Politics is an immoral dead-end

[anthonybpugh]

That is my strategy here.  Victory by being the tenacious. 

5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).

Seems to me 'exist' implies a independent being.

What about this definition?  for something to exist under certain circumstances would mean that it is dependent upon some preexisting variables.   

[Vitruvian]

Alright V.  I'll bite.  What set of presumptions am I adopting (according to you and Bob LeFevre) when I vote?

Presumptions of the voter:
1.  An election, in which the majority rules, is a morally acceptable method of decision-making.
2.  In a fair election, some person, unknown at the outset, will garner more votes than any other and will then assume a position of power.
3.  This person will be acknowledged by all participants to be the legitimate "heir to the throne," per the majority will.
4.  Some people will necessarily be harmed if this person should choose to exercise his or her power.
5.  The results of the election will bind and affect every person, whether that person voted or not.

Also, I take issue with the statement "When we express a preference politically, we do so precisely because we intend to bind others to our will. Political voting is the legal method we have adopted and extolled for obtaining monopolies of power."   Emphasis mine.  We didn't do any such god damned thing.  Folks were voting before I was an egg and way before I was a sperm.  Again, I use voting as a way to minimize the power that very real enemies wield over me and mine.  In the case of Ron Paul, and in the lesser cases of Libertarian candidates I've voted for before, I vote because it allows me to spread the ideas of liberty through the same propaganda machine that statists use so effectively.

Regardless of the reasoning behind a person's vote, the presumptions still hold true, and, therefore, so does LeFevre's characterization of the behavior.

And you've yet fo show a link between voting and evil.  Yes people DBA government do evil things.  But those people are each their acting on their own.  How does my vote somehow attach me to the evil they do?  Further how does my lobbying for ron paul, which has opened a number of people up to ideas of liberty that they wouldn't be receptive to outside their comfort zone, contribute to the evil that people DBA government do?

When a person votes, he or she ratifies the underlying presumptions.  Doing so makes that person a willful enabler, indeed an accomplice, to the evil done by the person who assumes power.

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...

That's funny... in this interview, Konkin makes repeated references to the State as a real entity:http://www.bradspangler.com/blog/archives/610

I also find it funny that you would appeal to SEK3's opinion on the matter, after having said this:

Appeal to authority is not a proof.  It is, however, a good demonstration of the maturity of the one doing it, since it is essentially the same as the whole "the law is right, because it's the law" nonsense that statists are inclined to spout.

It was supposed to be funny, seeing as it was a joke.

I do not believe MaineShark was joking.  I will join Anthony in asking that MaineShark posts that quote here.  Also, it should be noted that MaineShark has not responded to my mention of the Konkin interview, wherein Konkin refers repeatedly to the State as a real entity (probably because it invalidates his "threat" to quote Konkin defining the State as imaginary).   

[MaineShark]

I am asking for a more authoritative source for several reasons.  You said before that you should post something from Konkin.  Is that where you arrived at the belief that the state does not exist?  If that is, then please share it.  If not, then post whatever source caused you to arrive at that conclusion.

As already stated, the comment about Konkin was a joke.

Another reason I asked for another source is so that I can evaluate it.  I have frequently come across cases where someone is commenting on something another author wrote and they make a mistake.  They either do not grasp a vital concept, they misinterpreted the meaning.  There have been a few times where someone has misunderstood the meaning just because they overlooked one word.

I'm not commenting on something that another author wrote, so this is meaningless.

Another reason is because it is a good way of dealing with a lot of dubious claims.  A person can go and say almost anything but it is not until that person can back it  up with some source or evidence that they can be taken more seriously.  If a claim is credible, then it should be safe to assume that it would be relatively easy to back that claim up with outside information.  If I am skeptical of any claim, the first thing I try to do is verify it with another source.

Then why don't you do that?  Sqrebel posted several.

You posted a source which agreed with my definition.

Saying, "someone else also says this" does not back up a claim.  Claims are backed up by logic and evidence, not democracy.

Another reason is also associated with another point you raised.  Different people have different ways of explaining the same thing.  You can attempt to explain a simple concept to someone and spend hours without getting any headway yet they can go to someone else and understand it in under 5 minutes.  It isn't that I am unable to understand the ideas that you are trying to communicate.  It could simply be that you are not explaining it in a fashion which I can understand and I can more easily understand it if it were explained to me in a different manner.

I hardly imagine it could be explained any simpler than I have already.

Presumptions of the voter:
1.  An election, in which the majority rules, is a morally acceptable method of decision-making.
2.  In a fair election, some person, unknown at the outset, will garner more votes than any other and will then assume a position of power.
3. This person will be acknowledged by all participants to be the legitimate "heir to the throne," per the majority will.

I don't presume any of those things while voting.

You also have never addressed my "none of the above" votes...

4.  4. Some people will necessarily be harmed if this person should choose to exercise his or her power.
5.  The results of the election will bind and affect every person, whether that person voted or not.

That will happen, regardless of voting.  The Soviets never won a "fair" election.  They still murdered tens of millions.

I do not believe MaineShark was joking.

Your beliefs don't modify reality.  Anyone with basic English comprehension can see that the comment is hyperbolic, stating that you would not accept the words even of someone you view as an authority, if they disagreed with your preconceived notions.  As a secondary, it is also a quip regarding your willful misrepresentation of the meaning of words, in that such a quote would have to be manufactured, much as you conveniently manufacture "definitions" for words which in no way match their actual definitions.

I will join Anthony in asking that MaineShark posts that quote here.  Also, it should be noted that MaineShark has not responded to my mention of the Konkin interview, wherein Konkin refers repeatedly to the State as a real entity (probably because it invalidates his "threat" to quote Konkin defining the State as imaginary).

Kindly quote exactly where in that interview Konkin refers to the State as a real entity.  Not that it will matter, since I don't view Konkin as an authority, but if you are going to cite a source, you should cite it properly before whining about it being ignored.

Joe

[srqrebel]

So given the above understanding srq, does that change the idea that voting is violence for you at all.  And forgive me but after 40 odd pages I can't seem to remember which side of that part of the debate you are on. 

Actually, it does not in any way affect my views on voting.

I would certainly not characterize voting as directly engaging in violence.  Here are my thoughts on how the issue of violence plays into it, (though there are additional reasons I now strongly object to voting):

It makes sense to me that voting constitutes delegating the initiation of force, which force is in turn used to violate the rights of others.  If voting only had an impact on oneself, it would clearly be moral.  Since it also affects the lives of others, because political voting always results in imposing the will of the majority on the individual, I do not see how it can be considered morally right.

I might add that by "will of the majority" I mean the majority of voting individuals, not a mystical "supreme collective will".

What my new, improved understanding of the traditional usage of the term "State" does for me, is give me a very valuable insight into how others (probably a majority of individuals) think -- and allows me to tailor my message to them accordingly.

It also gives me greater optimism for achieving a free-market based society in a reasonable time frame: If the criminal empire we call government is supported chiefly by an illusion, rather than sheer might, it is a much weaker enemy than I previously thought.  Illusions are easier to overcome than fear.

[Kat Kanning]

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.

This was one of the statements that made me so sad and made me finally agree with Russell that we couldn't co-exist with the politics.  I don't mean to pick on the author, cause I really like him. 

[srqrebel]

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.

I'm not sure where the above quote was taken from, but I have observed that line of reasoning a lot, and strongly object to it.

No one is responsible for anything by default, unless they have entered into an agreement to that effect.  If my neighbor has contracted with me to shield me from "excessive" property taxes, including through political means, and then abstains from voting, one could argue that he has defaulted on his responsibility to me (though by voting, he would ostensibly affect other property owners who have not contracted with him -- and that not by default, but in exactly the same way as his vote affects me).

Please do not attempt to saddle me with a guilt trip for "defaulting" on a responsibility that does not exist.

[Faber]

Kids are starving in Africa, and since you're not helping them enough to my satisfaction, you are, by default, killing them.  Please stop killing babies

[Eli]

That is my strategy here.  Victory by being the tenacious. 

5. To be present under certain circumstances or in a specified place; occur: "Wealth and poverty exist in every demographic category" (Thomas G. Exter).
Seems to me 'exist' implies a independent being.

What about this definition?  for something to exist under certain circumstances would mean that it is dependent upon some preexisting variables.   

Nice. Using the word in the definition.  I guess we're going to argue over what the definition of 'is' is. ;-)  "To be present" is what the definition says.  The presence of the state, much like the presence of the holy spirit, is an article of faith not one of reason.  When, under what circumstances, is the state, rather than individuals harboring a belief in the state, present?

It seems to me that you believe there is a state... though you have been unable to show me (i'll admit the fault might be mine, I can't see the holy spirit in the world do though some people I respect say they can)  but all I see is individuals with an individual responsibility to do the right thing, and the moral responsibility if they do the wrong thing.

[Eli]

Alright V.  I'll bite.  What set of presumptions am I adopting (according to you and Bob LeFevre) when I vote?

Presumptions of the voter:
1.  An election, in which the majority rules, is a morally acceptable method of decision-making.
2.  In a fair election, some person, unknown at the outset, will garner more votes than any other and will then assume a position of power.
3.  This person will be acknowledged by all participants to be the legitimate "heir to the throne," per the majority will.
4.  Some people will necessarily be harmed if this person should choose to exercise his or her power.
5.  The results of the election will bind and affect every person, whether that person voted or not.

Who is this abstracted voter who has these assumptions.  Not I.  I presume that it is a rigged game.  That the actual power shifts not at all.  That people are responsible for their own acts.  I presume none of these things. 

[Eli]

Do you believe that I am responsible for anyone else's actions other than my own?

I like to keep things really simple. There are two core systems in reality:

1. Individualism
2. Collectivism

Anyone who says that I am somehow responsible for the actions of others by the mere act of voting, eating, shitting, sleeping, living, breathing, buying, selling, etc. is a collectivist.

Collectivists seek to control.

Anyone who says I'm responsible for my own actions and no one else's, and by the same token agrees that any individual, despite claims to some unseen authority otherwise, is responsible for their own ultimate actions...is an individualist.

Individualists seek to liberate.

[/quote]

Thank you.  That crystalizes it a bit for me.  There is no collective.  No State that somehow redistributes the responsibility for the evil actions of some onto others. 

[J’raxis 270145]

No one is responsible for anything by default, unless they have entered into an agreement to that effect.

And this is why I disagree with Vitruvian's assertion that I'm responsible for the actions of a politician for whom I voted. (I can agree with the statement that I'm partly responsible for actions that I knew in advance he would engage in, but beyond that, responsibility for his actions rests solely with him.)

[buzzard]

Kids are starving in Africa, and since you're not helping them enough to my satisfaction, you are, by default, killing them.  Please stop killing babies

My vote is for feeding some babies . . . and I wouldn't mind a few nibbles too please~!

[Faber]

Kids are starving in Africa, and since you're not helping them enough to my satisfaction, you are, by default, killing them.  Please stop killing babies

My vote is for feeding some babies . . . and I wouldn't mind a few nibbles too please~!

Feel free to put your money where your mouth is . . . or where their mouth is   Just don't point a gun and make me feed them to make you feel better.

[buzzard]

I like to keep things really simple. There are two core systems in reality:

WOW~! Only two~? I beg ta differ . . . I wake up to a new one every single day. Plus every person I meet seems to have 6 or 7 of their own. It's pure caos I tell ya~!

[Eli]

So given the above understanding srq, does that change the idea that voting is violence for you at all.  And forgive me but after 40 odd pages I can't seem to remember which side of that part of the debate you are on. 

Actually, it does not in any way affect my views on voting.

I would certainly not characterize voting as directly engaging in violence.  Here are my thoughts on how the issue of violence plays into it, (though there are additional reasons I now strongly object to voting):

It makes sense to me that voting constitutes delegating the initiation of force, which force is in turn used to violate the rights of others.  If voting only had an impact on oneself, it would clearly be moral.  Since it also affects the lives of others, because political voting always results in imposing the will of the majority on the individual, I do not see how it can be considered morally right.

I might add that by "will of the majority" I mean the majority of voting individuals, not a mystical "supreme collective will".

What my new, improved understanding of the traditional usage of the term "State" does for me, is give me a very valuable insight into how others (probably a majority of individuals) think -- and allows me to tailor my message to them accordingly.

It also gives me greater optimism for achieving a free-market based society in a reasonable time frame: If the criminal empire we call government is supported chiefly by an illusion, rather than sheer might, it is a much weaker enemy than I previously thought.  Illusions are easier to overcome than fear.

Thanks. SQR that helps keep your position in my head.  Doesn't the delgation of the use of force, in your opinion,  require intent?  Does voting somehow strip my use of force from me and delegate it to another absent my intent to do so?

As far as majorities, well thats not how it works in this system, but that is neither here nor there.  On that note though I wonder what information you think a vote conveys that could constitute a common will that might be translated into action that voters are commonly, despite how they individually feel about the acts of government after the vote, be responsible for.