Politics is an immoral dead-end

[srqrebel]

If you doubt the integrity of your debating opponent, my advice is to withdraw.  If you don't think your debating opponent has an interest in a mutual exploration of truth, you should consider withdrawing.  That's why I had to stop participating in this thread.  It's not that the issues aren't important, I think they are.  But discussing them can only be worth the effort if all parties approach the issue with a good-faith intention to reach a mutual understanding of the truth.

Precisely!

+1

[Russell Kanning]

I agree completely.  This thread has deviated from its original purpose.

You can ignore the people that are dragging you off topic .... press on my good man ... press on

[srqrebel]

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?

The corollary to "the State" in this analogy is "the Church".

The corollary to "external authority" in this analogy is "god".

I would not claim to "in fact believe that gods exist, but only dependent upon the priests that conjure them up", just as I would not claim to believe that "external authority exists, but only dependent upon the statists that conjure it up".

Rather, the claim is simply that the State is an institution that is exactly as real as the individuals and machinery it is comprised of, while the notion of external authority that underpins this institution is mythical.  It follows that the institution itself, and the power it wields, is invalid, not unreal.

Likewise, the Church is an institution that is exactly as real as the individuals and machinery it is comprised of, while the notion of an external god that underpins this institution is mythical.  It follows that the institution itself, and the influence it wields, is invalid, not unreal.

The myth of "external authority" is not synonymous with "the State", any more than the myth of "an external god" is synonymous with "the Church".  "External authority" and "an external god" are merely the mythical justifications for these very real constructs.

To further illustrate, if all of the individuals who accept the myth of "external authority" tried to act individually to impose their "laws" on others, and punish those who do not submit, they would not get far.  Currently, however, individuals who act on this myth are quite effective at imposing their "laws" on others -- or else.  Their power to do so is real, because they have a real structure for that purpose at their disposal.  Yet this power, and the structure that makes it possible, is invalid, because the premise of "external authority" that is used to justify it is invalid.

That structure is the State, by my definition.


PS - No offense intended to my theist friends

[MaineShark]

That structure is the State, by my definition.

The problem, of course, is that the structure you refer to is the government, not the State.  Conflating the two terms is pointless.

Joe

[srqrebel]

The point of contention here is not philosophical, but interpretational.

Because of extremely persistent differences in interpretation of the term "State", and because the current power structure dictates rather than governs, I am considering using the term "individuals dba government".

It could be called the idbag for short

Hey, I might be on to something here.  Anyone up for a new word?

[Eli]

I agree completely.  This thread has deviated from its original purpose.

You can ignore the people that are dragging you off topic .... press on my good man ... press on

I've been trying to discuss in good faith but I think maybe V has me on ignore.  I'm beginning to seriously doubt his good faith.

[MaineShark]

I've been trying to discuss in good faith but I think maybe V has me on ignore.  I'm beginning to seriously doubt his good faith.

Indeed.  Anyone who cannot discuss things without using a computer to screen his incoming messages cannot be acting on good faith.  "La, la, la, I only want to hear things that agree with me!"

Joe

[shyfrog]

The State is a particular form of governance which does all those things you just described, but also asserts a "right" to initiate force against those who do not choose to participate.  That's when you get the shift from "government" to "State."

The word dominion in the Wikipedia definition implies the use of force.  Dominion is defined as "the power or right of governing and controlling; sovereign authority" (from http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=dominion).

I am an individual. I have the power and right to control what is mine. Sovereign as it were.

Any political association with effective dominion over a geographic area is a State.  Therefore, States do exist, Q.E.D.

I just voted myself ruler over the things I own. I own property. It is a geographic area. Welcome to my State.

Now that this side issue is settled, we can return to the original topic, that of participation in a State-sponsored political system.

Your original statement called the participation in State-sponsored political systems evil. Do you believe that property (land) ownership is inherently evil? Are you also a Georgist?

I even tried to steer it back...or at least uncover some truth.
But I'm honestly not interested anymore. One too many backflips, backpedals, and backdoors.

[MaineShark]

I wonder if I should quote Konkin using the same definition for "State" that I have?  Not that it would do any good, with folks who are determined to twist the world to fit their skewed minds, rather than accepting objective reality...

Joe

[J’raxis 270145]

srqrebel, are you aware your own signature quote refers to the State as fictitious?

"The State is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."   - Frédéric Bastiat

[srqrebel]

srqrebel, are you aware your own signature quote refers to the State as fictitious?

"The State is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."   - Frédéric Bastiat

Good observation, Jeremy! 

I've always thought of the fictitious aspect of it as being the authority of the State, not the institution itself.  Obviously, Bastiat refers to the entity itself as fictitious.

I get the feeling that reading up on Bastiat might shed some light on this interpretation.  None of what has been said here resonates with my understanding of usage of the term, though I have always recognized the fictional quality of the State's authority.

Guess I'll go read Bastiat now

[shyfrog]

srqrebel, are you aware your own signature quote refers to the State as fictitious?

"The State is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else."   - Frédéric Bastiat

Good observation, Jeremy! 

I've always thought of the fictitious aspect of it as being the authority of the State, not the institution itself.  Obviously, Bastiat refers to the entity itself as fictitious.

I get the feeling that reading up on Bastiat might shed some light on this interpretation.  None of what has been said here resonates with my understanding of usage of the term, though I have always recognized the fictional quality of the State's authority.

Guess I'll go read Bastiat now

My daughter "borrowed" my copy of "The Law" and it hasn't come back

[Russell Kanning]

It is online also.

[Eli]

The fictitious nature of the state is exactly what The Law is about, that and broken windows .  There is no state in reality.  There is a belief in the state, which has a great effect in the world, making people act as if there were a state.  But that does not mean that there is a state.  There are people who act as though there is a state, who pretend to take orders from it and act on it's behalf.  But there are only people who act on their own moral authority. 

So, for like the third time,  while I understand disagreeing with the tactic of voting, if there is no state, but merely individuals acting on their own moral authority, how can my vote be immoral?  Does my vote make any government offical, even one I vote for, act immorrally. 

V, I invite you to convince me.  I'll put my next vote on the line here.  If you can convince me before January, I'll stay home from the primaries.  I expect you to make an honest attempt.  Otherwise, I'm going to go and vote for Ron Paul in the MD primary because, as far as I can see, taking a step that has a chance of mitigating real harm is more moral than standing aside and convincing just the people I have ready access to that theft and force are inappropriate ways to run a society. <Throws down gauntlet, glibly>

[anthonybpugh]

I wonder if I should quote Konkin using the same definition for "State" that I have?  Not that it would do any good, with folks who are determined to twist the world to fit their skewed minds, rather than accepting objective reality...

Joe

Please quote Konkin.  I asked you to provide a source specifically because I wanted to see some sources that supports the assertion that the state is a myth.  I do not disagree with the rest of the definition.  Wikipedia and Auburn differ only in wording not meaning.   Hell, the only reason that wikipedia and auburn and whatever definitions have been brought into this in the first place was because I wanted to challenge the notion that the state does not exist.  I could care less about the rest of whatever either of them said.  You know what?  You won that debate.  Congratulations.  You won a debate on the internet.  You should be proud.  Of course you know what they say about winning a debate on the internet. 

This is not about having skewed minds or refusal to accept objective reality, a charge which could just as easily apply to you as it could to me.  Skewed minds my ass.  I forgot more about this subject than you'll ever know. 

It is also pathetic that some of the people who are accusing others of not acting in good faith are then talking shit about other people.  Where is the good faith in that?  Perhaps you were put on ignore because you were obnoxious.  Perhaps this has nothing to do with having skewed minds or refusal to accept reality but because we all think for ourselves and have different opinions.  It is rather idiotic to accuse people of holding different views of being skewed and not having good faith.