Politics is an immoral dead-end

[shyfrog]

moo

sorry, had to stay on topic

[Vitruvian]

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?

I answered your questions.  You should answer mine.

[Russell Kanning]

I answered your questions.  You should answer mine.

oh no ... rules

[Russell Kanning]

President of the Galaxy

just this guy you know
the underground president is just this kid ... ya know

[KBCraig]

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?

I answered your questions.  You should answer mine.

He did:

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.

[MaineShark]

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.

Why is that "interesting," pray tell?  It's pretty typical for Statists to pass themselves off as "liberty-lovers," then spout off all manner of nonsense in order to create division and drive off people who are looking to learn about liberty.

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?

Ah, more fun.  You "reject faith" by taking it on faith that there is no god?  You certainly don't have proof that there is no god, since the existence of that sort of proof would be logically impossible.  Yeah, that seems to fit with your insistence that arguing for the legitimacy of the State is equivalent to opposing it.

An atheist is someone who asserts, ex cathedra, that he knows there is no god.  Atheism is no different from theism, except for the point that the theists might be able to prove their point (eg, if one walks up to me and shows me god), but the atheists can never prove theirs.

Someone who rejects faith is called an "agnostic."

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

Ooh, someone learned a new term.  Unfortunately, that is not an example of reductio ad absurdum.  Presenting absurd rhetorical questions is not an argument.  Reductio ad absurdum relies on demonstrating a logical derivation of some claim, which shows the absurdity of that claim by taking it to an extreme where it fails.

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

I read your posts. The State does not exist dependent upon the people who comprise it. The State does not exist at all. The State is an illusion—a legal fiction of a sort—created by these people so that they may act collectively and avert personal responsibility for their own actions.

It is exactly like a religion. (And the most statist societies in history, such as the Soviet Union, have been nominally atheist, because the State was the religion. Other religions were seen as competition to Communism.) Gods do not exist at all. They are illusions created by priests so that they may avert personal responsibility for their own actions. Are you going to try to claim that you do in fact believe that gods exist, but only dependent upon the priests that conjure them up?

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

Now who's not reading whose posts? I vote because I see it as a way of pushing the system in a favorable direction.

[Faber]

For someone who thinks this thread is nothing but useless counterproductive masturbation started by a fed troll, you sure have contributed a lot of posts to it, J . . . .

[J’raxis 270145]

For someone who thinks this thread is nothing but useless counterproductive masturbation started by a fed troll, you sure have contributed a lot of posts to it, J . . . .

I keep coming back every day or two to see where it's going—mostly for entertainment value, and just to pose questions about what appear to be inconsistencies in V's and others' posts.

[Vitruvian]

MaineShark,

Lay off the attitude.  Although we were not introduced, we have met face to face.  I was at the Thanksgiving lunch at Karl Bisel's house (coincidentally, I brought a dish your wife could eat safely).  Please stop treating me as if I were an enemy.  Or do you treat every stranger this way?

[FTL_Ian]

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?

I answered your questions.  You should answer mine.

You mean this answer?

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

Besides, your question presupposes that I think voting is wrong at all.

[FTL_Ian]

The Julia Miranda campaign continues to be unassailable by those claiming that participation in politics is immoral.  My challenge still stands unanswered.   

[anthonybpugh]

I read your posts. The State does not exist dependent upon the people who comprise it. The State does not exist at all. The State is an illusion—a legal fiction of a sort—created by these people so that they may act collectively and avert personal responsibility for their own actions.

That is complete nonsense. 

"A state is a political association with effective dominion over a geographic area. It usually includes the set of institutions that claim the authority to make the rules that govern the people of the society in that territory, though its status as a state often depends in part on being recognized by a number of other states as having internal and external sovereignty over it."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State

Do political associations exist?  Do those political associations have effective dominion over geographic areas?   Are there institutions that claim authority to make rules that government people in that territory? 

The only way you can possibly say that the state doesn't exist is by changing the definition of state.  It is also stupid since we see the effects of the state in all our lives.   

It is exactly like a religion. (And the most statist societies in history, such as the Soviet Union, have been nominally atheist, because the State was the religion. Other religions were seen as competition to Communism.) Gods do not exist at all. They are illusions created by priests so that they may avert personal responsibility for their own actions. Are you going to try to claim that you do in fact believe that gods exist, but only dependent upon the priests that conjure them up?

If the state is an illusion, then statist society would be what?  An illusionary society?  Of course a society is just as illusionary as a state, perhaps more so.  So a statist society would be twice as imaginary as a state.  I also guess that all the taxes I pay are illusionary too.  Along with the imaginary government agents who knock on my door asking why I haven't paid any taxes. 

What would be the point of voting even?  Voting to do what?  Voting to influence an imaginary system?  What favorable direction can you possibly move an imaginary thing towards?  Make it even more imaginary?   

[Vitruvian]

Besides, your question presupposes that I think voting is wrong at all.

"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding on dinner."

This isn't wrong enough for you?  Thousands of people, including myself, have heard you say that phrase on-air, yet you defend the democratic process of electoral politics viz. your girlfriend, Julia.  Do you not see the contradiction?

[buzzard]

Besides working to eliminate the State here, we're also doing pretty well at setting up voluntary structures that hopefully would be what people would use and rely on after the State is gone—homeschooling, an informal economy based on precious metals and barter, bearing arms for one's own self-defense, networks of friends supporting and defending one another, and so on. Is this something you're participating in, or are you only maybe sitting around and pondering this, even?

  I'm only on page 3 or 4 but this is what I came here for~!

I'll also add this to the original poster V: while my ideals (and probably many other's here as well ) far exeed what's being offered to us by any candidate for office, Ron Paul, to me, is the only person that stands for something OTHER than the status quo . . . every other out there is part of the same pile. But there has to be a direction to go as long as there still is a peaceful one to choose.

The day will most likey arrive when there will be no choice for anyone but to fend for themselves against those in "power" that will arrive at YOUR door too to litterally either imprison you or kill you.

STAND WITH US or fall on your own is how I see it. I think the 2nd American Revolution is what we are already part of. Whether we are carrying arsenals now or later is irrelevant. We are in THE REVOLUTION now~1

Whatcha gonna DO~?