The Schism!

[Mark_FTL]

Statism is illegitimate.  End of story.  You can't "legitimize" it by voting.

There are a few definitions of legitimate that have to do with legalities, but outside of that it seems to be an issue of broad acceptance. In that sense, statism is legitimate. I know what you mean but I think you need to express that thought with a different word. The notion of voting legitimizing the system has merit in that it's used to give the illusion of choice and promote broad acceptance of their claims to authority and their violent behavior.

In most local elections 90% of the population has in recent history followed your plan. No effect. If your plan needs higher than 90% of the population to participate, it may need re-evaluation. Those that vote for liberty here in NH likely need no more than 4-6% of the population to participate. Why not try that? People from all over have tried and failed at the not voting thing. Why not give moving together and voting for liberty a try for a while. Sure there will be set backs, but I don't see any progress on the side of not voting.

[MaineShark]

Statism is illegitimate.  End of story.  You can't "legitimize" it by voting.

There are a few definitions of legitimate that have to do with legalities, but outside of that it seems to be an issue of broad acceptance. In that sense, statism is legitimate. I know what you mean but I think you need to express that thought with a different word. The notion of voting legitimizing the system has merit in that it's used to give the illusion of choice and promote broad acceptance of their claims to authority and their violent behavior.

In a discussion of the morality of a certain action, "legitimate" must refer to moral legitimacy, which the State does not have.

Voting does not, and cannot, legitimize Statism.  The fact that the adherents of Statism claim otherwise does not change things.  Not could actually going to the polls be said to even lend the illusion of legitimacy to Statism, since their (false) premise is that their system is legitimate because they offer the people the option to vote, not because the people vote.

Illegitimate is the correct word to describe Statism.  The term you're looking for is "illusion of legitimacy" or "image of legitimacy," which Statism does have.  However (as a practical matter), under the belief system they operate within, a non-voter is presumed to be content with the status quo, so refusal to vote cannot even pierce the veil of illusion for those within that system.

Joe

[dalebert]

In a discussion of the morality of a certain action, "legitimate" must refer to moral legitimacy, which the State does not have.

I don't think anyone's talking about the morality of it. At least that doesn't seem to be what this thread is about.

[MaineShark]

In a discussion of the morality of a certain action, "legitimate" must refer to moral legitimacy, which the State does not have.

I don't think anyone's talking about the morality of it. At least that doesn't seem to be what this thread is about.

The post I quoted certainly seemed to be.  What other reason would there be to bringing up the violence of the State, other than that it's immoral?  I mean, we could discuss whether the guns they use are the best possible ones for the job at hand, or other details about the violence of the State, but somehow I think that, "everyone knows you should murder innocent people with .40S&W, not 9mm! duh!" isn't the discussion that we're having.  The fact that they are murdering innocent people (and committing other aggressively-violent acts) is what's important, and it's important because it's immoral.

Joe

[Vitruvian]

Statism is illegitimate.  End of story.  You can't "legitimize" it by voting.

There are a few definitions of legitimate that have to do with legalities, but outside of that it seems to be an issue of broad acceptance. In that sense, statism is legitimate. I know what you mean but I think you need to express that thought with a different word. The notion of voting legitimizing the system has merit in that it's used to give the illusion of choice and promote broad acceptance of their claims to authority and their violent behavior.

Exactly.  Nobody (among anarchists, anyway) is claiming that voting transforms the state into a just and virtuous enterprise.  As we have said repeatedly, the effect of voting is to shroud the crimes of state officials in appeals to the 'will of the people.'  Furthermore, elections have documented psychological implications for participants.

Imagine two governments, one with ninety-percent voter turnout and the other with ten-percent: which do you think enjoys greater perceived legitimacy among the general population?

However (as a practical matter), under the belief system they operate within, a non-voter is presumed to be content with the status quo, so refusal to vote cannot even pierce the veil of illusion for those within that system.

This indicates merely the desperate need to educate people of the nature of the state.  Voting would only affirm, not only in their minds but also your own, that non-voters are simply apathetic.

If you want a society where democracy is no longer worshipped, then STOP VOTING.

[AntonLee]

it wasn't that long ago I remember someone advocating for eminent domain because it might get them to work a few minutes faster.  I think the argument was that it would be too hard to get everyone on board, and since you can't get everyone to agree then you just have to use force and take their land without their permission.

I'd vote against that crap.  I don't see many votes coming down the pike to allow others to stay in their homes even though they decide not to pay property tax.  I don't see any votes that would save someone's house instead of creating a new road that they won't take care of properly.

I'm not sure that a majority of people in the movement want a society where democracy is no longer worshipped.  Not saying that their majority opinion might be worth a damn to someone who holds the NAP to that high level.

[MaineShark]

Exactly.  Nobody (among anarchists, anyway) is claiming that voting transforms the state into a just and virtuous enterprise.  As we have said repeatedly, the effect of voting is to shroud the crimes of state officials in appeals to the 'will of the people.'

You, yourself, have claimed that voting is immoral, have you not?

To make that assertion, you have to be stating that voting does legitimize the State.  Else, it offers no initiation of force, and is not, therefore, immoral.

Imagine two governments, one with ninety-percent voter turnout and the other with ten-percent: which do you think enjoys greater perceived legitimacy among the general population?

According to the believes in the religion of Democracy, the fact that the option exists makes the State legitimate, regardless of who does or does not show up at the polls.

However (as a practical matter), under the belief system they operate within, a non-voter is presumed to be content with the status quo, so refusal to vote cannot even pierce the veil of illusion for those within that system.

This indicates merely the desperate need to educate people of the nature of the state. Voting would only affirm, not only in their minds but also your own, that non-voters are simply apathetic.

How could voting "affirm" in my mind that "non-voters are simply apathetic?"  Please do explain how making a mark on a piece of paper will suddenly cause the affirmation of a belief that I don't hold...

If you want a society where democracy is no longer worshipped, then STOP VOTING.

Oh?  If I stop voting, the worship of Democracy will just up and stop?  I didn't realize my opinion was so closely tracked by such a large percentage of the population of this planet, that the only reason they believe in Democracy is because I show up at the polls on occasion.  How many elections do I have to miss before the entire population of this planet gives up their belief in Democracy?

Joe

[dalebert]

I used to use the word "legitimate" in the same context as you are now, but I looked it up. It's just something that came up on FTL before and it was discussed and it began to be used to mean "broadly accepted". In any case, that's the context in which I use the word. I'm fine with you having a different meaning of it. I only brought it up so you'd be clear on the way many others are using it so you're not just arguing a straw man. I think you know you are preaching to the choir when you say that no act can make Statism moral. I've done countless comics about that fallacious notion and most of the people here also agree with you already.

Even in the statement you quoted, I'm still talking about practical effort. The democracy game and collectivism in general are fallacious concepts that comfort statist authority figures and shield them from the cognitive dissonance that they ought to be feeling. Also, the reason people accept these tyrants as their leaders is because they've been sold on the idea of democracy as a method for assigning authority. Democracy has a practical purpose from the point of view of statism. The slaves are convinced that they aren't slaves because they got to have a tiny say in who is their master. Statism persists by maintaining these fallacious concepts and so it seems very practical to me to undermine those fallacies.

Others have different ideas of what they expect to be effective. That's fine.

[Vitruvian]

You, yourself, have claimed that voting is immoral, have you not?

I have, and it is.

To make that assertion, you have to be stating that voting does legitimize the State.  Else, it offers no initiation of force, and is not, therefore, immoral.

¿Habla usted inglés?

Please do explain how making a mark on a piece of paper will suddenly cause the affirmation of a belief that I don't hold...

If voting is no more significant to you than "making a mark on a piece of paper," ignoring entirely the obvious real-world consequences of participation in what amounts to pro bono P.R. for the state, then, by all means, vote your heart out; I certainly cannot stop you.

[dalebert]

Mark, do you see the discord that you have created by reopening this wound? I hope you're happy. 

[AntonLee]

Maineshark makes sense to me.  This thread is in the right place. . . endless debate and whining.

[Tom Sawyer]

Mark bought me General Tso's Chicken...  he's ok by me!  

[Puke]

I vote that we don't vote.

[MaineShark]

I used to use the word "legitimate" in the same context as you are now, but I looked it up. It's just something that came up on FTL before and it was discussed and it began to be used to mean "broadly accepted". In any case, that's the context in which I use the word. I'm fine with you having a different meaning of it. I only brought it up so you'd be clear on the way many others are using it so you're not just arguing a straw man.

As I said, I was responding to thinkliberty, who was quite clearly using it in the "morally legitimate" sense.  I don't see any benefit to using it in any other way, either.  The "broadly accepted" term implicitly accepts the Democratic notion that broad acceptance does lend moral legitimacy.  For someone who knows otherwise to use it in that way, would be similar to if you or I were to use "anarchy" in the "total chaos" sense that Statists love to use.  We know better, and we should not use terms in ways that implicitly accept their arguments.

I think you know you are preaching to the choir when you say that no act can make Statism moral. I've done countless comics about that fallacious notion and most of the people here also agree with you already.

I'm sure I am, in many cases.  However, I'm equally sure that there are plenty who do believe that voting actually makes the State morally legitimate.  Statism is a religious belief system, and even many who have grown to deny it will still fall back to old thinking habits, subconsciously.  It can take decades to "un-learn" thinking patterns like that, and some will never manage it.

Even in the statement you quoted, I'm still talking about practical effort. The democracy game and collectivism in general are fallacious concepts that comfort statist authority figures and shield them from the cognitive dissonance that they ought to be feeling. Also, the reason people accept these tyrants as their leaders is because they've been sold on the idea of democracy as a method for assigning authority. Democracy has a practical purpose from the point of view of statism. The slaves are convinced that they aren't slaves because they got to have a tiny say in who is their master. Statism persists by maintaining these fallacious concepts and so it seems very practical to me to undermine those fallacies.

Certainly.  However, as I noted, Democracy is a religion, based upon the premise that offering choice makes the system legitimate.  If I vote, or don't vote, that does not impact the beliefs of its adherents.  That I was offered the option makes things all right with their world, and effectively shields them from any cognitive dissonance.

You, yourself, have claimed that voting is immoral, have you not?

I have, and it is.

In what way?

To make that assertion, you have to be stating that voting does legitimize the State.  Else, it offers no initiation of force, and is not, therefore, immoral.

¿Habla usted inglés?

That's quite perfect English.  Your reply is puerile.

Please do explain how making a mark on a piece of paper will suddenly cause the affirmation of a belief that I don't hold...

If voting is no more significant to you than "making a mark on a piece of paper," ignoring entirely the obvious real-world consequences of participation in what amounts to pro bono P.R. for the state, then, by all means, vote your heart out; I certainly cannot stop you.

Interesting side-step of the issue.  You, however, made a very specific claim that by voting, my belief "that non-voters are simply apathetic" will be affirmed.  You haven't described any process by which making a mark on a piece of paper would affirm a belief that I do have, let alone a belief that I don't have.  You've maligned my character by asserting that I believe something which I do not, and I would appreciate it if you would support your assertion or publicly retract it.

You've also failed to address how my failure to vote will bring about the end of Democracy.

Joe

[Vitruvian]

Joe,

I don't think you will be convinced, least of all by me.  In any case, I am not particularly interested in retracing my steps.