Politics is an immoral dead-end

[FTL_Ian]

Voting/not voting does not do anything to legitimize/delegitimize the government.

Governments are nothing more than people doing business at the point of a gun.  Occasionally, these gangsters will allow their victims to register opinions on who will be in charge of the gang for the next few years.  Whether you register your opinion or not will not stop the gangsters from continuing to inflict force upon you.  If no one registers their opinion (votes), the gang will not care.  They continue on victimizing regardless of voter turnout.

Most people don't vote.  They are not spurred into noncooperation in any other area by the fact that others also don't vote.  They probably don't even know how many people voted.  That would require them to pay attention.  Even if no one voted, that would not stop the government people from demanding money.  As usual, most people will hand it over.

Also, just because someone throws their hat in as a candidate does not make them culpable for the actions of the men with guns.  If Julia had won the seat on the City Council here in Keene, she would've voted against any increases in government as well as against any proposals to keep government the same size.  Just because she couldn't destroy the government in a 24-hour period doesn't mean that she consents to or in any way supports the violence that they enact on people.

[FTL_Ian]

Here is a real-life story from this year that should be enlightening:

http://www.theheraldbulletin.com/local/local_story_310194303.html

Because no one chose to run again the current town clerk, judge or any of the town council positions open, Pendleton did not have an election Tuesday. The town clerk will remain Timothy J. Ryan (D); judge, George M. Gasparovic (D); and council members, Andrea B. Canaday (D), Jeanette Isbell (D) and Don Henderson (R) will remain in their seats.

"I was really kind of surprised no one opposed us, but it did save us some money without having an election," said Isbell, who will begin serving her fourth term on the council in January.

In this situation, people didn't even have the opportunity to vote because no one bothered to run against the existing gangsters.  Do you really think anyone in Pendleton "woke up" to the fact that government is illegitimate?   Nope.  What happened, was that the existing politicians patted themselves on the back, believing that everyone in town must be loving the job they're doing because no one bothered to run against them.  Government will continue taxing and people will continue paying.

[FTL_Ian]

The Pendleton situation could have in fact happened here in Keene, had we done nothing.  Of the five Ward seats up for election, only one was contested.  Because we ran a candidate, we received thousands of dollars in free press coverage.  Many people here in Keene were exposed to the ideas of liberty, possibly for the first time.  No doubt, some of them visited freekeene.com as well as this website.  Without her campaign, none of this would've happened, yet government would still be here.

I would love to hear someone claim how what Julia did was in any way immoral.

[Vitruvian]

Since Ian saw fit to resurrect this thread, here goes nothing:

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.

I find it interesting that those arguing that politics is morally permissible and strategically viable, accuse me, the person arguing the opposite, of being a crypto-statist.  The State, composed of individual, non-mystical human beings, has power (because some people think they should have it), but has no authority (because power is synonymous with coercion, the one true crime).  As I and others have said many times previously, the State exists, but not independently of the people who comprise it: we would be foolish to pretend it did not.

The State is anti-social: it exists solely at the expense of civilization.  It is a parasite, a vampire, a foul predator.  One may call the State a democracy, a republic, a monarchy, etc., but giving evil another name does not mask its stench: only politics can accomplish that feat.  When people participate in politics, they become a part of the State, emboldening it, strengthening its grip on society, and ensuring its survival.

Ian, I have heard you say, with apparent conviction, on FTL that "democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on dinner."  And yet here you are, defending your "right" to vote and your "right" to run for office.  For shame.

[J’raxis 270145]

Suppose that I commit an evil act. And suppose that, when caught for having done so, I attempt to blame that act on an "imaginary friend" that I just conjured up out of nothingness. Would you believe this? Would you actually decide to not hold me responsible, and instead hold my "imaginary friend" responsible for the act, despite that fact that you can neither see nor hear this person, nor, in any way, shape, or form, prove that this "imaginary friend" does in fact exist?

Now, how about if instead I decided to gather together a few hundred others, and we were to all simultaneously decide to pin responsibility for any of our actions on this same "imaginary friend"? Would this make a difference to you?

The State does not exist except in the minds of the thugs who use it to justify their evil acts, and in the minds of the people who subscribe to the beliefs put forth by such thugs. If you are one of these people, you are a statist. You may not support the State, or be an apologist for the State, or intend to lend legitimacy to its existence, but you believe that it exists and actually has some sort of substance, just as the thugs who use the state to justify their actions do. Thus, you are a statist.

(I myself believe that the State does not exist per se, that the people doing business as "the State" or "the government" or whatnot are just that: nothing more than a group of people engaging in a series of mostly evil acts, and doing so under a collective name, in order to divert responsibility from their own persons. And getting back on topic, I simply believe that engaging in politics, in the strategic manner in which we freestaters are, is simply a way of using these people's own little games against them. If they want to give us one tiny, little way in order to affect their system, we might as well try to do so, as effectively as possible.)

An "imaginary friend" does not exist no matter how much a child wants to try and pin blame on him for his own actions.

A "corporation" does not exist no matter how much its members want to try and pin blame on it for their own actions. This is even admitted by our system: It is referred to as a "legal fiction" that exists for matters of entrepreneurial efficiency.

A "god" or "demon" does not exist no matter how much the priest wants to try and pin blame on Him for his own actions.

The "State" does not exist no matter how much the thugs want to try and pin blame on it for their own actions.

[FTL_Ian]

I find it interesting that those arguing that politics is morally permissible and strategically viable, accuse me, the person arguing the opposite, of being a crypto-statist.  The State, composed of individual, non-mystical human beings, has power (because some people think they should have it), but has no authority (because power is synonymous with coercion, the one true crime).  As I and others have said many times previously, the State exists, but not independently of the people who comprise it: we would be foolish to pretend it did not.

The State is anti-social: it exists solely at the expense of civilization.  It is a parasite, a vampire, a foul predator.  One may call the State a democracy, a republic, a monarchy, etc., but giving evil another name does not mask its stench: only politics can accomplish that feat.  When people participate in politics, they become a part of the State, emboldening it, strengthening its grip on society, and ensuring its survival.

Ian, I have heard you say, with apparent conviction, on FTL that "democracy is two wolves and one sheep deciding on dinner."  And yet here you are, defending your "right" to vote and your "right" to run for office.  For shame.

So, let's recap.  You've put words into my mouth and made a bunch of assertions but have not addressed one of my questions, points, or my challenge.   

[Vitruvian]

The State does not exist except in the minds of the thugs who use it to justify their evil acts, and in the minds of the people who subscribe to the beliefs put forth by such thugs. If you are one of these people, you are a statist. You may not support the State, or be an apologist for the State, or intend to lend legitimacy to its existence, but you believe that it exists and actually has some sort of substance, just as the thugs who use the state to justify their actions do. Thus, you are a statist.

Did you not read my last post (and all the posts that came before)?  I wrote, very clearly, that I do not believe the State exists independently of the people who comprise it.  To say "the State exists," for me, is to say "there exist some people who claim to have some measure of moral authority to commit acts of aggressive violence and coercion."  The linguistic gymnastics are unnecessary and irrelevant.

I see statism as a particularly destructive form of religion: it has a theology, a priesthood, large numbers of adherents, and its own peculiar rituals.  As an atheist, I reject faith as a means to knowledge.  I do not worship a god, I do not pray, I do not go to church, I do not celebrate holy days, I do not tithe, I do not wear a WWJD? bracelet.  As an anarchist, I reject power over others as a means to any conceivable end.  I do not vote; I do not seek election to office; I do not salute the flag; I do not respect the politician, the policeman, or the soldier.  Now I ask you, as an anarchist, why do you vote/pray?

So, let's recap.  You've put words into my mouth and made a bunch of assertions but have not addressed one of my questions, points, or my challenge.

And you have clearly not read most of this thread, where I and others have already covered the issues you have raised.

P.S. I enclosed the word right with quotation marks because no one has a right to vote:

And yet here you are, defending your "right" to vote and your "right" to run for office.  For shame.

[FTL_Ian]

And you have clearly not read most of this thread, where I and others have already covered the issues you have raised.

I have read most of the thread (I very much enjoyed error and Maineshark's posts.) and I don't think anyone has addressed the origins of the "power" that you again reference here:

The State, composed of individual, non-mystical human beings, has power (because some people think they should have it), but has no authority (because power is synonymous with coercion, the one true crime).

Just because some people calling themselves "government" have decided to use force on others does not mean anything Julia or I have done has in any way endorsed that.  Now, I like to think I'm an open-minded guy.  I'd like to invite you to point out if there is anything unprincipled or state-supporting about Julia's campaign for city council.  I've made this challenge on air and no one has ever responded to it... perhaps you could be the first.   

[FTL_Ian]

Now I ask you, as an anarchist, why do you vote/pray?

You have clearly not read most of this thread, where I and others have already covered the issues you have raised.   

[Vitruvian]

Now, I like to think I'm an open-minded guy.  I'd like to invite you to point out if there is anything unprincipled or state-supporting about Julia's campaign for city council.  I've made this challenge on air and no one has ever responded to it... perhaps you could be the first.

I am quite certain that you and Julia are good people, with good intentions.  I do not mean to imply that either of you would intentionally do harm.  The fact remains, however, that Julia, through her campaign, sought to attain a position of power over other people.  Whether she would wield her (admittedly limited) power is not at issue; what is at issue is the power itself.  It must be destroyed.

Reductio ad absurdum: Would you vote in an election for president of Earth?  The galaxy?  The universe?

Why is voting in a city council election less wrong?

[FTL_Ian]

Whether she would wield her (admittedly limited) power is not at issue; what is at issue is the power itself.  It must be destroyed.

That was the purpose of her campaign.  To advocate for the destruction of government force and the transition to a voluntary society.  Because she ran, we received thousands of dollars in free media coverage for those ideas.  Had she not run, those ideas would have not gotten any play whatsoever.

[Vitruvian]

That was the purpose of her campaign.  To advocate for the destruction of government force and the transition to a voluntary society.  Because she ran, we received thousands of dollars in free media coverage for those ideas.  Had she not run, those ideas would have not gotten any play whatsoever.

Are you proposing that "media coverage" was the sole purpose of her campaign, that she would not have taken office had she been elected?  Isn't the true purpose of any campaign to elevate oneself to a position of power?

[anthonybpugh]

Reductio ad absurdum: Would you vote in an election for president of Earth?  The galaxy?  The universe?

Why is voting in a city council election less wrong?

President of the Galaxy

[FTL_Ian]

Are you proposing that "media coverage" was the sole purpose of her campaign, that she would not have taken office had she been elected?  Isn't the true purpose of any campaign to elevate oneself to a position of power?

The main purpose was to spread the message of liberty.  To that end, we succeeded.  In fact, I just spent two hours on the air with Keene city councilor Cynthia Georgina on her local radio show, "Talkback".  I will post the archive later today on freekeene.com.  (Wait until to you hear the authoritarians call-in.  They are pissed.)  Cynthia pointed out that the reason she wanted me on was because Julia's campaign got her curious about Free Staters.  I bet she's not the only one.

If Julia had won the election, that would just have been the icing on the cake.

Julia wants nothing to do with power.  Because of her principles, she would not have been able to take the oath of office had she won.  We were thinking that she should write her own oath.  Something about swearing an oath to the non-initiation of force...who knows what we would've put in there.   

I'd like to make it clear that I don't care if you don't vote.  You do whatever floats your boat.  Just please don't down what we are doing as immoral or unprincipled, because it is neither.

[anthonybpugh]

I think Julia was highly naughty for having run for political office.  I think she should be punished. 

[youtube=425,350]DtcSYPjJbgg[/youtube]