Politics is an immoral dead-end

[shyfrog]

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.

Joe

There is a scarcely used definition in the root archon - "ruler, or to rule" that I have incorporated into my signatures and other such tags.
it is arkhein- "to begin". It is a Greek verb of unknown origin showing archaic Indo-European features.

"Anarchos ad Infinitum" - without beginning and without end

Sorry, just had to throw in the non-sequitur

[Alex]

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

Are there none? I thought a few paid for everything by sales/income taxes.

[Vitruvian]

You have not resolved the assertion that you are still recognizing the state by eating in restaurants, buying gas, using electricity, all of which have taxes associated with them. Until you are living in the woods on your own, totally naked like an animal, even devoid of clothing that was manufactured, bought, and taxed, then your arguments hold no water about having completely dropped out of the 'state'.
I don't take utopians like yourselves very seriously because they are no different than the utopians of the 60s  who felt the state should provide everything for them on the backs of the 'rich'.

First, I have addressed the argument you have mentioned.  The difference, as I have said multiple times, is coercion.  No one has yet denied my assertion that voting is not compulsory.  Unlike taxes, which are extracted at the point of a gun, your vote is not coerced.  Taxes on gas, meals, electricity, and retail sales are no exception.  The posters who have equated paying these taxes with supporting the State are conflating two separate transactions: one between merchant and customer, the other between merchant and State.  In the case of the aforementioned taxes, it is the merchant who is robbed, not the customer.  Although the merchant charges a higher price to compensate for his loss, the customer does not give any money to the State.  That is a choice left to the merchant.
Income and property taxes, on the other hand, while still not voluntary because of the State's threats of force, are the only taxes of which I'm aware that I can actually avoid (a loophole I choose to exploit).

It is not a vote that is saying anything else, or supporting any other action he may choose to take.  A politicians actions are their OWN responsibility, just like any other individual; my vote does not sanction anything he chooses to do.

In voting for (and electing) a politician, you give to him or her the 'scepter' of power over other people's lives and property (another fact none has disputed)--an act to which you have no right--in a state of near-total ignorance regarding the politician's future actions.  Not only is this reckless and arrogant, it is wrong.  Yes, the politician is responsible for his actions, but, thanks to your vote, you are a willing accessory to every crime the politician commits.  Like an arsonist, you may have struck a simple match (your vote), but the all-consuming wildfire that follows is your responsibility as well.

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?

Voting "no" on these spending items is no different, in moral terms, than voting "yes": you have no right to make either choice.  To vote on one of these items is to say, "I should be able to decide whether and how the plundered wealth of other people is spent."  I do not have that right and neither does any other person.  In this case, I would not cast a ballot, but would instead hold a sign or distribute pamphlets to those in attendance, expressing my discontent with the process and with their decision to vote.

I have a piece of paper here. I write my opinions down on this piece of paper. Later, someone who thinks of himself as in a position of power reads my opinion and decides to oppress someone, in direct opposition to my expressed views. Yet somehow I am responsible for HIS action, though I not only disagree with it but also expressed my disagreement to him?

A vote is more than an opinion written on a scrap of paper.  If it were such, you could simply write a letter instead of waiting in line at the polls every few years.  A vote is an authorization, a loosely-termed writ of mandamus, granting one individual power over others.  As I wrote above, when you issue such an authorization you become accomplice to the acts of the politician.  For instance, Michael, if you had voted for George W. Bush in 2004, you would be an accessory to every crime Bush has committed since his second term began.

This debate has seen just a simplistic argument of voting = sanctioning violence but it ignores that what typically occurs in any society where voting frequently occurs is accompanied by many political institutions while far from ideal have accomplished a significant task in that it has restrained the most savage tendencies of government.   voting is a package deal and it comes with a variety of things such as Due Process of the Law, Freedom of the Press, Transparency, Habeas Corpus etc.

State power in the United States (fleetingly restricted by the Constitution), and every other country, remains limited (barely) despite the prevalence of voting, not because of it.  Examples abound of democracies that do not respect those principles.  Egypt, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, et al.

In fact, not only would I strongly disagree with your assertion that voting is an immoral act but I would suggest that the process of voting is one of the few moral acts in politics because it is one of the few acts which does have a tendency to restrain government.

Voting has a tendency to restrain government?  Where have you been for the past 200 years?  The growth of the State, once formed, is inevitable and largely unstoppable.  It will continue to grow until its host society is extinguished, it is conquered by another State, or it is abolished outright.

You seem to view voting as just a means of delegating authority and that they may act on our behalf.  The political elite does not need a vote to accomplish that.

Then why give them such a convenient excuse?  Democracy is the most clever and deceptive means yet devised for the exploitation of the productive class by the ruling class.

Don't make the best the enemy of good.  We have to make use of the tools and methods which are on hand.  Democratic institutions may not be the most ideal system to have but it will simply have to do for now.  but if we abandon the political process all we are doing is abandoning the field to the most vicious and ruthless.

As I have said, and as every historical example demonstrates, the State, once formed, grows inexorably at the expense of social power.  The State is "vicious and ruthless" by nature, a fact that "democratic institutions" conceal with alacrity; I say, let the State exhibit its nature for all to see and revile.  The sooner this happens, the sooner it will crumble.

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

And you know this how?

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

"If voting could change anything, it would be illegal."

Neither voting nor paying taxes confers legitimacy to the state.

Agreed.  We have been over this many times in this thread, but it bears repeating: Voting creates the illusion of legitimacy, in which the State eagerly wraps itself.

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.

As I said before, if voting were the mere issuance of an "opinion," why bother?  After all, the State does not exist outside people's heads, and the people in power have no right to occupy their positions.  Why would they care a whit what you think they should do with their power?  The answer must be that a vote consists of more than an opinion.

P.S.  I am aware this post is a little lengthy.  I had to leave for work this afternoon and came back to three whole pages of new posts.  I have tried to respond to as much as I can.

[MaineShark]

Unlike taxes, which are extracted at the point of a gun, your vote is not coerced.  Taxes on gas, meals, electricity, and retail sales are no exception.  The posters who have equated paying these taxes with supporting the State are conflating two separate transactions: one between merchant and customer, the other between merchant and State.  In the case of the aforementioned taxes, it is the merchant who is robbed, not the customer.  Although the merchant charges a higher price to compensate for his loss, the customer does not give any money to the State.  That is a choice left to the merchant.
Income and property taxes, on the other hand, while still not voluntary because of the State's threats of force, are the only taxes of which I'm aware that I can actually avoid (a loophole I choose to exploit).

Clearly, you have no actual understanding if taxes.  The merchant is not taxed on a retail transaction.  The merchant is acting as a tax collector, on behalf of the State.  The purchaser is the taxee.

And let's not forget the issue of using FRN's.  Any use of FRN's supports the government directly.  Or are those magically "different," like everything else that would make your life difficult?

Are you forced to use and carry FRN's?

As I said before, if voting were the mere issuance of an "opinion," why bother?  After all, the State does not exist outside people's heads, and the people in power have no right to occupy their positions.  Why would they care a whit what you think they should do with their power?  The answer must be that a vote consists of more than an opinion.

I don't have to justify to you why I might care to express an opinion.  Neither does error.  Maybe I just enjoy making sure they know I dislike them.  The fact that you see no value in expressing that opinion in that way does not somehow prove that it is anything but an opinion.  The fact that you imagine that those things you find personally worthless are actually worthless to all others just demonstrates the ego-centrism that leads rational people to label you a megalomaniac.

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

State power in the United States (fleetingly restricted by the Constitution), and every other country, remains limited (barely) despite the prevalence of voting, not because of it.  Examples abound of democracies that do not respect those principles.  Egypt, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, et al.

and what basis are you making that assertion from?  Egypt or Zimbabwe if they are considered to be democracies would be classed as illiberal democracy.  They lack some of the basic political institutions that are commonly found in many other democracies. 

I am also not saying that it is voting which restrains government but the institutional arrangements which accompany them that restrains the government. 

Voting has a tendency to restrain government?  Where have you been for the past 200 years?  The growth of the State, once formed, is inevitable and largely unstoppable.  It will continue to grow until its host society is extinguished, it is conquered by another State, or it is abolished outright.

Look at the world we live in.  Those countries which are democratic are no where near as vicious as those countries which are not. 

The growth of the state is not inevitable.  There are many examples in our history where the government has shrank.  Governments frequently grow in response to some crisis and frequently the size of the government has shrank when the crisis has passed.  This hasn't been the trend recently because governments have had the tendency to invent one crisis after another to justify itself.   

Then why give them such a convenient excuse?  Democracy is the most clever and deceptive means yet devised for the exploitation of the productive class by the ruling class.

Is this a quote from Marx or Lenin?   

As I have said, and as every historical example demonstrates, the State, once formed, grows inexorably at the expense of social power.  The State is "vicious and ruthless" by nature, a fact that "democratic institutions" conceal with alacrity; I say, let the State exhibit its nature for all to see and revile.  The sooner this happens, the sooner it will crumble.

So your plan is to sit around and watch the government become an out and out totalitarian police state in the hopes that it will crumble?

Many of the democratic institutions are not designed to hide the nature of government but instead to ensure that that workings of government are open and observable by all.  If you remove democratic institutions, the workings of government move to the basements of government buildings and to secret prisons in remote parts of the country.  Decisions are made by unknown people and trials are held incognito.  Public trials exist in democratic nations.  Secret trials exist in despotic regimes. 

[error]

A vote is more than an opinion written on a scrap of paper.  If it were such, you could simply write a letter instead of waiting in line at the polls every few years.  A vote is an authorization, a loosely-termed writ of mandamus, granting one individual power over others.  As I wrote above, when you issue such an authorization you become accomplice to the acts of the politician.  For instance, Michael, if you had voted for George W. Bush in 2004, you would be an accessory to every crime Bush has committed since his second term began.

Your assertion is still absurd. I have no authority whatsoever to grant any individual power over any other. To say that I do is required in order for the vote to mean what you claim it means. If the vote is an authorization, it can only be so in the minds of the deluded people who believe in the state. To say that my vote confers authority to any person over any other ascribes to me something I cannot confer because I never possessed it. It is for this reason that voting cannot in itself be an immoral act of violence.

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.

As I said before, if voting were the mere issuance of an "opinion," why bother?  After all, the State does not exist outside people's heads, and the people in power have no right to occupy their positions.  Why would they care a whit what you think they should do with their power?  The answer must be that a vote consists of more than an opinion.

The answer need not be that, and you've said nothing to make your case. The usurpers of power routinely ignore the wishes of even the majority of people who vote. This happened with the federal elections in 2006. Clearly voting is no more than an opinion to them, one which they will accept or ignore at their own whim. These usurpers of power are going to do whatever they want, without regard to the "will of the people." Or have you never read a letter from any of these people's offices? They make it quite clear that while they're "willing to listen" to their "constituents," they are nevertheless going to do whatever the hell they want.

By the way, you still have not shown that voting comprises anything more than sharing an opinion.

[Dreepa]

[

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?

Voting "no" on these spending items is no different, in moral terms, than voting "yes": you have no right to make either choice.  To vote on one of these items is to say, "I should be able to decide whether and how the plundered wealth of other people is spent."  I do not have that right and neither does any other person.  In this case, I would not cast a ballot, but would instead hold a sign or distribute pamphlets to those in attendance, expressing my discontent with the process and with their decision to vote.

so by not voting you would by default possibly be raising your own and your neighbors property taxes. Please don't move to my town.

[Bill St. Clair]

Your assertion is still absurd. I have no authority whatsoever to grant any individual power over any other. To say that I do is required in order for the vote to mean what you claim it means. If the vote is an authorization, it can only be so in the minds of the deluded people who believe in the state. To say that my vote confers authority to any person over any other ascribes to me something I cannot confer because I never possessed it. It is for this reason that voting cannot in itself be an immoral act of violence.

Error, you have truly absorbed the teachings of Lysander Spooner. Congratulations! And thank you.

I have mostly stopped voting, primarily because there is rarely anybody to vote for. I changed my registration from independent to republican in order to vote for Ron Paul. If he isn't selected as the Republican candidate, I probably won't bother to vote for president.

In this month's local election, I voted against a library extension that will raise property taxes (it passed), and for the highway supervisor, who has done a great job of keeping the roads in repair and clear of snow. I realize that he's done that with stolen tax money, and I'd prefer to pay for that road maintenance with tolls, but I'm not given that choice. The guy I voted for doesn't use his elected position as a cushy income. He drives a snow removal truck himself. I didn't bother to vote for any of the other town offices. When the democrat candidates came to visit a community dinner, I told them that I understood what the highway supervisor did, and asked them to tell me what they did. Their answers left me in the dark. Hence, I had no way to tell one candidate from another, so I didn't vote.

About 750 votes were cast in most of those local contests. 550 for the library question. So my vote actually had a chance to influence the outcome, unlike a vote in next year's presidential popularity contest, where I will be totally outnumbered by a bunch of NYC morons voting for the Hillarybeast. Still, I'll vote for Ron Paul if he is on the ballot.

[error]

I think I went a bit beyond Lysander Spooner.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Your assertion is still absurd. I have no authority whatsoever to grant any individual power over any other. To say that I do is required in order for the vote to mean what you claim it means. If the vote is an authorization, it can only be so in the minds of the deluded people who believe in the state. To say that my vote confers authority to any person over any other ascribes to me something I cannot confer because I never possessed it. It is for this reason that voting cannot in itself be an immoral act of violence.

Error, you have truly absorbed the teachings of Lysander Spooner. Congratulations! And thank you.

I have mostly stopped voting, primarily because there is rarely anybody to vote for. I changed my registration from independent to republican in order to vote for Ron Paul. If he isn't selected as the Republican candidate, I probably won't bother to vote for president.

In this month's local election, I voted against a library extension that will raise property taxes (it passed), and for the highway supervisor, who has done a great job of keeping the roads in repair and clear of snow. I realize that he's done that with stolen tax money, and I'd prefer to pay for that road maintenance with tolls, but I'm not given that choice. The guy I voted for doesn't use his elected position as a cushy income. He drives a snow removal truck himself. I didn't bother to vote for any of the other town offices. When the democrat candidates came to visit a community dinner, I told them that I understood what the highway supervisor did, and asked them to tell me what they did. Their answers left me in the dark. Hence, I had no way to tell one candidate from another, so I didn't vote.

About 750 votes were cast in most of those local contests. 550 for the library question. So my vote actually had a chance to influence the outcome, unlike a vote in next year's presidential popularity contest, where I will be totally outnumbered by a bunch of NYC morons voting for the Hillarybeast. Still, I'll vote for Ron Paul if he is on the ballot.

Move to Grafton where votes against spending and for property rights have a chance.

[Vitruvian]

I am also not saying that it is voting which restrains government but the institutional arrangements which accompany them that restrains the government.

That is precisely what you did say:

voting is one of the few moral acts in politics because it is one of the few acts which does have a tendency to restrain government

Look at the world we live in.  Those countries which are democratic are no where near as vicious as those countries which are not.

The United States, a country I assume you would have classified as a "liberal democracy," has caused more deaths than any other extant "illiberal democracy."  The  differences seen among States should not be attributed to their structures, but rather to the attitudes of their respective populations.

This hasn't been the trend recently because governments have had the tendency to invent one crisis after another to justify itself.

This is nearly always the mechanism States use for their own aggrandizement.  Robert Higgs has called it the "ratchet": every crisis or contingency, real or contrived, is exploited to the benefit of state power and at the expense of social power.

Is this a quote from Marx or Lenin?

No.  Are you implying that the quoted statement would be incorrect if Marx or Lenin had written it?

So your plan is to sit around and watch the government become an out and out totalitarian police state in the hopes that it will crumble?

I really wish that everyone would not equate "not voting" with "not doing anything."  Doing so is rather narrow-minded.

The answer need not be that, and you've said nothing to make your case. The usurpers of power routinely ignore the wishes of even the majority of people who vote. This happened with the federal elections in 2006. Clearly voting is no more than an opinion to them, one which they will accept or ignore at their own whim. These usurpers of power are going to do whatever they want, without regard to the "will of the people." Or have you never read a letter from any of these people's offices? They make it quite clear that while they're "willing to listen" to their "constituents," they are nevertheless going to do whatever the hell they want.  By the way, you still have not shown that voting comprises anything more than sharing an opinion.

Again, I ask you.  If voting is the mere issuance of an opinion, and the "usurpers of power" treat that opinion with nothing but contempt, then why bother?  More than one person on this thread has conceded that politicians do, in fact, use the vote as an excuse to do whatever they want once in power.  If one's vote is so impotent, and carries so little meaning, then why do it?  Why help them pull the wool further over everyone's eyes?

[Russell Kanning]

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

we could have a thead inside of this thread
Solid

[Russell Kanning]

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

Are there none? I thought a few paid for everything by sales/income taxes.

I don't think there are any states ... in the United States .... that don't think that they own your property and are letting you use it.
In places like CA ... they even tax the stuff in your warehouse and your equipment and your toothpaste and food and....

is that a triple negative above?

[Russell Kanning]

so by not voting you would by default possibly be raising your own and your neighbors property taxes. Please don't move to my town.

Do you really believe that? Do you really mind the people in your town that don't vote?

I think THE MAN has been getting into yo head.

[jaqeboy]

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.

I would argue that the more appropriate word for that is "peace"