Politics is an immoral dead-end

[Russell Kanning]

So when you vote .... does anything happen? Are you hoping something will happen? Are you responsible in a tiny way for what ensues? If not ... how do you separate yourself from it?

The State is dead.

but it depends on the definition of the word "is".

[anthonybpugh]

What if it is the living dead? 

[MaineShark]

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.

I thought you were the world's foremost expert on this subject, and knew everything there was to know, having forgotten more than most of us will ever know?

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?
...
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.

The modern meaning is no different from the classical meaning.  The only ones who claim that "State" is a synonym for "government" are the statists, who try to modify the public's ability to think about these concepts by distorting the language (ala 1984).

Joe

[anthonybpugh]

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.

I thought you were the world's foremost expert on this subject, and knew everything there was to know, having forgotten more than most of us will ever know?

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?
...
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.

The modern meaning is no different from the classical meaning.  The only ones who claim that "State" is a synonym for "government" are the statists, who try to modify the public's ability to think about these concepts by distorting the language (ala 1984).

Joe

I am starting to wonder if you engage in these petty personal attacks in order to cover up the fact that you are ignorant.   
. 
State is synonymous with government.  They are used interchangeably all the time.  It isn't a result of some conspiracy or intentional distortion by statists to manipulate the public.  That is just silly.  It is also funny since the term is used in the same way by statists and libertarians alike. 

http://www.mises.org/etexts/intellectuals.asp 
http://www.mises.org/story/2352

[buzzard]

Politics is an immoral dead-end

Nope . . . it's a never-ending circle

[Eli]

So when you vote .... does anything happen? Are you hoping something will happen? Are you responsible in a tiny way for what ensues? If not ... how do you separate yourself from it?

The State is dead.

but it depends on the definition of the word "is".

Generally I vote to stop things from happening.  I vote to create congressional gridlock, to see the ideas of liberty brought up in the news, to keep the fear of losing elections in incumbants.  Maybe that is all fruitless.  But I fail to see how, in trying to keep a leash on the beast, I am doing something evil.

It's not as if my vote is propping up a failing system, or preventing the growth of something new.  The idea of the state is thriving, more now than ever since Byzantium.  If the world were different, if the state were on it's last legs,  if there was a world to opt out into, then perhaps the efficacy of the tactic of voting would be more in question, but it is to me still a question of tactics rather than a question of strict morality.

[Kat Kanning]

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. 

It's the political brand activism that needs a new home.  It seems to me that we're an embarrassment/problem to the political types when they're trying to get elected or smooze with some politician.  Example:  a freestater was running for office.  I offered ad space for free for that run (this was a while back).  I was sneered at:  it was obvious the person found the Keene Free Press too politically incorrect for him to place an ad in.

For myself, I also think that political action = force, so I don't care to do anything to promote it, and don't want to engage in it.  I'm not going to be taking a magnifying glass to the forum for anything 'political' to delete.  If you want to talk about getting such and such bill passed, or so and so elected to public office, it would be better done somewhere else.  It's incompatible with what Russell and I are trying to accomplish, which is creating a voluntary society.  You aren't going to get to a free society by using unfree methods, i.e. force.  Someone posted on one of Lauren's youtube or newspaper articles, "You aren't going to force freedom on me."  It sounds funny, but it actually makes a certain amount of sense.  How can it be right to force people to have less government, if it's big government they want?  Seems to me that the only options we have, if we want a free, voluntary society, are to convince people that big government is not desirable, or to separate ourselves from those who want big government.  So far, the newspaper, civil disobedience, and demonstrations are ways we've tried of showing people that big government isn't the way to go.  I think civil disobenience is the most effective of those.  Thank goodness we have brave people like Lauren on our side!

[Eli]

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.

I thought you were the world's foremost expert on this subject, and knew everything there was to know, having forgotten more than most of us will ever know?

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?
...
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.

The modern meaning is no different from the classical meaning.  The only ones who claim that "State" is a synonym for "government" are the statists, who try to modify the public's ability to think about these concepts by distorting the language (ala 1984).

Joe

I am starting to wonder if you engage in these petty personal attacks in order to cover up the fact that you are ignorant.   
. 
State is synonymous with government.  They are used interchangeably all the time.  It isn't a result of some conspiracy or intentional distortion by statists to manipulate the public.  That is just silly.  It is also funny since the term is used in the same way by statists and libertarians alike. 

http://www.mises.org/etexts/intellectuals.asp 
http://www.mises.org/story/2352

Both of which are fictional abstractions not real things.  Look back over this thread, it is a discussion of the moral responsibility of people who act politically to increase freedom.  The existence of the state is, in my opinion, critical to any argument that links my political activism for freedom to the continued evil done by people who believe in the state.  Some people seem to believe that my vote, a) causes the state to exist, b) authorizees them  to do violence on my behalf and c) creates moral responsibility in me for the evil actions of others.  I just ain't buyin' it.

I had another question for the nonpoliticals.  Do you believe in the use of force for self defense?  This may have been discussed in a thread I never saw, if so please direct me there.  I grew up in the Church of the Brethren which demands, doctrinally, pacifism.  I feel like you guys may be coming from the same direction.  Is that accurate?  Would you, morally or tactically, eschew violence even in defense of your own life? 

[Eli]

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. 

It's the political brand activism that needs a new home.  It seems to me that we're an embarrassment/problem to the political types when they're trying to get elected or smooze with some politician.  Example:  a freestater was running for office.  I offered ad space for free for that run (this was a while back).  I was sneered at:  it was obvious the person found the Keene Free Press too politically incorrect for him to place an ad in.

For myself, I also think that political action = force, so I don't care to do anything to promote it, and don't want to engage in it.  I'm not going to be taking a magnifying glass to the forum for anything 'political' to delete.  If you want to talk about getting such and such bill passed, or so and so elected to public office, it would be better done somewhere else.  It's incompatible with what Russell and I are trying to accomplish, which is creating a voluntary society.  You aren't going to get to a free society by using unfree methods, i.e. force.  Someone posted on one of Lauren's youtube or newspaper articles, "You aren't going to force freedom on me."  It sounds funny, but it actually makes a certain amount of sense.  How can it be right to force people to have less government, if it's big government they want?  Seems to me that the only options we have, if we want a free, voluntary society, are to convince people that big government is not desirable, or to separate ourselves from those who want big government.  So far, the newspaper, civil disobedience, and demonstrations are ways we've tried of showing people that big government isn't the way to go.  I think civil disobenience is the most effective of those.  Thank goodness we have brave people like Lauren on our side!

I've never been ashamed of you, or Lauren, or Russell.  I fear for you sometimes, but I'm mighty proud of you. 

I work politically because I don't want to make it easy for the self selected government types to decide that good people like you are outsiders/dangerous/targets.  If everyone who believed in freedom dropped out and went pacifist I have no doubt we'd all be rounded up.  Some of us, tactically, need to stay involved to prevent deathcamps for pacifists.  Maybe Russell doesn't fear martyrdom, but I fear seeing my friends martyred.  That is why I stay connected.  Perhaps I don't have the courage of a martyr, but I don't believe in any heavenly reward, so that makes me value this life and those in it pretty highly.

[Russell Kanning]

some people are drawn to politics .... because it seems safer ... but it is not the path to freedom

[Russell Kanning]

Politics is an immoral dead-end

Nope . . . it's a never-ending circle

[Russell Kanning]

I am starting to wonder if you engage in these petty personal attacks in order to cover up the fact that you are ignorant. 

not ignorant .... unwilling to strike the root

[dalebert]

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?

No it's not valid. The correct answer is both are responsible. If I issue you an order to violate someone's rights with the reasonable expectation that you will follow my orders (perhaps due to the illusion of authority that has been constructed and threats to ensure your obedience like court marshal), then I have violated the NAP. If you follow the order, then you bear responsibility also. Someone on your forum argued a similar point in a thread that was in response my call into the show to Mark. He claimed that if I take a hit out on someone, i.e. hire someone to kill someone else, I haven't violated the NAP. He claims the hit-man bears the full and only responsibility. That's absurd and I hope you agree.

And J'Raxis, if an elected official doesn't do what they said they would do when you voted for them, are you going to act surprised? You knew full well that you were granting them a position of power over other people and that they could (and probably will based on experience) ignore whatever promises they made to do what you voted for them to do. If you start a fire and someone throws gasoline on it, you're BOTH freaking arsonists! Does it add anything to the debate to quibble over what percentage of the damage each of you caused?

This thread really gets at the root of why the state only grows and violence continues. NO ONE wants to claim any responsibility for their actions. We all have these elaborate justifications for doing whatever we think it takes to create the world we think everyone should live in. You believe you're causing less violence and death by voting, but in doing so, you're also choosing who dies. If you believe your vote is meaningful, then it's a choice that has consequences. You are claiming to have played a part in causing something. Are you sure you can control those consequences or are you playing with fire where other people can be burned?

A Ron Paul win may actually harm the cause of freedom. This is a long video so I realize some may not want to watch it, so I will try to summarize. His point is the state is a brutal machine that fights back. There is significant historical evidence that libertarian efforts trying to shrink it from the inside creates a retaliatory effect by special interest groups and the blame for any harm ends up on the libertarian insider and hurts the image of libertarianism. No it's not rational, but then there's nothing rational about collectivism.

Now, here's something to think about. Maybe you disagree with him. That's fine. Maybe you strongly disagree with him, but could you be wrong? Of course you might be wrong. You MAY be responsible for hurting the cause of liberty. Maybe a Ron Paul win isn't a good thing. It's certainly a possibility. Who really knows for certain? Not only are you choosing who dies, but you may actually contribute to more net harm being done by the state. Again, this is at the heart of libertarianism. We each think we know what's best and how people should live their lives, but using force to impose that on others undermines reason. A punch puts an end to any rational discussion. Force puts an end to reason.

[youtube=425,350]McNo62gpw6M[/youtube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McNo62gpw6M

[dalebert]

A punch puts an end to any rational discussion. Force puts an end to reason.

How deliciously ironic that I got smited within a minute of posting this. 

[J’raxis 270145]

Politics is an immoral dead-end

Nope . . . it's a never-ending circle

More like ...