbed the State-based society) and remain 100% morally pure.

That said, the purpose and intent of voting is to wield the immoral collectivist power of the State, no matter how you rationalize it -- while the purpose and intent of purchasing gasoline is to function efficiently in a civilized world, and the resultant support of the State is a mere side effect.

So, it's only the direction that matters?  Voting for someone (eg, Ron Paul) with the purpose and intent of shrinking the "immoral collectivist power of the State" would be acceptable, under that doctrine, would it not?

How about when I vote "none of the above"?  Am I wielding immoral collectivist power?

If someone mugs you with the purpose and intent of feeding his starving family, and someone else mugs you with the purpose and intent of feeding his drug habit, are you "less harmed" by one?  No.  The two are identical, in terms of the harm they do you.

As far as purchasing meals at restarants, I am beginning to really respect Dave Ridley's tax-based personal avoidance of restaurant purchases.  I have a long history of living on fast food as a matter of expedience -- but the fact that in NH, there is no sales tax on groceries while there is on restaurant meals, leaves little excuse for supporting the State through meal taxes.  (It is still worth mentioning that the purpose and intent of purchasing restaurant meals is to obtain sustenance, not to support the State.)

I hereby officially withdraw from purchasing taxed food as long as I can obtain non-taxed, nutritious food from other sources.

Not good enough.  Fuel taxes were paid on the delivery of that food to the market.  Vehicle registrations were paid.  Income taxes were extracted at gunpoint from the workers' salaries.  The Federal Reserve Notes that you used to purchase it are taxed by inflation.

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."

Ye gods... of course that's the strict definition of the word.  The technical definition of "anarchy" is a social system in which all interactions are based upon the unanimous consent of those who are party to them.

Neither voting nor paying taxes confers legitimacy to the state. It cannot be legitimate except by superstitious belief in people's minds, including many of those here who think they are anarchists and have moved beyond that.

You have not.

The issue is not just that the state is illegitimate. The root of the issue is that the state does not exist. It is a shared hallucination, a mental delusion unfortunately suffered by a majority of people which, if it were suffered by a minority, would likely be pronounced a mental illness, or a religion.

It is because the state does not truly exist that voting cannot be a violent act nor immoral. It is merely casting an opinion in the general direction of other people who, for reasons of their own, take actions which are violent and immoral. Someone else's superstitious beliefs, and the actions they take because of their superstitious beliefs, are not my responsibility, even if I choose to humor them for my own reasons. To argue otherwise is to argue that those other people do not bear responsibility for their own violent and immoral acts.

P.S. Vitruvian, you should read this.

Very excellent post...

Joe

[Pat K]

"This post made me put down the pistol and not blow my brains out  Grin"


Oh please, you are not a good enough shot
to pull that off!