Propaganda and Political Voting

[Wuzzums]

And by can't have a conversation with, you mean will not be swayed to agree with you without logic, reason, and evidence. Thank you for recognizing this about me. After my acceptance of my own capacity for error, it is my greatest strength. 8)

 

You're too predictable. Someone disagrees with you and you immediately start with the insults, accusing them of the exact same behavior you're exhibiting. All I know is that I tried having an honest conversation with you, as honestly as I could, and all I got in return is obfuscation to put it mildly.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

[dsayers]

You're too predictable.

And by predictable, you mean consistent. You flatter me.

 

Putting forth multiple null hypotheses isn't even personalizing a discussion, let alone insults or obfuscation. Refusing to address them is obfuscation and not a conversation, let alone an honest one.

[Tyler H]

Whether you take part or not really depends on whether you think its effective or not. If you think its ineffective (it appears you do, I do as well) then whether you vote or not is irrelevant and by the same token so is worrying about whether other people vote or not. It cannot be immoral to take an action that has no effect.

 

 

This statement contradicts itself, you cannot say that it has no effect and that you are then somehow responsible for an effect that was never there.

No, I don't think it does.  Efficacy and responsibility are in separate categories. Just because your involvement in a system is unlikely to alter the outcome of that system in any practical way does not absolve you of responsibilities for your actions inside of that system.  Joining the military is unlikely to alter the outcome of any given conflict, but you're still responsible for the moral crimes you commit as a soldier because the choice was yours to participate knowing what was likely to be asked of you.  Also, your vote is not completely insignificant, but practically insignificant.  

 

 

Why are you accepting responsibility for something you say is going to happen regardless? How can you be responsible for something you can't control? This makes no sense to me.

 

Whoever gets elected is president as a result of their voters/supporters.  They will undoubtedly violate the non-aggression principle and each voter will share that responsibility for putting them in a position of power such as the presidency of the United States.  You can't control what happens in aggregate but you can control your actions.  If a thousand people line up and kick some guy in the head, being the one-thousandth-and-one will most likely not determine the final condition of this poor man's health (or lack thereof).  If you are forced to follow suit that is one thing, but, if you have the option not to, why participate?

 

 

So when dealing with people who don't play fair do you make it a point to always play fair?

 

Considering that government and the people who support it (which is easily 95%+) have no issue supporting the use of force against you for simply disagreeing, do you still think we should take the high road?

 

If you're right that voting ineffective (If I'm mistaken and you were talking about being right about something else then please correct me) than it cannot be immoral because ineffective actions can't be immoral. If you're wrong and it is effective than its a missed opportunity for a potential positive when the negative is already guaranteed.

No, but if we are going to champion morality we need to set the example.  I think this is dependent on each person and each situation, a decision each of us has to make.  

 

What about the 5%? What about people in this community?  There are people from all corners of the globe here.  What if your vote gets your politician elected and that politician is instrumental in starting a war that gets someone here killed? Even if it is just 1/50 millionth justified by some stretched meaning of self defense, do you want that thought plaguing your subconscious?  

 

This is my concern and what I meant about "if I'm right".  I think there are moral implications to voting in a coercive system, and I know there are people here who care about whether or not they are acting morally.  If I'm right then maybe I can help someone avoid making a decision that they will later regret, and if I'm wrong then a handful of anarchists didn't vote and the same candidate will get into office.  t resembles a sort of "Pascal's wager" but I think it's a valid consideration. I'm not trying to change the minds of any statists, I am only concerned about people in this community who hold virtue and truth as core principles.  I could absolutely be wrong, but as long as I believe that I am right I am going to argue for the sake of your integrity.  That's my reason.  

 

I have experienced our discourse as a mutual pursuit of truth, and have quite enjoyed it.  If you're experience has been different I welcome suggestions on how I can communicate more clearly.  Whether I am right or wrong my intent is that this debate will produce two winners, not one.  

[Tyler H]

 

And by can't have a conversation with, you mean will not be swayed to agree with you without logic, reason, and evidence. Thank you for recognizing this about me. After my acceptance of my own capacity for error, it is my greatest strength. 8)

You're too predictable. Someone disagrees with you and you immediately start with the insults, accusing them of the exact same behavior you're exhibiting. All I know is that I tried having an honest conversation with you, as honestly as I could, and all I got in return is obfuscation to put it mildly.

 

Thanks for proving my point.

Are you going to show any evidence to support your accusations? I didn't see any in the statement you quoted. I do however see evidence of projection on your part.

 

No shit.

 

Intellectual babble on a discourse nobody is having except you. I'll humor you, though.

 

Did it ever occur to you

You are delusional.

 

I recommend you read UPB by Stefan Molyneux, it's free.

 

You know what's funny? You and dsayers are probably the only ones on this forum people can't have a conversation  with. I'm not sure yet if it's purposeful or myopic.

Do you recognize the degree to which your language is passive aggressive and insulting?

[Wuzzums]

Are you going to show any evidence to support your accusations? I didn't see any in the statement you quoted. I do however see evidence of projection on your part.

 

Do you recognize the degree to which your language is passive aggressive and insulting?

I do recognize because it was intentional. I was passed the point of trying to have a conversation and resorted to pettiness, the only thing that you seem to respond to.

[apples and grapes]

Hey dsayer, have you thought of calling in and chatting with Stef about this? You're likely to have greater reach since very few people who watch FDR spend time on the forum. Especially now that Mike says he's gonna vote for Trumpy-poo

[powder]

Hey dsayer, have you thought of calling in and chatting with Stef about this? You're likely to have greater reach since very few people who watch FDR spend time on the forum. Especially now that Mike says he's gonna vote for Trumpy-poo

It doesn't matter, Stef and Mike do not disagree with the philosophical argument against voting.  They are simply saying that given the new information, and situation regarding immigration, they are choosing to try to fight back with political action to hopefully buy more time.  

 

I am paraphrasing but I think that is pretty accurate, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

I would argue though that the 'new information' is not new and that there are examples of this type of situation happening throughout history.  It is the same authoritarian left/right cycle repeating itself.  

[dsayers]

Trump is an unprecedented political candidate and the arguments made in The Truth About Voting do not apply to him for the reasons I've discussed on the show.

Trump is a human being the same as the rest of us. He does not exist in a different, opposing moral category. Any universal put forth in The Truth About Voting applies to him also.

[algernon]

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/48310-youtube-why-im-voting-for-donald-trump/?p=440644

 

Trump is an unprecedented political candidate and the arguments made in The Truth About Voting do not apply to him for the reasons I've discussed on the show. Yes - we face a demographic winter in the United States, but if it was Mitt Romney or a non-Donald Trump candidate, political action would still be useless for all the reasons described on the show over the last ten years. 

 

I agree with all of your assessments about Trump, I do not agree with your call to voting.

 

You are voting in a system that has been pretty well established as completely corrupt. You have someone running for president that the Justice Department came out and said was a criminal, they had all of the evidence readily available to prove she broke the law, but didn't "recommend" prosecuting due to "intent". Basically gave a non reason.

 

Not to mention a murderer, "We came, we saw, he died, Buaahaha".

 

You have secret courts issuing warrants to shadow agencies without any oversight

 

Obamacare was passed, and everyone I knew said it would be struck down as unconstitutional because it clearly is, but that fundamentally does not matter in a corrupt system, the Laws do not apply to them, they apply to Us. I was completely unsurprised when it was upheld, for as an illegitimate reason as Hillary avoiding prosecution. 

 

The drug laws in the US are not getting better, they are getting worse. Whenever you make something illegal you actually lose quite a bit of control, because then people just do it in secret and the government doesn't know what's going on, but instead of decriminalizing it, they make it "legal". Now you have permits, taxes, rules, regulations, more and more control. 

 

Is it any surprise ICANN was relinquished?

 

We still have TTIP being discussed, it'll keep getting shot down then then they'll keep changing the name, until eventually it passes and equals MORE CONTROL.

 

Fast 'N Furious gun running anyone? That was a much bigger deal than most people realize, a close friend of mine has a brother that is in the ATF, it was such a huge deal he thought he was going to lose his job because the entire department was going to be eliminated. He wasn't aware of the peak corruption, because what actually happened was the people involved received promotions to shut them up. And now we have all forgotten.

 

A few weeks ago I was speaking to the owner of a local feed mill, starting next year their paperwork load is going to increase 10 fold, they will have to have an entire room dedicated to paperwork. You see starting next year they have to log absolutely everything that comes in and out, where it's from and where it's going. They will have to hire a new employee just to stamp codes on bags of feed. More onerous government control. The conspiracy minded individual might see this as food control, having better records on who grows what, just in case. This might actually put them out of business, a near 100 year old company.

 

Before I noticed the trend I would have "faith" on things getting better and becoming more free through legal governmental action, and it was faith because it was based on a superstitious belief absent of facts or empirical evidence. Now I see that is a impossibility because a parasite doesn't decide to die and just stop feeding off of the host, either the host dies and in turn the parasite, or the host kills the parasite.

 

You cannot become the CEO of a company and expect to turn it around when the majority of your employees are thieves and murderers, we are nearing peak corruption, and voting for (very debatable if it even matters at all) someone that could possibly fix an impossible situation is not going to help. The odds on Trump winning are extremely low, and if he does he will be largely ineffective, for however long he's able to last. If we're talking about him slowing down the destruction of Western Civilization from a head on collision of 60mph to 59mph, is that really a good thing?

 

At least with us nearing Peak Corruption, moderate "Republicans" are more willing to talk about the immorality of government. I'm able to have many more open conversations with people now regarding the dangers of government, older business people, than I would have been able to during a Bush term for instance. If you like portions of someone you can forget about some of the bad stuff, at least with Obama's Destruction they like nothing and will openly talk about it.

 

With that being said, why refuse to vote? If you are playing a game in a casino where you know they are rigged, I think you lose some legitimacy by playing, it's obviously a scam. Suckers aren't taken seriously.

 

Don't play the game and get everyone else to stop playing, the system loses legitimacy and dissolves that much faster.

 

These things are not going to change towards a positive direction if we just had that one right guy, Ron Paul, Donald Trump, whoever might be next, no one is coming to save you. The system will collapse under it's own weight of corruption and mathematical inevitability of a worthless dollar.

 

Prepare Yourself Accordingly.

[RichardY]

I wonder if ISIS or Islamists have an objection to voting, cough*(Muslim Brotherhood, Labor Party, Democrats), I doubt they give credibility to the process, but they do it anyway. They're not asserting ownership as they already explicitly state, that God own's everything, they don't believe in democracy either, it's as much of a farce as it is to any Anarchist.

[dsayers]

BTW: I'm not responding to your post for you,

Or at all. I haven't made the claim that voting is immoral since jpahmad convinced me it wasn't on 13 Mar 2016.

 

My overarching position is that voting is not compatible with the acceptance of property rights, cannot achieve one's stated goals, and detracts from one's resources and freedom, even inside their own head. I've just published a list of null hypotheses for my position here. You are welcome to address any one of them, or put forth one of your own.

[Tyler H]

I wonder if ISIS or Islamists have an objection to voting

Probably not since they have no objection to using violence to impose their perverse ideology.

Although they might object to it once they are in power...

Nope. In a state of nature under coercion, there is absolutely nothing immoral about "voting" with the hope of better conditions. I'm not holding the gun.

 

The Truth About Voting wasn't a moral argument -  but a plea to get off your knees and stop begging bought and paid for schmucks for scraps. Doesn't apply to Trump.

 

BTW: I'm not responding to your post for you, I'm responding for the other people who will read it.

I thought the moral argument against voting put forth in the Anarchist Roundtable (Podcast FDR953, 41 minutes in) by Wendy McElroy was valid.  Stef agreed to it and I haven't heard him state otherwise.  I accepted this argument as well and this is the reason why I argue against voting.  

[Tyler H]

Or at all. I haven't made the claim that voting is immoral since jpahmad convinced me it wasn't on 13 Mar 2016.

 

I watched that video when you posted it in the other thread, one criticism I had was that you can't run the voting system we have through UPB.  You can run voting through UPB, but it's too specific to say the type of voting; like the "no fish on Fridays" example.  Whether the act of voting is immoral or not depends on what is being voted for and the degree to which the results are adhered to.  I'll have to rewatch and hash out my thoughts, but I thought I'd get some down now and see what you thought.

[dsayers]

I watched that video when you posted it in the other thread, one criticism I had was that you can't run the voting system we have through UPB.  You can run voting through UPB, but it's too specific to say the type of voting; like the "no fish on Fridays" example.  Whether the act of voting is immoral or not depends on what is being voted for and the degree to which the results are adhered to.  I'll have to rewatch and hash out my thoughts, but I thought I'd get some down now and see what you thought.

I know nothing of UPB. When I came to FDR, many people were reacting to it with confusion and Stef mentioned it could use some cleaning up or something like that. Meanwhile, objective morality seems pretty easy, so I've never taken a crack at UPB.

 

I hope my input will be helpful all the same...

 

In order to be immoral, a behavior has to be binding upon another without their consent. To vote is not binding upon anybody else, so it is an amoral act. It condones immorality, but it doesn't cause it.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

Probably not since they have no objection to using violence to impose their perverse ideology.

Although they might object to it once they are in power...

I thought the moral argument against voting put forth in the Anarchist Roundtable (Podcast FDR953, 41 minutes in) by Wendy McElroy was valid.  Stef agreed to it and I haven't heard him state otherwise.  I accepted this argument as well and this is the reason why I argue against voting.  

 

Her statement is "voting leads to putting someone in a position of power." That makes it sound like there is no one in a position of power, and then voting brings about a situation in which there is.

 

Even hypothetically if there were no one in a position of power, and then you had a group of people conspiring to bring someone to power (i.e. to form a state), their action of voting wouldn't be the immoral act. The immoral act would be the way in which they initiated force. If all they did was vote for someone to be in power, that wouldn't magically make it a reality.

 

She also puts out a moral challenge: would you sign a pledge saying "I backed Hitler." 

 

I would sign a pledge saying I backed the guy who wasn't Hitler. In fact, I would be more proud to vote against Hitler than to not vote at all and would see that as a greater duty of mine.

[Troubador]

Okay so if you are a proponent of the non-aggression principle, ownership of a gun for self defense purposes is no contradiction. Even if someone else steals and uses that gun to commit a murder that is in no way on you. Likewise if you are an anarchist and vote (essentially in self defense), in an attempt to elect a candidate who promises to retard and maybe even regress the state I find no contradiction. If the candidate lies once having your vote and increases the power of the state the moral fault lies with the politician in the same way as the crime lies with the guy who stole your gun.

 

Trying to maintain an ideological purity whist praiseworthy is akin to saying some people use guns to commit crime therefore nobody can have guns. People invented guns, sometimes you need a gun for defense. People invented democracy, so for crying out loud use your vote in self defense if nothing else. Maintain at the top of your lungs all the way to the polling booth, the iniquities in the system, and your vision for a freer society that doesn't rely on a state, but cast your vote to defend you and yours.

 

If you vote in good conscience for a candidate you believe will do what's right, that's all you can do.

[powder]

I know nothing of UPB. When I came to FDR, many people were reacting to it with confusion and Stef mentioned it could use some cleaning up or something like that. Meanwhile, objective morality seems pretty easy, so I've never taken a crack at UPB.

 

I hope my input will be helpful all the same...

 

In order to be immoral, a behavior has to be binding upon another without their consent. To vote is not binding upon anybody else, so it is an amoral act. It condones immorality, but it doesn't cause it.

 

I watched that video when you posted it in the other thread, one criticism I had was that you can't run the voting system we have through UPB.  You can run voting through UPB, but it's too specific to say the type of voting; like the "no fish on Fridays" example.  Whether the act of voting is immoral or not depends on what is being voted for and the degree to which the results are adhered to.  I'll have to rewatch and hash out my thoughts, but I thought I'd get some down now and see what you thought.

I also listened to the Wendy McElroy thing.  

 

I am thinking this thru as well.  I also get stuck on the kind of voting it is and the way in which the results are imposed or enforced.  If a group votes to wear a certain type of uniform and someone that does not like the color and is free to leave the group or start one of their own,...  but how can you delegate a right that you do not have, like theft?  Isn't that what political voting is?  

[regevdl]

voting for better prison conditions is not agreeing with being in prison. 

 

not voting is an option and voting is an option.  

 

Being an anarchist in a state-environment is almost meaningless in terms of practicality.  It's about intellectual purity and influence and education and honest discussion of course but how does our non-participation of the political process keep you immune to taxation and wars and floods of immigrats being granted citizenship who come from countries that LOVE big gvt and religion + state power. 

 

Like This is where the intellectual purity will be your own social suicide.  I"m not saying we have to vote always in every election but reading the writing on the wall. 

 

Even anarchist prefer small gvt to big gvt if those were the only choices...we can still simultenously educate people about anarcho-capitalism and free-society but plan b is small gvt.  

 

So how does abstaining acheive this especially when one opponent is literally going to increase citizen by the tens of MILLIONS of people.   That means tens of millions more votes for the left.... for a long long long long time.  and we know how the left deal with people who don't worship the state....

[jpahmad]

If the act of voting is "amoral", then this whole charade is just a matter of strategy, not principles.  So far, my strategy, outlined in "The Anarchist's Guide to Voting" is the best, and probably the only way to get from A to Z.  

[dsayers]

People invented democracy, so for crying out loud use your vote in self defense if nothing else. Maintain at the top of your lungs all the way to the polling booth, the iniquities in the system, and your vision for a freer society that doesn't rely on a state, but cast your vote to defend you and yours.

 

If you vote in good conscience for a candidate you believe will do what's right, that's all you can do.

None of this addresses any of the challenges that have been offered. The fact that pro-voters actually say things like "vote... all you can do" is a BIG indicator of what the problem is.

 

If the act of voting is "amoral", then this whole charade is just a matter of strategy, not principles.

Making real differences instead of engaging in charade is a principled strategy. You don't own me. Your vote doesn't matter. The person you're voting for won't and can't change anything in a positive direction... It's all pure fantasy and pro-voters continue to talk around all of that instead of having an honest conversation about their prejudice.

[jpahmad]

 

 

Making real differences instead of engaging in charade is a principled strategy. You don't own me. Your vote doesn't matter. The person you're voting for won't and can't change anything in a positive direction... It's all pure fantasy and pro-voters continue to talk around all of that instead of having an honest conversation about their prejudice.

 

You have to demonstrate how voting in this elections cycle, or any election cycle, won't make a difference.  You have not demonstrated that.  There are plenty of examples throughout history that shows that who is elected makes a difference.  Whether that difference is good or bad, is another subject all together

[dsayers]

You have to demonstrate how voting in this elections cycle, or any election cycle, won't make a difference.  You have not demonstrated that.

You have to be taking the piss. I've been doing exactly this for months. In recent times, I've written three potent articles on the subject. Including my most recent one where I put forth numerous null hypotheses. Which I know you're aware of (all of it actually) because you participated in it. Just not for the purpose of actually addressing the null hypotheses or putting forth one of your own. Funny that.

 

Even if that were not true, your claim is still false. Because I've pointed out several times the ways in which not voting is an instinct and voting is a decision. Babies have no interest in voting. It takes years of abuse and propaganda to accept as valid or productive. Meaning that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who would claim it accomplishes ANYTHING. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof.

[Tyler H]

I know nothing of UPB. When I came to FDR, many people were reacting to it with confusion and Stef mentioned it could use some cleaning up or something like that. Meanwhile, objective morality seems pretty easy, so I've never taken a crack at UPB.

 

I hope my input will be helpful all the same...

 

In order to be immoral, a behavior has to be binding upon another without their consent. To vote is not binding upon anybody else, so it is an amoral act. It condones immorality, but it doesn't cause it.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by binding here, but from what I remember of UPB, immoral actions were actions that required the use of force to defend yourself against.  

 

If you tell someone to murder another person then you are complicit in that murder and have violated the NAP even if you didn't commit the action, no? I don't see a difference between handing someone a gun and telling them they they have your approval to steal, kidnap and murder and voting.  

 

 

 

Her statement is "voting leads to putting someone in a position of power." That makes it sound like there is no one in a position of power, and then voting brings about a situation in which there is.

 

I didn't think it was in reference to the existence of the position but for putting any one individual intuit position.  If 50 million people vote for a candidate and that candidate wins and goes on to commit war crimes I don't see how any one person who voted for that candidate is not 1/50 millionth responsible for those crimes.  The sheeple can plead ignorance, however I do not believe we have that excuse.

 

 

She also puts out a moral challenge: would you sign a pledge saying "I backed Hitler." 

 

I would sign a pledge saying I backed the guy who wasn't Hitler. In fact, I would be more proud to vote against Hitler than to not vote at all and would see that as a greater duty of mine.

 

Of course, but you never know who the next Hitler is. If one of the current candidates were to please Hitler's shade I would bet on Hillary, but the point is you don't know what crimes they will commit.  And it doesn't have to be on the level of Hitler - considering the position helms the giant ship of force, whoever holds the position will undoubtedly violate the principles we advocate.

[dsayers]

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by binding here

Restrict or impose.

 

from what I remember of UPB, immoral actions were actions that required the use of force to defend yourself against.  

Again, I know nothing of UPB. But this is an impossible proposition. Nothing that comes AFTER a behavior has any bearing on the properties of the behavior itself. You have to understand whether an action is immoral or not before you can understand if force in response to it is itself immoral or not. Does that make sense?

 

If you tell someone to murder another person then you are complicit in that murder and have violated the NAP even if you didn't commit the action, no?

No. Your actions are not binding upon person A, so if person A acts upon person B, the responsibility accrues to person A (assuming we are talking about adults).

 

I don't see how any one person who voted for that candidate is not 1/50 millionth responsible for those crimes.  The sheeple can plead ignorance, however I do not believe we have that excuse.

This is a very compelling argument. After all, it's the fact that we understand the consequences of our actions from which self-ownership is born. However, even 50 million people telling somebody they're allowed to do immoral acts X, Y, and Z doesn't make it true. Nor does it MAKE person A commit any of them. Person A is free to decline, so the decision to do such things they are responsible for themselves. The fact that we "know better" is why we should choose to not participate in the sham or do anything to make it appear legitimate to those who do not yet know better.

 

Of course, but you never know who the next Hitler is. 

Careful not to be distracted by non-arguments. When people say Hitler, they're trying to invoke an emotional response. Stealing a candy bar is theft same as stealing a car. We know anybody who accepts and claims to be willing to act as if they are in a different, opposing moral category are Hitler-esque in the only way that matters. Anybody that says "I want to rule over 300 million people" has already told you everything you need to know about them.

[jpahmad]

You have to be taking the piss. I've been doing exactly this for months. In recent times, I've written three potent articles on the subject. Including my most recent one where I put forth numerous null hypotheses. Which I know you're aware of (all of it actually) because you participated in it. Just not for the purpose of actually addressing the null hypotheses or putting forth one of your own. Funny that.

 

Even if that were not true, your claim is still false. Because I've pointed out several times the ways in which not voting is an instinct and voting is a decision. Babies have no interest in voting. It takes years of abuse and propaganda to accept as valid or productive. Meaning that the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of those who would claim it accomplishes ANYTHING. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof.

 

dsayers, you have made claims, but you have not proven anything.  I have made the claim that voting does make a difference.  I can prove it empirically—look at the last 8 years.  Can you think of things that would be different if Obama wasn't in office?

[dsayers]

dsayers, you have made claims, but you have not proven anything.

By this do you mean that the proof isn't there? Or that I haven't linked it directly? Because proof that voter fraud is real and more rampant than ever is out there. Proof that POTUS is selected by electoral colleges, NOT by your vote is out there. Proof that POTUS is not bound by their campaign promises is out there. And so on.

 

Can you think of things that would be different if Obama wasn't in office?

Putting forth knowing the unknowable as a null hypothesis doesn't accomplish anything. Luckily, this is a deflection and I can see it! Before you make the case that who sits on the throne can somehow invalidate or diminish the throne, when the point of contention is that voting is antithetical to property rights, an exercise in co-operative fantasy, etc, you would have to first prove that your vote puts somebody specific on that throne. See above.

 

Not. Even. Close.

[Tyler H]

dsayers, you have made claims, but you have not proven anything.  I have made the claim that voting does make a difference.  I can prove it empirically—look at the last 8 years.  Can you think of things that would be different if Obama wasn't in office?

If you accept there is no corruption in the electoral process then I think you have to also accept that in aggregate voting matters because it does determine the elected officials and therefore has an effect on policy. However I do think, and I could be wrong, the argument was that your individual vote doesn't matter, for which there is ample evidence. The odds range from 1 in 6,000 to the astronomical (i.e. the equivalent to winning the lottery multiple times in a row) depending on your state. A swing state vote will matter more than a vote in CA, MA, or NY. And of course there is always the wildcard of the electoral college...

 

I personally find it incredibly hard to believe there aren't serious forces at work to sway the election in favor of those in power. The only reason I don't believe it's completely fixed is that they wouldn't need to import all the third worlders if it were so.

[jpahmad]

I personally find it incredibly hard to believe there aren't serious forces at work to sway the election in favor of those in power. The only reason I don't believe it's completely fixed is that they wouldn't need to import all the third worlders if it were so.

 

good point

[Tyler H]

Restrict or impose.

Ok, that makes sense. I think we are very much on the same page here then.

 

Again, I know nothing of UPB. But this is an impossible proposition. Nothing that comes AFTER a behavior has any bearing on the properties of the behavior itself. You have to understand whether an action is immoral or not before you can understand if force in response to it is itself immoral or not. Does that make sense?

Yes, I think I may have misrepresented or inaccurately conveyed the proposition.  I'll need to think on it to see if I can better articulate the position.

 

 

No. Your actions are not binding upon person A, so if person A acts upon person B, the responsibility accrues to person A (assuming we are talking about adults).

 

I think what we need here is a methodology for determining responsibility.  Whatever the methodology for determining ethics (UPB or otherwise), I think it is different for determining responsibility.  Of course if there is a gun to your head (a binding instance) you are not responsible for your actions, but there are other precedents for assigning responsibility to those who did not commit the act themselves.  For instance there is the scenario where a thief robs a store, the clerk defends the store with a firearm, shoots, misses and kills a customer, but the thief is charged with the murder.  The thief is held responsible for the murder because he set the events into motion.  Of course there are also the cases of hitmen and the people who hire them, people who incite riots, accomplices to murder, etc.  Obviously just because these represent the status quo does not make them objectively correct, but I think it is a decent place to start when determining a methodology for responsibility.  

 

I'd also like to add that, after making sound arguments, Stef laid the bodies of dead Iraqi children at the feet of those who cheered on the war in Iraq, and rightly so.  If they are responsible, then I think we can say the voters who elected Bush are responsible, and if the voters who elected Bush are responsible then anyone who votes for elected office is partially responsible for the crimes committed by the politician they elect.

[dsayers]

The only reason I don't believe it's completely fixed is that they wouldn't need to import all the third worlders if it were so.

Well keep in mind that what you're referring to is for the purpose of scaring the citizenry. There is no shortage of people who would vote for "free stuff" that they would need to swell the ranks for that reason alone.

 

For instance there is the scenario where a thief robs a store, the clerk defends the store with a firearm, shoots, misses and kills a customer, but the thief is charged with the murder.  The thief is held responsible for the murder because he set the events into motion.

My brother! I think I can help by sharing with you why I adore self-ownership: It make everything simple! Here, I agree with your conclusion, but not your methodology. "Set events in motion" is vague and insufficient. A more precise way to describe it was that the thief created a debt. This is how you know that responsibility accrues to them.

 

Of course there are also the cases of hitmen and the people who hire them, people who incite riots, accomplices to murder, etc.

A hitman can decline. The person who paid them is not forcing them. The null hypothesis is that person A can never be more responsible for person B's actions than person B is. This can also be applied to "inciting riots." Accomplice to murder is vague, but I'd wager falls under this principle as well. I'm reminded of the movie Perfect Murder where Michael Douglas's character gives the would-be assassin a key and information as to how to effectively pull it off. The assassin can decline.

 

I'm not defending these people. I would hope people would ostracize them. But it would be false to say they are responsible. Voting is not immoral. It's just a dick move, especially when carried out by people who know better. Part of the reason why democracy is so toxic is exactly this. Take me for example. Look at how many people truly despise me now, willing to downvote everything I touch because I understand that political voting is co-operative fantasy. By offering the slaves a vote, the master has one more way to divide us among ourselves. Those who are pro-voting here are willing to inflict what they view as harm for disagreeing with them. It's a way of rendering those powerful enough to inspire others to freedom impotent

[Tyler H]

Well keep in mind that what you're referring to is for the purpose of scaring the citizenry. There is no shortage of people who would vote for "free stuff" that they would need to swell the ranks for that reason alone.

Yeah, that's true - I'd say we've blown through that tipping point.

 

 

My brother! I think I can help by sharing with you why I adore self-ownership: It make everything simple! Here, I agree with your conclusion, but not your methodology. "Set events in motion" is vague and insufficient. A more precise way to describe it was that the thief created a debt. This is how you know that responsibility accrues to them.

 

I agree with the ambiguity of the phrase, and to clarify my position I was just putting forward the scenario as an example of common law assignment of responsibility - not so much a methodology for determining responsibility.  I am intrigued by the idea of using property rights and self ownership as part of that methodology though.  I didn't quite follow what debt the thief created that pinned him to the murder, could you elaborate?

 

 

A hitman can decline. The person who paid them is not forcing them. The null hypothesis is that person A can never be more responsible for person B's actions than person B is. This can also be applied to "inciting riots." Accomplice to murder is vague, but I'd wager falls under this principle as well. I'm reminded of the movie Perfect Murder where Michael Douglas's character gives the would-be assassin a key and information as to how to effectively pull it off. The assassin can decline.

 

I totally accept that person A cannot be more responsible than person B, but does that remove all responsibility from person A? Maybe I've misunderstood the argument, but can't person A still be less or equally responsible as person B?

[dsayers]

I didn't quite follow what debt the thief created that pinned him to the murder, could you elaborate?

My pleasure. Say somebody takes your bike without your consent. By doing so, they are voluntarily creating a debt to you in the amount of the bike, any effort you have to invest to recover the debt, plus damages. You weren't specific in your robbing of a store example, but I'm assuming they used a weapon and made threats. They are taking away the agency of every victim in their sphere of influence. When the clerk fires upon the thief, the clerk is trying to settle the debt first by taking the immediate threat off of the table. This is a rational response and given the presumption mentioned here, a proportionate one. This entire situation was of the thief's design. They are responsible. Does that clarify at all?

 

I totally accept that person A cannot be more responsible than person B, but does that remove all responsibility from person A? Maybe I've misunderstood the argument, but can't person A still be less or equally responsible as person B?

Pardon my ambiguity. I did not mean to imply a gradation. If I cannot be more responsible than you for your actions, then you are responsible for your actions. If you are responsible for your actions, nobody else can be. If everybody in the world told you that it was okay to kill somebody, you can still decline to kill somebody. Meaning that if you did, the responsibility was entirely yours.

 

The only scenario I can think of where shared responsibility sounds plausible is retaliatory force. By this I mean counter-force that is disproportionate, making it the creation of a much larger debt rather than the settling of the original debt. However, upon closer consideration, I don't think this is truly shared responsibility. I'll give an example and try to explain what I mean.

 

Person A steals a candy bar from person B. Person B retaliates by stealing person A's car. As mentioned above, person A DID create a debt to person B and this situation is of their creation. However, person B's behavior was above and beyond the settling of that debt and is in fact the creation of a much larger debt. In this case, person A would be responsible for the creation of the situation while person B would be responsible for the value of the escalation. As such, I don't think even this scenario could be described as shared responsibility. The acts are not one in the same, even if they appear among the same chain of causality.

 

If you can imagine a scenario where shared responsibility sounds plausible, I'd love to hear of it. It's important that these ideas are challenged. Oh and just in case it needs mentioning, all of the above are presumed to be among adults.

[Tyler H]

My pleasure. Say somebody takes your bike without your consent. By doing so, they are voluntarily creating a debt to you in the amount of the bike, any effort you have to invest to recover the debt, plus damages. You weren't specific in your robbing of a store example, but I'm assuming they used a weapon and made threats. They are taking away the agency of every victim in their sphere of influence. When the clerk fires upon the thief, the clerk is trying to settle the debt first by taking the immediate threat off of the table. This is a rational response and given the presumption mentioned here, a proportionate one. This entire situation was of the thief's design. They are responsible. Does that clarify at all?

Yes, I think I better understand the debt created, but maybe not the allocation of responsibility, let me know.  The thief, by presenting the credible threat against the store-owner's life and property, has taken control of said life and property, therefore creating the illegitimate debt.  The store owner is justified in his response given it is the only response available to him to settle the imbalance.  Since the injury to the innocent bystander was a product of this settlement, it is the responsibility of the thief for it was he that initiated the imbalance. Have I got it?

 

So, morally speaking, as voters we are the store clerks.  Having already been initiated against, if we fire back and harm someone other than the offending target then the responsibility lies with the initiator.  I guess the question is - is voting for political office the approximate equivalent of firing back at an intruder, or firebombing the entire store (in essence endangering more innocent people), or somewhere in between?  And how inappropriate must the store clerk's response be to ascribe some responsibility to him?  I think this may be what you were referring to with the candy bar and the car.

 

 

Pardon my ambiguity. I did not mean to imply a gradation. If I cannot be more responsible than you for your actions, then you are responsible for your actions. If you are responsible for your actions, nobody else can be. If everybody in the world told you that it was okay to kill somebody, you can still decline to kill somebody. Meaning that if you did, the responsibility was entirely yours.

 

 

I have to continue to disagree and say that the responsibility is not actually yours alone.  Without the input of society you would have no knowledge of ethics, language, or how to rub two sticks together to stay warm.  If all of society were to condone the killing of someone then why would you oppose this? In fact, it may be in your best interest to go along because if you do not you may be the next poor soul to suffer from their psychopathy.  So obviously this world strips you of your choice to some extent, and perhaps ethics and responsibility are impossible to apply.  

 

Perhaps we need a definition of responsibility.  I'll continue to think of how exactly to word what I think it should be, but for now when I think of responsibility and where to ascribe it, I think of all of the factors contributing to the cause.  Certainly the societal pressure to murder would lay some responsibility at the feet of the masses, not just the murderer.  I think this applies to a hitman's employer, people who cheer wars, bad parents, dog beaters, voters, etc.  If my perception of the term responsibility is inaccurate or differs from yours please let me know.

 

 

 

If you can imagine a scenario where shared responsibility sounds plausible, I'd love to hear of it. It's important that these ideas are challenged. Oh and just in case it needs mentioning, all of the above are presumed to be among adults.

 

What comes to mind is two people stabbing a third person to death, but maybe I've misunderstood.

 

 

 

This gave me a lot to think about and really strained my brain! Sorry it took so long to reply.

[dsayers]

So, morally speaking, as voters we are the store clerks.  Having already been initiated against, if we fire back

False analogy. You don't own me, so your vote--that is, your attempt to transfer ownership of me to another person--is fantasy. And we can again get into all the ways in which a vote doesn't influence the outcome and such. To fit your analogy, the voter is making a gun with their fingers and yelling bang bang while deliberately aiming at everybody. Sure, the fact that they're aiming at everybody indicates intent, but they're only playing pretend. No binding action, no responsibility.

 

I have to continue to disagree and say that the responsibility is not actually yours alone.  Without the input of society you would have no knowledge of ethics, language, or how to rub two sticks together to stay warm.  If all of society were to condone the killing of someone then why would you oppose this? In fact, it may be in your best interest to go along because if you do not you may be the next poor soul to suffer from their psychopathy.  So obviously this world strips you of your choice to some extent, and perhaps ethics and responsibility are impossible to apply.  

I think you're describing different scenarios. A child who is traumatized will indeed experience diminished choice due to the artificial cages their abusers inflicted upon them. However, we were talking about adults. Person A telling person B that it is okay to kill person C is not binding upon person B. If person B kills, they are responsible for their murder. You are begging the question when you say "this world strips you of your choice." And when you mentioned being next to suffer their psychopathy, now you're moving the goalposts to a scenario where there is an active, credible threat.

 

What comes to mind is two people stabbing a third person to death, but maybe I've misunderstood.

So person A and person B are stabbing person C. In this scenario, person A is responsible for A's stabbing and not B's stabbing and person B is responsible for B's stabbing and not A's.

 

No need to apologize. I heard Stef say something a long time ago that has never left my mind: When people get morality wrong, millions of people get killed. It's very important that we figure these things out.

[Tyler H]

False analogy. You don't own me, so your vote--that is, your attempt to transfer ownership of me to another person--is fantasy. And we can again get into all the ways in which a vote doesn't influence the outcome and such. To fit your analogy, the voter is making a gun with their fingers and yelling bang bang while deliberately aiming at everybody. Sure, the fact that they're aiming at everybody indicates intent, but they're only playing pretend. No binding action, no responsibility.

Sorry I was unclear, the analogy was less a statement of my argument and more a question as to whether or not that was the view you held that absolved voters of responsibility.  I can see that it was not and thank you for pointing out the false analogy.  So then let me try again to see if I understand what you are saying - because the voters are not literally in direct control of the outcome of an election or the decisions and/or actions of the politicians they are not responsible?

 

 

I think you're describing different scenarios. A child who is traumatized will indeed experience diminished choice due to the artificial cages their abusers inflicted upon them. However, we were talking about adults. Person A telling person B that it is okay to kill person C is not binding upon person B. If person B kills, they are responsible for their murder. You are begging the question when you say "this world strips you of your choice." And when you mentioned being next to suffer their psychopathy, now you're moving the goalposts to a scenario where there is an active, credible threat.

 

So person A and person B are stabbing person C. In this scenario, person A is responsible for A's stabbing and not B's stabbing and person B is responsible for B's stabbing and not A's.

 

Perhaps we are arguing two different concepts here (or perhaps I have separated them in error); I think you are arguing over responsibility for actions and I am arguing over responsibility for the result.  Certainly A and B are responsible for their own stabbing action, but who is responsible for the death of C?

 

Thanks for pointing out the fallacies, I think you're right and I need to back up a bit. In the case of the murderous society, I mixed a couple concepts, the first being does responsibility exist here at all?  What capacity for choice and therefore responsibility does someone have if he has grown up in the type of society that condones murder based on unanimity? We recognize that traumatized children are responsible as adults today because they would have to actively avoid information that would grant them moral agency, but to what degree would this information be available in this kind of fictional society?  Second, if we do ascribe them moral agency, then who is to blame for the murder? The responsibility of the action is certainly the murderer's alone because he is the only one that controls his body, but the society plays a salient role in the resulting murder.  An interesting thought experiment that just occurred to me is to place yourself in the shoes of the victim, would you rather remove the murderer, or the society demanding the murder?  

 

 

 

 

No need to apologize. I heard Stef say something a long time ago that has never left my mind: When people get morality wrong, millions of people get killed. It's very important that we figure these things out.

 

Yes, I remember that!  Thank you for reminding me. I couldn't agree more.  Also, I quite enjoy the mental workout so thank you for being a challenging and enjoyable interlocutor.