adamNJ Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 Not to vote, because: -It would be inconsistent, to follow the NAP and chose who gets to rule one's political opponents. Like a vegetarian working at a slaughterhouse -It legitimizes statism -A bunch of votes don't affect the outcome of the election -If you vote you are in a way responsible for the harm/good your candidate causes, and if your side loses, you have to accept being ruled by the other side's candidate because you accepted to participate -If you are doing it because it's the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil -No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises -Its a desperate act. A voting anarchist evokes pity and signals a surrender of one's pride. Like a vegetarian working at a slaughterhouse -Voting to reduce the size of the state is like joining the mafia to turn it into a charity 4
Matthew Ed Moran Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 Not to vote, because: -It would be inconsistent, to follow the NAP and chose who gets to rule one's political opponents. Like a vegetarian working at a slaughterhouse -It legitimizes statism -A bunch of votes don't affect the outcome of the election -If you vote you are in a way responsible for the harm/good your candidate causes, and if your side loses, you have to accept being ruled by the other side's candidate because you accepted to participate -If you are doing it because it's the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil -No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises -Its a desperate act. A voting anarchist evokes pity and signals a surrender of one's pride. Like a vegetarian working at a slaughterhouse I have a rebuttal to this. I did it in order, but I also expanded on my thoughts at some points. - It is not consistent with the NAP does not mean it is immoral (this is not an argument). If you are saying voting is immoral, you have to show how the literal act of voting is the initiation of force, or otherwise you cannot claim it is immoral to vote, especially if other people are voting. There is also technically nothing inconsistent in reality about the term vegitarian, and the act of working at a slaughterhouse, because as far as I understand a vegetarian simply does not eat meat. It's a description of an act (to eat non-meat) or biological a description of a category of animals, but it is not a moral argument. - You cannot say voting legitimizes an idea in someones head, because that would be literally to believe in magic, if by legitimize you mean "make real or valid." (also this is not an argument) - It is not an argument to point out any single (or insignificant group of) vote as meaningless, if voting itself creates a prisoner's dilemma scenario which necessitates that when one person votes, everyone else must vote or else be at a disadvantage in the manifestation of institutionalized aggressive force called 'politics' (which exists whether you vote or not. You cannot say politics has no effect or is one singular mind determining the outcome (unless you have evidence), therefore we all have a very marginal say in the outcome. If you hold yourself to higher standards than your competition, you will lose and become extinct (over time if it happens consistently) - You cannot say voting has no effect and also say people are responsible for the effects of their vote. That is a contradiction. It is very important to understand voting and support are just ideas in individual minds, and are not themselves the initiation of force. They are more accurately considered as huge statistical measurements of the effectiveness of competing forms of propaganda, assuming the voting process is executed (i.e. there is not a fraud in counting, given the stated regulations of how votes are counted in the system which may at times be inconsistent, but are generally formed for a purpose of advantaging one form of propaganda over another) - "Choosing evil" is not a moral argument, because the context of choice changes in a statist society, because force is initiated institutionally in a geographic territory. - No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises, but a politician must dish out effective propaganda or else he faces to lose his position, but in a very volatile and non-linear way (i.e. in revolts which are spontaneous but have built over time, or in coups). - Propaganda can theoretically be judged on consequentialist grounds, and saying that no propaganda is syllogistically better than others is not an argument against the empirical correlations in history that can be interpreted with reason and evidence. If a certain group of people in a statist society can agree on a lot of propaganda, then less force is theoretically being initiated compared to a situation in which there was a state and multicultural or biologically manifest disagreement {such as r/K}, and closer to a free society they will be; according to this mental model. Aggression is more clear in reality when one person and another person passionately disagree on whatever course of action is being proposed (more people would rather give out 5 cents than use of their sex organs in the face of the force). When America was founded, a very effective propaganda was inserted into the moral compass of a relatively alike population in terms of race and in high intelligence, and a small state producing the vastest expansion of freedom every in history was produced. A small state - a statist society - is the reason we now have the internet and are immeasurably closer to a free society than they were in practical terms. In their minds at the time, their propaganda resembled something practically more like a free society, even though their conception of government from the view of philosophy is equally as wrong as any other statist propaganda. Philosophy itself deals in 1 and 0s; valid or invalid. But the ways ideas manifest through observable behavior in reality is fundamentally different because of the mind/body dichotomy. If the ideas as they behave in reality create patterns, such as increasing wealth and technology, and these practical effects can disperse information that can potentially increase choice in significant ways, then people in a statist society, not presuming some spontaenous anarchist revelation, can build a base of knowledge over time that will become incredibly consistent, and in the process anarchy will result because propaganda is effectively conquered by empirical invalidation. That's my main argument. I hope it can be of some help if I'm correct or close to correct about at least one point - "Its a desperate act" is not an argument. Thank you for reading I write this all in humility of your rejection if you chose to reject it, or if it is incorrect. 8
Anuojat Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 You don't see how "you are the best master" is saying "you are my master"?! False dichotomy. You've just revealed that this isn't a conversation because you're coming from a place of presupposing that rulers are valid. How many of the decision that you face in your daily life require Trump or Hillary? THIS is how voting is confirming they are your master: you're not even free in your own mind. How is it a false dichotomy? I never said rulers are morally valid, i only said the state has forced us to choose one if we want free society at all if we want freedom of speech and trade to remain (trade at relative higher rate than hilary aby a mile.). If there was something else id do it in a heartbeat. I dont see we have time. What does you last sentance have to do with anything? I never said nor implied other decision in my life include politics. My comments in bold. No candidate is for reducing state power; if they are for blocking state power it is only for blocking it in one area in order to expand it in another. As far as "the lesser of two evils" argument, that is not exclusive to this election. You do not know that it will be much worse under Hillary - don't get me wrong it will be bad, but you cannot know how much worse, if at all worse, it will be than Trump. Moving on to Trump's record I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Trump has never been a politician so he has never had to back legislation in the moment against the pressures of power brokers and lobbyists. A soundbite on Fox News or CNN with the luxury of hindsight surely cannot count. How do you know this? You havent wathed stefs videos on trumps background and character perhaps? Because its pretty damn clear at thsi point he is againts the incrase in state power from the left and knows what he is doing. We have rarely if ever has self funded politician from the free market coming in and smashing the sjw and general leftist narrative. But ill say more if you view stefs videos on this since thats my points too which i agree with. Lifeboat scenario that isn't exactly analogous, but I'll bite. I doubt someone in the position of the gunman is so noble as to abide by your decision. You can tell the psycho "shoot her toe" and he could blow her brains out anyways. He's the one with the gun, he's the one willing to use force against peaceful people, he's the one that doesn't really give a wet fart what you want. He just wants to show everyone his power by making you play the game. Trump can't solve these problems. The state can't solve these problems. Violence never solves problems. You can demand compliance with your boot on someone's neck, but you have to keep it there forever. The moment you lift it up and look away you've got a larger problem. Except in this case trump is for limiting or eliminating the problems which are the boot to our neck who speak philosofically. We cant have a free society come out eventually or free speech remain (which are interlinked) or any western values remaining without politics. Unfortunately i wish there was another way. But the state has made it impossible not to get involved in politics IF ones wants a free society or fre speech to remain. Or any values that west has held either. I want to make it perfectly clear: If trump doesnt win and hilary gets into power things WILL change i absolutely believe for the better. I say this with same clarity as i do with anyone whom i judge someone by his past actions. And with hilary i am certain beyodn any shadow of a dout that htings will get worse. If things will change in regards to imigration and erosion of free speech... thewre wont be a place nor road for philosofy. And i for i PREFER things that actually enbable it to exist outside of my mind. Ill do similiar responce in bold aswell.
powder Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 So in other words, you do not trust trump any more than any of those others? His character and background are not enough? If so then do you think anyone no matter how good or benevolent will be corrupted or his/her effects stifled? And in the end it will all be same as if hilary got into power. (relatively same) Nope, not really the same. The ruling class are happy to go left/right, prosperous/poor, more/less freedom,... they are patient and are not worried about the short term stuff as long as the right to rule is never challenged. They don't care who gets on the throne, as long as you agree to have a throne by legitimizing the system in whatever way suits you. If they can find a way to scare people enough most will eventually run to their masters to save them, even if its 'just a chance to buy more time', that will do. By the time that crisis has passed the next generation will be uploaded with an updated version of the same threat and they will have had another chance to silence the voice of freedom. They are also happy to sacrifice any element of the perceived leaders of society, and its structures, to reboot the system even, to let the slaves blow off steam if that is what is required. It has happened many times throughout history. They also like you to believe that the kings, priests and politicians that are put in front of us to sell the agendas are in fact our rulers. I think there is a solid case to be made that that is not how the system works, but that is for another time. 1
jpahmad Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 Great post Mtt. I would also like to add that the same argument for not voting can be made for not paying taxes. Taxes contribute to the corrupt system as much as voting does, if not even more. People who are against voting on this forum are also the same ones who claim they pay taxes out of self-defense. This is a contradiction. You cannot avoid the consequences of not paying taxes. But you also cannot avoid the consequences of not voting. The only difference between the two, is that one consequence is immediate and acute, and the other is farther in the future, but perhaps ultimately, just as bad. 1
Tyler H Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 1- It's not a supposition that Hillary is "worse" than Trump, it is a factual assesment of their platforms. One diminishes freedom, the other increases it. It's not about whether your individual vote can stop Hillary, is that if you don't vote, you didn't do anything to stop it. Like being a bystander to a crime, you never said anything nor called anyone. Enabler. 2- The left increases that force, the right decreases it, the libertarian minimizes it, the anarchist removes the institution. You see no gradients. Only a Sith deals with absolutes. 3- There is no other change through gradation but with voting. The state won't stop, the philosophical revolution is wishful thinking. Migration of third world hordes will perpetuate the left. Forgive me if the quote function doesn't work; I am on my phone and the full site works slightly different. First I need to say that an enabler is a pretty specific and serious accusation. en·a·bler iˈnāblər,e-/ noun a person or thing that makes something possible. "the people who run these workshops are crime enablers" a person who encourages or enables negative or self-destructive behavior in another. "he criticized her role as an enabler in her husband's pathological womanizing" Certainly a Hillary presidency is not dependent upon my vote or lack thereof. In fact the term enabler applies more to you than anyone not voting since you are trying to convince people who have a moral complication with voting to do something that does not agree with their conscience or principles. I don't think I would apply that label to you but I thought the distinction was important to point out. Again, their platforms are not their actions and using them as evidence is spurious at best. They are lies to buy votes, not facts. Here lies another false premise, that the right decreases state power. Historical evidence shows that is decidedly not the case. State power just ratchets up, the direction of which is determined by who is in power. Voting is not the only way; withdrawal of support and resources is an example of another option and I'm sure there are other creative ways that could be thought of when violence is taken off the table. If you really think a philosophical revolution is wishful thinking I'm not sure why you're participating on this board. It's kind of the mission statement.
Tyler H Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 Not to vote, because: -It would be inconsistent, to follow the NAP and chose who gets to rule one's political opponents. Like a vegetarian working at a slaughterhouse -It legitimizes statism -A bunch of votes don't affect the outcome of the election -If you vote you are in a way responsible for the harm/good your candidate causes, and if your side loses, you have to accept being ruled by the other side's candidate because you accepted to participate -If you are doing it because it's the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil -No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises -Its a desperate act. A voting anarchist evokes pity and signals a surrender of one's pride. Like a vegetarian working at a slaughterhouse I agree except for the part about accepting being ruled because you voted. I'm certainly open to arguments though.
Tyler H Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 Great post Mtt. I would also like to add that the same argument for not voting can be made for not paying taxes. Taxes contribute to the corrupt system as much as voting does, if not even more. People who are against voting on this forum are also the same ones who claim they pay taxes out of self-defense. This is a contradiction. You cannot avoid the consequences of not paying taxes. But you also cannot avoid the consequences of not voting. The only difference between the two, is that one consequence is immediate and acute, and the other is farther in the future, but perhaps ultimately, just as bad. No it can't (the same argument be made), no one comes to your house and puts a gun to you're head to vote. The consequences of voting are unknown while the consequences of not paying taxes are known. It requires support of the initiation of force to vote; it does not require the support of the initiation of force to be stolen from. Compliance in the name of self preservation is not support and an argument is yet to be made that voting this time is an act of self preservation aside from an appeal to emotion (fear) or authority (Stef says). If I've missed the evidence or failed to understand, I apologize and kindly ask for reiteration. 1
jpahmad Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 No it can't (the same argument be made), no one comes to your house and puts a gun to you're head to vote. The consequences of voting are unknown while the consequences of not paying taxes are known. It requires support of the initiation of force to vote; it does not require the support of the initiation of force to be stolen from. Compliance in the name of self preservation is not support and an argument is yet to be made that voting this time is an act of self preservation aside from an appeal to emotion (fear) or authority (Stef says). If I've missed the evidence or failed to understand, I apologize and kindly ask for reiteration. First of all, the consequences of not paying your taxes is not a certainty. The consequences of not paying your taxes is also not immediate. However, I do concede that most likely, eventually you would be put in prison, which is why you and I both pay our taxes. The reason why we know that we would most likely be put in prison, is because of looking at the history of what happens to other people when they didn't pay their taxes. Now, the consequences of not voting can be debated. The argument can reasonably be made, that if everyone who believed in liberty did not vote, then we would just become "subjected to the rule of of our inferiors" as Stefan pointed out in his video "the truth about patriotism." The only difference between the presumed consequence of not voting and the presumed consequence of not paying taxes, is the amount of time that passes before the effect of those particular actions are felt. Both are undesirable. So to say it's ok to act in self-defense in one case and not the other, is not making an argument on principle.
Tyler H Posted July 20, 2016 Author Posted July 20, 2016 Actually let me retract that last statement until I go through Mtt's post. On a cursory glance it seemed pretty well thought out and argued in some points, I do not have time to go through it now, perhaps tonight. I also plan to respond to Anuojat.
dsayers Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 I agree except for the part about accepting being ruled because you voted. I'm certainly open to arguments though. I'll respond to this first since a couple of the others I need to respond to don't seem open at all. The ways in which voting accepts being ruled is twofold. First, there is the direct claim that the vote itself makes: I choose YOU to rule over me. If a random person demands $10 from you and isn't menacing or threatening, to give him anything is to participate in his fantasy and validating his claim of ownership over you. As I live my life as if these people aren't claiming ownership at all, not joining in their reindeer games, and encouraging others not to, I am chipping away at the mass hysteria that government is valid. Those who vote add to the myth. It is not consistent with the NAP does not mean it is immoral Just as it is not immoral doesn't mean it doesn't substantiate the problem. There is also technically nothing inconsistent in reality about the term vegitarian, and the act of working at a slaughterhouse, because as far as I understand a vegetarian simply does not eat meat. Keep going. They don't eat meat because of values they hold that working in a slaughterhouse would be in opposition to. People who respect property rights and vote are not living their values. You cannot say voting legitimizes an idea in someones head Yes you can and you would be right. Statism is not a rational conclusion. It flourishes out of sheer momentum. Momentum that voting adds to. If those who believe in State power only because their friends and family do suddenly realized the majority of these people saw voting as adding to the enslavement of mankind, they would be more open-minded to the truth. It is not an argument to point out any single (or insignificant group of) vote as meaningless If the case being made is that to vote is to manage one's anxiety, then it is a valid argument. "Choosing evil" is not a moral argument, because the context of choice changes in a statist society, because force is initiated institutionally in a geographic territory. I wish those who need for voting to be socially acceptable would quit asserting that voting is required. It's begging the question and intellectual sloth. There ARE places in the world where voting is compulsory. This thread is an exploration of the CHOICE to vote or not. No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises, but a politician must dish out effective propaganda or else he faces to lose his position This is a false narrative that presupposes so much. Both options lie and their successors will lie. That they MIGHT lose their position YEARS down the road isn't enough to help humanity. Recognizing that the throne is invalid and that voting validates the throne is the way they ALL lose their position. A small state - a statist society - is the reason we now have the internet and are immeasurably closer to a free society than they were in practical terms. This is WAY false. The gestapo had nothing on modern day police in the US. This isn't freedom. That one could believe as much shows the ways in which it's actually WORSE than overt tyranny. Also, the idea that we wouldn't have the internet without violence? It might've come sooner, flourished faster, etc without State obstruction, regulation, etc. If you haven't already, check out Larken Rose vs Mark Skousen Debate in Anarchapulco. He destrIf you haven't already, check out Larken Rose vs Mark Skousen Debate in Anarchapulco. He destroys the concept of minarchy. the state has forced us to choose one That's the false dichotomy. You don't have to choose either. You can choose neither. I never said nor implied other decision in my life include politics. This is how you know that the decision to not vote is valid and sustainable. I would also like to add that the same argument for not voting can be made for not paying taxes. No it can't. Taxes are levied under threat of violence. Nobody in the US is saying that if you don't vote, you will be violated. If you haven't already, check out Larken Rose vs Mark Skousen Debate in Anarchapulco. He destroys the concept of minarchy.t is not consistent with the NAP does not mean it is immoral NAP does not mean it is immoral Just as it is not immoral doesn't mean it doesn't substantiate the problem. There is also technically nothing inconsistent in reality about the term vegitarian, and the act of working at a slaughterhouse, because as far as I understand a vegetarian simply does not eat meat. Keep going. They don't eat meat because of values they hold that working in a slaughterhouse would be in opposition to. People who respect property rights and vote are not living their values. You cannot say voting legitimizes an idea in someones head Yes you can and you would be right. Statism is not a rational conclusion. It flourishes out of sheer momentum. Momentum that voting adds to. If those who believe in State power only because their friends and family do suddenly realized the majority of these people saw voting as adding to the enslavement of mankind, they would be more open-minded to the truth. It is not an argument to point out any single (or insignificant group of) vote as meaningless If the case being made is that to vote is to manage one's anxiety, then it is a valid argument. "Choosing evil" is not a moral argument, because the context of choice changes in a statist society, because force is initiated institutionally in a geographic territory. I wish those who need for voting to be socially acceptable would quit asserting that voting is required. It's begging the question and intellectual sloth. There ARE places in the world where voting is compulsory. This thread is an exploration of the CHOICE to vote or not. No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises, but a politician must dish out effective propaganda or else he faces to lose his position This is a false narrative that presupposes so much. Both options lie and their successors will lie. That they MIGHT lose their position YEARS down the road isn't enough to help humanity. Recognizing that the throne is invalid and that voting validates the throne is the way they ALL lose their position. A small state - a statist society - is the reason we now have the internet and are immeasurably closer to a free society than they were in practical terms. This is WAY false. The gestapo had nothing on modern day police in the US. This isn't freedom. That one could believe as much shows the ways in which it's actually WORSE than overt tyranny. Also, the idea that we wouldn't have the internet without violence? It might've come sooner, flourished faster, etc without State obstruction, regulation, etc. Just as it is not immoral doesn't mean it doesn't substantiate the problem. There is also technically nothing inconsistent in reality about the term vegitarian, and the act of working at a slaughterhouse, because as far as I understand a vegetarian simply does not eat meat. Keep going. They don't eat meat because of values they hold that working in a slaughterhouse would be in opposition to. People who respect property rights and vote are not living their values. You cannot say voting legitimizes an idea in someones head Yes you can and you would be right. Statism is not a rational conclusion. It flourishes out of sheer momentum. Momentum that voting adds to. If those who believe in State power only because their friends and family do suddenly realized the majority of these people saw voting as adding to the enslavement of mankind, they would be more open-minded to the truth. It is not an argument to point out any single (or insignificant group of) vote as meaningless If the case being made is that to vote is to manage one's anxiety, then it is a valid argument. "Choosing evil" is not a moral argument, because the context of choice changes in a statist society, because force is initiated institutionally in a geographic territory. I wish those who need for voting to be socially acceptable would quit asserting that voting is required. It's begging the question and intellectual sloth. There ARE places in the world where voting is compulsory. This thread is an exploration of the CHOICE to vote or not. No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises, but a politician must dish out effective propaganda or else he faces to lose his position This is a false narrative that presupposes so much. Both options lie and their successors will lie. That they MIGHT lose their position YEARS down the road isn't enough to help humanity. Recognizing that the throne is invalid and that voting validates the throne is the way they ALL lose their position. A small state - a statist society - is the reason we now have the internet and are immeasurably closer to a free society than they were in practical terms. This is WAY false. The gestapo had nothing on modern day p 1 1
Matthew Ed Moran Posted July 20, 2016 Posted July 20, 2016 First of all, the consequences of not paying your taxes is not a certainty. The consequences of not paying your taxes is also not immediate. However, I do concede that most likely, eventually you would be put in prison, which is why you and I both pay our taxes. The reason why we know that we would most likely be put in prison, is because of looking at the history of what happens to other people when they didn't pay their taxes. Now, the consequences of not voting can be debated. The argument can reasonably be made, that if everyone who believed in liberty did not vote, then we would just become "subjected to the rule of our of our inferiors" as Stefan pointed out in his video "the truth about patriotism." The only difference between the presumed consequence of not voting and the presumed consequence of not paying taxes, is the amount of time that passes before the effect of those particular actions are felt. Both are undesirable. So to say it's ok to act in defense in one case and not the other, is not making an argument on principle. Also, paying taxes enables more state coercion than not paying your taxes, or voting. So if there is a criticism, it has to be levied against paying taxes more than voting. I would also add that since a single vote isn't going to alter the outcome, then voting for anyone in particular is not that important, but that influencing public opinion about the political process is. By telling people not to vote, or by offering them only sentimentality, I truly believe we're not offering them anything at all. This insight about what it means to actually influence society towards anarchy makes me think that in some fundamental ways, none of us are anarchists unless we are effecting change towards anarchy, no matter if we acknowledge the NAP, since we already established we cannot logically follow the NAP in a statist society and compete. If we are spreading sentimentality as an end in itself, that is ineffective or harmful, and in that way we are not anarchists in reality. And if a statist is providing technology on the free market or providing wealth to relatively peaceful people, then he is moving the needle towards anarchy whether the ideas in his head are consistent or not. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates (not so much anymore though) may in fact be statists, but they probably have done a lot of good for the cause of anarchy. Many great people have been on the show, many great conservatives, are doing a lot more for anarchy than so-called anarchists who don't have the same public outreach. By that measure I can't rationally criticize a statist for voting or supporting a candidate, when the effects of their actions are doing more for anarchy than I am. There is only truth and falsehood, and actions that promote one over the other. What I love about Donald Trump is that listening to his speeches is like listening to truthful statement after truthful statement, at least compared to the current media establishment. When Stefan uses Trump in his videos, Trump is not the subject. Truth and falsehood are the subjects, and Donald Trump is a very convenient way to spread this information to many new people because of his public figure. By spreading the truth, I think we are by definition a bit closer to anarchy, even if we decide not to contest some truths in some situations, because we prefer some less controversial truths that may be more practical. I believe anarchy belongs in the category of syllogisms, and beyond providing those syllogisms, I think it is harmful to shame or even criticize people to accept them. In close personal relationships I think having the intimacy to reject the initiation of force against one another is essential, but when dealing with the public at large, I'm not sure what weight us anarchists have at the present moment to ostracize or shame anyone for rejecting a syllogism. I think we are better off trying to tailor our message to them in line with the current forms of propaganda that have the most sway in society. This post might not be convincing to anyone who doesn't already agree with me, so again I write this in all humility of rejection or any corrections anyone might have. 1
Tyler H Posted July 21, 2016 Author Posted July 21, 2016 My thoughts in bold. Not to vote, because: -It would be inconsistent, to follow the NAP and chose who gets to rule one's political opponents. Like a vegetarian working at a slaughterhouse -It legitimizes statism -A bunch of votes don't affect the outcome of the election -If you vote you are in a way responsible for the harm/good your candidate causes, and if your side loses, you have to accept being ruled by the other side's candidate because you accepted to participate -If you are doing it because it's the lesser of two evils, you are still choosing evil -No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises -Its a desperate act. A voting anarchist evokes pity and signals a surrender of one's pride. Like a vegetarian working at a slaughterhouse I have a rebuttal to this. I did it in order, but I also expanded on my thoughts at some points. - It is not consistent with the NAP does not mean it is immoral (this is not an argument). Isn't it though? If the non-aggression principle says that intimating force is wrong, then isn't something inconsistent with the NAP equal to something that is initiating force - ergo immoral? If you are saying voting is immoral, you have to show how the literal act of voting is the initiation of force, or otherwise you cannot claim it is immoral to vote, especially if other people are voting. Here is my reasoning (I can't speak for Adam obviously) for claiming voting is immoral: if you vote for a candidate who receives 50 million votes and wins the election you are 1/50 millionth responsible for them being in that position of power. They will inevitably violate the NAP by the nature of the position and you will share that fractional responsibility. If they deport 10 million people then you are 1/5th responsible for forcibly removing someone from their home, tearing them away from their kids, possibly destroying their life. If you and 4 other guys went and did that to someone no one here would quibble over the morality of that action. I do not see a difference, but perhaps someone could provide one I haven't thought of. Now the NAP violations of the candidate you vote for may not be that bad or they may be worse; there may be a war started that kills 10 million people, in which case there are 5 people responsible for each death. There is also technically nothing inconsistent in reality about the term vegitarian, and the act of working at a slaughterhouse, because as far as I understand a vegetarian simply does not eat meat. It's a description of an act (to eat non-meat) or biological a description of a category of animals, but it is not a moral argument. I think this is a valid point, but I think it depends on the motivations of the vegetarian for not eating meat. If he believes that a vegetarian diet is simply the healthier option then sure no problem. If his motivation is the better treatment of animals and that they have feelings and should be treated as humans, and if he only hangs out with other vegetarians and tries to persuade as many people as he can to become vegetarians for the purpose of saving these animals, then you can see how it may discredit him to be employed by the antithesis of what he believes. - You cannot say voting legitimizes an idea in someones head, because that would be literally to believe in magic, if by legitimize you mean "make real or valid." (also this is not an argument) I think you also make a good point here. It may be better when explaining the alternate point of view to specify how participating in voting "legitimizes (makes valid)" the state in people's minds. I think what is meant is that the more people get involved in the political process, i.e. the extent to which they advocate for candidates or help campaign, etc., will match the extent to which the unthinking lemmings will scoff at ever questioning the status quo. If we continue to decry the system as violent and counter productive (see war on poverty, war on terror, war on drugs), then I believe the degree to which that idea grows will be the degree to which people are open to alternative solutions to the state. I guess this is why I'm so passionate about this subject, I think there are more people than ever that are fed up with the system and are ready for new ideas. I have never heard people say "I hate both candidates" as much as they are now. And for the show, which I believe to have the best principles and arguments, to focus energy on a statist solution... I find it disheartening. I think the odds that the state (in its current form) will collapse soon (no matter who is elected) are better than Trump being able to prevent or delay it, so shouldn't all energy be focused on peaceful solutions? - It is not an argument to point out any single (or insignificant group of) vote as meaningless, if voting itself creates a prisoner's dilemma scenario which necessitates that when one person votes, everyone else must vote or else be at a disadvantage in the manifestation of institutionalized aggressive force called 'politics' (which exists whether you vote or not. You cannot say politics has no effect or is one singular mind determining the outcome (unless you have evidence), therefore we all have a very marginal say in the outcome. If you hold yourself to higher standards than your competition, you will lose and become extinct (over time if it happens consistently) Another good point. The tribesman who said "but.... that's just a giant stone chicken..." got set on fire. What we are in now is a kind of state of nature less dangerous than before, but as I argued i think you need to take into consideration the level of moral responsibility you will undertake weighed against the probability of achieving the desired outcome. - You cannot say voting has no effect and also say people are responsible for the effects of their vote. That is a contradiction. It is very important to understand voting and support are just ideas in individual minds, and are not themselves the initiation of force. They are more accurately considered as huge statistical measurements of the effectiveness of competing forms of propaganda, assuming the voting process is executed (i.e. there is not a fraud in counting, given the stated regulations of how votes are counted in the system which may at times be inconsistent, but are generally formed for a purpose of advantaging one form of propaganda over another) I'm glad you pointed this out, great observation. It'd be better to argue from the standpoint of the fractional effect/fractional responsibility as I eluded to above. As in, are you willing to accept the fractional responsibility of someone's death for the fractional effect your vote may have in an election (anywhere from 1 in 5,800 in Ohio to "a better shot of winning the state lottery 6,000 times in a row" in New York). - "Choosing evil" is not a moral argument, because the context of choice changes in a statist society, because force is initiated institutionally in a geographic territory. - No politician is obligated to keep campaign promises, but a politician must dish out effective propaganda or else he faces to lose his position, but in a very volatile and non-linear way (i.e. in revolts which are spontaneous but have built over time, or in coups). - Propaganda can theoretically be judged on consequentialist grounds, and saying that no propaganda is syllogistically better than others is not an argument against the empirical correlations in history that can be interpreted with reason and evidence. If a certain group of people in a statist society can agree on a lot of propaganda, then less force is theoretically being initiated compared to a situation in which there was a state and multicultural or biologically manifest disagreement {such as r/K}, and closer to a free society they will be; according to this mental model. Aggression is more clear in reality when one person and another person passionately disagree on whatever course of action is being proposed (more people would rather give out 5 cents than use of their sex organs in the face of the force). I'm not sure I understand your argument here, would you mind elaborating? When America was founded, a very effective propaganda was inserted into the moral compass of a relatively alike population in terms of race and in high intelligence, and a small state producing the vastest expansion of freedom every in history was produced. A small state - a statist society - is the reason we now have the internet and are immeasurably closer to a free society than they were in practical terms. In their minds at the time, their propaganda resembled something practically more like a free society, even though their conception of government from the view of philosophy is equally as wrong as any other statist propaganda. Philosophy itself deals in 1 and 0s; valid or invalid. But the ways ideas manifest through observable behavior in reality is fundamentally different because of the mind/body dichotomy. If the ideas as they behave in reality create patterns, such as increasing wealth and technology, and these practical effects can disperse information that can potentially increase choice in significant ways, then people in a statist society, not presuming some spontaenous anarchist revelation, can build a base of knowledge over time that will become incredibly consistent, and in the process anarchy will result because propaganda is effectively conquered by empirical invalidation. That's my main argument. I hope it can be of some help if I'm correct or close to correct about at least one point - "Its a desperate act" is not an argument. Thank you for reading I write this all in humility of your rejection if you chose to reject it, or if it is incorrect. Thanks for the post Mtt, let me know what you think of the comments. 1
jpahmad Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 no it can't. Taxes are levied under threat of violence. Nobody in the US is saying that if you don't vote, you will be violated. I believe that if I don't vote, if I don't do everything I can do to get Donald Trump elected over Clinton, then I will be violated in the distant future more than I'm being violated right now. It doesn't matter whether someone actually explicitly states this threat or not. I have good reason to believe it and I vote to avoid those negative consequences just like you pay your taxes to avoid those particular negative consequences. Also, paying taxes enables more state coercion than not paying your taxes, or voting. So if there is a criticism, it has to be levied against paying taxes more than voting. Everyone seems a little short-sighted on this issue. If the socialists in this country went unopposed throughout the entire 20th century, we'd be living in the Mexican version of North Korea by now. It's a good thing Conservatives didn't just put their hands up and say "what's the point in voting."
dsayers Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 I believe that if I don't vote, if I don't do everything I can do to get Donald Trump elected over Clinton, then I will be violated in the distant future more than I'm being violated right now. This is moving the goalposts. If Trump is elected, you will be violate more than you are right now because that's how the State works. Meaning all this time you've deluded yourself into believing there's such a thing as defensive voting becomes the opportunity cost of not applying those efforts and resources where they might actually make a difference. 1 1
jpahmad Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 If Trump is elected, you will be violate more than you are right now because that's how the State works. How is that so? Again, why do you think that voting takes so much time and energy? Geeze, it's just a trip down the street for me.
powder Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 I believe that if I don't vote, if I don't do everything I can do to get Donald Trump elected over Clinton, then I will be violated in the distant future more than I'm being violated right now. It doesn't matter whether someone actually explicitly states this threat or not. I have good reason to believe it and I vote to avoid those negative consequences just like you pay your taxes to avoid those particular negative consequences. Everyone seems a little short-sighted on this issue. If the socialists in this country went unopposed throughout the entire 20th century, we'd be living in the Mexican version of North Korea by now. It's a good thing Conservatives didn't just put their hands up and say "what's the point in voting." It is also equally plausible, more so I would argue, that the destruction and decay of the statist system is reaching a point nearing unsustainable collapse, which is why so many are turning to the likes of Trump and Sanders because they are fed up with the statis quo that has brought us to the brink. Can Trump fix this mess? Will he keep his promises, or even have the ability to follow thru if he intends to? It is just as likely that the countries will run out of $ to support their entitlement programs and the immigration threat will be dealt with in that way. The rulers will turn on the ones they paid off for votes and blame them and the system will reboot. When the system fails them, they will look to those that have spoken for truth and freedom all along. The difference is, when the system goes sideways, people will look to those that have pointed to its falsehood all along and turn away from those that endorsed it. That is why we need to stick to principles and resist the temptation to look to effects and 'practical' solutions. 1
dsayers Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 More moving of the goalposts. Have it your way... How is that so? To do list of every entity: 1) Survive 2) Thrive You're asking how an entity with mass hysterically held superpowers thrives when people are lining up to tell them how legitimate they are? It sounds like asking me how I know that B comes after A in the alphabet. Again, why do you think that voting takes so much time and energy? Geeze, it's just a trip down the street for me. That trip down the street comes after all the time you've spent telling the world that defensive voting is tits. After making videos telling people how they ought to vote. After taking the time to learn about throne sitter du jour and what impending disaster is in vogue... The list goes on. I don't care how effortless it is to remain a slave in your own head. YOU have the tools to not be a slave in your own head and I want this for you. I'm currently in the process of making up for many years of bad health choices. Like you, I would love to believe that there's a pill I could take or a girdle I could slap on. It would make me feel as if I'm doing SOMETHING, but it would do little more. So instead, I'm eating right and exercising and the results are coming along nicely. I know that you accept property rights. All's I'm saying is you should live those values. It's even easier than the trip down the street. 1 2
ValueOfBrevity Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Whether you vote or not, the outcome of the election will be unchanged.There is no moral dilemma when the action has no effect.It isn't as if your vote accidentally doesn't affect the election; it fails to do so by design.You cast a tie-breaking vote in an election that does not produce ties. 1
jpahmad Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 More moving of the goalposts. Have it your way... You know I'm not moving the goal posts because in my original video "voting for anarchists" I outlined a plan that would take many many years, a couple generations. I always maintained that Trump was just the first little step in a long process. I'm thinking down the road, for our children's future. I'm defending that. It's a principled action of self-defense. It's important to note dsayers, that even if I turn out to be wrong, even if things get worse, even if Trump turns into Dr. Evil, literally, it doesn't matter, because the consequences following a decision on principle are not important. So what you think about the consequences of my action has nothing to do with whether I'm being consistent with my own principles. Consequences don't matter in ethics. It's the principal that matters. If I feel that this certain action is in my self-defense, or others self-defense, or future generations self-defense, then I'm going to do it. You may think it's an awful decision. You may think my assessment of the current state of affairs is wrong. Think whatever you want to. That doesn't change the fact that I'm making a decision on principal in my own mind. And it's my mind that matters (to me), not yours. I don't care how effortless it is to remain a slave in your own head. YOU have the tools to not be a slave in your own head and I want this for you. I don't feel at all like a "slave in my own head". Just telling you.
dsayers Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 See, a curious person would look into how they're moving the goalposts. If they were unable to find it, but are committed to integrity, would then ask how. Rather than just claiming they're not. You said here in this thread that voting is like paying taxes. When I demonstrated how they're not, you moved the goalpost to claiming that "letting" Clinton get in would lead to more of a violation. When I demonstrated that your action plan to avoid that outcome would achieve that outcome, you moved the goalpost to voting doesn't take long. In other words, there's no null hypothesis for you and therefore this isn't a conversation about the truth, but rather your prejudices. That doesn't change the fact that I'm making a decision on principal in my own mind. And it's my mind that matters (to me), not yours. There are people that think "paying one's fair share" is a valid principle. This doesn't mean they get to steal from everybody. Also, "principle" is not the ace of spades that wins a discussion. You've been shown the ways in which your "principle" (I think you mean value) is flawed. Yet you cling to it, revealing it's not a principled conclusion at all. 1 4
jpahmad Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 You said here in this thread that voting is like paying taxes. No, I said "voting in self-defense" is like paying taxes. Please be accurate. When I demonstrated how they're not, No you didn't dsayers. You have just been reciting meaningless anarchist platitudes like "you're not free in you're own mind" or "that is the nature of the state." You have been doing this throughout the entire thread. you moved the goalpost to claiming that "letting" Clinton get in would lead to more of a violation. No, I made that claim about Clinton to demonstrate how her potential arrival in office would be something I want to "defend" against. In the same way paying taxes is an effort to "defend" against going to prison. There are people that think "paying one's fair share" is a valid principle. This doesn't mean they get to steal from everybody. Absolutely correct. However, the argument I'm making is that in doing the action of "paying their fair share" they are not contradicting their own principals; because that's their principal. Furthermore, "paying your fair share", cannot possibly be a principle because it doesn't describe observable behavior. How do you observe what is fair? Maybe if you said "paying what you owe", which basically means "don't steal." Now that's a principal You've been shown the ways in which your "principle" (I think you mean value) is flawed. Yet you cling to it, revealing it's not a principled conclusion at all. Again, you have not showed me anything. You have just been reciting platitudes that you learned from Larken Rose. You sound like a liberal when you do this. My principle is that I can act in self-defense. You agree with this principle. If you think that I am being disingenuous for some sinister reasons and that I really know I am breaking my own principal, well then, cast you're vote by choosing to engage with me or not. Some on this forum will, and perhaps some won't. That is the nature of social interaction. Here's a platitude for you: "Don't tell me what's in my mind" Here's another one: "Don't tell me how to spend my time" For anyone reading this thread who is curious, here is the video I've been referring to in the debate:
labmath2 Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 You know I'm not moving the goal posts because in my original video "voting for anarchists" I outlined a plan that would take many many years, a couple generations. I always maintained that Trump was just the first little step in a long process. I'm thinking down the road, for our children's future. I'm defending that. It's a principled action of self-defense. It's important to note dsayers, that even if I turn out to be wrong, even if things get worse, even if Trump turns into Dr. Evil, literally, it doesn't matter, because the consequences following a decision on principle are not important. So what you think about the consequences of my action has nothing to do with whether I'm being consistent with my own principles. Consequences don't matter in ethics. It's the principal that matters. If I feel that this certain action is in my self-defense, or others self-defense, or future generations self-defense, then I'm going to do it. You may think it's an awful decision. You may think my assessment of the current state of affairs is wrong. Think whatever you want to. That doesn't change the fact that I'm making a decision on principal in my own mind. And it's my mind that matters (to me), not yours. I don't feel at all like a "slave in my own head". Just telling you. I posited a number of questions for pro voting advocates and no one seems to be wiling to take them on. I will now ask you personally since you are one of the more outspoken pro voting members here. Do all the arguments in favor of voting apply to every election? If so, have you voted in every election you can? If you have, why do you think we still ended up in the current situation?
dsayers Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 @jpahmad: You can claim self-defense all you like. It's not accurate. I've twice pointed out how you claim the behavior is to avoid X, yet that behavior will still lead to X. There's nothing defensive about it. I've pointed out how Trump isn't bound by anything he says. I've pointed out that the idea that one person can even make such changes by themselves is mythical. You believe what you believe because you want to believe it. It's okay to have opinions and preferences. Just don't state it like it's backed by rigor, especially when it will potentially lead others to remain enslaved and condone humanity's enslavement. Saying "platitude" is just a way to marginalize what's being said. If it's so inaccurate, show how. As opposed to moving the goalposts, making assertions, and deflecting from challenges. If you think that I am being disingenuous for some sinister reasons You have no reason to suspect this, so it must be to poison the well. I've already accepted that you're not free in your own mind. I point out that you are living in contrast to your stated values because I wish to invoke cognitive dissonance. If not in you, then in the people you are leading astray hopefully. The bevvy of downvotes with no rigorous refutation lends credence to my claim that this is an emotionally arrived at conclusion. 1 1
jpahmad Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Do all the arguments in favor of voting apply to every election? Yes, the arguments remain the same in every election. Vote in self-defense of property. If so, have you voted in every election you can? No If you have, why do you think we still ended up in the current situation? The current situation? Compared to what?
EclecticIdealist Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Only a Sith deals with absolutes. I find it funny that Kenobi missed the irony in making such a claim, as did Lucas, since a similar saying is attributed to Jesus (Matt 12:30 - "He that is not with me is against me") Does that make Jesus a Sith Lord?
labmath2 Posted July 21, 2016 Posted July 21, 2016 Yes, the arguments remain the same in every election. Vote in self-defense of property. No The current situation? Compared to what? It is interesting that you haven't voted in the past, would you care to answer why that is the case? BY the current situation, i mean the ever expansive government. Things like Obamacare and government bailout of banks and the ever expansive police state.
jpahmad Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 It is interesting that you haven't voted in the past, would you care to answer why that is the case? I have voted in the past. Just not in every election since I was 18 BY the current situation, i mean the ever expansive government. Things like Obamacare and government bailout of banks and the ever expansive police state. What do you think would happen if the left went unopposed throughout the entire 20th and know 21st century? What if everyone who believed in government voted and everyone who didn't believe in government didn't vote? How do you think that would play out? That's not a rhetorical question. I really would like to know your answer.
WasatchMan Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 What do you think would happen if the left went unopposed throughout the entire 20th and know 21st century? What if everyone who believed in government voted and everyone who didn't believe in government didn't vote? How do you think that would play out? That's not a rhetorical question. I really would like to know your answer. This is a false question to the argument people are making. Calling it a red herring I think wouldn't be unfair and quite frankly underscores your statism bias lens you seem to not being able to help looking through. People are here telling you that voting for the state legitimizes the state. Then they get asked what if the left went unopposed [meaning people didn't vote against it]? Well what if participation with the state declined in the 20th century? What if they lost the consent of the governed? 2 1
EclecticIdealist Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 Well what if participation with the state declined in the 20th century? What if they lost the consent of the governed? Many would argue they already have lost the consent of some of the governed, and most if not all of the governed with respect to some policies. Are things better as a result of the non-participation with the processes of the State in these regards? What do you imagine the path from statism to be, or do you consider this a possibility for the whole of society at all?
Will Torbald Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 I find it funny that Kenobi missed the irony in making such a claim, as did Lucas, since a similar saying is attributed to Jesus (Matt 12:30 - "He that is not with me is against me") Does that make Jesus a Sith Lord? It's impossible to speak without making absolute claims. However the claim is that behaving, acting out, with an absolutist view is the Sith's way. If I said that only Sith's spoke with absolutes, you'd be right.
EclecticIdealist Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 It's impossible to speak without making absolute claims. However the claim is that behaving, acting out, with an absolutist view is the Sith's way. If I said that only Sith's spoke with absolutes, you'd be right. Anakin: "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." Jesus: "He that is not with me is against me." Obi Wan: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Anakin and Jesus were taking an absolutist view to behavior, not making absolute claims. Obi Wan was replying about the absolutist view of behavior. Obi Wan was actually hypocritical in that the very concepts of good and evil and calling Palpatine Evil is are absolutes. That would make Obi Wan a de facto Sith by his own standard of behavior.
Will Torbald Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 Anakin: "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy." Jesus: "He that is not with me is against me." Obi Wan: "Only a Sith deals in absolutes." Anakin and Jesus were taking an absolutist view to behavior, not making absolute claims. Obi Wan was replying about the absolutist view of behavior. Obi Wan was actually hypocritical in that the very concepts of good and evil and calling Palpatine Evil is are absolutes. That would make Obi Wan a de facto Sith by his own standard of behavior. Obi Wan is fighting Anakin, but technically Anakin declared him as his enemy first. He is refusing to see himself as Anakin's enemy just because they are fighting since he wants to save him from the dark side. Again, Obi is speaking in absolutes by calling Palpatine evil, but behaving in gradient ways since he sees the good in Anakin, as did Luke later. So Luke and Obi Wan knew that Anakin turned evil, but not all evil, so they acted in gradient ways - and that led to Anakin's ultimate sacrifice and redemption. On Jesus, I don't care if he's a Sith. I don't like him, anyway.
WasatchMan Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 Many would argue they already have lost the consent of some of the governed And they would be wrong. The consent of the governed is alive and well, so alive and well that people who see anarchism [one of the most hated ideologies in modern civilization] as the only moral system get triggered by the argument that voting is a waste of time.
EclecticIdealist Posted July 22, 2016 Posted July 22, 2016 Obi Wan is fighting Anakin, but technically Anakin declared him as his enemy first. He is refusing to see himself as Anakin's enemy just because they are fighting since he wants to save him from the dark side. Again, Obi is speaking in absolutes by calling Palpatine evil, but behaving in gradient ways since he sees the good in Anakin, as did Luke later. So Luke and Obi Wan knew that Anakin turned evil, but not all evil, so they acted in gradient ways - and that led to Anakin's ultimate sacrifice and redemption. On Jesus, I don't care if he's a Sith. I don't like him, anyway. Yeah, the whole way it was presented was, IMO, a bit too unbelievable, too compressed in time. I thought Anakin should have demonstrated natural affinity for the Dark side that Obi Wan should have been trying to persuade him not to use and Palpatine should have been telling him that the Jedi were simply jealous of how powerful he was becoming, etc. I thought Anakin's concern for his mother and the fate of all slaves on Tatooine should have been a plot point in the 2nd movie, and him wanting the Jedi to intervene and being told it's not the Jedi's place to intervene outside of the worlds controlled directly by the Republic and having Palpatine talk about how he would end slavery throughout the galaxy if he had the power to do so, but the Galactic Senate just gets in the way. It would cause more enmity between Anakin and the Jedi Council in a more believable way, making his changing sides more plausible. Anakin should have been led to see the Jedi and the Senate as barriers to his desires to bring liberty and peace to the galaxy... Anakin needs to plausibly see himself as the Hero for it to really work.
Recommended Posts