Do some of Donald Trump's Platform Policies Violate the NAP?

[soared4truth]

So, I was noticing that Stefan promotes Trump an awful lot. I think Trump is a much better choice than Hillary Clinton, but I don't see how Stefan can promote him since some of his policies are in obvious violation of the NAP. Targeting and torturing innocent civilians, for example, is a definite violation of NAP and an awful and horrendous act. Furthermore, he says he will use nuclear war as a negotiation tactic for trade deals. This is not only very dangerous, but it also violates the NAP since it is a coercive threat against the nation he is negotiating with.

 

Don't get me wrong, Stefan is awesome and I watch his videos on Youtube all the time, but I am just wondering how he can in good conscience support a candidate that promises to violate the very moral principle that he guides his life by. Shouldn't he be supporting Gary Johnson for president? I really wish that he would at least direct his listeners that live in non-swing states to vote for Johnson to help the libertarian party get the 15% vote that they need to be included in the next elections' presidential debates. A vote for either Hillary or Trump in a non-swing state seems like a wasted vote to me.

 

For example, I live in Texas. Texas is going to Trump and there is no question about that. If I vote for Trump, it doesn't change the outcome at all. If I vote for Johnson, he still won't win, but at least the Libertarian party might get a platform in the presidential debates next time around which would be a pretty big win if you ask me. If I lived in a swing state, I would vote for Trump because I would basically have no choice other than to watch a sociopath (Clinton) get elected. That being said, I would never personally endorse him because he violates the NAP, he is an admitted crony capitalist, and he also wants tariffs (all things I would think Stefan would also disapprove of BTW). I only vote in self-defense BTW. Voting is itself an act of aggression otherwise.

[shirgall]

So, I was noticing that Stefan promotes Trump an awful lot.

 

We're going to have to stop there. You aren't paying attention. Fascination with someone that plays the media like a fiddle is not promotion.

[dsayers]

Yes, governments violate the NAP.

[GenellanBound]

I don't see a morally bright line between supporting Johnson and supporting Trump.

 

If you are going to support an evil because you see it as necessary, why would you not support whatever evil you would see as most beneficial to you and those important to you?

[Rue]

Hi Soard, great question. Comparing his coverage of Trump against his coverage of the other Republican and Democratic candidates over the past few months I would agree that, even if it's not explicitly stated, he’s in essence supporting Trump for president. Keep in mind that, metaphorically, the comparison is something akin to deciding whether you want to be run over by a bus, thrown into a nest of vipers or punched in the arm; none of the options are ideal but at least the punch isn't going to kill you.

 

Stephan has shifted his approach over the course of the past year from his core anarchist stance on political and social matters to a position where he’s willing to engage issues through much more of a mainstream lens. Importantly, I don’t believe his underlying beliefs have changed - just his approach. Trump is one example of this but there are a few others such as his Brexit coverage.

 

My understanding of his rational for the change is that he thinks the danger of irreversible damage to the West is closer than he'd imagined and that his effort is better spent trying to stem the bleeding by promoting positive changes within the existing political system. However, I’m sure if you spoke to him or he responded here you'd find that he continues to believe that the government, and by extension everything it does, is a breach of the NAP.

 

Regards,

Rue

[Will Torbald]

He explained the difference between short term tactics and long term strategy. He still believes in a free society - however, that path can't be travelled if you are swarmed with third world child abusing religious fanatic welfare consuming possible terrorist low IQ civilization destroying women enslaving people. Hope that helps.

[dsayers]

I don't see a morally bright line between supporting Johnson and supporting Trump.

 

If you are going to support an evil because you see it as necessary, why would you not support whatever evil you would see as most beneficial to you and those important to you?

False dichotomy.

[shirgall]

Comparing his coverage of Trump against his coverage of the other Republican and Democratic candidates over the past few months I would agree that, even if it's not explicitly stated, he’s in essence supporting Trump for president.

 

Stef supports the truth, and if the truth benefits Trump more than it does his detractors and his opponents, does that somehow produce the "essence" of support?

 

Stef has leveled criticism at Trump from time to time, does that give him the "essence" of supporting Hillary?

 

Trump does not consider the NAP when he suggests policy, instead he seems to consider what appeals to voters. That's not going to earn the support of a philosopher, but the way he goes about it might earn some commentary. The reaction of the media and his detractor's to Trump's statement are worthy of comment, especially since the discussion earns money for the show.

 

Stef willingly engages in a wide variety of topics, but he's also careful to touch upon topics of current interest (in impressive time) and perennial favorites. That doesn't mean he is a Trump supporter. That doesn't mean he stopped being an anarchist. He does, however, spend more time on the obvious war of values between the west and others. It's not just topical, it's immediate.

[aviet]

I can't speak from him, but I have heard him say in a couple of videos in which he is essentially arguing for some sort of government that:

1) He is arguing a position, without necessarily holding it; maybe a tepid devil's advocate
2) That in the position we find ourselves, we can't argue for things like the NAP as an immediate ensuing reality; it is a much more long-term goal

Though to my knowledge he has not particularly clarified his stance on, for example, civil immigration controls, i.e. his own definite position in the current situation. We know what his idealist position is.

Yes, Trump violate the NAP. From what he says, hes not particularly libertarian. Though it seems he could have the most libertarian economic policies.

For me it comes down to what is the better deal. I am from the UK. I have two friends who live in/near my town who are FDR listeners and are essentially on board with most of what Stefan and people on this board agree with. Two of us voted for Brexit, ardently. The other is more steadfast in his belief not to engage the state in any way; and as a professional Bitcoin trader has largely extricated himself from the system. Despite that he supported Brexit and has had an anti-EU UKIP sticker in his car windows for about eight years. The main reason he did not vote is probably because he does not want to be registered in the system rather than any strict adherence to NAP; while as a non-resident I had to have myself added to the electoral register just to vote. I had not voted before that, but I will consider voting again.

The way I look at it is if I want a world with less government, it can only occur slowly over time. There isn't an option to change the system at a click of a button, only change it slowly over time. I voted to remove the EU as it is an imposition on me, just in the same way as I would defend myself from someone who tried to attack me. So I see as voting for Brexit as the practice of self defence.

 

If I could vote over time to change the UK from its current 40% total taxation level to a 13.5% total taxation level (Hong Kong), I would do it. This is again self defence. It would violate NAP, but it would be a considerably lesser violation than the alternative. The only other options are 'going to live in a tree', accepting the encroachment of the state or what I am lucky enough to do - extracting myself form the system as much as possible by being non-resident. The decision to go non-resident is again a practice of self defence. I don't have a better option.

[dsayers]

we can't argue for things like the NAP as an immediate ensuing reality

By what methodology did you arrive at this conclusion? With the exception of State threats made against me, I live my life achieving my goals without the initiation of the use of force and do not tolerate those in my life who do. I'll bet this is true of you and 95% of people also.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

The president is the cheif executive of the government, which relies on the initiation of force. Yes, any and all presidents' platforms must necessarily violate the NAP by definition of what it means to be president.

 

If you're going to step into a discussion about politics, please bring your consequentialist goggles. The NAP is valid, true, all that good stuff, but it has nothing to do with comparing one apparently aggressive action to another. Is it better to torture 3rd world terrorists, or to bring violent cultures into America? The NAP can't answer this. You have to be a consequentialist on this question.

[aviet]

By what methodology did you arrive at this conclusion? With the exception of State threats made against me, I live my life achieving my goals without the initiation of the use of force and do not tolerate those in my life who do. I'll bet this is true of you and 95% of people also.

There is no methodology, but rather an assessment of the situation as I see it. We also have our wires crossed as I did not phrase it specifically. To clarify:

 

I don't think it is feasible to expect the end of the state and by extension its use of force in our life times. We can though argue for NAP on a personal basis in relatively immediate terms; and for me that seems a key component of eroding the state's use of force.

 

I don't think it is possible to dismantle the entire state in our life times, nor do I think it would be wise. It makes up 30-50% of GDP in most of the developed world. Even if the notion of limited or no government began to spread more widely, it would take some time for new structures to be able to replace the giant budget and multi-generational edifice of the state. The creation of non-state alternatives to things like government schools is also seriously hampered by the drain on individual's resources, i.e. in the UK if you want reliable health care, you have to pay for the government system (which you will probably be paying the 45% rate of income tax for) and then private. For one person earning about £60,000 ($77,000) you have to pay about £4,000 for the government health service and then about £1,000-2,000 for private health care.

 

But bigger than the economic issue with dismantling the state, I think, is changing people's perceptions about the state. I find the issue here is that so many people cannot see the conflict with NAP and the state as they have created so many 'universal rules' they are believe are etched into the fabric of the cosmos, like the social contract, that there is no conflict for them. Just as you can say the self defence principle overrides NAP in certain circumstances, these people think their statist concepts override NAP.

[dsayers]

aviet, there's a lot of bias in there with no acknowledgement of it. This rebuttal is for the sake of others who might be curious if not hopeful.

 

I don't think it is feasible to expect the end of the state and by extension its use of force in our life times.

All it would take is convincing the enforcer class that they do not exist in different, opposing moral categories. It's no secret the ways in which governments chews up its soldiers and spits them out for example. The multi-generational part comes through peaceful parenting so that future generations will not speak the language of aggression. It is true that many today do, but people adapt for survival's sake. If there was no welfare state today, the lazy would find ways to make money. Especially if the prison industrial complex went along with it and they were actually able to engage in the entrepreneurial endeavors they otherwise would.

 

(the State) makes up 30-50% of GDP in most of the developed world.

The State doesn't CREATE anything but violence. It is actually a DRAIN on the wealth of the people by adding in superfluous layers of regulations, rules, restrictions, fines, bureaucracy, etc.

 

it would take some time for new structures to be able to replace the giant budget and multi-generational edifice of the state.

This is not true. Anything the State took over was being done without violence prior. Nearly every aspect (including space travel) is being done without violence in spite of the State.

 

The creation of non-state alternatives to things like government schools

You're taking the piss, right? You posted this very claim ON THE INTERNET. Other than that, who would want a replacement for the bullying, the breaking of wills, etc?

 

is also seriously hampered by the drain on individual's resources, i.e. in the UK if you want reliable health care, you have to pay for the government system (which you will probably be paying the 45% rate of income tax for) and then private. For one person earning about £60,000 ($77,000) you have to pay about £4,000 for the government health service and then about £1,000-2,000 for private health care.

Health care is only as expensive as it is BECAUSE of State violence. That and now decades of that violence being used to subsidize bad habits. Nobody smokes that doesn't know the dangers of smoking. Let them pay for the bad mistakes just as I'm going to be paying for drinking as much soda as I have over the years.

Just as you can say the self defence principle overrides NAP in certain circumstances

This is where it helps to define your terms. NAP is just shorthand for theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral. It PROVIDES for defensive force because these behaviors create a debt whereas defensive force is the settling of that debt. EVEN IF your claim were true, those engaging in those behaviors are telling you that they reject property rights, which also invited defensive force to be used.

 

Overall, you're engaging in utilitarian arguments which only serves to conceal the moral argument and protect the violent, allowing them to flourish.

[soared4truth]

Hi Soard, great question. Comparing his coverage of Trump against his coverage of the other Republican and Democratic candidates over the past few months I would agree that, even if it's not explicitly stated, he’s in essence supporting Trump for president. Keep in mind that, metaphorically, the comparison is something akin to deciding whether you want to be run over by a bus, thrown into a nest of vipers or punched in the arm; none of the options are ideal but at least the punch isn't going to kill you.

 

Stephan has shifted his approach over the course of the past year from his core anarchist stance on political and social matters to a position where he’s willing to engage issues through much more of a mainstream lens. Importantly, I don’t believe his underlying beliefs have changed - just his approach. Trump is one example of this but there are a few others such as his Brexit coverage.

 

My understanding of his rational for the change is that he thinks the danger of irreversible damage to the West is closer than he'd imagined and that his effort is better spent trying to stem the bleeding by promoting positive changes within the existing political system. However, I’m sure if you spoke to him or he responded here you'd find that he continues to believe that the government, and by extension everything it does, is a breach of the NAP.

 

Regards,

Rue

Well, then he and I are pretty much on the same page because that is how I feel. I agree that Hillary would be an unmitigated disaster, but my point still stands about Johnson. Not only does he not endorse torture and has a better platform than Trump, but if you live in a non-swing state there is literally no reason not to vote for him. Voting for Trump in a non-swing state isn't going to get him elected. However, voting for Gary Johnson in a non-swing state will help the libertarian party get to 15% so that we can have more than a two party system which would be a lot of progress in the right direction. Johnson may not be anywhere close to an anarchist, but by getting the libertarian party into the presidential debates we can spread the message of liberty even farther and wider, and some of the people that we pick up will likely be anarchists themseves one day.

[soared4truth]

He explained the difference between short term tactics and long term strategy. He still believes in a free society - however, that path can't be travelled if you are swarmed with third world child abusing religious fanatic welfare consuming possible terrorist low IQ civilization destroying women enslaving people. Hope that helps.

Oh I get that much. I would vote Trump if I lived in a swing state out of self-defense, but I would never endorse him. I might tell others they ought to consider voting for him if they live in swing states also, but I would qualify that it is only out of self-defense and not because I support him for POTUS.

[soared4truth]

I can't speak from him, but I have heard him say in a couple of videos in which he is essentially arguing for some sort of government that:

 

1) He is arguing a position, without necessarily holding it; maybe a tepid devil's advocate

2) That in the position we find ourselves, we can't argue for things like the NAP as an immediate ensuing reality; it is a much more long-term goal

 

Though to my knowledge he has not particularly clarified his stance on, for example, civil immigration controls, i.e. his own definite position in the current situation. We know what his idealist position is.

 

Yes, Trump violate the NAP. From what he says, hes not particularly libertarian. Though it seems he could have the most libertarian economic policies.

 

For me it comes down to what is the better deal. I am from the UK. I have two friends who live in/near my town who are FDR listeners and are essentially on board with most of what Stefan and people on this board agree with. Two of us voted for Brexit, ardently. The other is more steadfast in his belief not to engage the state in any way; and as a professional Bitcoin trader has largely extricated himself from the system. Despite that he supported Brexit and has had an anti-EU UKIP sticker in his car windows for about eight years. The main reason he did not vote is probably because he does not want to be registered in the system rather than any strict adherence to NAP; while as a non-resident I had to have myself added to the electoral register just to vote. I had not voted before that, but I will consider voting again.

 

The way I look at it is if I want a world with less government, it can only occur slowly over time. There isn't an option to change the system at a click of a button, only change it slowly over time. I voted to remove the EU as it is an imposition on me, just in the same way as I would defend myself from someone who tried to attack me. So I see as voting for Brexit as the practice of self defence.

 

If I could vote over time to change the UK from its current 40% total taxation level to a 13.5% total taxation level (Hong Kong), I would do it. This is again self defence. It would violate NAP, but it would be a considerably lesser violation than the alternative. The only other options are 'going to live in a tree', accepting the encroachment of the state or what I am lucky enough to do - extracting myself form the system as much as possible by being non-resident. The decision to go non-resident is again a practice of self defence. I don't have a better option.

Thanks for the long, well thought out post. I am not much of a voter myself, but when I am backed into a corner like we are in the U.S. right now, I agree that we ought to vote in self-defense. I only voted once in my life so far, and my vote literally didn't count, but I think I will be making it out to the polls this November because I see no harm in voting for Johnson since he won't win and it will only give the libertarian party a chance to get in the presidential debates next election. If I were in a swing state, I might have to vote for Trump, which would be a really hard choice for me, but luckily I live in Texas which will without a doubt be going to Trump anyway.

[soared4truth]

The president is the cheif executive of the government, which relies on the initiation of force. Yes, any and all presidents' platforms must necessarily violate the NAP by definition of what it means to be president.

 

If you're going to step into a discussion about politics, please bring your consequentialist goggles. The NAP is valid, true, all that good stuff, but it has nothing to do with comparing one apparently aggressive action to another. Is it better to torture 3rd world terrorists, or to bring violent cultures into America? The NAP can't answer this. You have to be a consequentialist on this question.

Very good point, and thank you. I think that answered my question perfectly. I loathe that we have to engage in hypocrisy for self-defense, but as you eluded to, it is kind of them or us. Also, I am kind of glad that Stefan stepped into the world of politics. We, as anarchists need to start thinking more strategically. It is kind of like war. Very few people actually want war, but when you are attacked on your home soil, you have to do whatever you can to fend off the invaders even if it means engaging in war and destruction which are unethical in any other circumstance. With limited government, at least we have a chance. Imagine if it was the U.S. from the 1800s, for example with its much smaller government. We could go engage in anarchy right now in the wild west under those circumstances and there wouldn't be enough government presence to find us, hunt us down, and stop us. I am actually considering doing something similar in Wyoming, since it is very pro-business, low taxes, low population, cheap land, and plentiful resources. I have been researching businesses for sale there, and they are very cheap and have much higher positive cash flows than similar businesses for sale here in Texas where I live, and Texas is also considered pro-business and low taxes.

[dsayers]

I agree that we ought to vote in self-defense.

There is no such thing. You will not defend anybody by telling the masters that yes, they do indeed own you and everybody else.

[aviet]

aviet, there's a lot of bias in there with no acknowledgement of it. This rebuttal is for the sake of others who might be curious if not hopeful.

 

 

Overall, you're engaging in utilitarian arguments which only serves to conceal the moral argument and protect the violent, allowing them to flourish.

I agree with your statements regarding the state being a drain, that was kind of my point. That the state drains you for socialised/rationed health care to the extent that it makes it difficult to get it private; and I am aware in the US health care is expensive due to state intervention. My point being that it is difficult to create state alternatives when you are being forced to pay for state services/waste.

 

I am not a supporter of this situation, I just think it would be a difficult situation to deflate as state dependancy and all the business models that have no choice but to be intertwined with the state.

 

Maybe you are right that if people changed their perceptions that there would not be a particularly turbulent transition away from statism. Since there is no example of this in history, we can only guess.

[aviet]

There is no such thing. You will not defend anybody by telling the masters that yes, they do indeed own you and everybody else.

It is a messy situation. If you vote for Trump because you want lower taxes and a safer country (more secure border) and he follows through on them, you have defended yourself from state programs. Maybe you also want legal marijuana, but Trump jacks up the laws and you end up going to prison for possession, then you have voted for your own incarceration.

 

Conversely all of the Marxists think that they are under attack, because their system is not getting as much money they believe they are entitled to. [not that I am arguing that position, or for the state in general]

 

If I was in the Pulse nightclub, Orlando during the shooting and I had a gun I could have used it to kill the terrorist, but accidentally killed a couple of innocents.

 

In voluntarism philosophy, self defence is taken as a given clause to NAP - aggression vs. aggression is OK. When you use aggression against aggression, there is the possibility of complications and casualties, maybe more than there would have been if you did not respond to the aggression. For example, if someone tried to kill me, but I killed them, their family may then kill all of my first degree relatives. Yet, I don't think that is a good argument to do nothing if someone is trying to kill you.

 

In any situation where I am being subjugated I will evaluate and use what tools I have available to myself. If I lived in some brutal society where I knew my family would be killed if I defended myself, maybe I would allow myself to be killed. I live in a society where there is the notion of perpetual, representative majority rule. Individually, if I vote or not will have no affect on the rolling back of that system. But I can potentially assist in its rolling back by voting for someone. A complication of that is that I may end up being subject to new impositions. That you can influence people to resist statism is an addendum to voting for a reduction in the state, in my opinion.

 

It's messy, but so is disarming a terrorist. I don't see any other option. If you went back in time to a brutal pagan society where women wailed to be executed on their dead husband's corpses, you could try suggesting to them to stop such behavior, stop endless warring with other tribes, stop mutilating their new born etc. If you could convince one tribe to abide by NAP etc., another tribe would have come in and killed them. It's what's happened in the formerly non-Islamic Middle East.

 

The path from animalism to relatively (currently) stable statist societies where you can walk safely through the streets at night has been a very bloody and messy path. I think it will continue to be so and if we are lucky, we won't go backwards as has happened before with the fall of Rome and the Islamic dark age.

 

It depends on the codification of your principles. Some people believe in NAP, but no form of self defence. You can believe in NAP and have various clauses as to self defense.

 

Extrapolated, voting is a form of aggression. So long as you get what you want it is self defence in certain spheres, so far as you are concerned. Collectively it could potentially be self harm via unintended consequences.

Not voting is not a form of aggression unless you considered it delegitimises the state. In which case it can be extrapolated as an aggressive act of self defence against the state. Collectively it could potentially be an act of self harm via allowing a more statist candidate to win.

[dsayers]

Maybe you are right that if people changed their perceptions that there would not be a particularly turbulent transition away from statism. Since there is no example of this in history, we can only guess.

I have never suggested the transition wouldn't be turbulent. My point was that turbulence is not justification for accepting less rape or less slavery instead of just admitting that rape and slavery are immoral.

[aviet]

My point was that turbulence is not justification for accepting less rape or less slavery instead of just admitting that rape and slavery are immoral.

I agree. I doubt there is much we actually would disagree on. I just have a different conception as to the way the ballpark agreed on areas could be pursued.

[dsayers]

I just have a different conception as to the way the ballpark agreed on areas could be pursued.

Would you be amenable to discussing these things further? I would be interesting in trying to identify the disconnect and fleshing out where we stand. If it's okay, I'll start with three things that I think help me to arrive at my position.

 

First of all, the ingenuity of my fellow humans. There are so many things from agorists to Bitcoin that serve to subvert the State in terms of satisfying human desires without violence. Seems like there are more every day. Similarly, there are more and more people every day who are coming to realize that things aren't right. They might not be able to identify what it is or find the words to describe it and so they might not approach it in the purest forms, such as settling for anarchy, accepting that police brutality isn't an isolated incident even if they don't see police as general as violence incarnate, etc. Which brings us to...

 

Secondly, Stef once said that to see the farm is to escape it. I am so thankful to have had that pointed out to me because I too was once in the camp of wanting to do SOMETHING. Not realizing that what I was being told was something either achieved the opposite effect of my stated goals or did nothing at all, while believing that helping people to see wasn't actually doing something. Yes, if everybody said TODAY that they can see the farm, this wouldn't be the end of the story. But frankly, I don't care to try and manage what Tom, Dick, and Harry do once they see the farm. I'll let them figure that out for themselves. There are plenty of resources already and I'd gladly help as much as they'd like me to as I'm able.

 

Finally, there is the eventual certainty. Larken Rose once gave a very powerful speech comparing statism to the geocentric model of the universe. They used to kill and harass people to prevent the truth from getting out. But information--particularly the TRUTH--wants to be free. You can't stop it. You can slow it down. You can delay it. But you cannot halt it. Statism is the same way. The seeds are already sown and continue to be sown. Try as they may, they cannot stop it. I actually had tears in my eyes the first time I heard Stef give a similarly impassioned diatrabe about how the personhood of children is coming. Like blacks in America and women too, the equality of children is unavoidable. These ideas make me VERY happy for the future of humanity.

[fractional slacker]

Cant-well talks about this all the time.  The goal of anyone who believes in the NAP is to abolish govt. and have a voluntary society. That's not close to happening. 
In the meantime, we want the gun in the room (govt) to be used as against our enemies: the left, commies, sophists, and socialists. Those groups have no use for the NAP and we have no obligation to treat them kindly. Trump is far closer to implementing these ideas than any candidate including Gary "bake me a cake" Johnson. Don't throw your vote away on him. Vote Trump if you care about preserving Western civilization.

[dsayers]

Vote Trump if you care about preserving Western civilization.

Why would you want to preserve institutionalized violence? Or tell people to embrace those who think they're slaves? How do you know that voting Trump will get him elected? How do you know that getting him elected will "preserve Western civilization"? How do you define "Western civilization"? Sorry, but this advice seems totally devoid of rigor.

 

The goal of anyone who believes in the NAP is to abolish govt. and have a voluntary society. That's not close to happening. 

You can't abolish Santa Claus. Though you can convince people that he doesn't exist. But suppose your claim was true. How does perpetuating govt. lead to its abolition? Seems counter-intuitive to me.

 

Sometimes you just have to let the junkie crash. Prolonging his suffering isn't compassionate at all. You're essentially sacrificing future generations for the sake of your comfort in the present. I would encourage you to reconsider.

[Will Torbald]

Why would you want to preserve institutionalized violence?

 

Because institutionalized violence is what holds back un-institutionalized violence like riots, terrorism, race wars, looting, savagery, barbarism, lynching, gang violence, and so on. What's your solution to these things without an institution of coercion? I mean a real solution. Not a philosophy.

[soared4truth]

There is no such thing. You will not defend anybody by telling the masters that yes, they do indeed own you and everybody else.

That is silly. You think the state actually cares whether you vote or not? They do the same evil crap to you regardless. Do you think they will leave you alone because you don't vote? I don't agree with voting, as it is an act of aggression. However, if people are using this act of aggression against me, I have a right to proportional force as a means of self-defense. Voting is the only proportional response I can think of. How else am I supposed to defend myself, go on a shooting rampage? I have voted only one time in my life until now. I only vote when I think it might do something positive. I look at it as fighting fire with fire. If there is a raging fire coming toward your house, it makes sense to light a small controlled fire in order to burn out all the fuel before it arrives and the flames consume your house. I won't tell you or anyone else to vote, but I will do so in self-defense when I feel it is necessary, and I have every right under NAP. Basically though, by not voting out of self-defense you are voluntarily limiting your options for self-defense, and you aren't going to get any special treatment from the state from abstaining from such, and nobody but you and a handful of anarchists that might high five you actully care.

I have never suggested the transition wouldn't be turbulent. My point was that turbulence is not justification for accepting less rape or less slavery instead of just admitting that rape and slavery are immoral.

Let me address this with a hypothetical scenario. Let's say there is a tall building somewhere, and for whatever reason it is considered moral to be at the top of the building, and immoral to be below that, and the further down you are the more immoral it is. Right now, you and I are on the street in front of the building. We want to get to the top to be moral. I suggest "hey let's go take the stairs and get to the top." You reply "Pfffffft, the stairs are still immoral, the only thing that isn't immoral is the top of the building, so we should just jump." This is analogous to what you are proposing. Incrementalism got us here, and incrementalism is what is going to get us back out. It isn't going to happen over night. It may still be immoral to be at the stairs on the second floor, but that isn't what matters. What matters is that we are moving closer to our goal by taking the stairs, however immoral it may be, and that we simply cannot get to the top by jumping.

 

Sorry, that was a sort of wild hypothetical, but I think it got the point across.

Cant-well talks about this all the time.  The goal of anyone who believes in the NAP is to abolish govt. and have a voluntary society. That's not close to happening. 

In the meantime, we want the gun in the room (govt) to be used as against our enemies: the left, commies, sophists, and socialists. Those groups have no use for the NAP and we have no obligation to treat them kindly. Trump is far closer to implementing these ideas than any candidate including Gary "bake me a cake" Johnson. Don't throw your vote away on him. Vote Trump if you care about preserving Western civilization.

lol. Voting for Trump would be a waste of a vote because I live in Texas. Trump is going to win Texas anyway. I don't give a crap about Johnson's politics since he isn't going to be elected anyway. All I care about is giving the LP a chance to get a candidate into the presidential debates in 2020. It might not even be Johnson if the LP nominates someone different. Vote smart, not hard lol.

[soared4truth]

Why would you want to preserve institutionalized violence? Or tell people to embrace those who think they're slaves?

 

Why would you assume voting preserves institutionalized violence? You seem to be implying that not voting doesn't preserve it which is obviously false. I haven't voted my whole entire life except for once. Guess what? The state is still here and stronger than ever.

 

How do you know that voting Trump will get him elected?

Voting for Trump won't get him elected unless you live in a swing state, in which case it only might help him get elected. Either way, what do you have to lose other than a small amount of your time?

 

How do you know that getting him elected will "preserve Western civilization"?

 

How do you know that failing to get Trump elected won't lead to the collapse of western civilization? Wouldn't western civilization be more likely to collapse under the reign of a criminal sociopath who is above the law and wants to invite a whole bunch of radical Syrian muslims into our country?

 

How do you define "Western civilization"?

 

"Western culture, sometimes equated with Western civilization, Western lifestyle, Western society or European civilization is a term used very broadly to refer to a heritage of social norms, ethical values, traditional customs, belief systems, political systems, and specific artifacts and technologies that have some origin or association with Europe, having both indigenous and foreign origin. The term has come to be applied by people of European ethnicity to countries whose history is strongly marked by European immigration, colonisation, and influence, such as the continents of the Americas and Australasia, whose current demographic majority is of European ethnicity, and is not restricted to the continent of Europe."

[dsayers]

Because institutionalized violence is what holds back un-institutionalized violence like riots, terrorism, race wars, looting, savagery, barbarism, lynching, gang violence, and so on. What's your solution to these things without an institution of coercion? I mean a real solution. Not a philosophy.

You don't burn your house down to avoid the possibility of a kitchen fire. Also, the State has stopped none of those things. It just puts people like you into mental prisons and tells you that they do.

 

They do the same evil crap to you regardless.

So participate in the sham even though you know it won't change a thing. Thank you for making my point.

 

Sorry, that was a sort of wild hypothetical, but I think it got the point across.

Not really. I stopped reading at moral to be at the top of a building. I don't like obfuscation.

[soared4truth]

So participate in the sham even though you know it won't change a thing. Thank you for making my point.

 

I guess if you want to cherry pick from what I said, and quote it out of context then it did.

 

Not really. I stopped reading at moral to be at the top of a building. I don't like obfuscation.

 

Well then let me put it more plainly for you. Incrementalism got us where we are now. We aren't going all the way to anarchy overnight. Incrementalism, therefore, is the only means for getting to our goal. Less immoral is indeed better than more immoral because it is a step in the direction of moral. Individuals can go from being completely corrupt and immoral overnight. Societies cannot.

[dsayers]

 

Incrementalism got us where we are now.

No. A belief that people can exist in different, opposing moral categories "got us where we are now."

 

We aren't going all the way to anarchy overnight.

Poisoning the well. "Overnight" is not the only way by which we can solve problems. Also, you and I live our lives anarchically right now. 

 

Incrementalism, therefore, is the only means for getting to our goal.

If your house was on fire, (insert somebody you care about here) was being raped, or you had cancer, would you call for incrementalism?

 

Less immoral is indeed better than more immoral because it is a step in the direction of moral.

Step in the right direction is a myth. You're poisoning the well again by claiming that voting accomplishes a step in the right direction. "Yes I am your slave" does nothing to diminish slavery.

 

Individuals can go from being completely corrupt and immoral overnight. Societies cannot.

Not addressing the content of your claims. Just wanted to point out that "society" is a concept that describes an aggregate of PEOPLE. Therefore any set of claims that people can X but a group of people cannot are competing claims. This is you claiming a square is a triangle again. Which I can "cherry pick" because it's logically impossible, and therefore any "reasons" you come up with aren't worth my time.

 

[Will Torbald]

You don't burn your house down to avoid the possibility of a kitchen fire. Also, the State has stopped none of those things. It just puts people like you into mental prisons and tells you that they do.

 

Ok, so you don't have a solution. Then again, why would you have one if you think the State hasn't stopped any uninstitutional violence. Maybe we should tell the Chicago, Dallas, Ferguson, Detroit, police department to go home! What a waste! If the police stops working, everything will magically solve itself.

[dsayers]

if you think the State hasn't stopped any

Strawman and moving the goalposts. I didn't say didn't stop any because you didn't. You indicated that it had stopped it full stop. I pointed out that didn't. You indicated this was a reason to abide institutionalized violence (a decision you don't have the right to make) and it's been shown to be a sham. If you were a person of integrity, you would have pause, and motivation to revisit your position. Instead of mocking and emotionally responding without argument.

 

It creates WAY more than it stops. But this is an argument of utility anyways. All that matters is that the initiation of the use of force is immoral.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Very good point, and thank you. I think that answered my question perfectly. I loathe that we have to engage in hypocrisy for self-defense, but as you eluded to, it is kind of them or us. Also, I am kind of glad that Stefan stepped into the world of politics. We, as anarchists need to start thinking more strategically. It is kind of like war. Very few people actually want war, but when you are attacked on your home soil, you have to do whatever you can to fend off the invaders even if it means engaging in war and destruction which are unethical in any other circumstance. With limited government, at least we have a chance. Imagine if it was the U.S. from the 1800s, for example with its much smaller government. We could go engage in anarchy right now in the wild west under those circumstances and there wouldn't be enough government presence to find us, hunt us down, and stop us. I am actually considering doing something similar in Wyoming, since it is very pro-business, low taxes, low population, cheap land, and plentiful resources. I have been researching businesses for sale there, and they are very cheap and have much higher positive cash flows than similar businesses for sale here in Texas where I live, and Texas is also considered pro-business and low taxes.

 

I am not exceptionally skilled but if you are looking into a particular type of business I would be happy to try and help research. I have a lot of free time at the moment, so If you think there is any opportunity in that feel free to shoot me a line or two