Is Voting Immoral?

[jpahmad]

My logical proof that voting does not violate the NAP

 

 

 

[dsayers]

In terms of subject matter, this is one of the most engaging videos I've seen in a while. Thank you for taking the time to make it. As somebody who first opened this thread with the conclusion that political voting is the initiation of the use of force, you have convinced me otherwise I hold truth above all, so this is very valuable to me. Thank you.

[jpahmad]

In terms of subject matter, this is one of the most engaging videos I've seen in a while. Thank you for taking the time to make it. As somebody who first opened this thread with the conclusion that political voting is the initiation of the use of force, you have convinced me otherwise I hold truth above all, so this is very valuable to me. Thank you.

 

Wow!  Thanks dsayers.  I was really worried that I made a mistake somewhere.  But if you don't think so, then I am thrilled.  You are very sharp when it comes to spotting inconsistencies in logic (as demonstrated in previous threads throughout this forum)  I knew I had to pass the "dsayers test." 

[csekavec]

Great video, +1 for you sir.  I disagree with almost everything.

 

Nice to see the return of the  A->C->B aggression problem. It's formal name escapes me at the moment.  There are other questions from it that you didn't touch on but are relevant. 

 

There are very lengthy arguments for and against the Nuremberg Defense. 

 

Owning a desire to initiate force is both immoral and a NAP violation. 

[Hi there]

What are the good arguments based around borders in this regard, or whether one is justified to call for border screening in one's political action, given the welfare state, impedance to free association, and the power of the state being a factor compelling immigrants to seek residence in the first place?  I'm thinking mostly the same arguments as a political vote, or maybe a subset of...It depends on initiation of force and where it falls, right?  Why not the state?

[dsayers]

What are the good arguments based around borders in this regard, or whether one is justified to call for border screening in one's political action

To add to the pile would be to legitimize the system and further obfuscate the root evil. Much better is to reveal that this is yet another corrupt side effect of the proposition that humans exist in different, opposing moral categories to encourage others to discard this antiquated mythology.

[Hi there]

Does the fact that one has been placed into one of those arbitrary categories by an active government absolve the victim of moral wrongdoing when the victim attempts to provide feedback as to the least objectionable means said government applies the fallacy in practice?

[dsayers]

Does the fact that one has been placed into one of those arbitrary categories by an active government absolve the victim of moral wrongdoing when the victim attempts to provide feedback as to the least objectionable means said government applies the fallacy in practice?

The fallacy is that slave feedback has any impact on how people initiate the use of force in the name of the State.

[jpahmad]

 

Owning a desire to initiate force is both immoral and a NAP violation. 

 

Ethics can only be concerned with observable behavior.  Thanks for the plus 1

[shirgall]

Owning a desire to initiate force is both immoral and a NAP violation. 

 

As jpahmad said, thoughtcrime is not an action. We all briefly consider but do not act on all sorts of things. While mens rea is necessary to distinguish manslaughter from murder you still need to kill someone for it to be considered at all.

[Spenc]

while certainly not immoral in any sense, voting could be seen as corrupt behaviour, but open to debate.

 

e.g. let's say that you live in Ontario Canada and the government wants to harmonize federal and provincial sales taxes.  This will result in services exempt from provincial sales tax being subject to the total harmonized tax.  hypothetically, let's say you spend $50 on your annual property maintenance sales taxes, and in 12 months under the proposed plan, you would be subject to taxes of $130 instead. let's also say that there is no referendum, it is one party proposing, and one party opposing the plan, and then a bunch of other parties with little to no recognition and support.  you show up to the polls to vote for the major party that will oppose the plan.

 

this would seem like a defensive, non-corrupt behaviour. 

 

let's say however that you are a teacher and you want to vote out of power a politician who has been adversarial towards the teachers union, and the other candidate is proposing better funding, more teacher aides, better pensions, etc.  to vote for this person for sel-interest would seemingly be corrupt behaviour.

[csekavec]

I agree with both of you so far as your presumed context. 

 

My argument is that context is insufficient to completely describe ethics. I've wrote on this elsewhere and am working on an essay for these forums that I'll post soon.  (Honestly I supposed that I should find more agreement than I so far have seen)

 

 

 

Since no one yet touched on the Nuremburg Defense argument contradicting OP position, is this point conceded? Also can anyone recall the original author of the three party aggression argument? Rothbard?

[dsayers]

Since no one yet touched on the Nuremburg Defense argument contradicting OP position, is this point conceded?

I hadn't commented as it was undefined. I've looked it up and just a few words in, we see the word "legal." In my opinion, "legal" constructs have no bearing on or in a philosophical analysis. 

[jpahmad]

 

Since no one yet touched on the Nuremburg Defense argument contradicting OP position, is this point conceded? Also can anyone recall the original author of the three party aggression argument? Rothbard?

 

Hey, I'm going to research that and get back to you.  I'm mentally exhausted at the moment.

[Hi there]

The fallacy is that slave feedback has any impact on how people initiate the use of force in the name of the State.

Then how does it initiate force if it does not...well, initiate any force?

[dsayers]

Then how does it initiate force if it does not...well, initiate any force?

You're asking how politicians initiate the use of force?

[Libertus]

In the situation, where A points a gun at C, who then goes ahead and assaults B with a hammer, you were saying that C was being coerced and therefore, "obviously", all of C's actions towards B would have to be amoral (not immoral). Can you elaborate on how you're getting there? To me, this conclusion isn't that obvious. What if A simply threatens to break C's nose? Wouldn't that be coercion, too? So how severe does the threat of violence have to be in order to turn somebody into a "killer robot" (absolve them from all responsibility)? Does it have to be a threat of death? What if A threatens to hurt somebody else, say, an innocent person D? Would that be sufficient to turn B into a killer robot, too? What if A threatens C only with mild discomfort - the question becomes, where is the threshold? What if A threatens to break C's nose, unless C breaks B's?

 

An alternative approach could be, that since C is acting in his self-interest (but caution, we're talking about the avoidance of discomfort / pain / death here, not gain or reward), he bears at least some responsibility. For example, if I were person C, I could see myself refusing to assault somebody and preferring to become the victim of assault by A to being the perpetrator against B.

 

Wouldn't you?

[jatis]

So. If I express my interests in harming another human being to a Grizzly bear, and that Grizzly bear initiates force against said person, I am in fact acting immorally?

[jpahmad]

 

 

An alternative approach could be, that since C is acting in his self-interest (but caution, we're talking about the avoidance of discomfort / pain / death here, not gain or reward), he bears at least some responsibility. For example, if I were person C, I could see myself refusing to assault somebody and preferring to become the victim of assault by A to being the perpetrator against B.

 

Wouldn't you?

 

Yeah, I think it is a question of avoidability.  C could possible avoid an assault (fight back, run, overpower assailant etc..)  But C can't avoid a bullet.

[Libertus]

That doesn't answer any of my objections.

[Hi there]

You're asking how politicians initiate the use of force?

I thought your suggestion was that a "slave" expressing some preference in the abuses of the master in the example of borders was acting in an immoral fashion.  My suggestion was that if, as you say, the link between the slave's complaint and the master's action is illusory, then how is the initiation of force accomplished by any other than the agents of government?  

 

If their taxation of me is initiation of force, do I bear culpability for paying them, when they use it for nefarious purpose, such as border control? 

[dsayers]

I'm not sure where the disconnect is. I said first thing that I've been convinced that political voting is not immoral.

 

You brought up providing feedback and I pointed out that the feedback isn't heeded. Your initial question was "what are the good arguments." There are no good arguments when talking to the wind.

[jpahmad]

That doesn't answer any of my objections.

 

 

The distress someone is put under when they have a gun pointed at their head and told they are about to die I would say certainly takes away their moral agency.  How can someone make any kind of rational decision under those circumstances?

[Torero]

Nice video (the first one I saw of you and got a taste for more, thanks!).

 

A long introduction into the point you want to make. But I am not convinced by it.

 

The point is that in your image you do not consider the Voter a moral agent, only the Politician. The Voter is also a moral agent, so if he/she chooses to vote, he's directly giving an OK (= action) to a politician to enforce the statist doctrine.

 

You use Hitler as an example.

 

If Hitler voices his plans for Germany in 1932 and states he wants to use force against certain members of the country he took over (being Austrian), and someone votes for him where there's no gun pointed at the Voter, then that person, a moral agent, is chosing to indirectly initiate force on the "Untermenschen" Hitler wanted to get rid of. Just like a bunch of Don Corleones voting for the hitman to kill someone.

 

It would be different in a case where the nazi doctrine came as a complete surprise, but Mein Kampf was published in the 1920s, the speeches were crystal (night) clear and the voters for Hitler did know what his plans were.

 

So the Voter for the Politician is aware of what is done to the people. Not only in the Hitler case, but for every politician.

 

If we have:

- a moral agent - the Voter

- a deliberate action out of free will - voting

- clarity on what will be the result of that action - politics/policies

- clarity on the immorality of those policies - in all cases of statism/politics (especially since the widespread arguments by FDR), in Hitlers case more obvious

 

then we can conclude that voting is immoral.

 

The moral agent gives by his action out of free will an OK to policies that initiate force against others.

[Hi there]

I'm not sure where the disconnect is. I said first thing that I've been convinced that political voting is not immoral.

Oh, sorry, I got the wrong impression.  With regard to my first question on the "good arguments", I guess I'd be referring to the ones that convinced you political voting is not immoral (I think the philosophical issues dovetail nicely with borders where concerns NAP).  I do sometimes arrive with a view I've hashed out from what I believe to be a valid thought experiment, but I like to see the arguments that have been made by skilled philosophers in that regard.  I'm no skilled philosopher, but I have been gifted the ability to understand it, at least somewhat.

[dsayers]

I think the philosophical issues dovetail nicely with borders where concerns NAP

By borders, do you mean political borders? Political borders are established in the name of the State, which is predicated on violating the property rights of everybody within those borders. It's annoying to me when people waste their time trying to make rape fit, thinking "if we just did it the right way..."

[Libertus]

The distress someone is put under when they have a gun pointed at their head and told they are about to die I would say certainly takes away their moral agency.  How can someone make any kind of rational decision under those circumstances?

 

Adding "certainly" is not an argument. I'm not saying this to pick on you, but it really isn't. How do you arrive at this conclusion? I have asked you all sorts of questions to "test" your conclusion, and I don't see you addressing them one by one, merely restating your conclusion. Let me make this really easy for you:

 

- What if A simply threatens to break C's nose, wouldn't that be coercion, too?

- How severe does the threat of violence have to be in order to turn somebody into a "killer robot" (absolve them from all responsibility)?

- Does it have to be a threat of death?

- What if A threatens to hurt somebody else, say, an innocent person D, would that be sufficient to turn B into a killer robot, too?

- What if A threatens C only with mild discomfort, where is the threshold?

 

I say, C bears at least some responsibility. You say, you can prove that he doesn't have any - let's see your proof, if you don't mind.

 

- For example, if I were person C, I could see myself refusing to assault somebody else and preferring to become the victim of assault by A to being the perpetrator against B.

 

Wouldn't you?

 

"Do whatever you want to me, I won't bomb a pre-school" - this is moral, I think.

 

"Sorry, I had to bomb the pre-school and kill 500 innocent kids, the man threatened to shoot me." - 100% moral behavior?

"Sorry, I had to bomb the pre-school and kill 5000 innocent kids, the man threatened to shoot me in the foot." - how about now?

"Sorry, I had to bomb the pre-school and kill 5 innocent kids, the man threatened to punch me in the nose" - how about now?

 

I think person C bears at least some responsibility.

[jpahmad]

Adding "certainly" is not an argument. I'm not saying this to pick on you, but it really isn't. How do you arrive at this conclusion? I have asked you all sorts of questions to "test" your conclusion, and I don't see you addressing them one by one, merely restating your conclusion. Let me make this really easy for you:

 

 

 

Libertus, there are no rules that exist in the world of platonic ideals that we are trying to reveal with these models that we invent.  In my model, person C had no moral agency if a gun is pointed at him.  Is it arbitrary?  No, I've decided that if a person is under a state of coercion and there is NO AVOIDABILITY, then in my model, this person is not a moral agent.  You can certainly make the claim that coercion plays no role in moral agency.  That's fine.  But the functionality of that model would be much harder to apply to human society than the one I'm proposing. 

 

You must remember, that "morality" is defined by humans.  Yes, once defined it must be universally consistent, but at it's core, it's simply axiomatic and derived from the human experience (aggression being undesirable).  The whole point is to come up with a functional and practical system of secular ethics.  Go ahead an try to make a model based on your desire to have C bear some level of moral responsibility when under a state of coercion.  I think that you'll find that it makes things much more complicated and ultimately useless for society.

[HollywoodSimon]

A dictator, mob boss, politician or bureaucrat ordering a hit on someone is morally identical to any of them attempting to kill that person himself. These creatures expend considerable effort to attain positions which afford them such power. When use of that power is the initiation of force it is immoral.

 

Sometimes the system that gives them that power fails to operate. The hit man they pick for the job may refuse to kill on moral grounds or the target may otherwise evade the force. In such cases it's like them pointing a gun at someone and squeezing the trigger only to find that the gun jams and your victim gets away. They didn't get their way that time, but they did just try to kill someone.

 

Is the same true of the voter? Most voting is like joining a mob to overcome other mobs with sheer numbers to install a favored functionary, with very little effort and without the same risk of street battles. Assuming the system works more or less as advertised, the results of the election suggest the political system accept certain people into certain positions. This is not immoral in itself. The existence of the system may depend on immoral acts, regardless of who takes office, but a vote to put someone in office doesn't directly affect the existence of the system.

 

It's easy to judge the morality of a vote on some ballot initiatives. They may ask whether the state should act to initiate force or not (should the state tax millionaires more and spend the money on schools?) or to mitigate the initiation of force currently in place (should the state decriminalize marijuana?). But when you vote for a person to take office you generally vote based on your assessment of the candidate's judgement. He may make a number of promises to do moral or immoral things but you don't know whether he'll actually do any of those things and you have no recourse if he fails to deliver on any of them.

 

But what if you vote for someone with the expectation, based on his campaign promises, that he'll start a war of aggression, and he ends up doing no such thing? Is that not like picking up a gun, pointing it at an innocent bystander, pulling the trigger and having the gun malfunction?

 

To Person A, in the video examples, Person C is not just one person. It's a tool with some chance of delivering a desired outcome. The dictator, the mob boss and the voter act in the expectation that the tool will work to perform some function. The difference between the voter and the others is that the voter tends to be extremely inept at the game of force.

[labmath2]

Is it true by definition that you are not morally culpable when treatened to perform an action or is can it be logically derived from another principle?

[Libertus]

In my model

 

That's why I asked you questions. Can you answer them, based on your model? What good is a model if it can't be tested?

[labmath2]

The video brings up a very interesting question, at what point does person A become responsible for person C's action and why?

When a threatened to shoot c if he did not assault b, you meely stated that dyng was not an option for c. You have to state the operating principle and logical proof for this (or state that its true by definition). If i pay someone to commit murder i an not responsible, why? What if instead i kidnapped his daughter then demand he commit murder? Please respond in the form of principle plus logical workout or simply state that its true by definition.

[jpahmad]

 

I say, C bears at least some responsibility. You say, you can prove that he doesn't have any - let's see your proof, if you don't mind.

 

- For example, if I were person C, I could see myself refusing to assault somebody else and preferring to become the victim of assault by A to being the perpetrator against B.

 

Wouldn't you?

 

 

 

How about if A threatened to burn your child to death in front of you if you don't shoot person B?  While you child is having gasoline poured all over him/her, crying and calling out for you, what do you say to them before they get lit up?  "Sorry son, If I shoot person B then I will be considered immoral by our current system of ethics."

 

I say, you are not a moral agent in that situation.  No one can be considered a moral agent in that situation.

 

 

Libertus, like all "life-boat" situations that have been brought up throughout the life-time of this forum, the answer has always been that in a free society, the free-market will decide the fate of someone who finds themselves in an unfortunate and highly unlikely dilemma.  There is nothing else to say about it.  The model is a general guide and all the nuances should be left up to the personal interpretation of millions of people.  If I shoot someone for walking across my front lawn, no, I didn't violate the NAP, but I'm an ASSHOLE.  Who is going to want to do business with an asshole?  If I shoot a person because someone told me to and threatened to slap me if I didn't, then I'm an idiot who probably needs mental help.  Who would want to deal with a person like this in a free society, or any society?

 

The free market will handle the nuances.  

[Cosmin]

My logical proof that voting does not violate the NAP

 

 

Cool video, but I think you made a mistake at the end.

 

At minute 12:23 you say "a politician represents somebody who has control over state force". But state force means police men, who are also moral agents. They are initiating force, not the politicians.

[Chauncey Tinker]

Thought provoking video, but I'm not going to worry about whether voting is immoral or not, I'm going to vote because:

Say there are two parties A and B.  Party A is relatively benign and wants to reduce the state.  Party B is quite nasty and wants to increase the state and start foreign wars.  While Party B is in office, more dependency on the state will be created.  More children born on welfare.  More expectation of free stuff like healthcare and education.  After Party B has been in office for a while it will become even more difficult to reduce the state in future because there will be more voters for Party B.  Both of the parties will kill people in the short and longer term, but Party A not nearly so much.

I'm going to vote!  I'm going to vote for Party A!