Is Voting Immoral?

[jpahmad]

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.

 

Yes, but there is coercion involved.  Think about avoidability.  Can the repercussions of ignoring an executive decision from the president be avoided?  The army is one giant killer robot that is directed by the executive branch of the government

[shirgall]

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.

 

Police have a duty to apprehend malefactors and who defines malefactors? The politicians that make laws do. In particular politicians make law that define swathes of people as criminals especially laws where the "victim" is the state (as opposed to victims who are real people).

[Cosmin]

I think there is avoidability - policemen and soldiers can (in general) quit if they want to, right? I haven't heard of a politician threatening a soldier with physical violence.

[shirgall]

I think there is avoidability - policemen and soldiers can (in general) quit if they want to, right? I haven't heard of a politician threatening a soldier with physical violence.

 

Who do you think made the rule that deserters get shot a law?

[labmath2]

Let me grant for a moment that being threatened makes you not morally culpable for your actions (i have yet to see the logical proof for this), then the government sitiation becomes convoluted.

 

Let us reexamine the hitler example for a moment. Hitler wants people that will do his bidding, so he becomes a politician and eventually leader of germany. He never personally pointed a gun at another person (to my knowledge) so is he morally culpable? You bring up the brainwashed kids, but that solves nothing. Hitler did not personally brainwash those kids, neither did he personally point guns at those who did. Hitler passes a law or issues a decree. Then the police and military enforce it at gunpoint. Leaving aside police for now, lets say you are military and deserting gets you shot. Who shoots you? Other military members. Teachers are employed to teach the curriculum, in thus case nazi propaganda. Parents can choose to expose their children to nazi propaganda, but what happens when those children become adults? Nowhete here does Hitler personally threaten nor brainwash children, so how can he be morally culpable.

 

So who is culpable, the brainwashed kids, the parents, the teachers, the military, or is it still Hitler?

[Libertus]

If you can't answer any questions, then maybe your "model" is not very useful. You were complaining about lifeboat scenarios, yet your argument depends on exactly that. Pouring gasoline over kids? Please.

[jpahmad]

If you can't answer any questions, then maybe your "model" is not very useful. 

 

Maybe it is, maybe it is not.  It's the best so far though.  

 

You were complaining about lifeboat scenarios, yet your argument depends on exactly that.

 

Yes, and I already solved those.  You are just emotionally not willing to accept that under a state of coercion, person C is not a moral agent.  There is nothing wrong with that.  In a free society, you don't have to do business with person C.  So what's the problem?

 

 

 Pouring gasoline over kids? Please.

 

First of all, NOT AN ARGUMENT.  Secondly, the horrible example a gave about "pouring gasoline over kids" is to show how emotional manipulation can, but not always remove moral agency.  You can hardly blame a father who undergoes that kind of horrible situation for shooting person B in a state of complete emotional meltdown.   Yes, it was an extreme example, but necessary to demonstrate a point.  

[Libertus]

You are just emotionally not willing to accept that under a state of coercion, person C is not a moral agent.

 

I asked you to make your case for that, do provide an argument and you said it was part of your "model", so it's assumed to be true. I also asked you questions you could have answered from within your "model" and you're refusing to do so. Now you're psychologizing. What's next?

[jpahmad]

I asked you to make your case for that, do provide an argument and you said it was part of your "model", so it's assumed to be true. I also asked you questions you could have answered from within your "model" and you're refusing to do so. Now you're psychologizing. What's next?

 

I'm not sure what you want me to do?  

[labmath2]

My logical proof that voting does not violate the NAP

 

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69rCFrNCRGw

I posted a few ideas i am nit sure you noticed, so i'll attempt to give the full objection here in what is going be a long post.

 

1. Where there is coercion, there is no moral culpability (the culpability lies with the initial actor).

 

Is that true by definition or based on another principle plus logical deduction? In your example, you claim if A threatens to shoot C unless he assaults B, then C can't choose not to assault B. That claim is factually inacurate.

 

2. The Hitler example.

 

Hitler (to my knowledge) never personally engaged in the thing you claim will make him morally culpable. Hitler never personally forced anyone to act at gunpoint. Hitler never personally brainwashed any child. Even if he did (personally brainwash a child), when does the child become responsible for his actions?

 

So Hitler expresses interest in killing Jews (in form of political action) to military. Military carries out the murder.

 

Is there a difference between those who wanted to kill Jews and those who did not (in the army)?

 

Is Hitler still morally culpable and why?

 

3. The political mess of forced conformity (Military).

 

We have ten people in a room. There is a rule that whatever order they recieve through the screen in the room must be followed. If one of you fails to follow the order, the rest of you are required to shoot him (they were all given gun and brought to the room separately). They send a girl into the room and order person one to rape her. He does not want to rape her, but should even one person follow the earlier rule, he will be shot. So he proceeds and rapes her. Suppose the girl has been told to go into the room and when she comes out she will get money (she was not coerced into going in). The guys in the room were also promised money for participating in an experiment (so no coercion on their part). Who is morally responsible for the rape?

 

4. For almost everyone who grew up in America, they were told democracy is good. Somem become politicians,cops, soldiers, teachers, parents and voters.

 

When a police officer shows up at your house to arrest you for not paying taxes, who is morally responsible?

 

When a soldier drone strikes a wedding, who is morally responsible?

[jpahmad]

Why don't you solve it using my model?  Why don't you make a video?  Anyone can sit around and come up with endless life-boat situations.

[Libertus]

You could go ahead and answer the list of questions I posted, based on your model.

[rosencrantz]

Your model does not work properly. You can not violate the NAP and still be guilty. Suppose you leave a banana peel on a stairway. Did you violate the NAP? No, if at all you violated Aesthetic Preferable Behaviour. Five minutes later somebody trips over the peel and breaks his or her neck. According to your model, you have not violated the NAP thus everything is fine. After all, the banana peel has no agency and you did not intent to kill that specific person. 

[shirgall]

Your model does not work properly. You can not violate the NAP and still be guilty. Suppose you leave a banana peel on a stairway. Did you violate the NAP? No, if at all you violated Aesthetic Preferable Behaviour. Five minutes later somebody trips over the peel and breaks his or her neck. According to your model, you have not violated the NAP thus everything is fine. After all, the banana peel has no agency and you did not intent to kill that specific person. 

 

This is why the crime of manslaughter has the standard: performing activities a reasonable and prudent person (knowing what the defendant knew) would presume likely to cause death or grave bodily harm, and death results from those activities. While you may not have meant evil, you should have known you were endangering lives. Manslaughter is not so much a crime of malice as of negligence.

 

Is it universally preferable that people perform activities without regard to potential risk of death or grave bodily harm?

[jpahmad]

Your model does not work properly. You can not violate the NAP and still be guilty. Suppose you leave a banana peel on a stairway. Did you violate the NAP? No, if at all you violated Aesthetic Preferable Behaviour. Five minutes later somebody trips over the peel and breaks his or her neck. According to your model, you have not violated the NAP thus everything is fine. After all, the banana peel has no agency and you did not intent to kill that specific person. 

 

Intentions are not observable my friend.  Only observable behavior is to be considered.  Leaving a banana peal on the stairs is not a violation of the NAP.  It doesn't matter what the intentions are because my moral framework, as stated in the video, only concerns observable behavior.  You can't observe someone's intentions, only their actions.

Same goes for voting by the way.  You can't observe intentions.  All you can do is see someone put a vote into a ballot box.  There are many reasons people vote and not all of them are malicious.

[dsayers]

You can not violate the NAP and still be guilty. Suppose you leave a banana peel on a stairway. Did you violate the NAP? No, if at all you violated Aesthetic Preferable Behaviour. Five minutes later somebody trips over the peel and breaks his or her neck.

Guilty of what? Littering? Person A is responsible for watching where person A walks, not person B. Right?

[rosencrantz]

It doesn't matter what the intentions are because my moral framework, as stated in the video, only concerns observable behavior.  You can't observe someone's intentions, only their actions.

 

This leaves out a lot of actions that are seen as negative like omission, negligence, conspiracy, and fraud. 

[jpahmad]

This leaves out a lot of actions that are seen as negative like omission, negligence, conspiracy, and fraud. 

 

Conspiracy was addressed in the video (the mob boss/hitman relatioship).  Fraud is observable; It is a form of theft.  Omission and negligence are basically the same thing.  Each case would be analyzed separately.

[jpahmad]

This leaves out a lot of actions that are seen as negative like omission, negligence, conspiracy, and fraud. 

 

Conspiracy was discussed in the video.  Negligence?  Like the banana?  Fraud is observable 

[rosencrantz]

Fraud is observable 

 

As is leaving a banana. I don't get what being observable adds to a moral judgment on actions. An action that is not observable did not happen and can't be judged. Sometimes you can infer the intent from given circumstances. But in law the difference between actions that happen in neglect or with full intention are only gradual, not in principle. Giving up what we learned through the development of the legal over the centuries seems like a pretty bad idea. In fact, you would go back to even the oldest legal work, the Codex Hammurabi

 

 

251. If an ox be a goring ox, and it shown that he is a gorer, and he do not bind his horns, or fasten the ox up, and the ox gore a free-born man and kill him, the owner shall pay one-half a mina in money.

252. If he kill a man's slave, he shall pay one-third of a mina.

 

[jpahmad]

As is leaving a banana. I don't get what being observable adds to a moral judgment on actions. An action that is not observable did not happen and can't be judged. Sometimes you can infer the intent from given circumstances. But in law the difference between actions that happen in neglect or with full intention are only gradual, not in principle. Giving up what we learned through the development of the legal over the centuries seems like a pretty bad idea. In fact, you would go back to even the oldest legal work, the Codex Hammurabi

 

 

 

We're going in circles.  Intentions are not observable.  The banana example involves intentions.  It cannot be analyzed in the UPB framework.  

[rosencrantz]

The banana example involves intentions.

 

No, it does not. Either you left the banana peel there by negligence. You are then guilty when somebody trips over it and falls. Or you left if there specifically for somebody to trip over. In any case you are guilty. 

 

Intentions are not observable.

 

Of course they are. If this were not the case there would be no murder cases at all and there would be no difference between manslaughter and murder. 

[jpahmad]

No, it does not. Either you left the banana peel there by negligence. You are then guilty when somebody trips over it and falls. Or you left if there specifically for somebody to trip over. In any case you are guilty. 

 

 

My model explains the banana.  In my video, I demonstrate how using an inanimate object as a tool to harm is an act of aggression.  If someone purposely leaves a banana peel on stops to harm someone, this is like using a hammer to hit someone on the head.  Yes, that person would be in violation of the NAP

[jpahmad]

Intentionaly leaving a banana peel on the steps is like using a hammer to strike someone.  As stated in my video, it is a violation of the NAP

Intentions are only observable if someone vocalizes their intentions

[rosencrantz]

Intentions are only observable if someone vocalizes their intentions

 

 

This is why intent has to be inferred. See http://thelawdictionary.org/criminal-intent/for a short intro on how that is done. 

 

If your model rules out actions that have harmful consequences but that are perfectly fine within the model it's time for a revision. 

 

Fraud is observable 

 

 

Before I forget: Fraud is based on intent too. 

 

How do you differentiate between manslaughter and murder in your model? Are they the same? Are they different?

[jpahmad]

 

This is why intent has to be inferred. See http://thelawdictionary.org/criminal-intent/for a short intro on how that is done. 

 

If your model rules out actions that have harmful consequences but that are perfectly fine within the model it's time for a revision. 

 

 

Before I forget: Fraud is based on intent too. 

 

How do you differentiate between manslaughter and murder in your model? Are they the same? Are they different?

 

 

I think you should differentiate it for me.  Tell me what you get

using my model

[rosencrantz]

using my model

 

 

Your model is deficient as I explained. 

[jpahmad]

 

Your model is deficient as I explained. 

 

 

Great, I hope to see your model posted on the boards soon.  As soon as your done with your rounds of nitpicking.  Best of luck

[rosencrantz]

Great, I hope to see your model posted on the boards soon.  As soon as your done with your rounds of nitpicking.

 

Hey, I have a method to add natural numbers!1!

    Fine, but what about negative numbers?

Ermm, negative numbers don't count. 

     How about multiplication of real numbers?

You don't need to. My model is superior.

     How do I take the squareroot of numbers?

Jesus Christ make your own model of arithmetic and then get back to me.

[jpahmad]

I can explain concepts all day in this thread.  At some point you have to use your own brain and comprehend them.  I've explained the banana peel.  I've explained conspiracy (in the video), I'm sure I could explain negligence if I felt like it.  If you really cared about it, I'm sure you could figure out all the "what ifs" on your own.  Be a big boy and try to do it without me.

[labmath2]

Why don't you solve it using my model? Why don't you make a video? Anyone can sit around and come up with endless life-boat situations.

Was this comment directed at me? I don't believe my questions could be answered simply based on your video and they are not life boat situations (except for the rape one and it was only a work up to the last question, you can skip it if you want).

[jpahmad]

Was this comment directed at me? 

 

no

 I don't believe my questions could be answered simply based on your video 

 

Let's say my daughter is kidnapped and I am told to go murder someone in order for her to be released.  There is clear avoidability in this scenario.  I can call the police and come up with a reasonable strategy.  I can negotiate.  I can buy time by using stall tactics.  I can plead with the guy who has my daughter.  I can pretend to kill someone. There is a certain amount of avoidability in this scenario like there is in any hostage scenario.  I talked about avoidability in my video.  It's a big part of the equation

[labmath2]

Let's say my daughter is kidnapped and I am told to go murder someone in order for her to be released.  There is clear avoidability in this scenario.  I can call the police and come up with a reasonable strategy.  I can negotiate.  I can buy time by using stall tactics.  I can plead with the guy who has my daughter.  I can pretend to kill someone. There is a certain amount of avoidability in this scenario like there is in any hostage scenario.  I talked about avoidability in my video.  It's a big part of the equation

 i was referring to these

I posted a few ideas i am nit sure you noticed, so i'll attempt to give the full objection here in what is going be a long post.

 

1. Where there is coercion, there is no moral culpability (the culpability lies with the initial actor).

 

Is that true by definition or based on another principle plus logical deduction? In your example, you claim if A threatens to shoot C unless he assaults B, then C can't choose not to assault B. That claim is factually inacurate.

 

2. The Hitler example.

 

Hitler (to my knowledge) never personally engaged in the thing you claim will make him morally culpable. Hitler never personally forced anyone to act at gunpoint. Hitler never personally brainwashed any child. Even if he did (personally brainwash a child), when does the child become responsible for his actions?

 

So Hitler expresses interest in killing Jews (in form of political action) to military. Military carries out the murder.

 

Is there a difference between those who wanted to kill Jews and those who did not (in the army)?

 

Is Hitler still morally culpable and why?

 

3. The political mess of forced conformity (Military).

 

We have ten people in a room. There is a rule that whatever order they recieve through the screen in the room must be followed. If one of you fails to follow the order, the rest of you are required to shoot him (they were all given gun and brought to the room separately). They send a girl into the room and order person one to rape her. He does not want to rape her, but should even one person follow the earlier rule, he will be shot. So he proceeds and rapes her. Suppose the girl has been told to go into the room and when she comes out she will get money (she was not coerced into going in). The guys in the room were also promised money for participating in an experiment (so no coercion on their part). Who is morally responsible for the rape?

 

4. For almost everyone who grew up in America, they were told democracy is good. Somem become politicians,cops, soldiers, teachers, parents and voters.

 

When a police officer shows up at your house to arrest you for not paying taxes, who is morally responsible?

 

When a soldier drone strikes a wedding, who is morally responsible?

 

These sets of questions.

[John R]

Sorry, for being my first post, but this is a very interesting topic for me.  An  anarchist, atheist, NAP, co-worker got me hooked on Stefan a few months ago.  I bring this up because Stefan made me realize how may anarchists & NAP friends I really have.

 

First, I have a question about the video.  Doesn't person 'A' negate the NAP when he draws the weapon on person 'C'? NAP has to work both ways to work, right?  I am new to this, but this video makes it sound like NAPers are slaves to Aggression.

 

About voting: Chris Matthews told Trump that it doesn't matter if abortion is immoral...It's legal.  I don't believe Politicians want you to vote.  The less people that vote, the less money they need to spend to get power.  If only 1% of America votes, Politics will commence as usual. They would call it "the lowest voter turn-out in America" and move on.

 

Before I continue, I want to state that I believe that the NAP and all Stefan is fighting for will not happen in our lifetime; if at all.  Some people are worried about Global Warming...I'm worried about Global I.Q. cooling.  I don't think a NAP world could exist without a minimum global I.Q. of 100 (maybe 115).

 

That being said, why isn't there a NAP party (please, excuse me if there is)? You can't change the rules, unless you play the game, right? 

 

Warning: Lord of the Rings analogy...NAPers are like the Ents.  So powerful, yet unwilling to retaliate on beliefs.

 

The good news is that the Democratic Party only took 60 years to get us to this hell hole, maybe we can bring it back sooner.

 

If you vote now for some form of NAP/anarchist party, maybe the system could be infiltrated and dismantled from the inside (kind of like what the SJW and PC are doing now).

 

Is this far fetched?  It seems logical, to me, at the moment.  Is this out of line?

[dsayers]

NAPers are slaves to Aggression.

Common mistake. Aggression is the initiation of the use of force. In that phrase, "force" is far less important than "initiation."

 

That being said, why isn't there a NAP party (please, excuse me if there is)? You can't change the rules, unless you play the game, right? 

Can you only stop rape if you are a participant of rape?

 

It is implied that your use of the word "party" means political party. But that which is political is predicated on the initiation of the use of force. You're asking why there isn't rape-less rape.