Politics is an immoral dead-end

[Jacobus]

Your example works well in a situation where the victim and the agressor come to an agreement about amends and all parties voluntarily pursue it.  In this situation there is no use of force required to compel restitution. 

But what about the situation where the agressor does not voluntarily agree to amends, or even does not agree that he did anything wrong?  Is it then just to force restitution?  And if yes, what is the correct restitution?

For whom to force restitution?

Joe

The victim, either directly or through a surrogate (e.g. a court system with enforcement officers).

[MaineShark]

Your example works well in a situation where the victim and the agressor come to an agreement about amends and all parties voluntarily pursue it.  In this situation there is no use of force required to compel restitution. 

But what about the situation where the agressor does not voluntarily agree to amends, or even does not agree that he did anything wrong?  Is it then just to force restitution?  And if yes, what is the correct restitution?

For whom to force restitution?

The victim, either directly or through a surrogate (e.g. a court system with enforcement officers).

The victim has the right to force restitution to be made.  He could also contract with others to assist him, if they were willing.  No "court" could just decide to act, of its own accord, against the wishes of the victim (which is the current system, where crimes are considered to be "against the State").  No "court" could forcibly maintain a monopoly on such services, either.

Joe

[Caleb]

I do not violate the non-aggression principle by paying taxes to it under duress, nor by voicing my preferences for the organization's leadership.

I agree that an act, such as the paying of taxes, cannot be moral or immoral when one is forced at gunpoint to act.  However, as we have discussed in this thread already, the act of voting is a different animal because it is freely chosen.

Voicing an opinion is not an aggressive act.

Joe

Imagine a scenario where a Mafia Don is approached by his minions, who are holding a captive. The Mafia Don is asked, "What do you want us to do with him?" He says "Kill him." The minions then proceed to kill the captive.

Is voicing his opinion an aggressive act? I realize there are hard-core libertarians who will say, "No, the Don is not responsible the killers are."  That is a level of hardheaded stubbornness (dare I say stupidity) that I feel unmotivated to refute.

An opinion is more than an opinion when we have reason to expect that others will implement our "opinion".

[Russell Kanning]

Tolstoy offers a way out of this dilemma, so that our ideas (carried out in theory at least) do not inevitably lead to physical conflict and violence.     

so true Jacobus ... this is the solution that takes care of what Ethan was talking about .... choose the path that is both moral and will not "aggress" against those who do not agree with you

[Russell Kanning]

I agree that an act, such as the paying of taxes, cannot be moral or immoral when one is forced at gunpoint to act.

but would it be better if you didn't pay?

I do agree about the voting ..... it is very voluntary ... it is easy to avoid.

[ethanpooley]

but would it be better if you didn't pay?

Yes, it would. I think it is very admirable, just not obligatory.

[MaineShark]

Imagine a scenario where a Mafia Don is approached by his minions, who are holding a captive. The Mafia Don is asked, "What do you want us to do with him?" He says "Kill him." The minions then proceed to kill the captive.

Is voicing his opinion an aggressive act? I realize there are hard-core libertarians who will say, "No, the Don is not responsible the killers are."  That is a level of hardheaded stubbornness (dare I say stupidity) that I feel unmotivated to refute.

An opinion is more than an opinion when we have reason to expect that others will implement our "opinion".

An opinion and an order are two different things.

The "mafia Don" is in charge of the minions.

Not so with voters.

I agree that an act, such as the paying of taxes, cannot be moral or immoral when one is forced at gunpoint to act.

but would it be better if you didn't pay?

I do agree about the voting ..... it is very voluntary ... it is easy to avoid.

"Ease" is the new standard for morality?

Who gets to determine "ease of avoidance?"

Drive around in a car, which causes you to pay gas taxes, which you consider too difficult to avoid and, therefore, acceptable?

An Amish-person might be patiently amused that you think you "need" a car, or that life would be "difficult" without it.

Joe

[ethanpooley]

Imagine a scenario where a Mafia Don is approached by his minions, who are holding a captive. The Mafia Don is asked, "What do you want us to do with him?" He says "Kill him." The minions then proceed to kill the captive.

Is voicing his opinion an aggressive act? I realize there are hard-core libertarians who will say, "No, the Don is not responsible the killers are."  That is a level of hardheaded stubbornness (dare I say stupidity) that I feel unmotivated to refute.

An opinion is more than an opinion when we have reason to expect that others will implement our "opinion".

I agree completely. When others place themselves at our disposal and we have reason to believe that they will carry out our wishes (for whatever reason), advocacy takes on a very concrete aspect. Wielding a minion is something like wielding a gun; while, unlike a gun, the the minion could and ought to object to your commands, since you have an expectation that he will not you are attempting murder via him as a tool. I do think that the advocacy issue has to be handled very carefully by libertarians, but I do agree with you. It must be handled carefully because most people are already very fuzzy on definitions of "victim" and "force" and "proximate cause" and many would not understand where to stop.

But this is very different from voting for the Don in the first place. In your example the Don is "voting for" one specific action. When I vote for the Don, I do not necessarily advocate any of his activities, let alone any one in particular. I may believe that he is an evil tyrant and wish that I had nothing to do with him. All my vote may be saying is that I would rather be ruled by Gotti than Capone. It need not say that I wish to be ruled by either in order to make my relative preference known. I can understand that my vote might be seen by others as lending legitimacy or indicating my approval of the Don's activities. That danger is the basis of my claim that non-participation is better in some cases. But how others see things is not my responsibility. The most I can do is to explicitly state that my vote is not an endorsement, only a preference among (bad) practical options.

If I tell you that I will violate either the 2nd or 3rd amendments, but will let you choose which, surely you are not guilty of advocating the violation of the 3rd amendment when you indicate your preference for that option. A more admirable approach would be to decline to state your preference and at the same time to attempt to stop me from violating either of them, but this is not your moral duty.

[MaineShark]

It need not say that I wish to be ruled by either in order to make my relative preference known.

Exactly.  Accusing voters of legitimizing the system is like accusing a rape victim of legitimizing her rape, because she handed the rapist a condom in order to prevent getting pregnant.

She is expressing a choice among limited options (rape without a condom, versus rape with a condom).  That does not mean she endorses the fact that her options have been limited.

Joe

[Caleb]

Your analogy doesn't match, maineshark, and you know it. A woman who gives a rapist a condom is giving him something that can only make her situation better. She is not empowering him, only seeking to ameliorate her wretched condition. On the other hand, politicians are empowered by elections, so the act of voting is the act of empowering your oppressor. And there's another factor, too. A woman would have the ability to negotiate with her rapist because it is only her involved. If she negotiated something like this: "I won't put up a fight and I will let you rape me and I will also let you rape my sister, just so long as you use a condom with me" that would be immoral because her choices are subjecting other people to violence. Since your voting imperils not just you but me, it is immoral, and I'm calling you on your bullshit analogy.

Caleb

[MaineShark]

Your analogy doesn't match, maineshark, and you know it. A woman who gives a rapist a condom is giving him something that can only make her situation better. She is not empowering him, only seeking to ameliorate her wretched condition. On the other hand, politicians are empowered by elections, so the act of voting is the act of empowering your oppressor.

By what magical mechanism does that happen?  Please do tell.  I've been asking that question in this thread for many pages.

And there's another factor, too. A woman would have the ability to negotiate with her rapist because it is only her involved. If she negotiated something like this: "I won't put up a fight and I will let you rape me and I will also let you rape my sister, just so long as you use a condom with me" that would be immoral because her choices are subjecting other people to violence. Since your voting imperils not just you but me, it is immoral, and I'm calling you on your bullshit analogy.

How does voting subject others to violence?  Again, please do tell...

Joe

[Caleb]

you are kidding, right? you're not really that dense, right? I'm assuming, that since I know you to be an otherwise halfway intelligent person that this is merely an attempt to get me to debate with you, and I'm not falling for it

[MaineShark]

you are kidding, right? you're not really that dense, right? I'm assuming, that since I know you to be an otherwise halfway intelligent person that this is merely an attempt to get me to debate with you, and I'm not falling for it

Why don't you answer the questions?  They're very basic questions.  You could be the first one in this whole thread to actually answer them!  Think of the notoriety!

What is the mechanism by which these things supposedly happen...?

Joe

[Caleb]

What is the process of hiring a thug (politician), maineshark?

[MaineShark]

What is the process of hiring a thug (politician), maineshark?

I wouldn't know.  I've never had reason to try.

Why don't you just answer the question?

Joe