Logical Proof That Political Voting is Immoral

[dsayers]

https://steemit.com/anarchism/@dsayers/logical-proof-that-political-voting-is-immoral

 

When I first started learning to think rationally, accepting my own capacity for error, and recognizing the ways in which those who "taught" me were inflicting conclusions upon me, I went back to question all of the conclusions I carried to determine if my understanding of them were accurate. This can be an important endeavor for us all so that we can survive with greater efficiency by way of having a more accurate understanding of the world we live in. For if we think we have the answer, we stop looking for answers that might be (more) accurate.

 

For millenia, religions and governments have used the word "moral(ity)" to describe their whims in attempt to have their  desires viewed as factual, methodical, and above scrutiny. As a result, many people misunderstand or undervalue morality, seeing it as merely an opinion. While I appreciate the ability to reject dogma, it's important that we not throw out the baby with the bath water. Morality is still a very powerful tool. We just need to keep in mind that only a description of morality that is objective would fit the bill of what many people think morality is supposed to do. Namely, to prescribe what people ought to do.

 

Trying to prescribe what people ought to do, in the absence of clarity, can be a challenging endeavor. It is essentially an unchosen obligation, 99.9% of which are unethical in proposition. Therefore, we would have to identify a prescription for behavior that is in fact voluntarily chosen. How, in a vacuum, are we able to determine what people would choose in every situation at all times? They would have to be behaviors that are performative contradictions. That is, behaviors that the very act of engaging in them would be the communication that such behaviors are wrong.

 

Thankfully, the list of these behaviors is very short: Theft, assault, rape, and murder. When somebody steals, they are using their labor to deprive another of the effects of their labor. Assault and rape are the use of one's body to deprive another the use of their body. Finally, murder is using one's life to deprive another of their life. Each of these behaviors are performative contradictions by virtue of the very definition of what these behaviors entail. Namely that in each behavior, the recipient has not consented to their participation in that behavior. Consent therefore is the measure by which a behavior can be determined to be (im)moral.

 

There are a couple of caveats worth mentioning. The first is implied consent. While consent cannot be implied, there are situations were a person cannot consent. Such as a person who is unconscious in the middle of a road designated for automobile travel. It is reasonable to expect that the person would consent to be withdrawn from harm's way if they were able to consent. It would not be immoral in this scenario to exercise ownership over that person's body by moving them without having first secured their consent.

 

The other important caveat is coercion. If a person was to threaten you with harm if you did not engage in a particular behavior, they are taking from you the voluntary choice that would make your behavior eligible for moral consideration. If for example an attacker were to point a gun at you and tell you to empty a cash register, you would not be guilty of theft. Here, the debt created by the theft would accrue to the person using the gun to force somebody else to do something. Keep in mind that this is only true when the threat is credible. If somebody were to make an outlandish claim--a threat that they could not reasonably carry out--the threat would not override the free will of the intended "victim."

 

Along my journey of re-evaluating the conclusions I held, I had at one point been told that political voting was immoral. The explanation given was philosophically sound, so I accepted this unpopular conclusion. At a later time, I was exposed to what I felt was a very convincing argument as to why political voting is in fact not immoral. The argument being that the person elected is free to decline and therefore any initiation of the use of force was originating from the elected official and not the people telling the person such immorality was okay by way of condoning it with their vote. Upon further consideration, I've come to realize that this argument is insufficient.

 

The fact is that we know that a State-enforced policy or politician will initiate the use of force against all within a given geographical area. This would make voting for them a credible threat to bind others without their consent. I do not think the fact that the candidate could decline is sufficient because a reasonable person would expect that they will. Which they do even by accepting a paycheck, which comes from money stolen from people in the name of taxation.

 

My apologies to those whom I may have mislead by previously claiming that voting is not immoral. As I stated in the beginning, it is very valuable to question your conclusions and the conclusions of others. Be vigilant in protecting your mind from bad ideas and be willing to accept when you were wrong. Make the necessary correction as I have here. Thank you for reading, my brothers and sisters. Please help your friends, family, and neighbors to understand the ways in which the State is violence and encourage them to do the right thing. Set an example, encourage them to follow your example, and do not reward them with the pleasure of your company if they would use that violence to harm you or others.

[deadflagblues]

Can actions be made up of more than one moral component? That is, is the murder of a particular 8 month old fetus immoral itself qua murder, but permissible in as far as it also has the moral component of saving the life of the mother in a particular instance? From the other perspective, is allowing the death of the mother immoral qua allowing a wholly preventable and non-suicidal death to occur, but permissible in as far as it also has the moral component of saving the life of the fetus in a particular instance? If there is no immoral component to allowing the mother to die, is it also moral to allow people to die even when there is no greater moral action foregone? If there is no immoral component to killing the fetus qua murder, then what possible immorality can there be to mass infanticide? 

 

One of these options has to be chosen, but if actions causing either murder or a preventable death are always immoral does it not follow that all avenues of action are immoral? If so, then how do we decide which option we ought to take? Why should we not take the path of comparing the relative moralities of each whole package of mixed moralities and immoralities? 

 

In the realm of moralities and immoralities, are magnitudes at all relevant? If we assume that it is immoral to kill a man, is it not more immoral to kill ten men? If we assume that it is immoral to tax each man a dollar, is it not more immoral to tax each man ten thousand dollars? If a one dollar tax is preferable and more moral than a ten thousand dollar tax, is voting for a one dollar tax preferable to voting for a ten thousand dollar tax? If not, is it equally as immoral to vote for a one hundred percent tax as it is to vote for a 0.01% tax? Is it equally as immoral to vote for the genocide of a major demographic of voters as it is to vote for an increase in border security? If all voting is immoral, is it equally as immoral to vote for a candidate who pledges to use his power solely to repeal laws that initiate force upon other people, in addition taking one dollar of income from the people as salary, is it equally as immoral to vote for the aforementioned candidate as it is to vote for a candidate who will use his power solely to create laws that initiate force upon other people, in addition taking a million dollars of income from the people as a salary?

[jpahmad]

You ignored half of half of the equation.  The self-defense argument

[Tyler H]

Can actions be made up of more than one moral component? That is, is the murder of a particular 8 month old fetus immoral itself qua murder, but permissible in as far as it also has the moral component of saving the life of the mother in a particular instance? From the other perspective, is allowing the death of the mother immoral qua allowing a wholly preventable and non-suicidal death to occur, but permissible in as far as it also has the moral component of saving the life of the fetus in a particular instance?

If you accept Stef's argument (not sure if it's his, I have just heard him put it forward) as to why ethics do not apply to animals, then I think the mother takes precedence because she is a being capable of ethical understanding and adherence, while the fetus only possesses the potential for such qualities.  The potential is enough to prevent it's murder, but not in the event where the fetus can only exist through the elimination of an existing ethical being.  Perhaps this means if she is immoral then the fetus' life takes precedence... an interesting thought to ponder...

 

 

 

One of these options has to be chosen, but if actions causing either murder or a preventable death are always immoral does it not follow that all avenues of action are immoral? If so, then how do we decide which option we ought to take? Why should we not take the path of comparing the relative moralities of each whole package of mixed moralities and immoralities? 

Could you provide an example of an action causing a preventable death? To me that sounds synonymous with murder.

 

 

 

In the realm of moralities and immoralities, are magnitudes at all relevant? If we assume that it is immoral to kill a man, is it not more immoral to kill ten men? If we assume that it is immoral to tax each man a dollar, is it not more immoral to tax each man ten thousand dollars? If a one dollar tax is preferable and more moral than a ten thousand dollar tax, is voting for a one dollar tax preferable to voting for a ten thousand dollar tax? If not, is it equally as immoral to vote for a one hundred percent tax as it is to vote for a 0.01% tax? Is it equally as immoral to vote for the genocide of a major demographic of voters as it is to vote for an increase in border security? If all voting is immoral, is it equally as immoral to vote for a candidate who pledges to use his power solely to repeal laws that initiate force upon other people, in addition taking one dollar of income from the people as salary, is it equally as immoral to vote for the aforementioned candidate as it is to vote for a candidate who will use his power solely to create laws that initiate force upon other people, in addition taking a million dollars of income from the people as a salary?

 

Keep in mind not all voting is immoral, only voting for an immoral action that will be inflicted on an unwilling party.  The problem with the last bit is that when dabbling in immorality there are so many unforeseen consequences.  There is no guarantee that one will be less immoral than the other in the long run.  What happens to your candidate that promises only to repeal laws and not take a salary when he does the opposite? Nothing.  The candidate gets rich and the people get fleeced. 

 

 

 

 

You ignored half of half of the equation.  The self-defense argument

 

This is definitely an aspect to be debated, I think the arguments will largely revolve around a delineation of proportionate response.

[hermitcrab]

@dsayers:  What is the solution for ending State violence and theft? 

 

The State continues to violate property rights, whether our community votes or abstains.

[NotDarkYet]

2 invaders are marching into your house....and you have one bullet....

 

Who do you shoot?

[BaylorPRSer]

 

https://steemit.com/anarchism/@dsayers/logical-proof-that-political-voting-is-immoral

 

When I first started learning to think rationally, accepting my own capacity for error, and recognizing the ways in which those who "taught" me were inflicting conclusions upon me, I went back to question all of the conclusions I carried to determine if my understanding of them were accurate. This can be an important endeavor for us all so that we can survive with greater efficiency by way of having a more accurate understanding of the world we live in. For if we think we have the answer, we stop looking for answers that might be (more) accurate.

 

For millenia, religions and governments have used the word "moral(ity)" to describe their whims in attempt to have their  desires viewed as factual, methodical, and above scrutiny. As a result, many people misunderstand or undervalue morality, seeing it as merely an opinion. While I appreciate the ability to reject dogma, it's important that we not throw out the baby with the bath water. Morality is still a very powerful tool. We just need to keep in mind that only a description of morality that is objective would fit the bill of what many people think morality is supposed to do. Namely, to prescribe what people ought to do.

 

Trying to prescribe what people ought to do, in the absence of clarity, can be a challenging endeavor. It is essentially an unchosen obligation, 99.9% of which are unethical in proposition. Therefore, we would have to identify a prescription for behavior that is in fact voluntarily chosen. How, in a vacuum, are we able to determine what people would choose in every situation at all times? They would have to be behaviors that are performative contradictions. That is, behaviors that the very act of engaging in them would be the communication that such behaviors are wrong.

 

Thankfully, the list of these behaviors is very short: Theft, assault, rape, and murder. When somebody steals, they are using their labor to deprive another of the effects of their labor. Assault and rape are the use of one's body to deprive another the use of their body. Finally, murder is using one's life to deprive another of their life. Each of these behaviors are performative contradictions by virtue of the very definition of what these behaviors entail. Namely that in each behavior, the recipient has not consented to their participation in that behavior. Consent therefore is the measure by which a behavior can be determined to be (im)moral.

 

There are a couple of caveats worth mentioning. The first is implied consent. While consent cannot be implied, there are situations were a person cannot consent. Such as a person who is unconscious in the middle of a road designated for automobile travel. It is reasonable to expect that the person would consent to be withdrawn from harm's way if they were able to consent. It would not be immoral in this scenario to exercise ownership over that person's body by moving them without having first secured their consent.

 

The other important caveat is coercion. If a person was to threaten you with harm if you did not engage in a particular behavior, they are taking from you the voluntary choice that would make your behavior eligible for moral consideration. If for example an attacker were to point a gun at you and tell you to empty a cash register, you would not be guilty of theft. Here, the debt created by the theft would accrue to the person using the gun to force somebody else to do something. Keep in mind that this is only true when the threat is credible. If somebody were to make an outlandish claim--a threat that they could not reasonably carry out--the threat would not override the free will of the intended "victim."

 

Along my journey of re-evaluating the conclusions I held, I had at one point been told that political voting was immoral. The explanation given was philosophically sound, so I accepted this unpopular conclusion. At a later time, I was exposed to what I felt was a very convincing argument as to why political voting is in fact not immoral. The argument being that the person elected is free to decline and therefore any initiation of the use of force was originating from the elected official and not the people telling the person such immorality was okay by way of condoning it with their vote. Upon further consideration, I've come to realize that this argument is insufficient.

 

The fact is that we know that a State-enforced policy or politician will initiate the use of force against all within a given geographical area. This would make voting for them a credible threat to bind others without their consent. I do not think the fact that the candidate could decline is sufficient because a reasonable person would expect that they will. Which they do even by accepting a paycheck, which comes from money stolen from people in the name of taxation.

 

My apologies to those whom I may have mislead by previously claiming that voting is not immoral. As I stated in the beginning, it is very valuable to question your conclusions and the conclusions of others. Be vigilant in protecting your mind from bad ideas and be willing to accept when you were wrong. Make the necessary correction as I have here. Thank you for reading, my brothers and sisters. Please help your friends, family, and neighbors to understand the ways in which the State is violence and encourage them to do the right thing. Set an example, encourage them to follow your example, and do not reward them with the pleasure of your company if they would use that violence to harm you or others.

 

Wouldn't this line of reasoning make more sense if having nobody for president was actually on the menu?  If a slave master says "whip or blowtorch" and I say, "neither", and he says, "blowtorch it is then", aren't I being masochistic?  I wouldn't be condoning the whip by saying "whip", but I'd be expressing my preference for being whipped over being burned given that saying "neither" is more likely to result in a worse outcome for me.  

[jpahmad]

There is really no difference between paying taxes and voting.  They both support the state, and they are both done as a means to attempt to lighten the burden of the state.  The only difference is that the punishment for not paying taxes comes a lot sooner than the punishment for ultimately getting ruled by your superiors when you don't vote.  

[Donnadogsoth]

Luke gives the account of the chief priests and the scribes testing Christ:

 

20:22 Is it lawful for us to give tribute unto Caesar, or no?

20:23 But he perceived their craftiness, and said unto them, Why tempt ye me?

20:24 Shew me a penny. Whose image and superscription hath it? They answered and said, Caesar's.

20:25 And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

 

Christ's interrogators lacked the wit to ask the obvious next question

 

"What things be God's?"

 

To which Christ would have answered

 

"Whose image is on you?"

 

These passages must be viewed in context.  Caesar was to be served uncritically because Caesar was absolute power over which common men could do nothing.  The Christian response was "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."  (Ephesians 6:12)  In other words, take over the Empire from within through converting the populace to Christianity.

 

Up against the modern American State, thanks to Christianity we have much more liberty, but not total liberty.  Arguments can be made that total liberty is a danger because it threatens to destroy all order and replace it with chaos, which in turn will lead to a yearning for order which will destroy all freedom.  So we must be exceedingly careful about dismantling or worse ripping apart those structures that our Society is deeply interrelated with.

 

The State needs limits, and democratically voting is one of those limitation mechanisms.  To abstain from voting on principle of self-ownership, when no one created himself and therefore no one owns himself, is to forego all possibility of altering the course of leadership through the leader himself.  Voting can become a game, a distraction from other efforts to delimit power, but it is not useless--if changing the opinion of the masses is possible then it is possible to change it through campaigning.  And it is not immoral to help guide the Ship of State through voting.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

There is really no difference between paying taxes and voting.  They both support the state, and they are both done as a means to attempt to lighten the burden of the state.  The only difference is that the punishment for not paying taxes comes a lot sooner than the punishment for ultimately getting ruled by your superiors when you don't vote.  

 

You drove on public roads, and that means you support the state. Statist.

[Wuzzums]

I have asked before and will ask again.

What are you guys (the people dead set on proving a point no one cares about) actively doing to further the values you hold so dear? What changes are you guys bringing into the world to make it a better place?

[dsayers]

You ignored half of half of the equation.  The self-defense argument

You misspelled debunked. Tyler's reply bottom lines it well.

 

There is really no difference between paying taxes and voting.

Putting forth ignoring things as a standard, then exempting yourself from it. It has already been pointed out (to you) many times that taxation is coercive. Nobody is threatening you with anything if you do not vote.

 

The State continues to violate property rights, whether our community votes or abstains.

Is that to say that if somebody is already being gang raped, it's okay to join in? Or is rape still immoral even if others are doing it?

 

Wouldn't this line of reasoning make more sense if having nobody for president was actually on the menu?  If a slave master says "whip or blowtorch" and I say, "neither", and he says, "blowtorch it is then", aren't I being masochistic?

To your first question: False dichotomy. If you came up to me and asked me who I wanted to rule me, I don't care how many options you provide; My answer will be the same: Me.

 

The second question is a false analogy. It suggests that you have a choice at all. I've debunked that too. Simply put, if you are in the grips of a master who is promising to torture you, asking you to pick your poison is part of the torture. Participating just makes you an accomplice to that torture. Have some dignity!

 

What changes are you guys bringing into the world to make it a better place?

What bearing does that have on the truth value of the objective claim that political voting is immoral? You only have to ask the question because my efforts challenge your conclusion and you reject your own capacity for error.

 

Can actions be made up of more than one moral component?

I don't see how. Can you give an example? The one you gave is flawed as any individual has the right to lop off any part of their body for any reason they choose.

 

From the other perspective, is allowing the death of the mother immoral

How does one "allow" death? It sound you're like proposing unchosen positive obligations, which is unethical.

 

One of these options has to be chosen, but if actions causing either murder or a preventable death are always immoral does it not follow that all avenues of action are immoral?

"preventable death" sounds like the trolley scenario. Which is heavily debunked. If a person does not tie people to a rail and send a rail car down that path, they are not responsible for the outcome of the actions of the person who did. Again, this would be an unchosen, positive obligation. If you subscribe to this, then you can have no objection when my kidneys fail and I choose to take one of yours without your input or consent.

 

In the realm of moralities and immoralities, are magnitudes at all relevant? If we assume that it is immoral to kill a man, is it not more immoral to kill ten men?

Morality is digital. It's purpose is to determine whether or not a behavior is internally consistent. Damage is clearly greater, but they are both immoral acts.

[Guest Gee]

There are a couple of caveats worth mentioning. The first is implied consent. While consent cannot be implied, there are situations were a person cannot consent. Such as a person who is unconscious in the middle of a road designated for automobile travel. It is reasonable to expect that the person would consent to be withdrawn from harm's way if they were able to consent. It would not be immoral in this scenario to exercise ownership over that person's body by moving them without having first secured their consent.

 

What if a person is not unconscious but is concussed?

 

What if a person is not concussed but is mentally retarded?

 

What if a person isn't mentally retarded but is stupid?

 

What if a person isn't stupid but is unintelligent?

 

What if a person isn't unintelligent but is uninformed?

 

What if a person isn't uninformed but is wrong?

[apples and grapes]

When I first started learning to think rationally, accepting my own capacity for error, and recognizing the ways in which those who "taught" me were inflicting conclusions upon me, I went back to question all of the conclusions I carried to determine if my understanding of them were accurate. This can be an important endeavor for us all so that we can survive with greater efficiency by way of having a more accurate understanding of the world we live in. For if we think we have the answer, we stop looking for answers that might be (more) accurate.

 

 

 

Yep

 

For millenia, religions and governments have used the word "moral(ity)" to describe their whims in attempt to have their  desires viewed as factual, methodical, and above scrutiny. As a result, many people misunderstand or undervalue morality, seeing it as merely an opinion. While I appreciate the ability to reject dogma, it's important that we not throw out the baby with the bath water. Morality is still a very powerful tool. We just need to keep in mind that only a description of morality that is objective would fit the bill of what many people think morality is supposed to do. Namely, to prescribe what people ought to do.

 

 

 

Again yep, with such a volatile title I'd suggest getting to the point much quicker but to each their own

 

 

Trying to prescribe what people ought to do, in the absence of clarity, can be a challenging endeavor. It is essentially an unchosen obligation, 99.9% of which are unethical in proposition. Therefore, we would have to identify a prescription for behavior that is in fact voluntarily chosen. How, in a vacuum, are we able to determine what people would choose in every situation at all times? They would have to be behaviors that are performative contradictions. That is, behaviors that the very act of engaging in them would be the communication that such behaviors are wrong.

 

 

 

Trying to do much of anything without clarity tends to be challenging. Prescriptive ethical principles cannot pass the test of universality and so are wrong, sure, but depending on who you're talking to you'd either need to spend more time proving this or it would be taken as a given and wouldn't need to be said. 
 

We don't think in a vacuum anymore then the mathematician does, we construct thought experiments to isolate variables which we then test by deducing from a core axiom... Unless that question about vacuum thinking was rhetoric... 
 

What would have to be performative contradictions? The moral actions? That's what the paragraph structure implies. Or do you mean that would be how we could test moral principles in our vacuum? 
 

Anyway, three paragraphs in and I'm waiting for the stuff on voting to begin.
 

Thankfully, the list of these behaviors is very short: Theft, assault, rape, and murder. When somebody steals, they are using their labor to deprive another of the effects of their labor. Assault and rape are the use of one's body to deprive another the use of their body. Finally, murder is using one's life to deprive another of their life. Each of these behaviors are performative contradictions by virtue of the very definition of what these behaviors entail. Namely that in each behavior, the recipient has not consented to their participation in that behavior. Consent therefore is the measure by which a behavior can be determined to be (im)moral.

 

 

Consent? Can't we just point out the performative contradiction? Because that seems to be a much more useful measure. "Is the action, applied as a universal principle, self contradictory?" Now it could be contradictory due to a lack of consent, such as the situation of theft, but could also be due to other factors (such as the lack of choice rendering a nonactor immoral in the "Coma Test", which is contradictory because the concept of morality doesn't work without choice). 

 

Consent can definitely be one test in our analysis, but it is not the measure we use to evaluate behaviour. It seems akin to building a theory of mathematics on the principle of addition. Sure addition can be a useful part, but it is not the part.

 

But yeah, still waiting for the voting stuff.
 

There are a couple of caveats worth mentioning. The first is implied consent. While consent cannot be implied, there are situations were a person cannot consent. Such as a person who is unconscious in the middle of a road designated for automobile travel. It is reasonable to expect that the person would consent to be withdrawn from harm's way if they were able to consent. It would not be immoral in this scenario to exercise ownership over that person's body by moving them without having first secured their consent.

 
Well this is one way of dealing with entire tons of "life boat scenarios", and not entirely without merit. However calling something "implied consent" followed immediately with "consent cannot be implied" ought to be cause to take you back to the drawing board to name this caveat better. "Timeframe of ethics", or maybe "Reasonable assumption of consent" might serve better and be less confusing. But again, to each his own.

 

The other important caveat is coercion. If a person was to threaten you with harm if you did not engage in a particular behavior, they are taking from you the voluntary choice that would make your behavior eligible for moral consideration. If for example an attacker were to point a gun at you and tell you to empty a cash register, you would not be guilty of theft. Here, the debt created by the theft would accrue to the person using the gun to force somebody else to do something. Keep in mind that this is only true when the threat is credible. If somebody were to make an outlandish claim--a threat that they could not reasonably carry out--the threat would not override the free will of the intended "victim."

I don't see how coercion could possibly be presented as a caveat of a moral theory measured by consent. Coercion, to this Consentionist theory would then be the entire flip side. "What would someone be non-consenting of if not coercion?". It's like saying "I'm gonna build a theory of mathematics based on addition, with an important caveat of subtraction". 

I apologise that so far I've basically just been reviewing paragraph and argument structure, I'm still waiting for the logical proof.

 

Along my journey of re-evaluating the conclusions I held, I had at one point been told that political voting was immoral. The explanation given was philosophically sound, so I accepted this unpopular conclusion. At a later time, I was exposed to what I felt was a very convincing argument as to why political voting is in fact not immoral. The argument being that the person elected is free to decline and therefore any initiation of the use of force was originating from the elected official and not the people telling the person such immorality was okay by way of condoning it with their vote. Upon further consideration, I've come to realize that this argument is insufficient.

 

 

Finally, SEVEN paragraphs in and we've finally mentioned voting.

 

...

 

So you accepted voting as immoral... Then changed your mind... But you've changed your mind again... Riveting.

The argument for the non-immorality of voting is interesting, but I'd agree it's insufficient to me. That's why good theories have more then one argument backing it. If you only had the one confirming the non-immorality of voting, then of course you would find this insufficient. That's a fault on your part, not on the part of the argument.

 

The fact is that we know that a State-enforced policy or politician will initiate the use of force against all within a given geographical area. This would make voting for them a credible threat to bind others without their consent. I do not think the fact that the candidate could decline is sufficient because a reasonable person would expect that they will. Which they do even by accepting a paycheck, which comes from money stolen from people in the name of taxation.

 

 

 Eight paragraphs in, where is the logic? 

"Voting is a credible threat to bind others" is an assertion, not a logical deduction. 

"I do not think the fact the candidate can decline is sufficient..." is an opinion, not a refutation. 
 

My apologies to those whom I may have mislead by previously claiming that voting is not immoral. As I stated in the beginning, it is very valuable to question your conclusions and the conclusions of others. Be vigilant in protecting your mind from bad ideas and be willing to accept when you were wrong. Make the necessary correction as I have here. Thank you for reading, my brothers and sisters. Please help your friends, family, and neighbors to understand the ways in which the State is violence and encourage them to do the right thing. Set an example, encourage them to follow your example, and do not reward them with the pleasure of your company if they would use that violence to harm you or others.

 

 

Okay, so nine paragraphs in total and you don't at all provide a logical proof that voting is immoral. You ramble on for SEVEN paragraphs until finally saying that you found ONE argument against the immorality of voting insufficient. Then wrap it up with the vaguely paternalistic "Remember guys, it's important to question your conclusions and make corrections" which isn't a new concept to people.

 

You should change the title of article, because logical proof it most certainly is not! 

[deadflagblues]

If you accept Stef's argument (not sure if it's his, I have just heard him put it forward) as to why ethics do not apply to animals, then I think the mother takes precedence because she is a being capable of ethical understanding and adherence, while the fetus only possesses the potential for such qualities.  The potential is enough to prevent it's murder, but not in the event where the fetus can only exist through the elimination of an existing ethical being.  Perhaps this means if she is immoral then the fetus' life takes precedence... an interesting thought to ponder...

 

Perhaps a scenario of birth was inadequate. A better scenario would be one in which there are two equally developed, potentially independent conjoined twins, where one must be killed in a separation process or one will die. Any of the three actions has an immoral component (as if they were both to survive this would be more moral than any of the three listed possibilities), but one action must be taken as the best and most moral action, ergo immoral action 1 can be more moral than immoral action 2 and thus immoral action 1 is a moral action in this constrained scenario. It follows that voting for one candidate rather than another (qualitatively different) candidate is, even if immoral, more moral than voting for another candidate. 

 

So how immoral can a voter be? The limit of the immorality would be a measure of the limited amount of information available to them concerning the probable actions of each candidate would suggest, relative to the other outcomes. If it is reasonable to expect a certain candidate to act more in the interests of the populace, then a vote for this candidate is more moral than a vote for the compared candidate.

 

Probability and likely outcome are both important when discussing moral dilemma. A doctor has three dying patients, who will all be dead in an hour. He can save just one with a probability of 90%, or he can attempt to save two with a success probability of 30% (if he fails, both die). He can attempt to save all three - 0% chance.

 

A person who, understanding the act and its consequences, acts in a way that would further the chances of an immoral outcome is committing more of an immoral act that a person who does so unknowingly. Ergo, the doctor who attempts to save three lives, understanding that he will fail to save any if he does so and forgo the opportunity to almost certainly save one life, is committing an immoral act almost akin to murder.

 

In voting, if there are two candidates, there are three options that an individual can make - vote for A, vote for B, abstain from voting. If a person sees that it is likely that A will be far better for the people than B, but still refuses to vote, then the individual is choosing a scenario in which his actions have only served to increase the probability of an immoral outcome. Claiming to know the outcome of a scenario in which a majority of people refuse to vote does not help here. You do not know what will happen. Legislation that forces a vote (see Belgium) does not seem less likely than the sudden absolution of government. It cannot be accounted for in ones decisions.

[rosencrantz]

The interesting question is if (a) the NAP still holds under duress and if (b) we live in such a situation. If you showed both to be true, the next question is if voting is morally permissible or not. Most libertarians agree with (b) but fail to show that (a) is a valid proposition. 

[Danske]

Dsayers will not address the self-defense point. He will dissociate, regroup, then come back in a few days and post another virtue-signalling TL:DR

I guarantee it.

So sad when a psychological defence consumes someone. Poor guy.

[jpahmad]

You drove on public roads, and that means you support the state. Statist.

 

 

exactly

[dsayers]

Dsayers will not address the self-defense point.

You misspelled has. This psuedo-challenge was already put forth here.

 

So sad when a psychological defence consumes someone. Poor guy.

Projection.

 

The interesting question is if (a) the NAP still holds under duress and if (b) we live in such a situation. If you showed both to be true, the next question is if voting is morally permissible or not. Most libertarians agree with (b) but fail to show that (a) is a valid proposition. 

People are not being threatened to vote... still. Can you guys really do no better than parroting the exact same non-arguments over and over?

 

However calling something "implied consent" followed immediately with "consent cannot be implied" ought to be cause to take you back to the drawing board

Perhaps amid your impatience, you skipped over the part that pointed out that the distinction is scenarios where one cannot consent. About that; I don't think rational discourse is for you if you find things like defining terms and building a proof from first principles to be tedious. Not everybody that chooses to read that will be approaching from the same level of understanding just because you might be.

 

I don't see how coercion could possibly be presented as a caveat of a moral theory measured by consent. Coercion, to this Consentionist theory would then be the entire flip side. "What would someone be non-consenting of if not coercion?". It's like saying "I'm gonna build a theory of mathematics based on addition, with an important caveat of subtraction". 

Do you not see that in this very thread, there are people who cannot differentiate between taxation and voting? Clearly there ARE people out there who need the point that "where coercion is present, consent cannot be" (re)belabored for them. It's responsible and effective communication when publicly offering a proof to address these in advance. Even if (as evidenced in this thread) people's biases will prevent them from reading/processing it.

 

"Voting is a credible threat to bind others" is an assertion, not a logical deduction. 

"I do not think the fact the candidate can decline is sufficient..." is an opinion, not a refutation. 

Isolating ideas in order to make your refutations seem accurate is disingenuous. Anybody who cares about the subject matter can read and see that your criticisms were addressed.

[BaylorPRSer]

 

 

To your first question: False dichotomy. If you came up to me and asked me who I wanted to rule me, I don't care how many options you provide; My answer will be the same: Me.

 

The second question is a false analogy. It suggests that you have a choice at all. I've debunked that too. Simply put, if you are in the grips of a master who is promising to torture you, asking you to pick your poison is part of the torture. Participating just makes you an accomplice to that torture. Have some dignity!

 

To your first answer, I agree.  I don't think my reply indicated anything besides my agreement. I would absolutely prefer to not pay taxes to anyone.  However you're saying we have options.  We don't.  This January, a president will be inaugurated, and we don't have other options.

 

To your second answer: your post wasn't about dignity, it was about morality.  I'd like to think I'd be sane enough to prioritize my flesh in the scenario I mentioned, but it's not relevant.  There is no philosophical onus on me to not say the words that I have determined have the highest likelihood to give me the best outcome, nor is there an onus on me to not check a box in a booth that i have determined will give me and/or a given group of people the best outcome.

[jpahmad]

 

 

People are not being threatened to vote... still. Can you guys really do no better than parroting the exact same non-arguments over and over?

 

You don't have to pay taxes either dsayers.  You can barter and live in the woods.  If you are really a principled anarchist, then why don't you go move somewhere away from the roads and live off the land.  No one will come and get you.  You could also just go homeless and not receive an income.  No one is forcing you to get a taxable income.

[dsayers]

To your first answer, I agree.  I don't think my reply indicated anything besides my agreement. I would absolutely prefer to not pay taxes to anyone.  However you're saying we have options.  We don't.  This January, a president will be inaugurated, and we don't have other options.

 

To your second answer: your post wasn't about dignity, it was about morality.  I'd like to think I'd be sane enough to prioritize my flesh in the scenario I mentioned, but it's not relevant.  There is no philosophical onus on me to not say the words that I have determined have the highest likelihood to give me the best outcome, nor is there an onus on me to not check a box in a booth that i have determined will give me and/or a given group of people the best outcome.

This post is proof of your DISagreement. These things could only be made from within a prison in your own mind. You DO have another option. IF (and that's a big if since there are way more of us than there are of them) there was going to be a president either way, do you agree with it? If not, why would you play along? And again, "best outcome" is begging the question and subscribing to a false dichotomy.

 

You're right that the article is about morality. However, choosing yourself when somebody insists you pick somebody else to rule you is having dignity as well as not being immoral. Because everything you've said might justify your preference, but it does nothing to assail the immoral identity of political voting.

[jpahmad]

There are detrimental personal consequences for not paying your taxes.  There are also detrimental personal consequences for not participating in the political process.  One is short term, and one is long term.

[rosencrantz]

People are not being threatened to vote... still. Can you guys really do no better than parroting the exact same non-arguments over and over?

 

Sure, if you give a good answer. So far, I haven't seen one.

[apples and grapes]

@dsayer On phone so can't quote sorry. The context of the following is your response to mine

 

What impatience? My concern was with the name you gave the caveat, I know what the context was, what are you even talking about? How the hell does someone say "a term you used was confusing, maybe find another term such as x or y" translate to you as "defining terms is tedious?". Did you actually read my criticism?

 

My criticism was self-contained to your article. I don't care what people on this thread say about taxation. You never mention taxation in your article, and I never mention it in my critique. Why are you responding to me about stuff others are talking about instead of responding to the stuff I said? Your responses seem almost like you didn't read my critique! Hardly "responsible and effective communication". I find it funny that you acuse others of not reading/processing things due to bias, while you don't seem to have read/processed what I've said (you definitely haven't addressed my core issue which is that the title of the article is misleading)

 

"Isolating ideas in order to make your refutations seem accurate is disingenuous"

 

Huh? Isn't that what you're doing in this article? Isolating a single pro-voting isn't immoral argument from all the rest to make your refutation seem more plausible?

 

I was quoting you! You made an assertion with no follow up, I'm not isolating anything when you make a single sentence proclamation. And as for my criticisms which you claim have already been addressed, I don't think you know what they are. Succinctly thet are;

1. Consent is a decent test for ethics, but is not the measure

2. The term "implied consent", where consent can never be implied, is confusing

3. Coercion is the flipside of consent, not a caveat

4. Your article takes too long to deliver the title promised logical proof

5. No logical proof was provided, only an attempted refutation of a single argument

6. This refutation consists of calling the arguement insufficient

 

Now, to add one last thing. Upon this absolutely pathetic philosophical analysis (and yes I know you have more articles, I have read them) you take it upon yourself to run around the fdr board calling other people immoral!

[BaylorPRSer]

This post is proof of your DISagreement. These things could only be made from within a prison in your own mind. You DO have another option. IF (and that's a big if since there are way more of us than there are of them) there was going to be a president either way, do you agree with it? If not, why would you play along? And again, "best outcome" is begging the question and subscribing to a false dichotomy.

 

You're right that the article is about morality. However, choosing yourself when somebody insists you pick somebody else to rule you is having dignity as well as not being immoral. Because everything you've said might justify your preference, but it does nothing to assail the immoral identity of political voting.

I would have to be making an objective claim regarding what is the best outcome to be begging the question.  I'm talking about my personal preference for the best outcome.  Saying that I'm begging the question is saying "your subjective preference for the whip instead of the blowtorch" is false or "your subjective preference for a certain candidate" is false.  

 

"Additionally, this deployment of force is imaginary. In that a person has no reason to believe that their vote actually contributes to anything. Between institutions such as the United States' Electoral Colleges, to tampering, to rigging the elections, nobody has any proof that their vote has any influence on the outcome."

 

My reaction to arguments like this reminds me of my reaction to the Larken Rose types who say "borders are immoral statist bullshit".  Borders are imaginary.  A wall is real.  A fence is real.  But borders? How can those be said to be physical or observable?  If morals apply to existing people, then how does it make sense to say borders are immoral?  If you're saying that your vote doesn't do anything, then how could one be committing an immoral action?  This is like accusing someone of spraying graffiti with canned air.  

 

I'm not seeing how voting is a UPB violation.

[dsayers]

There are detrimental personal consequences for not paying your taxes.  There are also detrimental personal consequences for not participating in the political process.  One is short term, and one is long term.

There are "detrimental personal consequences" for driving your car across town in the form of wear and tear on the vehicle, elevated exposure to exhaust fumes... This is not a measure of morality. It's also being obtuse because you know full well the reason you try to liken voting to paying taxes is because it is widely accepted that paying taxes is not immoral even though the monies are used to fund immoral things. This is true BECAUSE of the coercion. The moment this is pointed out, you are moving the goal posts if you do not circle back to revise your theory to more accurately describe the real world.

 

You don't get to enslave 300 million people to avoid something personal. You don't get to drop a nuke because somebody stole a candy bar. It's not defense because the yield is astronomically larger, and you have no control over this. True attacks of self-defense include an immediate threat and counter-action. If you think that filling in a bubble at all changes your life months down the road, you are engaging in extreme delusion. And oh yeah, you don't own me!

 

Sure, if you give a good answer. So far, I haven't seen one.

This post will be the 3rd time in this thread I've personally pointed out that nobody is threatening people in the US if they do not vote, therefor the immorality of voting accrues to the voter. As opposed to the immorality of paying taxes accrues to the people credibly threatening the tax payer in the event that they do not comply. You've been exposed to this idea many times.

 

you take it upon yourself to run around the fdr board calling other people immoral!

Strawman. Morality is a characteristic of behaviors, not people. Strange that somebody who is accusing me of not reading doesn't appear to have read. Not that I have to read anything, but you know.

 

I don't care what people on this thread say about taxation.

I don't care if you care. You questioned my belaboring the point that where coercion is present, consent is not. Of course you misrepresented the fact that I was talking about two separate behaviors (the coercion, then the behavior the coercion is designed to solicit). The fact that people try to use the fact that paying taxes isn't immoral to escape the immorality of political voting is precisely why I belabored the point. So whether you care or not, it was prudent for me to include.

 

Huh? Isn't that what you're doing in this article? Isolating a single pro-voting isn't immoral argument from all the rest to make your refutation seem more plausible?

I didn't isolate anything. I reference what I found to be convincing in the past of the opposing position. What you did was quote one sentence, say I offered an opinion and not a refutation, where a refutation was provided elsewhere.

 

2. The term "implied consent", where consent can never be implied, is confusing

You said that already. And then I said "you skipped over the part that pointed out that the distinction is scenarios where one cannot consent." Consent cannot be implied of me because if one wished to know whether I consent or not, they can ask me. You cannot ask somebody who is unconscious for example. Therefore, consent can be implied because it can be determined that a reasonable person would consent if they could. Your attempt at revealing a disparity speaks as if no variables are present, where one is.

[apples and grapes]

 

Strawman. Morality is a characteristic of behaviors, not people. Strange that somebody who is accusing me of not reading doesn't appear to have read. Not that I have to read anything, but you know.

 

I don't care if you care. You questioned my belaboring the point that where coercion is present, consent is not. Of course you misrepresented the fact that I was talking about two separate behaviors (the coercion, then the behavior the coercion is designed to solicit). The fact that people try to use the fact that paying taxes isn't immoral to escape the immorality of political voting is precisely why I belabored the point. So whether you care or not, it was prudent for me to include.

 

I didn't isolate anything. I reference what I found to be convincing in the past of the opposing position. What you did was quote one sentence, say I offered an opinion and not a refutation, where a refutation was provided elsewhere.

 

You said that already. And then I said "you skipped over the part that pointed out that the distinction is scenarios where one cannot consent." Consent cannot be implied of me because if one wished to know whether I consent or not, they can ask me. You cannot ask somebody who is unconscious for example. Therefore, consent can be implied because it can be determined that a reasonable person would consent if they could. Your attempt at revealing a disparity speaks as if no variables are present, where one is.

Damn guys, he called what I said a strawman, guess I lose the debate -_-

 

Let me rephrase then. "On the basis of this pathetic philosophical analysis (and I know you have other articles, I have read them), you take it upon yourself to run around the fdr boards calling peoples behaviour immoral". Better? 

 

I didn't read... Right... Cos out of the guy who did a paragraph by paragraph critique versus the guy who just took random quotes, it's the former who didn't read... xD

 

I don't even know what you are saying with the coercion stuff. I never said it wasn't important, and if fact didn't even say much about coercion at all. The entirety of my point was that if you base ethics on consent, then the concept of coercion fits more as the mirror of that basis rather then being made a mere caveat. Like if you base a theory on internal consistency, then internal inconsistency would not be a caveat of that but a part of it. It is a fairly minor point, like with the "implied consent" thing.

 

Yes, you are correct. You did address the assertion further in the next paragraph. And the address you made was just a one sentence re-assertion that you found the argument insufficient! "I do not think the fact that the candidate could decline is sufficient because a reasonable person would expect that they will". 

 

This "implied consent" thing is a non-issue. I have no issue with the principle, just the name. That's why I provided alternatives such as "reasonable assumption of consent". The man unconscious is implying nothing because he's busy being unconscious. You can, however, make a reasonable assumption that he would consent if he could. Hence, "Reasonable Assumption of Consent". Saying he "implied" something while in an unconscious state is not correct. Don't get so worked up about this buddy.

 

Now this is the part I hope you read. I gave a 6 point, succinct, list of my concerns with your article. 1-3 are minor gripes. And it is 4-6 that are important. Your article is too long, with at least 4 paragraphs which could be deleted while doing zero harm to the content. You claim to provide a logical proof which you never deliver on. And what you do provide is a poor refutation of one argument pro-voting isn't immoral. All leading to my original ending point: The title of your article is misleading.

[rosencrantz]

People are not being threatened to vote... still. Can you guys really do no better than parroting the exact same non-arguments over and over?

 

Voting is only a subset of the actions that the state does. Some of those you can engage in, some are involuntary. So the question is: does paying taxes and all the rest of it constitute duress and does that the NAP hold under duress. Of course you only focus on the voluntary part so your argument works.

[jpahmad]

True attacks of self-defense include an immediate threat and counter-action. If you think that filling in a bubble at all changes your life months down the road, you are engaging in extreme delusion. And oh yeah, you don't own me!

 

 

 If you don't pay your taxes, you will not immediately go to prison.  See Al Capone.  Also, you can't dictate what counts as a threat to someone else that is worthy of acting in self-defense.  If you don't pay your taxes, it will probably take a year or two years to even be audited.  However, with our vote for Trump, we could have avoided war with Russia, which was a more immediate threat than the consequences of not paying my taxes.

[dsayers]

Damn guys, he called what I said a strawman, guess I lose the debate -_-

It's easier to put forth a position in a place when you feel you have backup, eh? Takes the responsibility away of maintaining personal integrity by not putting words into people's mouth to "win" by attacking what you say they said. You are demonstrating that you understand that your position lacks merit. Both by your emotional investment and your willingness to defer to the population rather than put forth a sound argument and address it when you err in doing so.

 

Let me rephrase then. "On the basis of this pathetic philosophical analysis (and I know you have other articles, I have read them), you take it upon yourself to run around the fdr boards calling peoples behaviour immoral". Better? 

Personalization and poisoning the well. Political voting is either internally inconsistent by binding others without their consent or it is not. This will remain as such whether I say it is or not. You do not level this same hokey accusation to those "running around the FDR boards" telling people it's okay to enslave their neighbors. Which reveals that your issue isn't with the "running around the FDR boards," but that what is being said contradicts the conclusions you NEED to be true because of your emotional investment. It's manipulation and it is transparent to me.

 

 If you don't pay your taxes, you will not immediately go to prison.

If you don't empty the register, you might not immediately get shot. This does nothing to address the fact that there is a credible threat, nor that the emptying of the register is not voluntary because of it. You are grasping for ways to make your conclusion fit instead of being honest.

[jpahmad]

 This does nothing to address the fact that there is a credible threat

So now dsayers gets to decide what is a credible threat.  

[shirgall]

So now dsayers gets to decide what is a credible threat.  

 

Subjective things are supposed to be legally determined with the reasonable person standard: "Would a reasonable and prudent person, knowing what the defendant knew, come to the same conclusion?" We've all been exposed to pretty much same knowledge, and a significant number of us have determined unfettered immigration to be a credible threat to western values, increased taxation, and inexorable shambling of the omnipotent state. Some haven't, perhaps.

 

Part of the fun of the reasonable person standard is that both the prosecution and defense get to dismiss jurors that make this determination if they are not objective enough to handle this determination. One such reason to dismiss a juror in voir dire is whether they have prejudice to the question or the defendant.

 

Where can we find a jury for this? Trump voters? Clinton voters? Only non-voters?

[jpahmad]

Subjective things are supposed to be legally determined with the reasonable person standard: "Would a reasonable and prudent person, knowing what the defendant knew, come to the same conclusion?" We've all been exposed to pretty much same knowledge, and a significant number of us have determined unfettered immigration to be a credible threat to western values, increased taxation, and inexorable shambling of the omnipotent state. Some haven't, perhaps.

 

Part of the fun of the reasonable person standard is that both the prosecution and defense get to dismiss jurors that make this determination if they are not objective enough to handle this determination. One such reason to dismiss a juror in voir dire is whether they have prejudice to the question or the defendant.

 

Where can we find a jury for this? Trump voters? Clinton voters? Only non-voters?

 I say Hillary Clinton in office with World War 3 looming is a credible threat.

Anyone else?   (besides dsayers)

[dsayers]

So now dsayers gets to decide what is a credible threat.  

Personalization to excuse yourself from having to make the case that people do NOT pay their taxes under threat of escalated theft/violence. This isn't even competent to the point of qualifying as sophistry.

 

 I say Hillary Clinton in office with World War 3 looming is a credible threat.

The topic is political voting. You chose to try and inflict Trump onto the rest of us because of what he said he would do, regardless of whether empirical evidence tells us that POTUS doesn't have to keep their promises and/or what POTUS even has the power to do. Politicians pose a credible threat and you chose to inflict them upon those who do not consent. You can make the (side) case of it being necessary or beneficial. But the bottom lines remains that it IS immoral. It DOES bind people without their consent.