jpahmad

The argument from effect is impossible to make even if you wanted to because it is impossible to know what the effect will ultimately be.

Because I have decided to vote for strategic purposes I'm not "free in my own mind"? This is presumptuous, arrogant, and self-righteous. What do you know about how I feel? Dsayers, you pay taxes. This is just has just as much of a "legitimizing effect" on the "system" as voting, if not more. You are going to make the myopic claim that you can't avoid the consequences of not paying taxes, where as I can choose not to vote without suffering personal consequences. But this is where you're wrong my friend. There are consequences to not voting, they are just more long term consequences, and we can't avoid them. I believe there is efficacy in the democratic process and I have no qualms about voting in self-defense. You have not demonstrated that there is no efficacy in the democratic process. The reason why we have a state is because people want a state. It's that simple. If the people didn't want the state, we wouldn't have it. You're argument for "legitimizing" is non-empirical. "Legitimize" is an effect, not an action. You can't observe "legitimizing." If I called you on the phone and told you I was legitimizing something you would have no idea what I was doing. fyi, I've seen Larken Rose's Jones Plantation video. That presentation of his does not change my disposition towards voting in this election at all.

I'm assuming you're referring to the claim I made that anarchists "ought" to vote this way in order to achieve a free society. Well, I could be wrong. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "ought." Maybe I should have used "probably should." It's just a theory of how we might attain certain ends. I think it's a good theory. That doesn't mean that I am certain that it would play out exactly as I imagine. If you think I'm foolish in this idea, then fine. No, there is no historical precedence for my model that I can think of. So what. The NAP has only existed in the minds of human beings for the past 50 years or so. I'm pretty sure there is a historical precedence for doing nothing and letting outsiders take over a country though. So if anything, your strategy of not using state power in self-defense, certainly has never done much good either. Look at Europe. They could vote someone in who will close the borders, or, they could just sit and watch. I'm not sure how well spreading the good word of philosophy is going to work in a low IQ, Sharia law population.

I'm confused. I'm not sure I understand what you are claiming then. I thought that you were making the claim that my "strategy" is counterproductive to achieving a free society.

Yeah, I don't see how it indicates to them anything other than someone is casting a vote for them to be in a certain position. I don't think any intelligent person would assume that all the votes coming in for them are indications that these voters want to be ruled by them. I just can't accept that assumption. It is an assumption. I suppose you or I would have to actually interview one of these politicians to find out what they think the reasons are that people are voting for them. But you still have not really pointed out where my strategy as laid out in my video "anarchists guide to voting" would fall apart. I really want to know how my plan would fail. I'm not saying it couldn't fail, I'm just saying that I would like you to paint a picture for me, explain what would ultimately happen as my strategy plays out.

dsayers, since we are not talking about morality here. Aren't we then taking about strategy? You may not like my actions at all, and I'm assuming that you don't like them because you think they have a negative effect on you. Since we are not in the realm of ethics, we can talk strategically about the effects now. I've tried to make the case in my video that voting out of "self-defense", if everybody did it, would eventually shrink the state down to nothing. I want the state to be gone as much as you do. I'm arguing that my prescribed actions will get the job done faster and more effectively than your prescribed action, which is to not participate at all. I don't see "legitimising" or as a causal factor at all. I know you have tried to explain it minimally but I think you would need to be more descriptive and perhaps graphic with your analysis. I laid out, in graphic detail, how we could shrink the state the most effectively without being immoral (self-defense). You say this won't work. Ok. At what point will my strategy fail?

I made and posted a video about why I'm voting. It's called the "anarchist's guide to voting." That is where I explain myself pretty clearly. Did you watch it?

I understand your position. However, you seem to be using "legitimize" as a action verb and the effect of an action verb. When you say "voting legitimizes", that looks like a causal chain to me. In other words, the observable behavior of "voting" has the effect of "legitimizing" the system. If the act of "legitimizing" is causal, then you have to describe to me what exactly is the act of "legitimizing", which means it mus tbe observable. This is a bit of a problem.

I totally agree dsayers that labmath is arguing from effect. However, how is "legitimizing" not an effect as well. Also, "legitimizing" is not observable behavior. But I don't think you are making an ethical argument so whether it is "observable" or not doesn't really matter I guess. The one thing that bother me though, is that many anarchists (maybe not you) say that voting has no effect. But doesn't "legitimizing" show efficacy? Either voting has an effect or it doesn't. Which one is it?

You have no idea how it's going to impact you or others labmath2.

it doesn't take that much time to vote

I'm voting for Trump out of self-defense. There is not conflict of principles.

Yeah, I personally think it's kind of fucked up when you murder people, eat them, and savor the memories later.

I thinK you're fundamentally misunderstanding the concept. For something to be UPB, it certainly doesn't have to be accepted or followed by everyone. A moral behavior must be able to be universalized without logical contradiction. This leaves only a handful of negative moral obligations that can be considered candidates for moral rules, such as, DON'T MURDER or DON'T STEAL.

Landlords need tenants as much as tenants need landlords. If a guy owns thousands of acres of land, he must maintain that land in order to keep ownership over it. Otherwise, it reverts back to its natural state and anybody can claim it by mixing their labor with it. In order to maintain land, one must do the labor themselves or pay someone else to do it for them. They need money for this. They get money by leasing the land.

racism is a socialist word and has no meaning.

I gave reasons why society wouldn't judge him. None of them included "because it isn't immoral"

so you would regard this person as a murderer?

If you bombed the school in this extremely unlikely scenario, I certainly wouldn't judge you to be an immoral person because of it. It wouldn't effect my view of you as a upstanding member of society, and I would still do business with you even after that horrible ordeal. None of the victims in the school bombing would hate you for what you did, nor would just about anyone in the world, considering the circumstances you were in. In just about everyone's book, you would be vindicated as someone who was unfortunately in a horrible situation and was manipulated by an evil person to do a certain action. No one would label your action as "immoral." No one would label it as "moral" either. You were simply turned into a robot. You were not a moral agent.

Or you can just say that you are not a "moral agent", which simplifies the whole thing.

Great, you are very brave and noble Libertus. How about if someone threatened to set you kid on fire in front of you if you didn't bomb a school? I'm sure that changes things.

Yes, that's why I included the idea of "avoidability" in my video.

The person who actually attempted to initiate the force would be in violation of the NAP. That would be the hitman.

In a free society, any reasonable DRO would still drop the guy who ordered a hitman to kill even if the guy didn't technically violate the NAP.

Here is the problem. If I hire a hitman to kill someone, and they fail to do it, then I am not morally responsible for murder, because no one got murdered. If I hire a hitman to kill someone and they are successful in killing that person, then I am responsible for murder? How can the same action be a violation of the NAP in once instance, and then not a violation of the NAP in the other instance? This is a problem. The only way to solve it is to say that the only one who violated the NAP was the hitman. Otherwise you have a contradiction. You have to understand, not violating the NAP is necessary, but not always sufficient for someone to be considered a good person