Politics is an immoral dead-end

[Russell Kanning]

Someone on the FSP forum referred to them as the "people dba 'government.'"

evil people dba government

[Eli]

The 'system' people, when they vote or are elected to office, arrogate for themselves what is mine by right.  This makes me angry and perhaps "less tactful" (read: "more honest") than I would be otherwise.  Intentions, even good ones (to reduce State violence, to vote against the greater evil, etc.), count for nothing in reality.  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.  To put it simply: Ron Paul, if and when he is elected, will still take money from ME with the taxing power granted him by the Constitution.  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.  So, know this: When I condemn your actions as immoral, I mean it.

V.  You assume alot about what I do when I vote for Ron Paul.  I certainly do not concede that he should have power over me or you or anyone when he is elected.  What I have conceded is that our real world situation would be better (i.e. would count for something in reality.)  Better in terms of actual freedoms. Better in terms of financial prosperity.  Better.  I can concede all of that, in a realpolitik sense, would be better and give people like you more scope for action and more freedom.  I can do all that without concedeing that he should or even does have legitimate power over you.  Especially since that power is in no way derived from my vote.  I can do all that and free you up to be a (IMO confused) moral purist.   And still manage to not call you immorral in the process.  Man am I smooth.  Quick someone concoct an ode to my smoothness.  

[d_goddard]

Quick someone concoct an ode to my smoothness. 

Eli Ex-lax

[Pat K]

Quick someone concoct an ode to my smoothness. 

Eli Ex-lax

Oh that was good! 

[Dreepa]

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.

The ones who think that there should be no government but won't try and help me reduce it.. sure.  If he wants to make noise about the feds or the State of NH that is one thing.  But in towns in NH... real change can be made by voting.

agian I don't care if he votes or not.. but his belief that by me voting in my town is somehow 'evil' is mistaken.

[jaqeboy]

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).

This is pretty "case-closed" on the tax counter to your orignal assertions (back on the first page), or, in other words, a diversion from the point (with my concurrence that the merchant acts as an agent for the state in collection of the sales tax, though not necessarily a willing agent).

The question IS of compulsion. Ie, actions that you have choice over - you are to be judged for the morality of them (since morality refers only to volitional acts), as opposed to actions that you don't have realistic choices over (ie, compulsory taxation). I had to make so many qualifications on that town voting issue that I have to elaborate on that, but later. The issue for freedom/free society is, of course, the compulsion one.

[jaqeboy]

Peace would be the description of the condition, not of the system. However, anarchy is not a system either, it's the recognition, by naming, of the state of having no ruler.

No, as I said, while the meaning of the word (ie, its derivation) is "without a ruler," the actual technical definition does refer to a system in which unanimous consent is used for all decisions.  The only way to be "without a ruler" (and still have multiple individuals present) is a system of unanimous consent.

Unanimity is one of the proposed and practiced systems, but there are others that have been proposed and are being used. eg, see the link below for the Rainbow Family.

[srqrebel]

No, a grouping of individuals can certainly exist.  I could get together with some folks and form a roving school that meets at our houses and has no physical "address," and it would still be real.  What makes the State fantastical is that its described properties are not things which can actually exist.

Okay... but what would be the proper term to use when referring to this illegitimate collection of people with buildings, laws, and tools?

The State.  Non-real things can have names.  The name "dragon" refers to a non-real thing, for example.

...you haven't proven the State exists, only that people believe in it, and that those people commit violent and immoral acts.

I keep getting the sense that we don't actually disagree, yet the things you are saying are not quite clicking for me.

In previous posts, I indicated that the State is based on the faulty premise that such an institution is necessary to the orderly functioning of society.  It since occurred to me that it ultimately rests on the illusion of external authority, which is indeed not real.

Having noted that, could you please explain which (if any) described properties of the State cannot actually exist, aside from the single imaginary attribute of "external authority"?

Using the dragon analogy, I would not argue that dragons exist, just as I would not argue that external authority exists.  Yet if there was a group of individuals who believed in dragons, who took predictable actions in concert with each other based on that faulty premise, I might refer to them as the Dragon Society.  In this example, would the Dragon Society not exist, just because they base their mutual identity and actions on an illusion?

That is the sense in which I am speaking, when I say that the State itself is unfortunately all too real, while the justification for its creation and continued existence is an illusion.

[MaineShark]

The question IS of compulsion. Ie, actions that you have choice over - you are to be judged for the morality of them (since morality refers only to volitional acts), as opposed to actions that you don't have realistic choices over (ie, compulsory taxation).

You can avoid paying taxes.  You choose, instead, to pay them.  I don't particularly care that it would be difficult for you to avoid paying taxes.  You have chosen to pay them.  Justify your actions.

No, as I said, while the meaning of the word (ie, its derivation) is "without a ruler," the actual technical definition does refer to a system in which unanimous consent is used for all decisions.  The only way to be "without a ruler" (and still have multiple individuals present) is a system of unanimous consent.

Unanimity is one of the proposed and practiced systems, but there are others that have been proposed and are being used. eg, see the link below for the Rainbow Family.

So, you are claiming that they do not practice unanimous consent?  If someone doesn't want to do something, the others force him?

Having noted that, could you please explain which (if any) described properties of the State cannot actually exist, aside from the single imaginary attribute of "external authority"?

The State claims that it has the right to initiate force against others.

Using the dragon analogy, I would not argue that dragons exist, just as I would not argue that external authority exists.  Yet if there was a group of individuals who believed in dragons, who took predictable actions in concert with each other based on that faulty premise, I might refer to them as the Dragon Society.  In this example, would the Dragon Society not exist, just because they base their mutual identity and actions on an illusion?

That is the sense in which I am speaking, when I say that the State itself is unfortunately all too real, while the justification for its creation and continued existence is an illusion.

The "Dragon Society" might exist, but that would not cause dragons to exist.

Of course, the dragon/unicorn analogy is faulty.  A dragon or unicorn could actually exist, although it would take a lot of work to convince me.  An entity with the right to initiate force is a logical impossibility, so it cannot exist.

Joe

[srqrebel]

Incidentally, there may be some confusion stemming from the fact that I use the term "State" in place of the more common term "government".  Here is my reason for this, as stated in a previous thread (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9713.msg168168#msg168168):

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of the word 'government':

"Main Entry: gov·ern·ment 
Pronunciation: \?g?-v?r(n)-m?nt, -v?-m?nt; ?g?-b?m-?nt, -v?m-\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Date: 14th century
1: the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control
2: obsolete: moral conduct or behavior : discretion
3: a: the office, authority, or function of governing  b: obsolete: the term during which a governing official holds office"

(Note: These three definitions are followed by four more relating to the better known political application of the word 'government'.)

In other words, "government" is any entity that is legitimately entrusted with the duty of "governing". 

Here is Merriam-Webster's definition of the word 'govern':

"Main Entry: gov·ern  
Pronunciation: \?g?-v?rn\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French governer, from Latin gubernare to steer, govern, from Greek kybernan
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1: a: to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially: to control and direct the making and administration of policy in  b: to rule without sovereign power and usually without having the authority to determine basic policy
2: a: archaic: manipulate  b: to control the speed of (as a machine) especially by automatic means
3: a: to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of  b: to exert a determining or guiding influence in or over <income must govern expenditure>  c: to hold in check: restrain"

In other words, [to govern is] to steer and oversee the smooth operation of affairs.

If one accepts, as I do, that every conscious being is a sovereign individual, then it follows that the only valid authority is within.  There is no such thing as external authority, for each individual is sovereign.  Thus, the only legitimate governments are those entities that are directly authorized by a conscious individual to govern a specific function or functions of that individual's affairs, and are directly accountable to that individual at all times.  Examples would be accountants, secretaries, security agents, etc., basically any entity that is under contract to protect the sovereign individual's life and property, and keep specific areas of his life running smoothly.

By contrast, the political system of so-called "government" is neither legitimate nor very effective.  It is not legitimate, for it usurps bogus "external authority" over the sovereign individual, rather than operating under the valid authority of the individual himself.  It is not very effective, for it is a monopoly, and derives its sustenance by force and/ or threat of force, and as such it is neither subject to the discipline of competition nor the correcting influence of the market.  It has (virtually) no incentive to deliver values to those it claims to "serve".  This system delivers very little in terms of actual governing; instead, it dictates, and is properly referred to as 'State', NOT 'government'.

[srqrebel]

Having noted that, could you please explain which (if any) described properties of the State cannot actually exist, aside from the single imaginary attribute of "external authority"?

The State claims that it has the right to initiate force against others.

Which claim, in turn, rests squarely on the imaginary attribute of "external authority".

In the absence of this core illusion, nothing could give rise to such a claim, and the State could not exist.

Using the dragon analogy, I would not argue that dragons exist, just as I would not argue that external authority exists.  Yet if there was a group of individuals who believed in dragons, who took predictable actions in concert with each other based on that faulty premise, I might refer to them as the Dragon Society.  In this example, would the Dragon Society not exist, just because they base their mutual identity and actions on an illusion?

That is the sense in which I am speaking, when I say that the State itself is unfortunately all too real, while the justification for its creation and continued existence is an illusion.

The "Dragon Society" might exist, but that would not cause dragons to exist.

Did you even read my words that you quoted?

Of course that would not cause dragons to exist!  I did not in any way imply that -- in fact, I was saying just the opposite.




Let me try again:

I use the term "State" only as I would use the term "Dragon Society".

In the above analogy, dragons are the illusion at the core of the organization called the "Dragon Society".  The Dragon Society itself is not imaginary -- only the illusion that is used to justify its existence.

Likewise, external authority is the illusion at the core of the institution called "State".  The State itself is not imaginary -- only the illusion that is used to justify its existence.

...but I repeat myself

[MaineShark]

Let me try again:

I use the term "State" only as I would use the term "Dragon Society".

In the above analogy, dragons are the illusion at the core of the organization called the "Dragon Society".  The Dragon Society itself is not imaginary -- only the illusion that is used to justify its existence.

Likewise, external authority is the illusion at the core of the institution called "State".  The State itself is not imaginary -- only the illusion that is used to justify its existence.

...but I repeat myself

Jackbooted thugs are not an illusion.  Federal agencies are not an illusion.  Et cetera.  These things are the equivalent of your hypothetical "Dragon Society."  The State is an illusion; it is the equivalent of your hypothetical dragon - it is the thing which they worship.

Joe

[srqrebel]

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!)

You say this has already been tried?  When in the history of the political system have all (or even the majority) of those who sought true freedom of the individual, done so by withdrawing from politics altogether, and instead focused on other forms of activism such as civil disobedience?

I challenge the claim that "the average person is a statist".  Anyone with experience in administering the World's Smallest Political Quiz can tell you that actual statists are consistently in the minority, with libertarians and centrists comprising the majority.

As far as the claim that the average person is "not going to see the true essence of the State before it's far too late", this is certainly true as long as freedom seekers continue to gratuitously perpetuate the illusion of legitimacy of the very system that stands in the way of freedom, by participating in it.

Yes, it is a common misconception that those who do not participate in the political system are just lazy and apathetic.  This illusion would quickly vanish if those who seek freedom spoke out loud and clear through persistent acts of civil disobedience.

[srqrebel]

Jackbooted thugs are not an illusion.  Federal agencies are not an illusion.  Et cetera.  These things are the equivalent of your hypothetical "Dragon Society."  The State is an illusion; it is the equivalent of your hypothetical dragon - it is the thing which they worship.

Joe

Again, the jackbooted thugs, federal agencies, etc. together comprise the institution which I refer to as the State.  Just because people "worship" this institution does not mean it is an illusion.

People worship the institution called State only because they are subject to the illusion of external authority.

[MaineShark]

Jackbooted thugs are not an illusion.  Federal agencies are not an illusion.  Et cetera.  These things are the equivalent of your hypothetical "Dragon Society."  The State is an illusion; it is the equivalent of your hypothetical dragon - it is the thing which they worship.

Again, the jackbooted thugs, federal agencies, etc. together comprise the institution which I refer to as the State.  Just because people "worship" this institution does not mean it is an illusion.

People worship the institution called State only because they are subject to the illusion of external authority.

And, again, they are real entities, acting for their own benefit.  "The State" is not a real entity.  It is not an institution which they comprise.  It is an illusion that they have invented to justify their actions, even though it does not and cannot exist.

No entity which has the right to initiate force can exist.  By definition.  No number of other entities worshipping it can bring it into existence.

You are arguing that the State exists, because the thugs say it does.  This is the same argument made by Vitruvian.  And it is still invalid; it requires accepting the premise that those thugs have the right to define other entities and bring them into being (what you call "the illusion of external authority"), and then pointing at the entity they have defined and claiming that it exists.  The argument requires that you accept "external authority" as valid, in order to prove that "external authority" exists.  It's circular.

More to the point, it means that the individual making the argument has accepted, at some level, that those thugs have the ability to create "the State," which means that individual, at some level, refuses to accept the ZAP, since the two are not logically compatible.

Joe