Is political participation in a statist society wrong?

[Blackout]

I think the argument is that the state initiates violence and thus is immoral. Participation in the state is at the least enabling the initiation of violence and thus is also immoral. However, given that the state exists, should we not try to shape it in some way? Does abstaining from elections actually further the cause of liberalism?

 

I get that politics is the way statists manipulate voters into giving the state one's freedom and money, but given that different political parties have ideologies ranging from big government to enormously big government, shouldn't we seek to empower the most moderate factions of government? Sure, no amount of cancer is good for you but if it's going to be forced on you, wouldn't you prefer a smaller tumor?

[WasatchMan]

So the state is fundamentally immoral.  It just does not happen to be immoral due to outside circumstances (differing ideologies, flawed politicians, non-perfect constitutions, money in politics, etc.).  It exists so some people can initiate force against others to get their way.  It does not empower those who wish to limit it, it is a tool for those who want to wield it.

 

A great argument that Stefan has created in response to this question is, would you join the mafia in order to make the mafia a free market enterprise from the inside?  If not, then I don't expect you can join the biggest mafia with expectations of reforming it from within.

 

Also, as a practical question about the smaller tumor, I would say no. Like most tumors, states don't tend to get smaller they only tend to grow.  I would rather have the tumor grow bigger and bigger and kill the beast as quick as possible so people can (hopefully) learn from mistakes of the past and start new societies that rely on the initiation of force. 

 

Atlas Shrugged is one of the most popular books ever written and probably one of the best artistic arguments against the state ever conceived, and that was in 1957 when the state was much smaller than it is today. There has been a libertarian movement for decades, and the state has only seemed to accelerate.  In other words, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.

[Better Future]

I do vote, but only to troll my government with this guy. Maybe when the state collapses, people will remember that weird guy who warned us about what was going to happen.

 

[bitcoin]

If no one voted, the system would prove itself to be totalitarian... Otherwise it wouldn't function

[Blackout]

So the state is fundamentally immoral.  It just does not happen to be immoral due to outside circumstances (differing ideologies, flawed politicians, non-perfect constitutions, money in politics, etc.).  It exists so some people can initiate force against others to get their way.  It does not empower those who wish to limit it, it is a tool for those who want to wield it.

A great argument that Stefan has created in response to this question is, would you join the mafia in order to make the mafia a free market enterprise from the inside?  If not, then I don't expect you can join the biggest mafia with expectations of reforming it from within.

 

I am not under any illusion that the citizens can wield the power of the government to rid ourselves of government or reform the immorality of the politicians. Yet, whether we participate in the political process or not, our money will be stolen at the barrel of a gun and used in various ways. Therefore, does it not make sense to try to influence the way our own money is spent and use our votes elect anyone who can help slow the growth of government?

 

 

 

Also, as a practical question about the smaller tumor, I would say no. Like most tumors, states don't tend to get smaller they only tend to grow.  I would rather have the tumor grow bigger and bigger and kill the beast as quick as possible so people can (hopefully) learn from mistakes of the past and start new societies that rely on the initiation of force. 

 

 

I just feel like we're not going to make enough of a dent in the ignorance of the public or it's addiction to other people's money to ensure what rises out of the ashes of our broken society will be any better. A peaceful transition is not on the horizon, which means the resulting turmoil will probably wipe out most of our wealth and leave our children a wreck to fix.

 

 

There has been a libertarian movement for decades, and the state has only seemed to accelerate.  In other words, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.

 

 

I don't think the libertarian movement has ever gained enough momentum or picked up enough clout to prove whether it works or not. If people who hate government are too disgusted to participate in it, while those who are addicted to it put great effort into its continued expansion, guess what will happen? It's rather like how couples who want to be good parents rarely have a lot of them and people who don't give a shit about their kids have a truck full, guaranteeing we will have lots more dysfunctional individuals down the road.

 

 

I do vote, but only to troll my government with this guy. Maybe when the state collapses, people will remember that weird guy who warned us about what was going to happen.

 

 

Thanks for the video; that guy's a riot. I'd settle for a government so full of gridlock that it fights itself too much to get anything done.

[shirgall]

Is it wrong to try to curry favor with the Mob?

[Blackout]

Is it wrong to try to curry favor with the Mob?

 

I don't know. Is it wrong to ask the guy shaking me down if he can take out the trash when he passes by the kitchen? 

[shirgall]

I don't know. Is it wrong to ask the guy shaking me down if he can take out the trash when he passes by the kitchen? 

 

That's kinda the point, everyone needs to decide the costs and benefits out for themselves.

[Slavik]

Considering that I dont want a state at all.  Considering that just about every reduction that is promised turns out to be either a total lie, or will be null and void by the next president.  Considering that in order for me to know what I am voting for it would take hours a day to educate myself on a given bill and its possible ramifications.  Considering how annoyed I get when the opposite happens.  Considering the lines I have to stand in to make that vote.  I really do not want to waste my time on voting which I personally think of as a useless  pursuit and a horrible waste of my time.  I rather not be frustrated, learn some other subject, educate others, and just enjoy my free time.  

[Frosty]

My position on this continues to be that there is no obvious practical route to a peaceful world through the abstaining from voting, in the UK we get less people voting every year yet we're still cascading left/socialist. Instead I predict that it's more realistic that we'll get closer to what we want by voting for more libertarian leaning parties which aim to make small changes in the right direction, over long enough periods of time we slowly move towards liberty and less violence, but it has to be done in small baby steps. Meanwhile discussion of philosophy should be used to convince people peacefully as the primary tactic to swing votes .

 

I don't think that a collapse of government and millions of dependent people being suddenly made vulnerable is a good thing, it would cause immeasurable harm, I draw analogies between this and my interest in atheism, given the chance would I press a button that got rid of religion? No, despite desperately wanting an atheist/agnostic society which values rationality I also don't want to kick out the crutch that many people lean on.

 

Unfortunately you do have to deal with the issue that you're at least partially complicit in the violence of the state even if its just temporarily, I don't have a good response for that only to say that I think it's better to vote in someone who will use less force by exorcising my vote rather than deal with someone who will use more force by abstaining.

 

There is part of my brain that is like the almost autistic part that wants to immediately stop all the violence of the state and dislikes the idea of being complicit in the force of voting, but then there's the practical side of my brain that gives me that compromise.

 

A quick example, few libertarians like the idea of tax, yet the practical side of our brains tells us that paying the taxes and living with it is better than going to jail and that allows us to hold principles in our mind that are ideals but also allow us to operate in reality, I can't just let the more autistic part of my brain take over and guide my actions when there's every possibility that abstaining from voting may never achieve anything but voting might make a difference in the right direction, if I have to be complicit in the violence of the state for that then I don't like that but that's something I'm prepared to live with if we have a shot at a peaceful society in the long run.

[WasatchMan]

 Yet, whether we participate in the political process or not, our money will be stolen at the barrel of a gun and used in various ways.

 

I think this statement is true, so then ask yourself, if it doesn't change why participate?

 

 

Therefore, does it not make sense to try to influence the way our own money is spent and use our votes elect anyone who can help slow the growth of government?

 

You are making the claim that your participation can slow the growth of government, however I already gave you an argument of why this is a fools errand, because it doesn't work. ("Atlas Shrugged is one of the most popular books ever written and probably one of the best artistic arguments against the state ever conceived, and that was in 1957 when the state was much smaller than it is today. There has been a libertarian movement for decades, and the state has only seemed to accelerate.  In other words, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.")

 

 

Do you have examples of something like the US government, with probably the most liberty conscious people on the planet due to its history, slowing its growth due to political activism?

 

 

I don't think the libertarian movement has ever gained enough momentum or picked up enough clout to prove whether it works or not. If people who hate government are too disgusted to participate in it, while those who are addicted to it put great effort into its continued expansion, guess what will happen? It's rather like how couples who want to be good parents rarely have a lot of them and people who don't give a shit about their kids have a truck full, guaranteeing we will have lots more dysfunctional individuals down the road.

 

I don't think more libertarianism is going to help.  It is not like the little bit of libertarianism did some, and if only they had more support they could do more.  The government has accelerated under huge libertarian movements, so there is no empirical data that tells me all we have do is get more libertarianism activism and the government will start to shrink. The data just doesn't support this claim. 

 

Again the governments purpose is not to shrink due to political activism, it is a tool for those who seek to dominate people.  More libertarianism is not going to remove as tool the ability to legally initiate force from those who want to seek power over others. 

 

All you do by participating in libertarianism is legitimize the role and idea as the government being for the people.

[Blackout]

My position is close to Frosty's.

For those who do not vote, I'd like to ask whether you think a democracy is preferable to authoritarianism? Is there more freedom in a democracy? If you prefer democracy but refuse to vote, how is it any different than living in an authoritarian country?

[AncapFTW]

I would argue that the fact that the US government is so different from European governments, in many ways more freedom based, proves that libertarian politics does help. Sure, it doesn't stop the government from growing, but then again it's very small.

[Blackout]

I think this statement is true, so then ask yourself, if it doesn't change why participate?

 

Are politicians elected by majority vote? Do some politicians hold positions that are less oppressive than others? If the answer to both are yes, then participation matters.

 

Do you have examples of something like the US government, with probably the most liberty conscious people on the planet due to its history, slowing its growth due to political activism?

I don't think more libertarianism is going to help.  It is not like the little bit of libertarianism did some, and if only they had more support they could do more.  The government has accelerated under huge libertarian movements, so there is no empirical data that tells me all we have do is get more libertarianism activism and the government will start to shrink. The data just doesn't support this claim.

 

Pew research poll conducted in 2014 showed that only 11% of people described themselves as libertarian. Show me an libertarian presidential candidate that has garnered more than a token 1% or 2% popular vote, then I will believe that libertarianism has been genuinely tried and has failed.

 

The goal is to hamper the attempts of government to expand taxation and seizure of the private economy. So if progressives want to institute a VAT tax and conservatives want to institute a flat tax, voting in the conservatives may achieve this objective. Abstaining from voting is not voting for less government, it is having no voice at all (in so far as politicians are concerned) and guarantees your opinions will be ignored.

[Livemike]

Let me tell you why the State continues to exist.  It's because people like you (and I'm not blaming you, I thought the same and it's the result of decades of lies) think that the best way to deal with it is to deal with it.  The State will continue to exist as long as everyone tries to change it by it's rules.  Almost everyone is disadvantaged by the State and will gain by abolishing it, but almost nobody is trying.  That's because they've bought the lie that trying to change it will yield better/faster/cheaper results.  The State doesn't just use propaganda, it IS propaganda.  The only way to defeat it is for people to acknowledge this.  But as long as they're trying to minimize it's effects, they're treating it as a real thing that needs to be dealt with, instead of imaginary boogie man that needs to be ignored.

[Matt D]

My position is close to Frosty's.

 

For those who do not vote, I'd like to ask whether you think a democracy is preferable to authoritarianism? Is there more freedom in a democracy? If you prefer democracy but refuse to vote, how is it any different than living in an authoritarian country?

 

I do not vote on the principle that Statism is immoral. I would not condemn someone who wants to petition and beg their master for fewer lashes since they are in a state of nature. Abstaining for the ballot box is my way of saying, "I will not pretend that I am being given a choice when I am in a system which denies my possibility to voluntarily choose freedom." You're right, it might mean that my masters give me more lashes, but it also means my pride will be unbroken.

 

If you're going to take the purely pragmatic approach, you have to make the case that not voting leads to authoritarianism and that there are enough anarchists who don't vote based on moral principle that even if all of them were to suddenly vote for Libertarian candidates it would actually change our course. Last time I checked, (*whispers) there aren't that many of us.

 

 

I don't think that a collapse of government and millions of dependent people being suddenly made vulnerable is a good thing, it would cause immeasurable harm, I draw analogies between this and my interest in atheism, given the chance would I press a button that got rid of religion? No, despite desperately wanting an atheist/agnostic society which values rationality I also don't want to kick out the crutch that many people lean on.

 

I too would not end the government tomorrow if I was given the capacity by snapping my fingers. Without philosophy you would create a power vacuum which the corrupt would rush to fill, and it's not likely we could avoid some bloodshed in the process. That having been said, there is no perfect transition to a free society. Some people are going to lose out. It's unfortunate and in many ways those people are not responsible for the system they were born into. Nevertheless, for every winner (in this case those who advocate living consistent with moral principles) there's always at least one loser (those who profit from irrationality and enslavement).

[Blackout]

 The State doesn't just use propaganda, it IS propaganda.  The only way to defeat it is for people to acknowledge this.  But as long as they're trying to minimize it's effects, they're treating it as a real thing that needs to be dealt with, instead of imaginary boogie man that needs to be ignored

 

 

Yes, I get that the government is not real. But the guns that these thugs wield are real and, by extension, the arbitrary laws and regulation they enforce are real. How exactly am I supposed to ignore this rampaging bull in my china shop? I do get your point about people playing their game instead of putting an end to the game, but can you play the game to minimize your loss while talking the other players into walking away from it together? 

 

I do not vote on the principle that Statism is immoral. I would not condemn someone who wants to petition and beg their master for fewer lashes since they are in a state of nature. Abstaining for the ballot box is my way of saying, "I will not pretend that I am being given a choice when I am in a system which denies my possibility to voluntarily choose freedom." You're right, it might mean that my masters give me more lashes, but it also means my pride will be unbroken.

 

 

If you follow this line of reasoning to its logical conclusion, why do you not end up in a jail cell, taking the ultimate moral stand against financing terror and oppression through taxation? I'm not saying you should; I just want to know why the logic doesn't lead there.

 

If you're going to take the purely pragmatic approach, you have to make the case that not voting leads to authoritarianism and that there are enough anarchists who don't vote based on moral principle that even if all of them were to suddenly vote for Libertarian candidates it would actually change our course. Last time I checked, (*whispers) there aren't that many of us.

 

 

I don't know for sure if abstaining from voting leads to authoritarianism, but it would depend on whether the those governing derive their power through majority consent or by the force of its guns. That is to say, if the guns are the reason they have power, then even if nobody votes but everyone continues to pay taxes, the government will exist. As to the second part, no there are not many of us but we're here to try and change that, right?

[Blackout]

You are making the claim that your participation can slow the growth of government, however I already gave you an argument of why this is a fools errand, because it doesn't work. ("Atlas Shrugged is one of the most popular books ever written and probably one of the best artistic arguments against the state ever conceived, and that was in 1957 when the state was much smaller than it is today. There has been a libertarian movement for decades, and the state has only seemed to accelerate.  In other words, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein.")

 

 

WasatchMan, I have only a surface understanding of her work from essays and videos so I can't really say anything meaningful about it. I did pick it up this evening, so I'll soon rectify that.   

 

I'd actually never thought to question whether or not voting could be wrong until I found FDR, so this entire conversation has been very provocative. Lots of thanks to the community!

[WasatchMan]

WasatchMan, I have only a surface understanding of her work from essays and videos so I can't really say anything meaningful about it. I did pick it up this evening, so I'll soon rectify that. 

 

I'd actually never thought to question whether or not voting could be wrong until I found FDR, so this entire conversation has been very provocative. Lots of thanks to the community!

 

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your questions.  I also would like to take this opportunity to applaud you for your diligence to seek truth and not just accept base arguments and others beliefs, in what I observe as a genuine manner.  Stefan has put out a lot of great arguments against participation in state activities in order to reform the state - for this topic I would recommend you seek out call in shows about Ron Paul's presidential campaign (2008 and 2012) where this issue was heavy on people minds.  I can't claim to be able to present them all (and as elegantly) in this format, but can only indicate the shape of the arguments.  It sounds like you are on the right (and only) track to determine the truth or falsehood of certain propositions: a dedication to determine where logical consistency leads you.

[Frosty]

Let me tell you why the State continues to exist.  It's because people like you (and I'm not blaming you, I thought the same and it's the result of decades of lies) think that the best way to deal with it is to deal with it.  The State will continue to exist as long as everyone tries to change it by it's rules.

 

I would step in here and say that I don't think the best way to deal with it is "to deal with it", I think the best and possibly only long term way to deal with it is to educate people to the immorality of the state which we do through discussion of philosophy. However there is somewhat of a false dichotomy occurring here, it's not either one or the other, doing both should be encouraged in my opinion.

 

We suffer day to day with the violence of the state, and if we can lower the amount of violence by voting in certain people or policies which restore some freedoms and lift the violence, even a little, then that is an improvement. Meanwhile you can continue to educate people in philosophy and all that other good stuff.

 

It's a sort of assumption that everyone voting either condones the violence or at least is ignorant to it, which is just false.

 

I do not vote on the principle that Statism is immoral. I would not condemn someone who wants to petition and beg their master for fewer lashes since they are in a state of nature. Abstaining for the ballot box is my way of saying, "I will not pretend that I am being given a choice when I am in a system which denies my possibility to voluntarily choose freedom." You're right, it might mean that my masters give me more lashes, but it also means my pride will be unbroken.

 

Taxes are immoral but presumably you pay them? I'm not convinced that you're 100% acting on principle here, and no one can reasonably expected to. I struggle with the idea of contributing towards the violence of the state by voting, but it is a bit of a grey area because (as Stefan has done a video before) there is no morality in violent situations, we're voting under coercion and it's the same reason people pay taxes, under coercion there is no such thing as consent.

 

 

 

I too would not end the government tomorrow if I was given the capacity by snapping my fingers. Without philosophy you would create a power vacuum which the corrupt would rush to fill, and it's not likely we could avoid some bloodshed in the process. That having been said, there is no perfect transition to a free society. Some people are going to lose out. It's unfortunate and in many ways those people are not responsible for the system they were born into. Nevertheless, for every winner (in this case those who advocate living consistent with moral principles) there's always at least one loser (those who profit from irrationality and enslavement).

 

So a good question would be, what would this look like? A slow ramp down of government over some period of time with the goal of eventually arriving at a voluntary/libertarian/anarchist society, benefits would slowly be reduced, regulation would probably be immediately reduced, taxes would go down, people relying on benefits would have the opportunity to find a suitable replacement.

 

But isn't this basically what it would look like if we simply started voting in these things under the current scheme?

 

I voted UKIP for the UK general election, they're not a completely libertarian party but they're a lot more capitalism/right leaning who are for smaller government, now I don't agree with all their policies but I think that the overall amount of violence with them in control would be down, they're aiming to decrease the interference of government in private lives, lower taxes and greatly strip government jobs, they're basically the only party expressing the willingness to decrease control. They grew from about 3% of the votes in 2010 to ~14% in 2015 which is a huge surge. I think it would be a positive accomplishment to get someone like UKIP in to power, lower government control and use the positive effect we all know that would have as evidence to further lower control and increase freedom.

 

Or I could not vote and a huge number of other people instead and we could end up with more of the same or likely worse. While we're under the coercion of democracy I'll always cast a vote to lower violence, if all the votes are to increase it, that would be the time not to vote.

[Blackout]

I listened to Stephan’s Podcast after the 2008 Ron Paul campaign defeat and his three part series on the failure of the libertarian movement. I have much respect for his analysis and agree with a lot of it. However, I am ambivalent on a couple points.

 

Stephan states that the primary reason for the failure of the political movement is the inconsistency or contradiction on the issue of taxation. While I agree that this is fatal for the validity of any moral philosophical principle, I do not believe this is what drove voters away from the political movement. How can voters be put off by this inconsistency then move on to vote for democrats who rail on the 1% but are themselves part of the 1% and regularly give kickbacks to their biggest donors who are also part of the 1%, or republicans who rail on special interest groups but can’t seem to turn down farm and energy subsidies. Instead, I suggest that the main hurdle to libertarians gaining any foothold in politics is the lack of any specific gain for those voting for them. I feel that most people go to the polls to vote themselves a share of someone else’s income and the libertarians have nothing to offer them (and rightly so). Yet, if we can’t even convince people that a small state is better than a big state, how in the world are they going to accept that the best solution is no state at all?

 

The other point Stephan made is that libertarian philosophy is better served by embracing liberty and voluntarism in our lives rather than the failed attempts at education and political activism. I don’t have any evidence that his approach is mistaken, but I wonder if we have made any progress since the time of Socrates when it comes to embracing the truth. How many times have you spoken the truth and been met with disdain and visceral denials? It can be absolutely horrifying to get a glimpse of a truth that could shatter the prejudices that form the pillar of your identity and I honestly think that people who aren’t philosophically minded would rather believe convenient lies than such truths.

The comments made in this thread about the frustration and near futility of trying to change the system from within are well taken, but I’m still waiting to hear the argument why trying to effect less statist violence is worse than taking no action at all.

[thebeardslastcall]

The comments made in this thread about the frustration and near futility of trying to change the system from within are well taken, but I’m still waiting to hear the argument why trying to effect less statist violence is worse than taking no action at all.

Because it discourages participation from others and helps them to see and question the validity of the state. They can't see who you are voting for or why. If I eat junk food at McDonalds all the time and it's always busy I'm not going to think too much about my behavior, especially if I can't see what they are ordering or why they are here versus somewhere else. Now if I go into a McDonalds and it is empty repeatedly I'm much more likely to reconsider my action and so too will the employees (or the people running the polling sites). You aren't voting in a vacuum, what you do is visible and effects other people's behavior and perceptions of what is okay and what is not okay.

 

The most effective movements to get people to change their power use behavior was not by telling them what is "right or wrong", but by comparing them to their neighbors "average electrical power usage" and making them feel "behind". Then they were more motivated to "compete" with their neighbors to use less power. Posters that tell you littering is wrong, but also tell you a majority of the people are doing it, will actually make most people more likely to litter, not less. Likewise if they feel their peers are abandoning voting and the statist viewpoint they're going to feel pressured to change their position, as generally the statist position is forced onto them and accepted because of social pressures to begin with. Thus when you remove or alter these pressures they are free to, and possibly even pressured or encouraged to, consider a non-voting way of doing things.

 

Calling it "no action" or "inaction" is a framing used by people trying to trick people into voting mentalities to make them feel like they are accomplishing or doing nothing and are just lazy. Tricking people into a voting mentality is how they keep getting people to vote successfully. By making voting the "default" position and making it hard to get out of that position by giving you poor logic that you will use to keep voting. They're heavily influencing how you talk about, frame, and argue the conversation. That is all part of the propaganda to get people to keep voting despite the problems and ineffectiveness (to the true goals) of voting. They're telling you that you have to fight, so you best fight to win, and denying your ability to avoid the fight. Then they get you to spend your time learning how to fight and tell you best how to fight and how to learn to fight all the while keeping you from the true victory of learning how to avoid the fight. Then if you don't train they tell you that you'll get beat up and mugged if you play the game that way, that their way is the only way.

 

Play to win, not to avoid being last, or you'll never win.

[Blackout]

The US actually ranks very low amongst democratic nations for voter turnout with the percentage of participants in the high 50's on a presidential year and low 40's in non-presidential years. Voter participation has been going down for decades, but we are only trending more statist. At what point do you expect this to change?

 

Consider that the government employs 19% of and union membership comprises 11% of the workforce (there is significant overlap), with those groups having the highset voter turnout rate. Add to that the fact that women younger than 60 have a much higher turnout than men which seems to correlate pretty well with single mother welfare. These demographics predictibly support a strong and violent state, so what difference is it to them that the poll site is full or empty?

 

This also goes back to my question about whether the government's legitimacy is all in its guns. If so, wouldn't a lack of voters just result in totalitarianism by default? Also, are you optomistic that people will stop participating in politics and start confronting the statists, when the vast majority of them can't grow enough of a spine to call the cops when their neighbors beat their kids?

 

The logic of your post is valid, but I feel too cynical to believe it can work.