Politics is an immoral dead-end

[John Edward Mercier]

I have a question. Wouldn't a non-participating anarchist need to absolve themselves of any statist supplied benefit?

Most try to do just that, although with the level of statist involvement in our lives, it can be a difficult job even determining all the ways that the State is attempting to provide a "benefit", and many feel, (like myself) that if the state has stolen my money to provide a certain service, then I have already paid for that service, and am entitled to use the benefit. An example would be the fact that they stole my money at the pump for roads, so I can use the roads. I may not like it, I may wish it was different, but I am not causing the oppression, merely attempting to live my life as best I can in spite of it.

I unfortunately made the assumption that non-participating meant complete avoidance of taxation. Like refusing to drive to avoid gas taxes. I assumed those paying taxes were under the second option... contingently-participating anarchists.

[Caleb]

I don't break the world up into "non-participating anarchists" vs "contingently participating anarchists". We are all part of this world, which unfortunately includes a massive system of oppression that is impossible to completely avoid. The question for every person, anarchist or no, is whether he is contributing to the system, or resisting it. Is he empowering it, or making it more difficult for it to maintain itself. Is he part of the problem or part of the solution. The only way to completely avoid any form of the oppressive system would be to become a hermit, live off the land in isolation. But that wouldn't really be working to overcome the system now, would it? I like the Christian concept of "in the world, but apart from it."

Maineshark, you're just talking nonsense. Sorry, but your aids/cancer analogy is ... well, pathetic would be a nice word. Would you do me the favor of explaining to me which parts of your analogy fit which real life scenario. Explain your parable, please. Because it's not making sense to me at all. Nothing is matching up. Is not voting AIDS and voting "cancer" or is it vice versa?

Let's go back to the only thing you said that made any sense:  Is voting *more* than just expressing an opinion. In other words, let's say you ask me, "Hey Caleb, do you think Rudy Giuliani would be worse than Hillary Clinton?" And I give you my opinion. Is voting just like that? Well, is there any chance that if I give you my opinion, it would be implemented? Of course not. But is there a chance that the winner of the election will be the next President? Damn near certain, unless there's a coup or something. So I think you have the answer to your question. Like I said earlier, an opinion is more than an opinion when an individual has reason to believe it will be implemented.

And let's not forget this: At your heart, you KNOW that voting is more than just an opinion. For those who are working within the system, they are counting on the fact that voting is more of an opinion because they hope to use the voting system as a trojan horse against the system. But what I'm trying to show you is that voting is always counterproductive, because as your success increases, so does your culpability. If you vote for Ron Paul, your culpability may be low, but so is your success. As your success increases (let's say Ron Paul wins) so does your culpability. So either way, you lose. You are either unsuccessful, or else you are responsible for my oppression. You can't wiggle your way out by saying that the oppression is less than it otherwise might have been, because one is real and the other is only hypothetical. You still directly chose the instrument of my oppression. More than chose, in fact: it was part of your plan all along to oppress me by choosing an instrument that you hope will be less oppressive than another. If you thought that voting was completely ineffective, you wouldn't bother to do it, so you belie your claim that it isn't a causal factor in the decision. The fact that it IS a causal factor is its very appeal.

Caleb

[kola]

Caleb, I admire your patience in *trying* to discuss anything with Joe.

You do make some excellent points and have made me re-think some of my opinions. Thanks,

Kola

[MaineShark]

Maineshark, you're just talking nonsense. Sorry, but your aids/cancer analogy is ... well, pathetic would be a nice word. Would you do me the favor of explaining to me which parts of your analogy fit which real life scenario. Explain your parable, please. Because it's not making sense to me at all. Nothing is matching up. Is not voting AIDS and voting "cancer" or is it vice versa?

I'll use small words...

If you are healthy, and you contract AIDS, that's devastating.  This would be the equivalent of someone coming to an anarchic society and imposing "democracy" on them.

If you are already dying, and you contract something lethal like AIDS, but your current illness is so acute that you will die before the AIDS has an effect, then contracting AIDS has no measurable change, now does it?

This is extremely simple stuff.

Let's imagine that James Doe and John Smith are both running for Emperor of Earth.  Doe intents to exterminate 50% of the population.  Smith intends to exterminate 55% of the population.  If you stay home and don't vote, one of them will still take power, and at least 50% of the population of the planet will die.

Explain how you imagine that voting for Doe (and thereby saving 5% of the planet's population from extermination) can conceivably be the cause of the 50% extermination.  That will (at minimum) happen regardless of your vote.

Let's go back to the only thing you said that made any sense:  Is voting *more* than just expressing an opinion. In other words, let's say you ask me, "Hey Caleb, do you think Rudy Giuliani would be worse than Hillary Clinton?" And I give you my opinion. Is voting just like that? Well, is there any chance that if I give you my opinion, it would be implemented? Of course not. But is there a chance that the winner of the election will be the next President? Damn near certain, unless there's a coup or something. So I think you have the answer to your question. Like I said earlier, an opinion is more than an opinion when an individual has reason to believe it will be implemented.

You've demonstrated that voting (may) cause a particular individual to attain a particular office.  That does not demonstrate that voting causes that office to exist.

And let's not forget this: At your heart, you KNOW that voting is more than just an opinion. For those who are working within the system, they are counting on the fact that voting is more of an opinion because they hope to use the voting system as a trojan horse against the system. But what I'm trying to show you is that voting is always counterproductive, because as your success increases, so does your culpability. If you vote for Ron Paul, your culpability may be low, but so is your success. As your success increases (let's say Ron Paul wins) so does your culpability. So either way, you lose. You are either unsuccessful, or else you are responsible for my oppression. You can't wiggle your way out by saying that the oppression is less than it otherwise might have been, because one is real and the other is only hypothetical. You still directly chose the instrument of my oppression. More than chose, in fact: it was part of your plan all along to oppress me by choosing an instrument that you hope will be less oppressive than another. If you thought that voting was completely ineffective, you wouldn't bother to do it, so you belie your claim that it isn't a causal factor in the decision. The fact that it IS a causal factor is its very appeal.

It's a causal factor in who holds that office.  Who does the oppressing.  Not the fact that the oppression will happen.

Your claim that another possible outcome is only hypothetical makes no sense.  Hypothetically, if I see a brush fire approaching my house and I just walk away, it might stop burning on its own.  Hypothetically.  I'm still going to grab my garden hose and help ensure that result.

Joe

[Caleb]

Yeah, this is some pretty basic stuff, and I think your problem, Joe, is not so large that about two hours with Leo Tolstoy couldn't clear it up. You continue to see a difference between an "office" and the person who holds an office. As Tolstoy would help you see, this is an illusion, and in fact, it is the only reason that otherwise decent people can do horrible things. Namely, they see themselves as something more than just a human being interacting with another human being. They see themselves as emperors, judges, kings, soldiers, etc instead of viewing themselves as just human beings interacting with other human beings. The "office" is just an illusion in the head of those who imagine that the office is something important.

So when you admit that you do choose an individual for an office, there is no difference. It is the individual who will work the harm. The "office" in itself is meaningless. If you work actively to assist the election of a person whose plan is to exterminate half the population, yes, you are guilty. Even if there was someone else who might have been worse. And you can't use tiny enough words to make that reality go away.

[MaineShark]

Yeah, this is some pretty basic stuff, and I think your problem, Joe, is not so large that about two hours with Leo Tolstoy couldn't clear it up. You continue to see a difference between an "office" and the person who holds an office.

Absolutely.  The office is a fictional construct.  The individual holding it is flesh and blood.  They are two separate and distinct things.

As Tolstoy would help you see, this is an illusion, and in fact, it is the only reason that otherwise decent people can do horrible things.

Decent people cannot do horrible things.  That's what differentiates decency and good from evil.

Namely, they see themselves as something more than just a human being interacting with another human being. They see themselves as emperors, judges, kings, soldiers, etc instead of viewing themselves as just human beings interacting with other human beings. The "office" is just an illusion in the head of those who imagine that the office is something important

Good, you've admitted that the office is illusory.  Since the individual holding it is not illusory, you've already demonstrated your own claim to be false.

So when you admit that you do choose an individual for an office, there is no difference. It is the individual who will work the harm. The "office" in itself is meaningless. If you work actively to assist the election of a person whose plan is to exterminate half the population, yes, you are guilty. Even if there was someone else who might have been worse. And you can't use tiny enough words to make that reality go away.

We've already established that the harm will occur, regardless.  You're attempting to demonstrate some sort of effect-less cause.  A cause cannot just sit there, with no effect to its name.  What effect does voting for Doe have?  None.  If you don't vote for Doe, 50% of the population will be killed.  If you vote for Doe, 50% of the population will be killed.  What effect did voting have?

Joe

[Caleb]

I think your statement about supporting a guy who plans to kill half the population, and that you don't find that immoral, pretty much makes a good conclusion to this discussion. By now, any moral person with love in their heart should be able to see what options are moral, and which are immoral. I don't think I have anything more to add to this discussion.

[MaineShark]

I think your statement about supporting a guy who plans to kill half the population, and that you don't find that immoral, pretty much makes a good conclusion to this discussion. By now, any moral person with love in their heart should be able to see what options are moral, and which are immoral. I don't think I have anything more to add to this discussion.

You didn't have anything to add to this discussion, when you started posting in it.

You're still imagining that voting is equal to support.  It is not.  You expect others to just go along with your beliefs, "just because."  It doesn't work that way.  You can't demonstrate any actual connection between the two.  Because, of course, there isn't any.

It's asinine for someone like yourself who claims (proudly) to have no ability to distinguish good from evil to talk about having love in his heart.  We've been over this before.  You imagine that claiming love for someone allows you to violate his or her rights (you've stated that, before).  Like half the oppressors in the last century, you imagine that any evil is excusable, if only you claim to love the person you're hurting.  No dice.  Love is not a talisman.  Those of us who actually know what it means to love others could never possibly aggress against them.

Joe

[Caleb]

Personal attacks aside, I simply meant that you have drawn the logical conclusion of your argument so well, that I have nothing to add to it.

Your statement is that it would be moral for you to support someone who wants to kill half the population, as long as the other option was worse. I don't think most good, decent people would agree with you. Most of us believe in objective evil, whereas you are presenting evil as if it is only relative. At this point, it is a fundamental difference in outlooks, and each person has to decide where they fall. But they can't have it both ways, as you have demonstrated. If you think that it's ok to support Ron Paul because all he wants to do to oppress us is keep brown people on this side of an imaginary line, then you must swallow Maineshark's bitter pill:  It would, by the same argument, be ok to support a guy who wants to destroy half the population, as long as the other guy is worse.

Somehow, I think most of the politicos would find your extreme conclusion tough to swallow. But they will take the diluted version, not understanding that the moral issues are the same in both cases.

Caleb

PS Contrary to your assertion, I *DO* believe I have the ability to *distinguish* between good and evil. I don't believe that I have a right to carry out *judgment* based on that knowledge. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[Russell Kanning]

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

I put people on ignore that want to talk about rape. You should try it.

[Caleb]

yeah ... 63 pages and I don't think anyone's mind ever gets changed. 

[Russell Kanning]

for some of us ... this can be an interesting discussion. I just ignore some of the comments.

With that avatar ... I am surprised you are even trying to convince anyone.

[Caleb]

Uh, this is a very serious matter, m'kay. And I don't appreciate all the snide comments, m'kay.

[ethanpooley]

While at the moment I am still failing to grasp Caleb's argument, I do find the effort worthwhile. Then again, I wasn't here for the first 60 pages. Ironically I spent an hour today debating with someone who thinks that *I* am a hard core anarchist. The irony is staggering.

[Eli]

I spend a lot of days arguing with people who think I am the hardest of the hard core.  Those folks have never met Russell or Caleb. 

Caleb,  what Tolstoy would you suggest.  I'm willing to give him two hours.  Choose well, I read at a high level but very slowly.