Politics is an immoral dead-end

[MaineShark]

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.

Personal attacks?  Like your passive-aggressive nonsense?

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.

No, my statement is that voting does not constitute support.  As defined in the hypothetical, that outcome will occur, regardless of the vote, so no actual "support" that is granted by voting.

I don't think most good, decent people would agree with you.

Given that you seem to define monsters like Hitler and Stalin as decent people who were just "led astray" by their office, I'll take that as a compliment.

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.

I think anyone with a minimum of two brain cells to rub together can figure out that this has nothing to do with what I actually stated, since voting does not actually confer support.

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.

Indeed.  The moral issues are the same in both cases.  In neither one (extreme or mild) is any support conferred by the mere act of voting and, as such, in neither case is voting immoral.

PS Contrary to your assertion, I *DO* believe I have the ability to *distinguish* between good and evil.

I didn't say that you don't "believe" you have that ability.  I said you expressed your lack of it proudly.  The two would be incompatible, for a rational person.  But I've yet to meet a rational communist, so I don't expect that's any difficulty to you.

I don't believe that I have a right to carry out *judgment* based on that knowledge. Judge not, lest ye be judged.

I have no concern with your mythical "judgement day" for two very important reasons: my experiences as a rational person say that it does not exist, and because I have always lived my life in a moral manner, so I would have no cause to be concerned, anyway.

Joe

[Caleb]

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. 

Tolstoy's christian/anarchist manifesto is set out in his book "The Kingdom of God is within you" which is available for free online.  http://www.kingdomnow.org/withinyou.html   Most people recommend reading the final chapter, chapter 12, if you don't want to tackle the whole book, because it pretty much sums up his arguments. I find his ideas to be particularly beneficial with a tiny bit of background in Plato or Jung, because viewed through an Aristotelian lens, some of the ideas are counterintuitive.

[Russell Kanning]

Caleb is right .... crazy but right ..... and he is a pinko

[Eli]

Thanks Caleb.  I'll read twelve a little later today and come back for the rest.

Having not read it, that is to say, having only read the title, I wonder if we can't go back to the point that the difference in this debate is actually a religious one.

 

[John Edward Mercier]

That would be interesting.

[David]

I've read chap. 12, Tolstoy makes several very good points.  Things that people see everyday, that is flavored with a militaristic, or political bias, he points out very plainly. 

[Caleb]

Thanks Caleb.  I'll read twelve a little later today and come back for the rest.

Having not read it, that is to say, having only read the title, I wonder if we can't go back to the point that the difference in this debate is actually a religious one.

 

Who made the point that the difference is actually a religious one? I think that point could be sustained only insofar as morality is a spiritual/religious concept, but I don't think any single religion has a monopoly on morality. In fact,  most atheists follow a moral code, so you certainly don't need a religion to feel the prick of conscience.

The point has been conceded that voting is a direct cause of a certain individual attaining an office. Somehow, some people are trying to break that link and pretend that voting *isn't* the cause, using variations of the argument that "well, we're going to have someone in that office anyway ..." Police are going to round up drug users anyway, so I might as well help. Hell, I can do it without harming them, whereas the police might shoot them, so it would be in their best interests for me to round up drug users in a safe way, and hand them over to the police. I know this is a goofy example, but I'm trying to show that you can't dismiss your responsibility for your own participation on the grounds that something is going to happen anyway.

Caleb

[MaineShark]

The point has been conceded that voting is a direct cause of a certain individual attaining an office. Somehow, some people are trying to break that link and pretend that voting *isn't* the cause, using variations of the argument that "well, we're going to have someone in that office anyway ..."

Who, precisely, is making that claim?

Voting absolutely causes a particular individual to attain an particular office (assuming the election isn't rigged).

Big whoop.

Unless that individual causes more oppression than the alternative, you cannot point to any harm done by the vote.

Police are going to round up drug users anyway, so I might as well help. Hell, I can do it without harming them, whereas the police might shoot them, so it would be in their best interests for me to round up drug users in a safe way, and hand them over to the police. I know this is a goofy example, but I'm trying to show that you can't dismiss your responsibility for your own participation on the grounds that something is going to happen anyway.

It's a goofy example because it has nothing to do with voting.  There is no equivalence between expressing an opinion and actually doing violence to others.

Your passive-aggressive foolishness and attempts to argue using numerous straw men are not exactly going to win over any rational minds.  You might dazzle those inept enough to be communists, but you won't impress those who can think for themselves.

Joe

[Eli]

Thanks Caleb.  I'll read twelve a little later today and come back for the rest.

Having not read it, that is to say, having only read the title, I wonder if we can't go back to the point that the difference in this debate is actually a religious one.

 

Who made the point that the difference is actually a religious one? I think that point could be sustained only insofar as morality is a spiritual/religious concept, but I don't think any single religion has a monopoly on morality. In fact,  most atheists follow a moral code, so you certainly don't need a religion to feel the prick of conscience.

The point has been conceded that voting is a direct cause of a certain individual attaining an office. Somehow, some people are trying to break that link and pretend that voting *isn't* the cause, using variations of the argument that "well, we're going to have someone in that office anyway ..." Police are going to round up drug users anyway, so I might as well help. Hell, I can do it without harming them, whereas the police might shoot them, so it would be in their best interests for me to round up drug users in a safe way, and hand them over to the police. I know this is a goofy example, but I'm trying to show that you can't dismiss your responsibility for your own participation on the grounds that something is going to happen anyway.

Caleb

That may have been conceded.  What hasn't been conceded is that voters can be held morally accountable for the actions of agents of government.  The plain fact is voter's aren't rounding up drug users (excepting here cops who vote).  But what I've observed is that the pacifists and folks who don't believe in a right to self defense tend to have religious convictions of the turn the other cheek variety. 

To me voting is just an extension of my right to defend myself.  It is not an authorization to do evil.  More importantly it is not a request to do evil.  Rather it is a tactics to keep certain uniformed brigands from my door, and the door of you metaphorical drug users.

[Russell Kanning]

Can we vote to keep all the Caleeefornians off this thread ... mmmK?

[Eli]

You can.  The rest of us shouldn't have any confidence that our votes would be counted or noticed.  That is a feature of private property, not a bug.

[Lloyd Danforth]

Can we vote to keep all the Caleeefornians off this thread ... mmmK?

seconded!

[Kat Kanning]

An Open Letter to Voters: Please Don't

by Geoff Turecek

Exclusive to STR

January 15, 2008

There has recently been much applause for Ron Paul and the prospect of his election as President of the United States .  I respect Ron Paul greatly as a person, as he is a very humble and sincere individual. I cannot in good conscience vote for him, or any other political candidate.   

Why would I not vote for a man who would diligently work to reduce taxes, bring American imperial soldiers home from sovereign countries overseas, and in all other ways work to decrease the size of the government? I will not vote for Ron Paul or any political candidate because I am a libertarian, and thus, a believer in the principle of non-aggression. A politician is someone who performs his work and implements his policies at the expense of innocent individuals who are coerced, through force or threat thereof, to surrender their property in exchange for services that they either do not need or want, or which can be supplied in a voluntary manner by the free market. I will not vicariously rob my neighbor by voting to continue a coercive entity by which everyone is victimized.  I refuse to participate in selecting the person who will rob my neighbor in order to supply my needs or wants. Ron Paul will necessarily and ultimately rely on violence or the threat thereof to implement his policies, the same as every other politician does.

Voting is ultimately the act by which one chooses how to use another person's property, usually against his will. To deprive others of their property is an evil, and everyone who votes participates in this evil. In the study of ethics, there are two kinds of participation in evil: formal and material cooperation. Formal cooperation is a deliberate choice to support an evil end. For example: If you vote for a candidate because he supports torture, you are a formal cooperant in electing a man who supports torture. A vote for him means that you ideologically support torture. Material cooperation in an evil is performing an action that makes the evil possible, even if the cooperant does not approve of the evil act itself. For example, if you vote for the candidate not because he supports torture, but because the other candidates support torture and eugenics.  You are a material cooperant in torture, because you helped elect a man who supports torture. Your vote in fact enables the act of torture, though it may not have been done for that reason.  One may never be a formal cooperant in an evil, but one may sometimes be a material cooperant in an evil, if the evil is remote enough, as is discussed below.

Rest of article

[Caleb]

By your choice of methods, we'd all be sitting around with Jim Crow laws still on the books, until the state as a whole collapses. People would of course be free to opt out and drop out, but every now and then the State would keep coming along and crushing people with these odious laws.

I've spent a lot of time thinking about this line of thought, and others like it. I don't want to continue in an argument, but I am curious as to your thoughts on this Jraxis:

We all agree that the reason we have a state is because of its perceived legitimacy among most of the people. My question is, when you work to make the state more humane (as opposed to letting it continue in its natural course so that individuals can see its true nature), aren't you lending your humanity to an inherently inhumane entity and increasing its perceived legitimacy in the eyes of others?

[dalebert]

I don't want to continue in an argument, but...

Too late! haha.