Politics is an immoral dead-end

[J’raxis 270145]

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.

The illustration from Leviathan is usually a good way to imagine what the State "looks like" if you ever want or need to do so. This illustration is actually particularly good in that it demonstrates all four of the terms I brought up earlier: the government (all the buildings in the foreground), the country (the land itself), the nation (the people milling about between the buildings), and the State (the larger-than-life image of the king standing over the countryside). And that's pretty much all the State really is: The king's ego writ large.

[Eli]

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. 

Kat... I don't want to assume your intent here, but based on the questions raised in other threads about political means I wanted to make sure you (and Russell) were okay with this debate here.  I've been kinda assuming you were both OK with it because you both posted, but, like I said, it's your sandbox.  Would you like me to take the pro-political talk off list? 

I'd like to give V and others the chance to convince me, and I'd like the chance to convince you and others, that political tactics aimed at a freer (and hopefully free) society are not immoral per se. 

[Eli]

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.

The illustration from Leviathan is usually a good way to imagine what the State "looks like" if you ever want or need to do so. This illustration is actually particularly good in that it demonstrates all four of the terms I brought up earlier: the government (all the buildings in the foreground), the country (the land itself), the nation (the people milling about between the buildings), and the State (the larger-than-life image of the king standing over the countryside). And that's pretty much all the State really is: The king's ego writ large.

And if you note in that picture the Leviathian or King figure is merely made up of people.  People who believe that they are extensions of the will of the sovereign.  If you look at the picture the only things there are people, material, facilities and the crosier.  No state with a separate identity. 

[Vitruvian]

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.)

I think the analogy of arson, which I will now recycle, fits nicely: when a person lights a fire, he assumes responsibility for all the damage caused by the fire, for he is its ultimate cause.

Who is this abstracted voter who has these assumptions.  Not I.

I presume none of these things.

Perhaps you do not explicitly make these presumptions, but, through your actions, you make them nonetheless.  To paraphrase what I have said previously, your frame of mind cannot influence reality, only your actions can do so.  In choosing to play the game, you accept the rules implicitly.

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 keep returning to these questions, which no one, to my knowledge, has yet answered: By voting, do you not cause the outcome of the election by some measure?  If the answer is yes, then do you not assume moral responsibility for the ensuing effects?  If the answer is no, why bother voting?  This seems, to me, to be a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

[J’raxis 270145]

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.)

If I set a fire, and someone else comes along and unexpectedly throws a can of gasoline onto it, the subsequent damage the uncontrollable blaze causes is my fault? Or this other someone's?

If I elect a politician, and once in office he unexpectedly votes in a manner I didn't support, this is my fault? Or solely the politician's?

[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~!

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.

You need to chilltf out

[John Edward Mercier]

I keep returning to these questions, which no one, to my knowledge, has yet answered: By voting, do you not cause the outcome of the election by some measure?  If the answer is yes, then do you not assume moral responsibility for the ensuing effects?  If the answer is no, why bother voting?  This seems, to me, to be a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Yes, Yes.

[srqrebel]

In a few of your examples, such as the State of New Hampshire or the State of New York the state is simply a political sub-division.  It is used in an entirely different context. 

Yes, the term State is often used in that context.  However, in the examples I gave, there appears to be more at play: Sub-divisions are used to define geographical boundaries, and boundaries don't vest authority.

I have not seen any definitions of state that included all the people under its control.  There has always been some kind of distinction between the state and the people and if the discussion is making no distinction between the government and the people they will typically use society.   

In the example I gave of the creation of the Jewish State, it compares the Jewish people to all other nations, in their own "sovereign State".

The quote from the US Declaration of Independence speaks of transforming "Colonies" into "States".  I take "colony" to mean "all the inhabitants within a geographical territory, taken as a whole".  The writers claim to act on the "the authority of the good People" (the collective will), to establish "entities" with the "right" to levy war, etc.  From this, I gather that the "States" they were "establishing" consisted of all the "good People" within specific geographic territories, taken as collectives, which have rights and wills of their own independent of the rights or will of any single individual in a collective.

"Society" would seem to refer to people in general, without distinct boundaries or membership.

You can see a lot of examples of this as well ie. 'Separation of Church and State' and 'compelling state interest' etc.  If you go through all political writings and replace the word state with government, you will not have changed the meaning at all.    Separation of church and state does not lose any meaning if you say separation of church and government or compelling government interest.  In pretty much every writing that I have ever seen on politics and in everyday usage of the word, state and government are used interchangeably. 

I agree that in the common phrase, "separation of Church and State", the term "State" is used in place of the term "government".  There are plenty of other examples of this usage, such as "People vs the State of California" (http://www.geds-to-phds.org/Approved%20to%20post%20on%20website/NOA%20survey.pdf).  Claire Wolf has a book called called, "The state vs. the people: The rise of the American police state".

This usage of the term "State" seems to have arisen relatively recently.  The traditional usage seems to refer to "the collective", comprised of all the individuals (or "good people") within a specific geographic area, with its own sovereign rights and will, administered by a government.

It would be interesting to take a poll of the general public, to see which definition of "State" prevails.

Incidentally, the only two entries for "State" in Urban Dictionary (which is a pretty good gauge of popular usage), that apply to this discussion, are the following:

4. state  10 up, 6 down 

2. A government power that acts as an authority over a geographical area. (The states in the United States of America have a federal government.)

California is a state within the United States of America

6. state  8 up, 8 down 

1. (political) A legitimized institute of criminal plunder having self-appointed and immutable power of force over all persons within its geographic boundaries.

Acting with impunity, the state will take your money, your life, and the lives of your children, unless you voluntarily offer them first.

From this, it appears that most people today may very well take the term "State" to be synonymous with "government".  Yet the traditional usage seems to refer to a "supreme collective" occupying a specific geographic area.

[Eli]

By voting, do you not cause the outcome of the election by some measure?  If the answer is yes, then do you not assume moral responsibility for the ensuing effects?  If the answer is no, why bother voting?  This seems, to me, to be a case of "damned if you do, damned if you don't."

Why bother voting... I have voted for a number of reasons?  I have voted to steer the debate in the public.  I've voted against laws.  I've voted against incumbents with a trac record of harm.  I vote because it is something I can to to arrest or slow the slide towards serfdom.  Because having done a good deal of nonviolent direct action myself when I was younger and more idealistic I have opted to do what I can to prevent fascism, which to my eyes is worse than republicanism (despite the fact that republicanism isn't my ideal.)  I find myself unwilling to trust others to do all the electing and directing of a machine that intends to enslave and kill me.  I choose to slow it's progress by any means I can, including voting, campaigning.  I refuse to let the perfect be the enemy of the, if not good, at least not worse.

[srqrebel]

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?

Certainly it requires intent.  While you cannot know specifically on whom your candidate of choice will direct the use force (if elected), I'm sure you are aware that elected officials do direct the government's use of force, which in turn affects individuals that would likely not have been affected in that way had his opponent been elected.  There is a chain of responsibility for the illegitimate use of force by individuals in the government, and when you vote, you intentionally insert yourself as a link in that "chain".  To say that the voter (delegator) bears no responsibility for the ultimate result because someone else actually ends up directing the use of government force, is like saying the elected official (director) bears no responsibility, either, because someone else ends up committing the act of aggression that was set in motion back at the voting booth.

The means do not justify the end, and you do not have any right to predictably set in motion the use force against your fellow humans, even if it will result in a greater good.  For example, just because you could be relieving me (and you, and vast numbers of other people) of the tyranny of the IRS, by being instrumental in getting Ron Paul elected as president, does not justify the intensified abuse that Ron Paul would likely direct against "illegal immigrants" just for being here peacefully without asking the government's permission.

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.

How you feel about the actions taken by an elected official after you have been instrumental in getting him elected, does not relieve you of the fact that you were intentionally instrumental in getting him into a position to take those actions in the first place.

[FTL_Ian]

Okay, after reseaching the traditional usage (not subjective dictionary definitions) of the term "the State", I think I finally understand what Error and Maineshark (and others) are speaking of when they say the State does not exist -- and when understood correctly, their argument is quite valid.

Here are several examples of the traditional usage of the term "State":

...by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.
The United States Declaration of Independence

On May 14, 1948, on the day in which the British Mandate over a Palestine expired, the Jewish People's Council gathered at the Tel Aviv Museum, and approved the following proclamation, declaring the establishment of the State of Israel...

...This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign State.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace%20Process/Guide%20to%20the%20Peace%20Process/Declaration%20of%20Establishment%20of%20State%20of%20Israel

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Ruth Ann Minner, by the authority vested in me as Governor of the State of Delaware, do hereby declare and order as follows...
http://governor.delaware.gov/orders/webexecorder27.shtml

By the authority vested in me by the State of New Hampshire, I pronounce this couple to be husband and wife. http://www.tmclark.com/JP/vows.html

It is clear from these examples that the traditional usage of the term "State" is indeed not synonymous with the traditional usage of the term "government".  Government is used to denote only the individuals that administer the imaginary "will' of the "people", and the power structure those individuals use.  The State is used to denote a fictional entity that supposedly includes all the people ("citizens") in a geographical area -- not just those who administer the "people's collective will" -- and the "will" of this imaginary "collective" ostensibly supersedes the will of any individual within such geographic area.

In short, the "State" refers to an imaginary collective, with its own "rights" and "will" independent of, and superceding, the rights and will of any individual; the "government" is merely the administrative body of the State.

The single point that I was missing all along, was that the classic definition of "the State" includes everyone within a geographic area, including me and you, whether we like it or not.  That makes the State fictional indeed, because there is no such thing as "a collective will" or "collective rights", only sovereign individuals and individual rights.

The reason this was such a blind spot for me, is that as far back as I can recall giving any thought to it, I have implicitly understood the supremacy of the individual.  Since I have never been deluded by the illusion of "the collective", it did not occur to me that most people implicitly believe in "a supreme collective".  Hence, the only definition of "State" that made sense to me was as a synonym for "government".  Also, I always tended to think of the government's claim of authority as one of "right by might", based on their monopoly on force, rather than "right by will of the collective".

Now that I understand that "State" refers to "the collective", I will revise what I stated earlier in reference to the State vs. Church analogy.

The term that corresponds to "State" (imaginary supreme collective) in this analogy is "god" (imaginary supreme ruler).

The term that corresponds to "the church" is "the government".  They both base their "authority" on an illusion.  (This is not a perfect analogy, as "the church" generally includes lay members; "the government" does not include civilians.)

Both the imaginary supreme collective called "State" and the imaginary supreme ruler called "God" are illusions used by criminal minds to illegitimately claim external authority over the sovereign individual.

This has been very educational for me, in terms of understanding what facilitates the continued existence of the criminal power structure -- specifically, that it is not their monopoly on force, but the widespread illusion of a "supreme collective will".

[FTL_Ian]

If it is true that voters bear responsibility for the violent actions of individuals calling themselves government, does this also mean the classic government thug excuse of "I was just following orders" is valid?

It seems to me that only individuals who initiate force are responsible for their actions and suggesting anything otherwise is an endorsement of collectivism.

[MaineShark]

I think the analogy of arson, which I will now recycle, fits nicely: when a person lights a fire, he assumes responsibility for all the damage caused by the fire, for he is its ultimate cause.

This is nonsensical.  The voter doesn't light a fire.  We aren't sitting here in a pleasant, anarchic society, and then John Doe Voter comes along and decides to create an aggressive government.

The system is already in place.  No voter can possibly be "lighting a fire."

Perhaps you do not explicitly make these presumptions, but, through your actions, you make them nonetheless.

Prove it.

I keep returning to these questions, which no one, to my knowledge, has yet answered:

All of them have been answered.  Stop with the drama and misdirection.

By voting, do you not cause the outcome of the election by some measure?

No.

If the answer is yes, then do you not assume moral responsibility for the ensuing effects?

No.  Your moral responsibility would be the change in effects.  If the government is exerting 15 "units" of coercion now, and is exerting 15 "units" of coercion after the election, you have not caused any change.  If you somehow increased the coercion of the government, you would bear responsibility.

If the answer is no, why bother voting?

It amuses me, maybe?  I don't have to justify actions to you, unless you can demonstrate harm.  If the answers are no, then there's no harm to justify.

Certainly it requires intent.  While you cannot know specifically on whom your candidate of choice will direct the use force (if elected), I'm sure you are aware that elected officials do direct the government's use of force, which in turn affects individuals that would likely not have been affected in that way had his opponent been elected.  There is a chain of responsibility for the illegitimate use of force by individuals in the government, and when you vote, you intentionally insert yourself as a link in that "chain".  To say that the voter (delegator) bears no responsibility for the ultimate result because someone else actually ends up directing the use of government force, is like saying the elected official (director) bears no responsibility, either, because someone else ends up committing the act of aggression that was set in motion back at the voting booth.

The means do not justify the end, and you do not have any right to predictably set in motion the use force against your fellow humans, even if it will result in a greater good.  For example, just because you could be relieving me (and you, and vast numbers of other people) of the tyranny of the IRS, by being instrumental in getting Ron Paul elected as president, does not justify the intensified abuse that Ron Paul would likely direct against "illegal immigrants" just for being here peacefully without asking the government's permission.

Are you implying that the government would stop initiating force against the populace, if no one voted?

If there is no net positive change in the level of oppression, define what harm the voter caused, for which he should be morally responsible.

If I punch the air, I haven't harmed someone, despite the fact that punching is generally considered to be a violent act.  Actions have no moral standing, out of context.  The absolute first step is to demonstrate harm, before one can even decide whether that harm is the result of some person's actions, let alone that the actions constitute an initiation of force.

Unless someone votes to increase the scope of government, what harm can you demonstrate?

Joe

[Eli]

While I haven't always agreed with Joe's tone I have to agree with this point, I don't see a causal link between voting and harm.  Especially since, generally speaking the harm is done anyway, whether or not I vote.


SQR,  I liked the point about 'illegal immigrants,' though I'm not sure that RP would do more harm than is being done (though he might intend to, I'll concede).  Is a shareholder responsible for a CEO's fraud?   Is a gun manufacturer responsible for murders with a gun?  Is a voter qualitatively different than these two?

[anthonybpugh]

The fact that someone can find a minor act [voting] which is simply one part in a long chain of events which can possibly lead to the commission of violence and coercion is somehow equivalent to actual violence is just a simple lack of perspective. 
-----------------
Sqrebel,

I can debate whether you have the correct interpretation of how the word state has traditionally been used.  I honestly do not feel like research that issue so I won't.  There is always a tendency of politicians to refer to WE when they are talking about things the government does.  it is always statements like America will do this...or WE will not do that when they are only speaking for the government.  There is a strong tendency of those in power to see no difference between themselves and society.  This becomes more difficult when you start adding in the different theories of democracy whereby it is a 'government of, for and by the people.  Your examples is anecdotal evidence and while it doesn't necessarily disprove your assertion, neither does it prove them. 

but in any case, i will accept your assertion about its traditional usage for this discussion.   

Does it really matter?  The meaning of words change.  If the meaning of a word changed, would it not be reasonable to use the modern usage instead of the traditional?  For example.  The traditional meaning of gay is happy.  and the traditional meaning of the word faggot is a bundle of sticks.  They still mean those but does anyone use them in that way?  If the modern meaning of state is different from the traditional meaning than I will use the modern meaning since it will result in being understood by most people.