dsayers Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 However, how is "legitimizing" not an effect as well. Effects come after actions. Legitimizing comes before. Your masters say to you that they own you and they will let you decide how you'd like to be owned. To even consider voting is to not be free within your own mind. When you choose to vote, you are choosing to not be free. Which is sad to me, but you are also choosing for your neighbors to not be free and that is appalling to me even if you have convinced me that it is not immoral. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labmath2 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 This is arguing from effect. I think it's more efficient to focus on the fact that people who politically vote are adding to the legitimacy of the entire system. Since that approach covers the effect and much more. It is not an argument from effect. If you actions have no impact on others then it would be morally neutral. Of you voted Trump and it only affected you, then there is no moral issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
labmath2 Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Your implication seems to be that we must hold ourselves to higher moral standards than the people around us who regularly praise the use of force against us. We are not obligated to do so. If you believe you must, go for it. If you're so concerned with the abandonment of principles, you should put your focus on criticizing literally every single group other than libertarians. I am not criticizing others because they did not represent themselves as acting on moral principles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Des Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Must they leave? If I own land, why must I sell it or sacrifice it's value in order to opt out? I'm not saying I have good answers (because I havn't really thought through or consulted good arguments). How I see borders working in future, is that owners (of like mind) sell and buy until they have a piece of territory that does not have islands of "other people" in it. Then they emborder, and whoever changes his mind, has some choices, including: Sell and buy outside the border. Sell in middle of territory, buy inside of but on the border, re-draw the border. Influence all the people between himself and the border, so they can re-draw the border without selling, buying, moving. So I would advise that when joining an embordered territory, a person should check that the contract (with the neighbours), allows at least those options. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Effects come after actions. Legitimizing comes before. Your masters say to you that they own you and they will let you decide how you'd like to be owned. To even consider voting is to not be free within your own mind. When you choose to vote, you are choosing to not be free. Which is sad to me, but you are also choosing for your neighbors to not be free and that is appalling to me even if you have convinced me that it is not immoral. I understand your position. However, you seem to be using "legitimize" as a action verb and the effect of an action verb. When you say "voting legitimizes", that looks like a causal chain to me. In other words, the observable behavior of "voting" has the effect of "legitimizing" the system. If the act of "legitimizing" is causal, then you have to describe to me what exactly is the act of "legitimizing", which means it mus tbe observable. This is a bit of a problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 I'm not sure how to respond. Voting is certainly an observable behavior. Also, since I'm not making the case for morality, I'm not sure how if "legitimizing" weren't a behavior, it would have any effect on my observation that it perpetuates the system. If the majority understood that taxation is theft, it would be unfashionable to support it TODAY, same as with slavery for example. There are people that experience extreme discomfort at the very suggestion precisely because "everybody" supports it. Playing along with your enslavement is not defending yourself from that enslavement. I hope you will make an effort to try and identify why you need for political voting to be excusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ValueOfBrevity Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 How I see borders working in future, is that owners (of like mind) sell and buy until they have a piece of territory that does not have islands of "other people" in it. Then they emborder, and whoever changes his mind, has some choices, including: Sell and buy outside the border. Sell in middle of territory, buy inside of but on the border, re-draw the border. Influence all the people between himself and the border, so they can re-draw the border without selling, buying, moving. So I would advise that when joining an embordered territory, a person should check that the contract (with the neighbours), allows at least those options. That makes sense. The people selling them the territory would probably require DRO contracts in order to complete the purchase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 Playing along with your enslavement is not defending yourself from that enslavement. I hope you will make an effort to try and identify why you need for political voting to be excusable. I made and posted a video about why I'm voting. It's called the "anarchist's guide to voting." That is where I explain myself pretty clearly. Did you watch it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 I made and posted a video about why I'm voting. It's called the "anarchist's guide to voting." That is where I explain myself pretty clearly. Did you watch it? https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/46786-the-anarchistss-guide-to-voting/#entry428125 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 dsayers, since we are not talking about morality here. Aren't we then taking about strategy? You may not like my actions at all, and I'm assuming that you don't like them because you think they have a negative effect on you. Since we are not in the realm of ethics, we can talk strategically about the effects now. I've tried to make the case in my video that voting out of "self-defense", if everybody did it, would eventually shrink the state down to nothing. I want the state to be gone as much as you do. I'm arguing that my prescribed actions will get the job done faster and more effectively than your prescribed action, which is to not participate at all. I don't see "legitimising" or as a causal factor at all. I know you have tried to explain it minimally but I think you would need to be more descriptive and perhaps graphic with your analysis. I laid out, in graphic detail, how we could shrink the state the most effectively without being immoral (self-defense). You say this won't work. Ok. At what point will my strategy fail? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 dsayers, since we are not talking about morality here. Aren't we then taking about strategy? You may not like my actions at all, and I'm assuming that you don't like them because you think they have a negative effect on you. Since we are not in the realm of ethics, we can talk strategically about the effects now. I've tried to make the case in my video that voting out of "self-defense", if everybody did it, would eventually shrink the state down to nothing. I want the state to be gone as much as you do. I'm arguing that my prescribed actions will get the job done faster and more effectively than your prescribed action, which is to not participate at all. I don't see "legitimising" or as a causal factor at all. I know you have tried to explain it minimally but I think you would need to be more descriptive and perhaps graphic with your analysis. I laid out, in graphic detail, how we could shrink the state the most effectively without being immoral (self-defense). You say this won't work. Ok. At what point will my strategy fail? Only just noticed this post. Otherwise, I would've responded sooner. Feel free to shoot me a PM if it seems like I've dropped out of a conversation. You are incorrect in assuming my criticism is about negative effect on me and in claiming that I've prescribed an action. I would even go so far as to argue against what I think is a misguided notion that you can shrink the State from within. Like any entity, those operating in the name of the State hold self-preservation as paramount. So not only are you not free in your own mind by participating in their distractionary side show, you are also wasting time that you could be doing more productive things that might actually contribute to your stated goal. Which is your prerogative. However, when you use your voice to lead others astray, that's the point where I'm going to be more vocal to offer counterpoint and push back. To vote does not defend you, it does not diminish your attacker in any way, but instead actually indicates to them that their claim of ownership over you is accepted. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted May 29, 2016 Share Posted May 29, 2016 To vote does not defend you, it does not diminish your attacker in any way, but instead actually indicates to them that their claim of ownership over you is accepted. Yeah, I don't see how it indicates to them anything other than someone is casting a vote for them to be in a certain position. I don't think any intelligent person would assume that all the votes coming in for them are indications that these voters want to be ruled by them. I just can't accept that assumption. It is an assumption. I suppose you or I would have to actually interview one of these politicians to find out what they think the reasons are that people are voting for them. But you still have not really pointed out where my strategy as laid out in my video "anarchists guide to voting" would fall apart. I really want to know how my plan would fail. I'm not saying it couldn't fail, I'm just saying that I would like you to paint a picture for me, explain what would ultimately happen as my strategy plays out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 But you still have not really pointed out where my strategy as laid out in my video "anarchists guide to voting" would fall apart. First of all, I still have made no such claim. I'm not sure why you're so interested in hearing me say that that you're not hearing what I AM saying. Secondly, you have it backwards. YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim, so the onus of proof is upon you. What proof do you have? Can you cite a single example in history where an evil organization was converted to good by joining and adhering to its rules and changing it from within? If you believe this to be the case, why wouldn't you test your theory on a scale smaller than national politics? Yeah, I don't see how it indicates to them... They say to you that they own you and here's the forms you can fill out to participate. You participate. I reject their claim to ownership of me and only play along as much as is necessary for the sake of survival. Which doesn't include voting. If you haven't already, check out Larken Rose's video called something like Mr. Jones's Plantation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 First of all, I still have made no such claim. I'm confused. I'm not sure I understand what you are claiming then. I thought that you were making the claim that my "strategy" is counterproductive to achieving a free society. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 I'm confused. I'm not sure I understand what you are claiming then. I thought that you were making the claim that my "strategy" is counterproductive to achieving a free society. I thought I had pointed out three times now the way your vote is accepting somebody else's claim of ownership over you. In what way is this compatible with a free society? Also, I've pointed out that the onus is upon you and that you put forth your claim as valid despite failing to test your theory. So why then are you putting it back on me, asking a question I've answered multiples times for you already? Will you not stand behind your own claim? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 Also, I've pointed out that the onus is upon you and that you put forth your claim as valid despite failing to test your theory. So why then are you putting it back on me, asking a question I've answered multiples times for you already? Will you not stand behind your own claim? I'm assuming you're referring to the claim I made that anarchists "ought" to vote this way in order to achieve a free society. Well, I could be wrong. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "ought." Maybe I should have used "probably should." It's just a theory of how we might attain certain ends. I think it's a good theory. That doesn't mean that I am certain that it would play out exactly as I imagine. If you think I'm foolish in this idea, then fine. No, there is no historical precedence for my model that I can think of. So what. The NAP has only existed in the minds of human beings for the past 50 years or so. I'm pretty sure there is a historical precedence for doing nothing and letting outsiders take over a country though. So if anything, your strategy of not using state power in self-defense, certainly has never done much good either. Look at Europe. They could vote someone in who will close the borders, or, they could just sit and watch. I'm not sure how well spreading the good word of philosophy is going to work in a low IQ, Sharia law population. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 They could vote someone in who will close the borders, or, they could just sit and watch. False dichotomy. Perhaps this is the root of the closed-mindedness you are exhibiting on this topic. Also, how do you vote somebody in who will close the borders? You could vote someone in who SAYS they'll do X, Y, and Z. What's your recourse if they don't? WAIT X years to replace them with the next slave master who is not beholden to you? Meanwhile, I'm sitting back, fully in touch with reality. Yes, I am certain my approach is in greater touch with reason, and therefore more virtuous, which gets me greater happiness. I'm not sure how well spreading the good word of philosophy is going to work in a low IQ, Sharia law population. Where would humanity be if parents took this attitude with their children? *looks around* Oh yeah, right where we're at. I'm reminded of my favorite Larken Rose quote. He said something like, "My job is I go around telling people you should be free and they tell me, 'No, I shouldn't.'" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsayers Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 your strategy of not using state power in self-defense Could you knock it off with the straw men already? I thought you were better than this. ALL I have said is that you're not free in your own mind. That's it. The closest way you could phrase what you've said here that would accurately depict me would be to say that I reject the State's claim of ownership of me. If you'd like to argue otherwise, then do so. I've noticed your posts since I've pointed this out have lacked any argumentation or any accuracy. It would appear you are quite emotionally tied to your conclusion. I hope you will take the time to examine why that is, for your sake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luxfelix Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 I learned recently that Trump has run for election before (in 2000): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2000 (Interesting tidbits include the prospective cabinet section and the legacy of Ross Perot.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpahmad Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 ALL I have said is that you're not free in your own mind. Because I have decided to vote for strategic purposes I'm not "free in my own mind"? This is presumptuous, arrogant, and self-righteous. What do you know about how I feel? Dsayers, you pay taxes. This is just has just as much of a "legitimizing effect" on the "system" as voting, if not more. You are going to make the myopic claim that you can't avoid the consequences of not paying taxes, where as I can choose not to vote without suffering personal consequences. But this is where you're wrong my friend. There are consequences to not voting, they are just more long term consequences, and we can't avoid them. I believe there is efficacy in the democratic process and I have no qualms about voting in self-defense. You have not demonstrated that there is no efficacy in the democratic process. The reason why we have a state is because people want a state. It's that simple. If the people didn't want the state, we wouldn't have it. You're argument for "legitimizing" is non-empirical. "Legitimize" is an effect, not an action. You can't observe "legitimizing." If I called you on the phone and told you I was legitimizing something you would have no idea what I was doing. fyi, I've seen Larken Rose's Jones Plantation video. That presentation of his does not change my disposition towards voting in this election at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts