Voting?

[tiepolo]

What to do about voting? Does it imply support for statism? Would it be a good thing to vote for a party like UKIP in the Euro elections since they declare themselves 'classical liberals', and want to withdraw from the EU and ideally dismantle the whole edifice of the EU? Or is this missing the point?

 

 

[...]

.

[cobra2411]

Voting for a candidate to represent you in the state gives your support and consent. I can't support the state, so I do not vote. 

[dsayers]

Voting doesn't just legitimize the initiation of the use of force, it IS the initiation of the use of force. It's telling somebody that you're okay with them initiating the use of force as long as they do it for reasons you approve of. We cannot put an end to coercion until we educate people on what coercion actually is. Most people who vote would not steal your wallet from your pocket, but see no ethical problem will approving of others doing the same. This is inconsistent and they're not even aware of it.

[DFPercush]

I struggle with this argument that voting means you personally condone any action taken by that person once in power. I don't think I'm endorsing the heavy hand of the state if I check the libertarian candidate for President and leave the rest blank. There's this underpinning idea that the state is going to be there whether you vote or not, and I'd rather have a small state than a big state. The acceptance of inevitability is perhaps the key to all of it. Can anyone show this to be false? Even if voting becomes unpopular, the power structure is set up such that one lone voter could show up and get his way. At least a libertarian presidency is something which hasn't been tried yet. The only message that you send by not voting is that you don't care, at least in the current narrative. Communication requires knowing how the other party will interpret your words or actions as well as clarifying your own intent. I just don't think anyone's going to interpret a drop in voter turnout to mean that we want anarchy. I think a positive endorsement of a minimalist would be more effective at communicating my will. Once a significant percent of the population is aware of ideas like UPB, it might be a different story. I'm willing to listen to criticism here, I'm just saying I haven't been convinced.

[Brentb]

Is it possible to vote a democracy out of power?

 

Anarchist or minarchist voting is like shopping at a business that you fundamentally disapprove of with the intention of taking advantage of the really good sales that you think that the business will lose money on.

[dsayers]

I struggle with this argument that voting means you personally condone any action taken by that person once in power. ... The acceptance of inevitability is perhaps the key to all of it.

 

I see these statements as a contradiction. The inevitability that whomever you vote for is going to accept stolen monies to forcibly tell those stolen from how to live is precisely why I would argue that voting is the initiation of force.

 

Is it possible to vote a democracy out of power?

 

Until such a time where people consider opportunity costs and say no to "free" stuff, I don't think so. Even if that were to happen, the act of voting in a political context is not voicing one's opinion, it is telling others how to live.

[tasmlab]

I struggle with this argument that voting means you personally condone any action taken by that person once in power. I don't think I'm endorsing the heavy hand of the state if I check the libertarian candidate for President and leave the rest blank.

 

I apologize in advance for not giving an argument, but there's a certain trivialness to this either way.  You don't vote and nothing happens and you do vote and all that happens is you burn an hour at the polling station and still nothing happens.

 

I think the gravest error in this would be if we were actively trying to convince people that it was some great thing to do and that it legitimized anything positive.

 

As anecdote, and maybe I'm off here, I was planning on not voting last national election but the local R candidate proactively sent me an absentee ballot I could mail in.  There was some poor libertarian running for congress, so I gave him a checkmark and returned the ballot. I didn't presume to be acquiring power through this, nor felt it was some large surrender of consent.   I just wanted his little pathetic count to be one more.  His total count ended up to be well less than a 1,000.

[DFPercush]

I just wanted his little pathetic count to be one more.  His total count ended up to be well less than a 1,000.

 

What he said.

I see these statements as a contradiction. The inevitability that whomever you vote for is going to accept stolen monies to forcibly tell those stolen from how to live is precisely why I would argue that voting is the initiation of force.

It's not inevitable that the person I vote for will do it, because he might not win. Refraining from voting does not swing the pendulum any closer to freedom. One could argue that voting swings it away, and I say the choice is how far. The underground railroad isn't here yet; I want a nicer master.

[dsayers]

It's not inevitable that the person I vote for will do it, because he might not win.

 

So if you pay a guy to off a guy, it's not immoral because you cannot be certain that he will do it?

 

Refraining from voting does not swing the pendulum any closer to freedom.

 

Refraining from paying a guy to off a guy does not swing the pendulum any closer to freedom. But it is morally consistent.

 

The underground railroad isn't here yet; I want a nicer master.

 

This thread isn't about wanting, it is about the behavior of voting. Morality isn't analog. A behavior (such as ruling) is either the initiation of the use of force or it is not. Nicer master is a contradiction in terms and therefor an imaginary creature, not unlike a square circle.

 

Voting isn't about what you want. It's what you want for others. Just as one has not the power to rule, it follows that one has not the capability to give the power to rule to others.

[powder]

So if you pay a guy to off a guy, it's not immoral because you cannot be certain that he will do it?

 

 

 

Refraining from paying a guy to off a guy does not swing the pendulum any closer to freedom. But it is morally consistent.

 

 

 

This thread isn't about wanting, it is about the behavior of voting. Morality isn't analog. A behavior (such as ruling) is either the initiation of the use of force or it is not. Nicer master is a contradiction in terms and therefor an imaginary creature, not unlike a square circle.

 

Voting isn't about what you want. It's what you want for others. Just as one has not the power to rule, it follows that one has not the capability to give the power to rule to others.

I think, rather, what he says...  dsayers, I just have to keep voting the thumbs up on your posts, well done.  

 

its about being morally consistent, period.  the statist mind always want to make it into a practical matter.  

[DFPercush]

So if you pay a guy to off a guy, it's not immoral because you cannot be certain that he will do it?

 

 

 

Refraining from paying a guy to off a guy does not swing the pendulum any closer to freedom. But it is morally consistent.

 

 

 

This thread isn't about wanting, it is about the behavior of voting. Morality isn't analog. A behavior (such as ruling) is either the initiation of the use of force or it is not. Nicer master is a contradiction in terms and therefor an imaginary creature, not unlike a square circle.

 

Voting isn't about what you want. It's what you want for others. Just as one has not the power to rule, it follows that one has not the capability to give the power to rule to others.

I suppose my pendulum argument was one from utility and not morality. This thing about a hit man though, let me make sure I understand. The day to day operations of a state would continue even under libertarian leadership, including all the coercive practices of a central legal system and so on, and so that makes the election of any leader of this system immoral? Cause I don't see how that follows. If that's not what you're saying let me know, but by choosing the hood ornament I'm responsible for the design of the engine? The amount of coercion would be measurably reduced by libertarian policies, to the best of our knowledge. Doesn't that factor in to the morality? If this were a situation where a government was being founded over a new untouched land, things would be different, because the level of coercion could only go up. But if I have any amount of control over the amount of wrong done in the world, is it not my responsibility to minimize it?

[dsayers]

But if I have any amount of control over the amount of wrong done in the world, is it not my responsibility to minimize it?

 

How do you minimize it by legitimizing it? How do you minimize it by adding to it? How do you minimize it by being a +1 in the participants of it list? You're speaking of a mythological creature again.

 

The way to minimize it is to help those who have been propagandized to see the gun in the room. To understand that taxation is theft. That voting is the initiation of the use of force. That spanking is assault. That making decisions for other people is unethical. That pretending we can give to others that which we do not possess is fictional. However, if you say these things and then participate in a coercive system, such as by way of voting, then the people you're trying to help will only see that you can't even be bothered to live the values you espouse.

 

You cannot minimize aggression by condoning aggression.

[powder]

I suppose my pendulum argument was one from utility and not morality. This thing about a hit man though, let me make sure I understand. The day to day operations of a state would continue even under libertarian leadership, including all the coercive practices of a central legal system and so on, and so that makes the election of any leader of this system immoral? Cause I don't see how that follows. If that's not what you're saying let me know, but by choosing the hood ornament I'm responsible for the design of the engine? The amount of coercion would be measurably reduced by libertarian policies, to the best of our knowledge. Doesn't that factor in to the morality? If this were a situation where a government was being founded over a new untouched land, things would be different, because the level of coercion could only go up. But if I have any amount of control over the amount of wrong done in the world, is it not my responsibility to minimize it?

Do you have any evidence to support your proposition that there is any effective way to minimize state power through the electoral process? 

 

the 'divine right of kings' has been the bane of human civilization for thousands of years.  It is a myth we have all been brainwashed to believe is normal and necessary.  We used to hope and pray for kinder kings and masters.  When the oligarchs started getting their heads chopped off they decided it would be better to give us the illusion of control and choice as to who gets to sit on the throne.  Let them vote.  

 

I doesn't matter who you get to sit on the throne - there is no throne.  

 

How is choosing your 'hood ornament' going to help reduce the state?  Libertarian politics has been around for decades  - millions have been spent, many have written and given speeches - and in that time the state has grown exponentially.  Empirically, it has not been an effective tool for convincing people to minimize state power.  If you are interested in minimizing coercion and unethical practices in the world I think it would be more productive to help educate a couple of people on peaceful parenting and the violence of the state than to show your support for the system that is the greatest source of violence in the known universe.  

[DFPercush]

"Do you have any evidence to support your proposition that there is any effective way to minimize state power through the electoral process?"

Third parties almost never win, so there's not much data either way about that. As far as electoral process in general, maybe the secession of the confederacy from the u.s.? But they lost the war, so they weren't able to carry their own policies very long. Still, look what Lincoln did to the federal gov't, that's what they didn't want any part of and voted to get out of it. Anyway, about a 3rd party president, were we to perform such an experiment, it would bring to light more clearly to what extent the President is a hood ornament, or if the office has the capacity to put the brakes on. I think a lot could be done, but isn't because of the collusion involved in party politics. If the LP gained a significant number of seats they would probably become corrupt as well. It's possible that by then there would be a new party that would be even more minimalist.

 

I'd like to address this phrase "show your support for the system". No one is asking me whether I'd rather live in a democracy, monarchy, or anarchy. If the candidate proposes significantly changing the system, I argue that it shows exactly the opposite - my dissatisfaction with the system. The same applies to "You cannot minimize aggression by condoning aggression."

 

Ball's in your court gentlemen.

[dsayers]

Ball's in your court gentlemen.

 

The question marks in my post put the ball in your court. I don't see any attempt to answer. It's unfortunate too because when you think you have the answer, you stop looking for the right answer. I'm not only giving you great advice, I'm living my values by trying to help you in this way. You're missing it entirely because it doesn't confirm your bias.

[powder]

"Do you have any evidence to support your proposition that there is any effective way to minimize state power through the electoral process?"

 

Third parties almost never win, so there's not much data either way about that. As far as electoral process in general, maybe the secession of the confederacy from the u.s.? But they lost the war, so they weren't able to carry their own policies very long. Still, look what Lincoln did to the federal gov't, that's what they didn't want any part of and voted to get out of it. Anyway, about a 3rd party president, were we to perform such an experiment, it would bring to light more clearly to what extent the President is a hood ornament, or if the office has the capacity to put the brakes on. I think a lot could be done, but isn't because of the collusion involved in party politics. If the LP gained a significant number of seats they would probably become corrupt as well. It's possible that by then there would be a new party that would be even more minimalist.

 

OK, so the answer is no.  Also, you must agree with my point that the Libertarian movement, for all its hard work and money spent has been ineffective to say the least - gov has grown exponentially in recent decades  - since you said nothing to refute it.

 

I'd like to address this phrase "show your support for the system". No one is asking me whether I'd rather live in a democracy, monarchy, or anarchy. If the candidate proposes significantly changing the system, I argue that it shows exactly the opposite - my dissatisfaction with the system. The same applies to "You cannot minimize aggression by condoning aggression."

 

Ball's in your court gentlemen.

I think the ball is still in your court.  You are still just stating your opinions and not addressing the questions raised here.  

 

Significantly change what system?  I don't understand what you are talking about.  If a politician representing the government promises to stop stealing and initiating force, then it wouldn't be the government anymore.  Anything else is just voting for a nicer master or less stealing.  No matter the size of the state, every law is a death threat.  

[DFPercush]

I did answer you, dsayers. Ok let's have a look at your question marks again. "How do you minimize it by legitimizing it? How do you minimize it by adding to it? How do you minimize it by being a +1 in the participants of it list?" And I put forth my argument for how voting libertarian does not legitimize coercion or add to it. "No one is asking me whether I'd rather live in a democracy... ." If voting was legitimizing the system, then that would mean that Soviet Russia supports capitalism, and here's why. They sent spies and agents to the various institutions of democratic countries, specifically schools and churches, with the intent of subverting American patriotism and giving the youth a favorable disposition towards communist ideals. Their goal wasn't to be good teachers or be the best cog in the machine that they could be. Their goal was to take down the machine. I propose that minimalist politics is analogous to infiltration in this manner. Now in the case of voting Republican or Democrat, I agree with you, because those two have had plenty of time in power to demonstrate the effect they will have. I'm not saying that the end game for libertarians is the election of libertarian politicians, because at some point, it's still the state. I get that. But what I'm saying is that voting for politicians who will enact minimalist policies, for now, until we get the social momentum to heave the whole thing over, is just a part of the overall strategy of moving towards a freer society.

 

Powder, when talking about the effectiveness of the LP as a public awareness medium, that's not the same as speculating what would happen should they actually be elected to office. Don't simplify my answer to just no. There's just no data. So you can't claim that state power would necessarily increase under third party leadership either. And I did provide evidence for the electoral process. The growth of state power was thwarted, at least for a little while, for those states who seceded from Lincoln who wanted to grow the scope of the federal gov't.

 

I'm open to changing my mind about this, but I'm not just gonna go with the tide here. I have some legitimate hangups that I'd like to debate about so I can clear the doubt away. I might be a devil's advocate to you, but I'm honestly trying to understand. If you can convince me then I can fight for you, but I owe it to myself and to the truth to not simply accept what you say without challenging it. I think I want to be part of the community here, but this is the first date, if you will. Are you going to demonize me, or help me?

[dsayers]

Are you going to demonize me, or help me?

 

This is manipulative. As is talking about going with the tide and challenge for the sake of challenge. Either 2+2=4 or it does not. Accepting that it does isn't going with the tide; It's testing it out and accepting the results. Challenging 2+2=4 is NOT virtuous. Also, I don't know that anybody has talked about YOU at all. We're discussing behaviors, positions, beliefs. What is to gain by personalizing it? Are you suggesting that voting is immoral, except for you? That the truth is a good thing, except from me?

 

"enact minimalist policies" is the initiation of the use of force. To grant permission to (vote for) somebody that will do this is the initiation of the use of force. Also, your "Reps and Dems did bad, but 3rd party might not" was already addressed above when I asked if paying a guy to off a guy isn't immoral because he might not do it. Which you didn't answer. It's like being witness to a gang rape and rather than leaving the situation or trying to stop it, you say, "Wait, let's see what guy #3 does. Maybe he'll rape her less, and that's closer to no rape."

 

If you think you can infiltrate a corrupt system and convert it to virtue, test your theory. To begin with the largest, most legitimate-perceived band of thugs in human history with no reason to believe it would work is anti-progress. Because if somebody who understands that the initiation of the use of force is immoral is willing to make use of it FOR ANY REASON, there's that many more people that will be comfortable continuing to cheer it on.

[DFPercush]

I took it personally when you said "when you think you have the answer, you stop looking for the right answer." The last paragraph was talking about my feelings more than discussing actual philosophy. I should have made that clear. Maybe that's not how you meant it.

 

"Are you suggesting that voting is immoral, except for you?" Not at all. Could you provide the quote that suggests that?

 

"To grant permission to (vote for) somebody that will do this is the initiation of the use of force."

Why??? This is what I want to talk about, but then you go "also" and start talking about something else. Could we maybe focus the conversation on this claim? (begin edit) This requires that the president is responsible for every action committed by government, but he's not. He is responsible for the policy decisions he makes. (edit #2) And if those policies involve raising taxes, criminalizing things, then yes the chain of culpability follows. (/2) If he starts a war, then yes, responsibility can be linked back to John Doe voter. But if the guy is cutting programs, then John Doe can proudly say "I helped end the Department of Education" or whatever. (end edit)

 

Leaving the situation = not voting? In any case, I am trying to stop it. You can say I'm doing it wrong, but I think anyone that would be posting on here is trying in some way. I might be an idiot but I try.

 

"If you think you can infiltrate a corrupt system and convert it to virtue" Ah, but that's not what I'm saying. I listen to the shows too, so I'm familiar with this line. That's why I said "I'm not saying that the end game for libertarians is the election of libertarian politicians, because at some point, it's still the state. I get that." So put guy #3 in the arena, and then call the police (for your rape analogy). Or maybe dial 911 while you tell the gang leader to put guy #3 in. Something like that. But surely don't stop at choosing #3.

 

What if there was a "none of the above" option on the ticket? Would that change things?

 

And for edit #3: I can see where you have a case in that it is extremely unlikely that all decisions made by one president would be of the nature of reducing violence. It would probably be a mixed bag. But that's no more or less speculative than a 3rd party president in the first place. Are we willing to run the experiment? Anyway, I just thought about that point, so I'm going to give the thread some time and come back later.

[powder]

DFpercush, you seem to asking "Is voting or supporting LP candidates a legitimate and effective way to minimize state power and grouth"  Is this correct?  

 

I think it comes down to accepting that it is not a practical issue, it is a moral one and all the the pertinent responses to your discussions about the Libertarian agenda reflect this.  If you cannot accept the validity of the moral imperative then I think we are done here.  

 

"The growth of state power was thwarted, at least for a little while," ...  

 

I said 'no' to your response about the effectiveness of the electoral process because it was already clear in your response about the the confederate states temporary achievement - it did not work - that is like getting a temporary cure for the spread of cancer.  I know of no historical examples that support your position.  It does not make sense to pursue a strategy that has so much evidence showing its ineffectiveness.  Like most of us you live your own life in a voluntary cooperative manner, the evidence for the effectiveness of a anarchist voluntary society is all around you.  As is the evidence that the use of force to deal with social issues is immoral.  2+2=4.  

 

BTW, speaking of 2+2, I just noticed your avatar and your handle (DFpercush) and it occurred to me that you must be a drummer.  I am a musician and I just started a new band with the best drummer in town, and an awesome percussionist (congas, bongos, etc.) we are having a blast.  Don't make me throw a 'Libertarian Drummer' joke at you!  

[dsayers]

What if there was a "none of the above" option on the ticket? Would that change things?

 

Would you be so kind as to why you (yes, this is me getting personal for the sake of a better understanding of the conversation) need to vote? I've been advocating "none of the above" all along. You've resisted all along, but now you're saying you'd be amenable to it if it came in the form of actually casting a vote? Not voting IS casting a vote. And it happens to not be the initiation of the use of force also.

 

I've noticed that every time I offer a correction, you just talk about something else as if nothing was said. This does not instill in me confidence that this is actually a conversation.

[DFPercush]

I could write a book for all the different directions this conversation is going, and I'm not quite done yet, but I'd like to get your response to one thing, dsayers, before I go any further.

 

"Not voting IS casting a vote."Do you think that different people will interpret the meaning of this in different ways, and does that matter? You know it'll just get spun around to the advantage of the powerful. But at least we'll have a clear conscience, is that it?

[dale_edg]

I think a good way to protest is maybe just to spoil the paper by maybe just writing Anarchy with a X next to it or something, i think a lot of non voters wouldn't mind doing that and it might catch on, it's a good opportunity to stick your finger up at them.

[DFPercush]

Not a bad idea, dale_edg, I thought about doing that. Anyway, I guess I'll post my thoughts at this point, for the record. (I would say my final thoughts, but there's no such thing in my book.) I was attempting to use a consequentialist approach to argue for morality by outcome. I probably didn't do a very good job, and I let myself slip into internet attack mode at times, so sorry about that. I thought about ways to argue that voting is not legitimizing the system. However, the longer I think about it, the more difficult it becomes to escape that point. I thought that maybe the intent and awareness of the voter matters, but it really doesn't. Even if one is not happy about it or thinks he can outsmart the rulers, voting indicates one's acceptance that this is the way it must be. At first I didn't understand why dsayers brought up the point that I've heard Mr. Molyneux make, that "when you think you have the answer, you stop looking for the right answer." But I think he's trying to say that all the effort that politically active libertarians spend on trying to get people elected into the system, could be better spent educating and living your values. And if we're going to preach that the state is evil, to vote would harm us by displaying hypocrisy to those we are trying to reach.

 

I find that to better understand things, sometimes it's necessary to take a journalistic approach and advocate for the opposite position. It's too easy for me to get sucked back into a statist mentality when I'm around the people from my past who put those ideas into me. I needed to see how more experienced voluntarists deal with these kinds of objections, so that I can harden my resolve and sharpen my wit around them. Thank you guys for playing that role. I can't say that I never believed any of what I said up there, because that is where I'm coming from. But you've basically been talking with the me from two years ago. I just want to remove all doubt and deal with my own personal ineptitude before trying to be a real voice among my community. An arrow flies further the longer you draw back the bow and all that. Anyway, maybe I'm just rambling trying to save face, but I hope this somewhat conveys why I came here and started all that. Hope it doesn't count against me too much. Cheers.

 

P.S. I still don't know exactly what's going on with the OP. Is withdrawing from the EU something that everyone gets to vote on, or do you have to elect some asshole who's going to support that position? Sorry for hijacking your thread.

[Frosty]

I feel my opinion is particuarly relevant to this thread.

 

I'm a 30 year old male in the UK who has never voted before, I consider myself fairly smart but dislike the whole political system. I think that voting for parties and politicians instead of specific policies or positions is completely ridiculous. I'm also not 100% convicned that democracy is the way to go, I think it's ultimately going to lead to a leftist and corrupt governement.

 

I did for the first time ever vote this year, it was for UKIP primarily because they're the closest thing to a libertarian party in the UK, I think moving to vote against the EU and return control to the country is the first step towards more liberty.

 

it occured to me recently that voting directly for what you want is pointless, you have to vote for small changes, show those changes are beneficial over time then vote to push your agenda more and more over time. As much as I'd like a true libertarian party to get into power and completely reverse policy in the UK, I'm aware that it's simply not pracitcal and I'm increasingly starting to believe that even given the option to make drastic changes or subtle ones I'd probably lean toward subtle ones.

 

The more I genuinely think about it, the more I draw parallels between my study of atheism, I don't think kicking away the crutch of support that religion gives theists is actually a good idea, it's best to be removed gently over time. Sames goes for politics, I'm so ecstatic UKIP won the EU elections but I'm already anticipating a really strong showing at the next general elections and suspect that the following GE after that we have a decent chance of a win, the growth of UKIP and their win in the elections is something we've not seen for over 100 years, it's a significant political movement.

 

You cannot

In fact

Barrage

The

Farage.

[dsayers]

The more I genuinely think about it, the more I draw parallels between my study of atheism, I don't think kicking away the crutch of support that religion gives theists is actually a good idea, it's best to be removed gently over time.

 

Is State (coercion) more comparable to belief in the non-existent or say rape? Would you advocate easing a rapist out of their rape? I'm reminded of that old adage that if they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are. Your post made no reference to any moral consideration, so they wouldn't care if you were advocating an incremental change or flat out end. Until you address the immorality, you're not threatening their power.

 

If you insist on utility, we have tons of empirical evidence that incremental removal of immorality isn't effective. The immoral who are not stopped will gain more ground than any incremental dent would accomplish. No, instead I say stop the rape outright because it's the only moral response to the initiation of the use of force. Besides, how do you incrementally alter the enslavement of the unborn for example?

[Frosty]

Is State (coercion) more comparable to belief in the non-existent or say rape? Would you advocate easing a rapist out of their rape? I'm reminded of that old adage that if they can get you to ask the wrong questions, they don't care what your answers are. Your post made no reference to any moral consideration, so they wouldn't care if you were advocating an incremental change or flat out end. Until you address the immorality, you're not threatening their power.

 

If you insist on utility, we have tons of empirical evidence that incremental removal of immorality isn't effective. The immoral who are not stopped will gain more ground than any incremental dent would accomplish. No, instead I say stop the rape outright because it's the only moral response to the initiation of the use of force. Besides, how do you incrementally alter the enslavement of the unborn for example?

 

This is not comparable to rape. Obviously I do not advocate the gradual stop of rape.

 

I'm not making an argument of ideology, I'm all for removing state coercion as soon as possible, I'm simply making an argument of practicality, you're not actually paying attention to the practical constraints that exist in the real world.

 

There have been several attempts at UK libertarian parties and they've never got off the ground, I certainly couldn't choose to vote for one in the election, that's because suggesting radical changes to an entire country among other things is a daunting thought for many, especially those who have become reliant on the state, or at least feel reliant on the state.

 

It's of more practical value to vote in government that's more libertarian focused like UKIP and then prove to the public that this government can make life better for everyone, and once they've seen an improvement and we've associated those benefits with that government they can push for even more changes.

 

Ideologically I agree with you, in a perfect world we'd instantly educate the entire planet, we'd instantly switch to a better form of governance with maximum liberty and we'd all live happily ever after. Screaming back to reality for a second, it's obvious that voting in democracy simply doesn't work this way, given a choice of:

 

1) Not voting at all

2) Voting for a worse government

3) Voting for a better government

 

I'm going to vote for a better government, to vote to get SOME freedoms back, the moment there's a libertarian party on the ballot paper who actually stands a chance of winning, my vote will go to them, currently that's not the case. Having a more libertarian government allows people to get used to some of these changes and once they normalize those changes you can push for slightly more extreme ones, let them normalize that and continue until we're free.

 

People are more accepting of gradual change over time - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

 

If you have a better practical idea of how to completely flip all of the bad policies over immediately without waiting, then I'm all ears.

[dsayers]

This is not comparable to rape.

 

Do you mean not comparable in that they're morally identical? Or do you mean not comparable in that voting does far more damage far more efficiently than rape?

 

this government can make life better for everyone

 

You're talking about a unicorn; "better for everyone" is internally inconsistent. Better is subjective while for everybody is objective. A 3rd party can not make somebody's life better without their consent. Government dispenses with consent, which is precisely why it is inherently evil and any participation or legitimization of it is evil by extension.

 

If you have a better practical idea of how to completely flip all of the bad policies over immediately without waiting, then I'm all ears.

 

So your argument is that if I (one person) cannot provide an answer for how to achieve the goal of peace without using violence, then your belief in using violence to curtail violence must be valid?

 

You end rape by not raping, by not condoning rape, by not participating in rape, by not supporting others who rape, by stopping rape, by helping others to understand that rape isn't moral if you call it by a different name, etc etc. The anxiety we experience in not being able to effect change on a scale much larger than ourselves overnight isn't valid justification for allowing for less rape in the meantime.

 

The State is either the initiation of the use of force or it is not. If it is not, then there's no reason to pare it down at all. If it is, there's no reason to allow for it on any scale.

[Frosty]

Do you mean not comparable in that they're morally identical? Or do you mean not comparable in that voting does far more damage far more efficiently than rape?

 

You're talking about a unicorn; "better for everyone" is internally inconsistent. Better is subjective while for everybody is objective. A 3rd party can not make somebody's life better without their consent. Government dispenses with consent, which is precisely why it is inherently evil and any participation or legitimization of it is evil by extension.

 

 

So your argument is that if I (one person) cannot provide an answer for how to achieve the goal of peace without using violence, then your belief in using violence to curtail violence must be valid?

 

You end rape by not raping, by not condoning rape, by not participating in rape, by not supporting others who rape, by stopping rape, by helping others to understand that rape isn't moral if you call it by a different name, etc etc. The anxiety we experience in not being able to effect change on a scale much larger than ourselves overnight isn't valid justification for allowing for less rape in the meantime.

 

The State is either the initiation of the use of force or it is not. If it is not, then there's no reason to pare it down at all. If it is, there's no reason to allow for it on any scale.

 

They're not comparable, one cannot be used as an analogy for the other. A political system is obviously more complex. Morally they're both wrong but that's not sufficient to make a comparison between them.

 

I'd disagree that better is necessarily subjective, there are many things which are objectively better for everyone. If I were to put people into a large box and fill it with water to drown everyone, that's objectively worse for the survival, health and happiness of everyone, removing the water is objectively better.

 

A 3rd party can in fact make someones life better without their consent. If you're asleep and your boiler leaks Carbon Monoxide which knocks you unconscious and is about to kill you, and I force myself into your house, forceably remove you from the house without your consent, would you not agree that I've made your life better, in that I've likely just extended it significantly, despite not being able to consent.

 

No my argument is that if we cannot or do not have a method for solving the problem instantly that the next best thing is to solve it through gradual change. And that if we ever do have the chance to solve it immediately, I'd be happy to help effect that change.

 

It's not anxiety of not being able to effect change of something on a scale bigger than ourselves, it's the logical conclusion that reality does not mirror our ideals, not everyone is smart enough or educated enough to understand the immorality and corruption of government and that's a practical roadblock you have to deal with when making changes for the better.

 

If there has to be a "meantime" then it's objectively better to have less rape in that time. I've not used that to justify that action instead of total removal of force, I don't see the immediate total removal of force as an option given the constraints of reality.

 

What do you mean by "allow for it"? You mean to not take action to stop it. OK so how do we do that? You're in no way allowing something to occur that you have no method of stopping. If I could stop all initiation of force in the world with a click of my fingers or though any other means then I would. The practical reality is that we cannot do that, we can slowly make change over time, and the evidence of this is that libertarian parties which have extremely big changes in their manifesto gain almost no traction, where as less libertarian (but still more than the establishment) stand a real chance of being voted in, such as UKIP winning the Euro elections.

 

Again I'd be happy to revise my opinion on this if anyone has any suggestions for instantly fixing the problem, meanwhile I think that helping reduce the force against society from the government by voting for that change is a good thing. I find it hard to believe that anyone is against the reduction of the use of force in the absence of being able to stop it entirely.

[dsayers]

If I could stop all initiation of force in the world with a click of my fingers or though any other means then I would.

 

You don't get that this is paradoxical, do you? To snap your fingers and eradicate the initiation of the use of force would be initiating the use of force.

 

You're 3 for 3 in making posts that speak of people as if they're pawns and not people. I think this is how you're able to 3 for 3 ignore the moral consideration altogether. And how you're able to miss that this quote is paradoxical. I first noticed this when you spoke of "governance with maximum liberty."

 

I also noticed that you continue to speak of reality as a reason to reject morality as the primary consideration. However, this fails to acknowledge that morality is the acceptance of reality! If I own myself, then you own yourself and to initiate the use of force would be immoral. Reality is how we know that government is immoral on any scale.

 

Government is immoral. Rape is immoral. They are therefore morally identical. This is important because "government" is a pseudonym for violence used to conceal the violence in order to pass vice off as virtue. Substituting a word that is morally identical (such as rape) shatters any obfuscation so that we can talk about the same thing. You say you support incremental reduction (that doesn't occur) of the State but would not support incremental reduction of rape, but you do not realize that these positions are conflicting.

 

I don't get to go out and rob a liquor store and then tell the jury that I'm not that guy over there that held up an entire bank, so it's okay. And if you're saying that immorality is tolerable so long as you like its specific application, we have nothing further to discuss. I will not waste more time if the person I'm speaking with has no interest in the truth.

[ribuck]

...given a choice of:

 

1) Not voting at all

2) Voting for a worse government

3) Voting for a better government

 

I'm going to vote for a better government...

 

That may be the source of your misunderstanding. You are not being offered those choices. Here are the choices you are actually being offered:

 

1) Withdrawing your consent for violent rule by the majority over the minority,

2) Endorsing violent rule by the majority over the minority, with ruler A,

3) Endorsing violent rule by the majority over the minority, with ruler B.

 

If you are endorsing violent rule by the majority over the minority, there's no realistic prospect of gradual improvement. It's always in the self-interest of those who wield the power to increase their use of it, because that increases their chances of re-election.

[Frosty]

The whole point is that it's paradoxical, it's to outline that it cannot happen, I'm try to make a point that you've ignored or don't understand. The point is that no one has suggested any method for eradicating the initiation of force immediately, I've asked you to provide some method for this and you've not provided anything.

 

I've not ignored the moral consideration altogether, that's a blatant lie. in fact I've explained several times that we're in agreement with the initiation of force being immoral as an ideology, where we disagree is how to arrive at that goal and the practical concerns that has in an imperfect world.

 

I've provided examples of libertarian parties efforts vs slightly less libertarian parties and the difference is night and day, almost no one is supporting maximum liberty, where as we have actual change by instead voting in a compromise, people are happier to make smaller changes and if the change is beneficial then there's a good chance they'll continue to make smaller changes in future which add up to a big change they'd not necessarily be willing to jump to straight away.

 

You could bash your head against that particular wall of trying to only make changes to meet your exact goals rather than having some compromise in between, and maybe never get anywhere. Getting to a free society through incremental means is better than always suggesting major changes with no compromise and never getting anywhere.

 

I agree with your analogy in pure terms of morality, but not in practicality. And again I've agreed with you over and over (which you seem to be ignoring?) that they're both immoral. The difference is in ability to effect change. If I see a rape occurring then I'd attempt to stop it completely and immediately. However with government I have no option to do so, i've asked several times what this might be, and you've not responded. I made the distinction that to "allow" these things you must be inferring that I have the ability to stop it but simply chose not to, which is wrong and it's the basis for why your assertion that these positions are conflicting, they're not.

 

And i've stated several times (which I think you've also ignored) that if anyone does have a way of stopping the immoral use of force immediately when it comes to the state, I'm all ears and will gladly help.

 

I never said immorality is tolerable, I'm making the case that in the absence of being able to jump straight to a perfectly moral world, trying to achieve that world through incremental steps is better. You see this as a black and white issue, but in reality immorality is a sliding scale with perfectly moral at one end, arbitrarily evil at the other end and shades of grey in between.

 

You would only be "tolerating" a less immoral system if the option of a perfect one existed, which I've said over and over again that I'd happily take if it was an option - asked you several times for how to achieve this, and it's gone ignored. My statement for "tolerating" immorality is, and always has been, a conditional statement based on our ability to get to a perfect morality.

 

It's my expectation that if I personally do not decide to vote that nothing will change and we'll remain in this completely immoral system, but if I decide to vote for a party which is trying to give us back some of our freedoms and make us more free than we are now, that it's a move in the right direction.

 

To think otherwise is to classify all shades of immorality as equal and to ignore the very real practical benefit in reducing immorality in instances where you cannot remove it all together.

That may be the source of your misunderstanding. You are not being offered those choices. Here are the choices you are actually being offered:

 

1) Withdrawing your consent for violent rule by the majority over the minority,

2) Endorsing violent rule by the majority over the minority, with ruler A,

3) Endorsing violent rule by the majority over the minority, with ruler B.

 

If you are endorsing violent rule by the majority over the minority, there's no realistic prospect of gradual improvement. It's always in the self-interest of those who wield the power to increase their use of it, because that increases their chances of re-election.

 

And what are the out come of those choices.

 

1) Nothing happens, or it gets worse (I've not voted for 12 years and things are getting measurably worse).

2) Things get worse by voting for less freedom.

3) Things get better by voting for more freedom.

 

I've only ever seen policies which reduce freedoms and increase control, they win by appealing to people by offering them something (free healthcare, guaranteed bank accounts, etc) and increasing taxes (force), however UKIP actually have a manifesto that talks about reducing taxes, massively reducing spending, increasing free trade, and cutting something like 2 million government jobs. Which are all good changes.

 

I agree with what you're saying if you're voting in parties whose policies and goals are to increase power, I'd expect that from them, but now we're starting to get parties which are advocating for the reduction of government and a reduction of power, is it fair to say that if they're elected they'll fight to increase their power? I'm not so sure this makes sense.

 

If they're elected it's because people believe in what they're advocating for, if that's freedom then doing the reverse and creating less of it by trying to get more power it's simply going to alienate their voters and get them kicked out. UKIP are a breath of fresh air because they're actually offering policies which go against the grain of modern politics, they may not follow through with them, that's always a possibility and if they don't I wont vote for them and go back to withholding my vote.

 

One thing is for sure, me withholding my vote certainly doesn't make any practical change in reality to our freedom, where as voting for a party who advocates smaller government does make a practical change - you could argue they'll do a complete 180 on their policies but that doesn't make much sense to me and remains to be seen.

[BlackHeron]

I think this quote wins the entire internet for today, if not the entire year. 

 

...voting is like shopping at a business that you fundamentally disapprove of with the intention of taking advantage of the really good sales that you think that the business will lose money on.

 

 

[powder]

 

 

I've not ignored the moral consideration altogether, that's a blatant lie. in fact I've explained several times that we're in agreement with the initiation of force being immoral as an ideology, where we disagree is how to arrive at that goal and the practical concerns that has in an imperfect world.

 

I've provided examples of libertarian parties efforts vs slightly less libertarian parties and the difference is night and day, almost no one is supporting maximum liberty, where as we have actual change by instead voting in a compromise, people are happier to make smaller changes and if the change is beneficial then there's a good chance they'll continue to make smaller changes in future which add up to a big change they'd not necessarily be willing to jump to straight away.

 

 

And i've stated several times (which I think you've also ignored) that if anyone does have a way of stopping the immoral use of force immediately when it comes to the state, I'm all ears and will gladly help.

 

 

You would only be "tolerating" a less immoral system if the option of a perfect one existed, which I've said over and over again that I'd happily take if it was an option - asked you several times for how to achieve this, and it's gone ignored. My statement for "tolerating" immorality is, and always has been, a conditional statement based on our ability to get to a perfect morality.

 

To think otherwise is to classify all shades of immorality as equal and to ignore the very real practical benefit in reducing immorality in instances where you cannot remove it all together.

 

 

 

 

So, the only argument you are willing to accept must provide an immediate solution to the initiation of force?  Who said they had, or would, or could provide such a thing?  You must have either ignored or not understand dsayers response to that question that you claim he has evaded.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I understand your reasoning but are you able to show any evidence that the political process has ever been able to achieve what you claim - the gradual reduction of violence.  Have you tested your thesis on a smaller scale?  

 

Markus started a thread expressing the exact same concern as you - the "lets be realistic and practical and do it gradually" argument.  You might find some more ideas over there to help you sort this out.  

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39919-an-open-letter-to-stefan-molyneux-about-minarchism/

Frosty.  So, the only argument you are willing to accept must provide an immediate solution to the initiation of force?  Who said they had, or would, or could provide such a thing?  You must have either ignored or not understand dsayers response to that question that you claim he has evaded.  

 

 

 

 

 

So your argument is that if I (one person) cannot provide an answer for how to achieve the goal of peace without using violence, then your belief in using violence to curtail violence must be valid?

 

You end rape by not raping, by not condoning rape, by not participating in rape, by not supporting others who rape, by stopping rape, by helping others to understand that rape isn't moral if you call it by a different name, etc etc. The anxiety we experience in not being able to effect change on a scale much larger than ourselves overnight isn't valid justification for allowing for less rape in the meantime.

 

The State is either the initiation of the use of force or it is not. If it is not, then there's no reason to pare it down at all. If it is, there's no reason to allow for it on any scale.

 

 

I understand your reasoning but are you able to show any evidence that the political process has ever been able to achieve what you claim - the gradual reduction of violence.  Have you tested your thesis on a smaller scale?  

 

 

Markus started a thread expressing the exact same concern as you - the "lets be realistic and practical and do it gradually" argument.  You might find some more ideas over there to help you sort this out.  

 

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/39919-an-open-letter-to-stefan-molyneux-about-minarchism/