Politics is an immoral dead-end

[Vitruvian]

The issue of responsibility is, I think, this thread's most basic point of contention: is the voter responsible, in any fashion, for the actions of the politician he elects?  The moral debate would end with a definitive answer to this question, and we could then focus on the other unfortunate byproduct of voting: the perpetuation of the illusion of State legitimacy.

Responsibility, like debt, is incurred legitimately only through the voluntary, positive actions of an individual.  If the original transaction involves physical coercion or the threat thereof (i.e. the transaction is not voluntary), a debt is considered invalid, and the would-be debtor is relieved of his obligation.  Responsibility is merely one effect of a prior cause.  Furthermore, responsibility persists regardless of future events, known or unknown (excepting, of course, forgiveness).  For instance, a person is still bound to repay a month-old loan if he were to lose his job today, unless the debt is forgiven.  Written contracts exist as an attempt to delineate responsibility and to eliminate the possibility of equivocation should the deal go south.  With all this in mind, perhaps the question of voter responsibility can be answered.

First, because voting is not (yet) compulsory in this country, it must be voluntary.  Not one person is forced to cast his vote.  In any case, no one has so far denied that this is true.
Second, voting is a positive act: one must first register with the State, travel to a polling place, enter an enclosed voting booth, and pull a lever, push a button, etc.; all of these actions are measurable and therefore positive.
Third, in a fair election, each and every vote has an effect, however small, on the election's outcome.  If this were not the case, there would be no rational basis for the act of voting, and the voting apologists have wasted their time and energy, not only in defending their peculiar behavior, but also in the behavior itself.
Fourth, the outcome of any fair election, being the rise to power of a particular person at a particular time, has a measurable cause and numerous effects.  The cause, as demonstrated above, is the sum total of votes counted in favor of the winner (again, if this were not the case, there would be no reason to cast a vote).  The effects can be seen all around us, and they are not pretty.

So we see that all requirements have been met: the price of the vote, as ultimate cause of the outcome of an election, is partial responsibility and culpability for the actions of the elected person.  Moreover, there is the question of knowledge.  As human beings, we cannot reliably know the future course of events.  At best, we can produce an educated guess.  Is there any act more monumentally stupid than to place the brute force of the State in the hands of another, similarly-limited person, when we cannot know what he will do with it?

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.

We agree that this entity cannot and does not exist.  However, the logical impossibility of an entity which has the right to initiate force does not preclude the existence of an entity that claims that right, which we call the State for short.  No one here is arguing that the State has the right to initiate force.

[MaineShark]

First, because posting on forums is not (yet) compulsory in this country, it must be voluntary.  Not one person is forced to cast his vote.  In any case, no one has so far denied that this is true.
Second, posting on forums is a positive act: one must first obtain Internet access, travel to a computer, enter web address, and type, using taxed electricity to do so, etc.; all of these actions are measurable and therefore positive.
Third, in a taxed economy, each and every unit of value has an effect, however small, on the ability of the government to oppress people.
Fourth, the outcome of taxation, being the rise to power of government thugs who hurt people, has a measurable cause and numerous effects.  The cause, as demonstrated above, is the sum total of funds counted in favor of the winner.  The effects can be seen all around us, and they are not pretty.

[modifications in bold]

What's your point?

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.

We agree that this entity cannot and does not exist.  However, the logical impossibility of an entity which has the right to initiate force does not preclude the existence of an entity that claims that right, which we call the State for short.  No one here is arguing that the State has the right to initiate force.

You are.  Repeatedly.  You try and hide it, but the derivation has been posted numerous times, including in the post which you extracted that quote from.

Joe

[d_goddard]

Is there any act more monumentally stupid than to place the brute force of the State in the hands of another, similarly-limited person, when we cannot know what he will do with it?

Let us suppose I think you are an OK guy, maybe not someone I'd want to leave alone with my children, but nice enough to talk to when we meet on the street.

Let us then suppose you ask be for five dollars. Figuring you won't do anything terribly wrong with it, and that you might even do some good with it, I fork over the cash.

Of course, I cannot know what you will do with it. What if you buy a knife and murder children? Am I responsible?

[Lloyd Danforth]

Well................now that you have considered it as a possibility..................

[srqrebel]

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.

Indeed.  And no such entity exists.  No such entity is being worshipped, because no such entity exists, nor can ever exist.

It cannot exist, because there is no such thing as external authority.

That in no way cancels out the fact that there exists a very real institution, whose agents claim to have the right to initiate force.  This institution is what I call the State, and people do indeed worship it.

You are arguing that the State exists, because the thugs say it does.

Nowhere did I state or even imply any such thing.  The State is an institution, comprised of laws, tools, and individuals acting in concert.  It currently exists as an actual physical creation, independent of what anyone says.

If you can accept that these things, when taken individually, actually exist, then why is it so hard to comprehend that the whole that they comprise when taken together is likewise real?  It is like saying that there are indeed many trees standing in one spot, and they are real, but the forest is imaginary.

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

No.  It only requires accepting the premise that the thugs have the ability, not the right, to create a criminal enterprise that is an actual physical entity, using an illusion to justify doing so.  This argument in no way requires accepting "external authority" as valid -- to the contrary, it requires the recognition that "external authority" is strictly an illusion, therefore invalid.

[MaineShark]

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.

Indeed.  And no such entity exists.  No such entity is being worshipped, because no such entity exists, nor can ever exist.

It cannot exist, because there is no such thing as external authority.

That in no way cancels out the fact that there exists a very real institution, whose agents claim to have the right to initiate force.  This institution is what I call the State, and people do indeed worship it.

Just like all those "very real" dragons that exist, just because folks believe in them, right?

You are arguing that the State exists, because the thugs say it does.

Nowhere did I state or even imply any such thing.  The State is an institution, comprised of laws, tools, and individuals acting in concert.  It currently exists as an actual physical creation, independent of what anyone says.

Really?  As I said before, point to "the State."  Show it to us.

If you can accept that these things, when taken individually, actually exist, then why is it so hard to comprehend that the whole that they comprise when taken together is likewise real?  It is like saying that there are indeed many trees standing in one spot, and they are real, but the forest is imaginary.

No, the forest is real, because its proponents don't claim that it is more than a collection of trees.

The State is an illusion, because its proponents claim that it has rights in excess of the rights of its members.

That collection of thugs is "the government," but not "the State."  One exists.  The other is an illusion.

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.

No.  It only requires accepting the premise that the thugs have the ability, not the right, to create a criminal enterprise that is an actual physical entity, using an illusion to justify doing so.  This argument in no way requires accepting "external authority" as valid -- to the contrary, it requires the recognition that "external authority" is strictly an illusion, therefore invalid.

Sorry, but you need to take Logic 101 or something.  Your claim that the State exists requires that something possessing those attributes exists.  For something possessing those attributes to exist, the attributes would need to be possible within the context of reality.  Hence, arguing that the State exists automatically includes the argument that all of its attributes exist.

You can't argue that dragons exist, but not fire.  If you accept that there are fire-breathing lizards, you have automatically accepted that there is fire.

You cannot argue that "an entity with the right to initiate force" exists, without arguing that "the right to initiate force" exists.

Joe

[error]

Where is this actual physical entity called the State? Please, point to it, so that I may direct the wrecking ball to tear it down.

[anthonybpugh]

who ever said it was an actual physical entity?

[MaineShark]

who ever said it was an actual physical entity?

Point to an entity made of matter or energy or anything else which can be measured.

Entities composed of mystical substances observable only by the one claiming that entity's existence are not acceptable.

Joe

[srqrebel]

First, let me state for the record that the reason I tackled this somewhat off topic (and relatively insignificant) point of contention, is because I genuinely want to understand the assertion that 'the State does not in fact exist'... and precisely why we disagree.

If I am coming across as a bit exasperated, it is only because it seems like such a simple concept, yet after all of the sparring on both sides, we don't seem much closer to a mutual understanding.  Yet I am convinced that it stems from a simple misunderstanding, (probably two separate definitions in use), so I'll keep going for now

Just like all those "very real" dragons that exist, just because folks believe in them, right?

Nope.  This is where the dragon analogy ceases to fit. The forest analogy actually fits my usage better (see below).

Really?  As I said before, point to "the State."  Show it to us.

Where is this actual physical entity called the State? Please, point to it, so that I may direct the wrecking ball to tear it down.

You have asserted that "the government" exists.  Point to what you call "the government", and I in turn will point to what I call "the State" (for reasons shown below).

No, the forest is real, because its proponents don't claim that it is more than a collection of trees.

The State is an illusion, because its proponents claim that it has rights in excess of the rights of its members.

That collection of thugs is "the government," but not "the State."  One exists.  The other is an illusion.

Ah, perhaps here we finally get to the bottom of this.

You say that the State is an illusion because its proponents claim that it has rights "in excess of the rights of its members" (it has, in fact, no rights at all).  To me, that is exactly like saying the forest is an illusion, because the forest worshippers claim it has mystical powers.

If a group of forest worshippers plant and groom a forest under the misguided notion that their forest has mystical powers, then it is not the forest that is an illusion.  The illusion is strictly limited to the false properties that the forest worshippers ascribe to it, no more and no less.  In the case of the State, the illusion is strictly limited to the false property of external authority, and any extensions thereof.

It appears to me that you are accepting and using the thugs' own definition of the term "State"; I am not.  I apply the term "the State" strictly in place of the term "government", to refer to the criminal enterprise, or instution; just because the thugs themselves claim that their created institution has rights of its own, in no way binds me to accept that claim when I refer to that institution as "the State" instead of "government". 

The reason I prefer to use "the State" in place of "government", is because the word "government" has a built in meaning: that which governs, or keeps affairs running smoothly.  The criminal institution that currently usurps that term does not govern at all -- instead, it dictates.  By contrast, a business-based, genuine free market governs to a fault, thanks to the exquisite regulation of the invisible hand.  Hence, true government is the domain of the free market's invisible hand.

In order to avoid perpetuating the illusion that this criminal enterprise provides the needed service of governing, and to highlight the fact that governing is the exclusive domain of the free market, I use the term "State" when referring to the institution of the thugs.  This should in no way be construed to mean that I accept the illusion of external authority, just because the thugs claim it is real, and presume to include that claim in their usage of the term "State".

There are two additional points worth mentioning here:

1) The only reason I capitalize the word "State", is to distinguish its usage from other definitions, including individual "states" within the "united states".

2) I do not refer to the State in the sense of a single nation-state, with its self-created fictitious boundaries.  I use the term "State" to refer to the illegitimate, individual rights violating, global institution.

If anyone can provide me with another accurate, concise term to use in place of the erroneous and misleading term "government", I will gladly abandon my usage of the term "the State".

[srqrebel]

You can't argue that dragons exist, but not fire.  If you accept that there are fire-breathing lizards, you have automatically accepted that there is fire.

You cannot argue that "an entity with the right to initiate force" exists, without arguing that "the right to initiate force" exists.

Joe

Of course, no one is arguing that dragons (or any other illusions) exist, but I get the analogy. 

Using that analogy, arguing that dragons exist does not automatically constitute acceptance of the notion that fire-breathing exists.  One could very well conceive that dragons are real, while their purported fire-breathing property is mythical.

Example: Witches are traditionally assigned magical properties, such as flying on broomsticks.  When I refer to a female friend of mine, who is an actual witch by religious orientation, does that mean I somehow accept those mythical properties as real?  Of course not.  In the same way, just because I refer to the State as a real institution, does not in any way infer that I accept any of its purported mythical properties.

Only the mythical properties are unreal.

[Eli]

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.

I agree it is a question of compulsion.  But what taxes are you compelled to pay?  Can someone actually make you pay taxes?  Or do you choose to pay the taxes rather than counting the cost?   The IRS can threaten you.  They can do you violence.  They can evict you from your home and steal your property, but they can not make you pay.  You and Vitruvian and I all elect to pay taxes because the costs are too high otherwise.

We feel compelled to pay, but we are not in fact compelled to collaborate. Might this collaboration be immoral?  I'll concede that it might be.  But it is not more immoral than voting. 

I vote because I feel compelled to mitigate as much harm as possible to me and mine.  I fail to see, and I think you fail to show, a qualitative and categorical difference between "collaboration through voting" and "collaboration through tax non-avoidance."

[Eli]

First, let me state for the record that the reason I tackled this somewhat off topic (and relatively insignificant) point of contention, is because I genuinely want to understand the assertion that 'the State does not in fact exist'... and precisely why we disagree.

If I am coming across as a bit exasperated, it is only because it seems like such a simple concept, yet after all of the sparring on both sides, we don't seem much closer to a mutual understanding.  Yet I am convinced that it stems from a simple misunderstanding, (probably two separate definitions in use), so I'll keep going for now

I think the important difference is that the State doesn't exist as a moral actor, or any other kind of monopoly.  Just as the Church doesn't exist as an entity outside of people.  The state is an idea which resides in individual moral actors who are solely responsible for their own actions.  Therefore I am not responsible for evil actions that they undertake.  If I am responsible for their evil it must be because I gave them aid and assistance in doing there evil.  The question then becomes tactical rather than necessarily moral.  By voting have I aided those folks doing evil acts while dba government?  But it's more than that... I'm having trouble making it clear...  has my vote been used for the evil act... but there also is an aspect of intent/volition.  Did I intend for my vote to be used for evil or did I give aid to stop evil?  If I give a man a fish and he uses it to poison his dog (goofy example intentional) am I guilty of poisoning the dog?

[MaineShark]

Ah, perhaps here we finally get to the bottom of this.

You say that the State is an illusion because its proponents claim that it has rights "in excess of the rights of its members" (it has, in fact, no rights at all).  To me, that is exactly like saying the forest is an illusion, because the forest worshippers claim it has mystical powers.

If a group of forest worshippers plant and groom a forest under the misguided notion that their forest has mystical powers, then it is not the forest that is an illusion.  The illusion is strictly limited to the false properties that the forest worshippers ascribe to it, no more and no less.  In the case of the State, the illusion is strictly limited to the false property of external authority, and any extensions thereof.

The worshippers in your example didn't plant "a forest."  They planted "a magical forest."  The forest itself exists; the magical forest does not.

One is a real thing.  The other is an image; an illusion.

The reason I prefer to use "the State" in place of "government", is because the word "government" has a built in meaning: that which governs, or keeps affairs running smoothly.  The criminal institution that currently usurps that term does not govern at all -- instead, it dictates.  By contrast, a business-based, genuine free market governs to a fault, thanks to the exquisite regulation of the invisible hand.  Hence, true government is the domain of the free market's invisible hand.

"Government" implies control.  Not "smooth control."

Anarchy is a form of government in which individuals control themselves, which does lead to things running smoothly.

Statism is a form of government in which some group of individuals assert authority over others by the creation of a fictional entity (or entities) which they claim has rights to initiate force against others for purposes of control.

Both are forms of government, just as a square is a form of rectangle.  "Government" and "State" are not interchangeable, and "government" does not imply anything other than control.

You can't argue that dragons exist, but not fire.  If you accept that there are fire-breathing lizards, you have automatically accepted that there is fire.

You cannot argue that "an entity with the right to initiate force" exists, without arguing that "the right to initiate force" exists.

Of course, no one is arguing that dragons (or any other illusions) exist, but I get the analogy. 

Using that analogy, arguing that dragons exist does not automatically constitute acceptance of the notion that fire-breathing exists.  One could very well conceive that dragons are real, while their purported fire-breathing property is mythical.

No.  Breathing fire is an integral part of "dragonhood."  Just as a "right to initiate force" is an integral part of "statehood."  The two are not separable.  If you separate out the "offending" portion, you have changed the definition, and are referring to a different thing.  Eg, a "lizard" rather than a "dragon," once the fire-breathing is removed.

Example: Witches are traditionally assigned magical properties, such as flying on broomsticks.  When I refer to a female friend of mine, who is an actual witch by religious orientation, does that mean I somehow accept those mythical properties as real?  Of course not.  In the same way, just because I refer to the State as a real institution, does not in any way infer that I accept any of its purported mythical properties.

Different situation.  You are referring to a word with multiple definitions, and merely alternating between the two.  The examples above have specific meanings, which cannot maintain with the critical elements (fire-breathing/initiation of force) removed.

Did I intend for my vote to be used for evil or did I give aid to stop evil?  If I give a man a fish and he uses it to poison his dog (goofy example intentional) am I guilty of poisoning the dog?

Indeed.  If I hire someone to paint my ceiling, and he runs a stop sign and kills a kid in a crosswalk, and I a murderer?  Of course not.  I didn't hire him to do that.

If I "hire" Ron Paul to reduce the evil perpetrated by the Federal government, that does not mean I "hired" him to do anything else, at all.

Joe

[FTL_Ian]

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.

How can an anarchist believe in the "power of the state"?  Where did this power come from?  If this mystical power really exists, how is it exactly that checking little boxes on a piece of paper can transfer it?

Vitruvian, your post is just more evidence that you believe in the state.  Check your assumptions.