Logical Proof That Political Voting is Immoral

[apples and grapes]

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.

 

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.

 

Jesus man, why do you even bother writing articles? I'm serious. I went to the effort to do a paragraph by paragraph critique of your article and you never address my concerns! I don't care about your pseudo-psychologising about why I need to believe x or y, why would I? We are strangers on the internet, not each others therapists! The critique of your article was self-contained. It stands regardless of my position on the matter (the fact you pretend to know my position is weird btw)

 

You wrote an article. It was poorly structured, way too long, and didn't deliver on it's title promised logical proof. Learn to take criticism without jumping to accusing people of emotional manipulation, bias, and all that jazz. If you don't want feedback on your articles, just write them in a diary and don't bring them to the public forum 0.o

 

The most glaring thing is that I never said I disagreed with you about voting, and haven't proposed any pro-voting arguments. My posts here have not been about me and what I believe. I offered a critique of your article, and you are desperately trying to change the subject to picking the brain of someone you've never had a conversation with before in your entire live

 

Oh and it wouldn't be inconsistent of me to not go around accusing people of telling others it's okay to enslave their neighbours because I am not convinced they are. I am not convinced of your definition of voting, nor of the conclusions you have reached due to it. If I did accept your definition and conclusions, then you would be correct to accuse me of inconsistency. The communist isn't inconsistent when he accuses capitalism of being evil, while not accusing communism of being evil. He doesn't do the latter precisely because he is pro-communism. This is just sloppy thinking. 

[dsayers]

If you don't want feedback on your articles, just write them in a diary and don't bring them to the public forum 0.o

 

The most glaring thing is that I never said I disagreed with you about voting, and haven't proposed any pro-voting arguments. My posts here have not been about me and what I believe. I offered a critique of your article

False. You said, "Damn guys, he called what I said a strawman, guess I lose the debate," which is NOT feedback on the article. And then I said, "It's easier to put forth a position in a place when you feel you have backup, eh?" You didn't address putting forth a strawman argument by addressing that inconsistency, but by doubling down, calling to the population for assistance because as of late, on this topic, it's easier to do than to address your own inconsistency. Now you're tripling down with the "all I was doing" crap.

 

Oh and it wouldn't be inconsistent of me to not go around accusing people of telling others it's okay to enslave their neighbours because I am not convinced they are.

The point wasn't what you perceive as being said, but the fact that you would categorize it being said as "running around the FDR boards." Your inconsistency and what it means stands. And now accumulates a doubling down there as well.

 

I've heard your criticisms every time you've said them. I am free to take them with a grain of salt in light of the ways you are very clearly doing so out of emotional investment, rather than having an honest discussion with a fellow human being for the purpose of everybody involved walking away that much more enlightened. We'll see if you take this feedback on how to provide feedback in a way that will more effectively land for rational, empathetic follks.

[Shaeroden]

isn't a state kind of a lifeboat scenario though?

[apples and grapes]

False. You said, "Damn guys, he called what I said a strawman, guess I lose the debate," which is NOT feedback on the article. And then I said, "It's easier to put forth a position in a place when you feel you have backup, eh?" You didn't address putting forth a strawman argument by addressing that inconsistency, but by doubling down, calling to the population for assistance because as of late, on this topic, it's easier to do than to address your own inconsistency. Now you're tripling down with the "all I was doing" crap.

 

The point wasn't what you perceive as being said, but the fact that you would categorize it being said as "running around the FDR boards." Your inconsistency and what it means stands. And now accumulates a doubling down there as well.

 

I've heard your criticisms every time you've said them. I am free to take them with a grain of salt in light of the ways you are very clearly doing so out of emotional investment, rather than having an honest discussion with a fellow human being for the purpose of everybody involved walking away that much more enlightened. We'll see if you take this feedback on how to provide feedback in a way that will more effectively land for rational, empathetic follks.

Yes you said something dumb, and I responded facetiously, and what was that? My third response to you? After I did an initial critique of your article. Your desperate desire to apply polemic to people rather then address the issues they have is becoming clear to me. 

 

So now you have issue with me saying you were "running around the FDR boards"? Can you possibly be more pedantic in your attempt to ignore what my 6 criticisms were?! Your accusation of inconsistency is still sloppy thinking whether it's "running" or "waltzing" or "moving"

 

Please stop bringing up emotional attachment, it is dumb. My 6 criticisms are, and I repeat them again in part because you ignore them and in part because I'm sure it triggers you at this point.

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

 

Which one of these am I emotionally attached to to such a strong degree? Cause I'm telling ya, the topic really doesn't effect me all that much, sorry. You writing poor articles just doesn't pull at my heartstrings as much as you accuse me of. Then again, you only bring up emotional attachment as a way attack my person so you don't have to address my argument. But let's say I am super-duper emotionally attached to my criticisms. Does that make it any less accurate? Nopity 

 

Look. It's clear that you don't want to address criticism. I understand that now. You present long winded pseudo-arguments for the sake of posturing, then when people disagree with you, you begin psychologising. Not to convince that person, but with the purpose of having them disassociate and no longer engage with you. You are not an honest person when it comes to discussing this issue. This is all speculation, of course, but the fact we don't know each other hasn't stopped you from playing pretend-therapist in all your responses, so I'll allow myself this opportunity

[D-Light]

For [millennia], 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.

 

This is quite demonstrably false. Many religions and governments provide subjective moral systems which most people think fit the bill of prescribing what people ought to do and proscribing what people ought not to do. Such moral systems are deceptively set forth as carrying the same veracity as Natural Law by attempting to establish their subjective rules as having the same objective characteristics as natural laws when in fact they do not. The primary way they do this is by calling their moral imperatives laws with the expectation that the unsuspecting masses will not distinguish any difference between the two.

 

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 [prescriptive and proscriptive] behavior that is in fact voluntarily chosen. How, in a vacuum, are we able to determine what [behaviors] people would choose in [each] situation at all times? [Proscriptive behaviors] would have to be behaviors that are performative contradictions; [that] is, behaviors that the very act of engaging in would [communicate] that such behaviors are wrong.

 

This sounds like "special pleading" as you do not establish WHY the behaviors must be performative contradictions. Such a requirement only exists if all moral rules are applicable to all people, under all circumstances, conditions which you have not established or provided any warrant. (incidentally, neither does Stefan provide adequate justification or warrant for these conditions in his book UPB. Such conditions are simply assumed to be defining characteristics).

 

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.

 

Again, this still sounds like special pleading. While you have certainly identified a legitimate commonality between these four types of actions, you neglect to mention other actions commonly considered immoral which are also performative contradictions, including deception (which encompasses all forms of lying) and infidelity (which includes the shirking, neglect or abandonment of one's dependents or other commitments and contractual obligations). More importantly, however you have failed to identify precisely why consent is the measure of morality, rather than merely one of many possible qualities, characteristics, reasons, or standards upon which morality may be determined or based. There are other moral systems which place a different quality as the defining characteristic of morality.  Communism, for example, places the good of the community as the determining standard of morality. Islam places submission to the will of Allah. Christianity declares the supreme characteristic to be love. The onus is upon you to prove that consent is the sole defining arbiter or morality of your claim of objectivity falls apart just as readily as every other claim.

 

There are a couple of caveats worth mentioning. The first is [presumptive] consent. While consent cannot [typically be presumed], there are situations wherein a person is incapable of consent, such as when a person 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. It would not be immoral in this scenario to exercise proxy 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 "[accomplice]."

[dsayers]

 

This sounds like "special pleading" as you do not establish WHY the behaviors must be performative contradictions.

Sure I did. I pointed out that it needs to be voluntarily chosen or else we're just inflicting our preferences onto others. That the only way to know that a behavior is one that one ought not to do from all people, times, and places is if they're performative contradictions. Because in a performative contradiction, the person engaging in the behavior is telling you that it's wrong.

 

you neglect to mention other actions commonly considered immoral which are also performative contradictions, including deception (which encompasses all forms of lying)

Lying is not immoral as it is not binding upon another. In order for it to be, person A would have to be more responsible for person B than person B is. Also, your honesty is like any other of your property: yours to dispense as you see fit. Lying is unsavory in most interpersonal interactions for sure, but it is not immoral.

 

and infidelity (which includes the shirking, neglect or abandonment of one's dependents or other commitments and contractual obligations).

Violations of contract are a form of theft, meaning I did cover it.

 

More importantly, however you have failed to identify precisely why consent is the measure of morality, rather than merely one of many possible qualities, characteristics, reasons, or standards upon which morality may be determined or based. There are other moral systems which place a different quality as the defining characteristic of morality.  Communism, for example, places the good of the community as the determining standard of morality. Islam places submission to the will of Allah. Christianity declares the supreme characteristic to be love. The onus is upon you to prove that consent is the sole defining arbiter or morality of your claim of objectivity falls apart just as readily as every other claim.

See above performative contradiction. As a rule of thumb, any model for morality that is subjective can be tossed out.

 

As a side note, it's not accurate to say that Communism considers the good of the community. Because "good of the community" is vague, immeasurable, has no null hypothesis, and is not consensual. Nothing is for the good of somebody if it must be inflicted upon them.

isn't a state kind of a lifeboat scenario though?

Go on.

[shirgall]

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

Anyone else?   (besides dsayers)

 

I certainly came to the same assessment, just based on what she was willing to do regarding oil and who was donating to her. 

[Tyler H]

I certainly came to the same assessment, just based on what she was willing to do regarding oil and who was donating to her.

 

I've been thinking about this and the situation in Europe; between Lloyd deMause's concept of growth panic and the historical precedence of failing countries going to war to shave down on the dependent class and fleece the producers under the guise of "necessary sacrifice", how avoidable is armed conflict involving the United States and/or Europe (no implication of against each other meant, just involvement in some kind of conflict)? In other words, are we overdue for a world war and is it like an economic bubble being that it's worse the longer it's inflated? Maybe a topic for another thread.

[labmath2]

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.

Actually there is a valid critism of your argument here that you really did not address.

 

1. What counts as coercion?

Its obvious someone threatning to come put me in prison is coercion. What about someone threatening to steal more from me in the form of taxes? What about someone threatening to import people who will likely increase crime in my community which increases the likelihood that i will be victimized? What about someone threatening to start a war in my name? What about someone threatening to pass more regulationsw which further restrains my freedom?

 

2. What is an appropriate response to percieved threat/coercion?

Am I allowed to use coercion to prevent a greater use of coercion? If one candidate will be elected (at least till we can get people to recognize government for what it is), is it immoral to advocate for the candidate who promises to infringe less on our freedom? Even though i don't own you and can't sign your freedom away, am i immoral for signing a small piece of your freedom away to prevent someone else from signing away a bigger piece of it? If you are getting signed up to pay for someone's car and I quickly put you down to pay for my cheap car instead of my neighbor's expensive car, am I immoral for letting you keep more of you money? Is it unreasonable for me to assume you want lesds of your momey stolen and would be grateful for my actions?

 

If you object by saying we don't know that Trump will do. Will you say a thank you in four years if Trump actually reduces the amount that is stolen from you to the people who voted for him? Will you say thank you if Trump is better than what Hillary promised she would deliver in terms of more wars (more taken from you or your future children to fund immorality) and immigrants from the middle east (more money collected from you or your future children to pay for people who will make your community less safe?

 

Just as a side note, i disagree with the current voting because it allows voting in every election as long as one candidate is better than the other for freedom. If voting works for buying us more time or reducing government coercion, then we should have been doing it since FDR started. Once Trump is out of office and the next democrat promises to do all the things Clinton was promising but the republican promises to be better, would Stefan simply ignore the election because the candidate is not Trump? Would it be ok then to not "preserve western civilization?" If the other candidate had been Ted Cruz who will clearly not import people ftom the middle east and also worked to curtail illegal immigration (though to a lesser extent than Trump), would it have been ok to let "western civilization" perish under Clinton because Ted Cruz is not Trump?

[labmath2]

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.

Actually there is a valid critism of your argument here that you really did not address.

 

1. What counts as coercion?

Its obvious someone threatning to come put me in prison is coercion. What about someone threatening to steal more from me in the form of taxes? What about someone threatening to import people who will likely increase crime in my community which increases the likelihood that i will be victimized? What about someone threatening to start a war in my name? What about someone threatening to pass more regulationsw which further restrains my freedom?

 

2. What is an appropriate response to percieved threat/coercion?

Am I allowed to use coercion to prevent a greater use of coercion? If one candidate will be elected (at least till we can get people to recognize government for what it is), is it immoral to advocate for the candidate who promises to infringe less on our freedom? Even though i don't own you and can't sign your freedom away, am i immoral for signing a small piece of your freedom away to prevent someone else from signing away a bigger piece of it? If you are getting signed up to pay for someone's car and I quickly put you down to pay for my cheap car instead of my neighbor's expensive car, am I immoral for letting you keep more of you money? Is it unreasonable for me to assume you want lesds of your momey stolen and would be grateful for my actions?

 

If you object by saying we don't know that Trump will do. Will you say a thank you in four years if Trump actually reduces the amount that is stolen from you to the people who voted for him? Will you say thank you if Trump is better than what Hillary promised she would deliver in terms of more wars (more taken from you or your future children to fund immorality) and immigrants from the middle east (more money collected from you or your future children to pay for people who will make your community less safe?

 

Just as a side note, i disagree with the current voting because it allows voting in every election as long as one candidate is better than the other for freedom. If voting works for buying us more time or reducing government coercion, then we should have been doing it since FDR started. Once Trump is out of office and the next democrat promises to do all the things Clinton was promising but the republican promises to be better, would Stefan simply ignore the election because the candidate is not Trump? Would it be ok then to not "preserve western civilization?" If the other candidate had been Ted Cruz who will clearly not import people ftom the middle east and also worked to curtail illegal immigration (though to a lesser extent than Trump), would it have been ok to let "western civilization" perish under Clinton because Ted Cruz is not Trump?

[D-Light]

For millennia ... 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.

 

Fallacy of the argument of existence from necessity.

 

[A moral prescription or prohibition] is essentially an unchosen obligation, 99.9% of which are unethical in proposition. Therefore, we would have to identify a prescription [or proscription] for behavior that is in fact voluntarily chosen.

 

Fallacy of special pleading. 

 

Why? At what point has it been established that the measure of morality is volition? This sounds more like a subjective preference. Why not use the will of Almighty God as found in the Bible? Or alternatively, as found in the Koran?  Or the sacred text of your preferred deity?  Or possibly the standard used by the Objectivists (What is good for a man qua man?) There are doubtless dozens if not hundreds of possible standards that might be employed. Why must we assume the proper standard is the one you have chosen and suggested?

 

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.

 

This is not clear what you are attempting to convey, but having read UPB numerous times, as wells as the next paragraph where you better explained this idea, I understand what you're getting at. What you may not have realized, however, is that you are making an appeal to a universally held sentiment or preference, and merely identifying how the discovery of that preference might be determined--the rule of logical consistency. Nevertheless, how you identify the preference does not change the subjective, sentimental nature of the preference. Furthermore, it is a non-starter as you have still not justified the necessity of universally applicable moral standards, you have simply demonstrated a nearly universally held preference for a very short list of behaviors which virtually all people would wish to not have inflicted upon them. 

 

Thankfully, the list of these behaviors is very short: Theft, assault, rape, and murder. ... 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.

 

Correlation (is not causation / justification) fallacy.

 

Such a short list leaves out many other behaviors commonly regarded as immoral, the most significant ones being lying, cheating and other forms of deception for personal gain or malice, infidelity, exploitation, corruption, slavery, imprisonment, etc. Some of these might, be considered examples of the prohibition of theft in some form or another, and if we are wont to use sophistry, everything could in one way or another, be placed under the prohibition against theft, but an equally viable candidate would be a prohibition against tyranny. Nevertheless, while a lack of consent is a common factor in all the aforementioned "sins". Viable alternatives exist including, "love", "empathy", or even the preservation of well-being (life), reciprocity (property), etc.

 

Why then must we assume that the definition of these various actions are even relevant to an objective moral standard? Perhaps rape is wrong because it's not a loving thing to do to someone. Perhaps the same is true of assault, murder, and theft? Of course, if love is the standard, a host of other commonly considered moral and immoral actions may readily be evaluated and categorized making such a standard far more useful than one which can only reliably or consistently arrive at four (or five, if you're honest) prohibitions. I mean really, why even bother with a proof if you can simply list the only four or five things it can come up with that you mustn't do, and nothing that you must do? Why not simply rely upon your moral instincts which are responsible for such universal moral sentiments in the first place if nearly everyone shares these sentiments?

 

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. ...

 

Would not an equally valid argument be, "Voting for a surrogate rapist, murderer, thief, and bully is the same as doing these things yourself. Since these actions aren't expressions of love or the things loving people do, supporting people who will do these things by assenting to them through voting or financial means is immoral and wrong"?

 

Does this mean that I believe such a moral standard is objective? It's as objective as any other you might come up with, which is to say, it's not objective at all despite the fact that adherence to such a standard can be objectively determined. It not objective because It's based on a subjective preference for a particular standard or set of standards by which all actions might be compared and judged. One can choose any number of standards and arrive at similar results, and be no closer to finding an objective moral standard than when you began.

 

Your last contention is "morality is either objective or utterly worthless." This is but one more example of your expressing sentiment as if it were fact and allowing or expecting it to overcome reason. Every standard you might come up with has some value. You've simply declared (perhaps prematurely) that any such subjective standard of right and wrong is worthless TO YOU. Perhaps I can show you how such standards can be worthwhile to you, perhaps not.

 

Knowing the standard upon which a person bases their non-rational decisions will assist you in predicting their behavior. Predicting an individual or group of individuals' behavior can aid in the formulation of short and long-term strategies for mutual beneficial cooperation at best, or to predict what harm they might have in store at worst, enabling you to better formulate what tactics and strategies might work best in deterring such behavior. Whether the individuals involved are Islamic terrorists from the middle east, or domestic terrorists from the bayou, or local law enforcement officers in the midwest, or local self-styled militia men from the Pacific Northwest, or perhaps they're your chinese immigrant neighbors whom you have a property border dispute with, or simply the members of your local home owners association, knowing the sentiments and preferences of these people, how they make their non-rational decisions, what matters to them and what does not, can help you better understand them to your own betterment and theirs, or to your advantage over your enemies.

 

There is also an individual benefit. You may be better able to see that all morality is the imposition of preferences and sentiments upon others. That seems especially important to a person such as yourself whose ethical system is in strong opposition to people exerting control over you. It may even help you to see how you might be justifying the imposition of your own preferences and sentiments upon others in your personal life and your professional life, prompting you to seek a change in strategy in dealing with those whose actions run contrary to your preferences and sentiments. Alternatively, it may simply confirm that you are already employing the right strategies and further reinforce in your mind that you are acting with integrity in inviting others to live an ethical life rather than compelling them by force deception, or acts of coercion, all as acts of self-defense, to live according to your anarcho-libertarian standards so you are free to do so as well.

 

Best regards.

[dsayers]

1. What counts as coercion?

Its obvious someone threatning to come put me in prison is coercion. What about someone threatening to steal more from me in the form of taxes?...

All of this has been debunked numerous times. You don't know what ruler X or ruler Y will do. Just that they WILL violate property rights. You know that nobody is saying to you "vote (absolute) or I will violate your property rights."

 

2. What is an appropriate response to percieved threat/coercion?

Am I allowed to use coercion to prevent a greater use of coercion?

The self-defense claim has already been debunked. You don't know what ruler X or ruler Y will do. Just that they WILL violate property rights. Violating property rights disproportionately is never self-defense, it is the creation of a much larger debt, making it its own initiation of the use of force. You don't get to try to enslave 300 million people because you're being stolen from and threatened. The disparity is 300 million to 1.

 

If you're going to accuse me of not addressing an "argument," make it something I haven't already addressed a dozen times or more.

 

@D-Light: Making a claim is not the same as making a proof. You cannot claim I'm engaging in a fallacy of existence when I've never claimed existence for example.

 

 

Why? At what point has it been established that the measure of morality is volition?

I just pointed this out in another post. I don't think making the same challenge in multiple places makes your position any more right or mine any more wrong. It just reveals the ways in which you're trying to win by attrition. I'm not interested.

 

What you may not have realized, however, is that you are making an appeal to a universally held sentiment or preference, and merely identifying how the discovery of that preference might be determined--the rule of logical consistency.

No, the preferences of the person engaging in theft, assault, rape, and murder are irrelevant. Regardless of what they prefer, these behaviors are a performative contradiction.

 

Such a short list leaves out many other behaviors commonly regarded as immoral, the most significant ones being lying, cheating and other forms of deception for personal gain or malice, infidelity, exploitation, corruption, slavery, imprisonment, etc.

Again, you've made this exact same criticism elsewhere and I answered it.

 

Would not an equally valid argument be, "Voting for a surrogate rapist, murderer, thief, and bully is the same as doing these things yourself. Since these actions aren't expressions of love or the things loving people do, supporting people who will do these things by assenting to them through voting or financial means is immoral and wrong"?

I can't even follow what you're saying here. Is this a strawman? Inflicting a credible threat is a violation of property rights because that violation of property rights is a reasonable expectation of outcome of your action.

 

Your last contention is "morality is either objective or utterly worthless." This is but one more example of your expressing sentiment as if it were fact and allowing or expecting it to overcome reason. Every standard you might come up with has some value. You've simply declared (perhaps prematurely) that any such subjective standard of right and wrong is worthless TO YOU.

Yes, worth is subjective. The moment somebody explores what they think people OUGHT to do, they are expressing the preference for accuracy. It is accurate that arbitrary inflicting of wills is worthless within that context.

 

 

You subscribe to whatever version of "morality" you want for whatever reason you want. I'm not interested in wasting my times on models that are just preferences masquerading as valid prescriptions.

[shirgall]

You know that nobody is saying to you "vote (absolute) or I will violate your property rights."

 

When Secretary Clinton says, "the rich will pay their fair share" she's figuratively waving the gun in my face. When the Fed sets a target of 2% inflation, Janet Yellen is figuratively saying she thinks it's right to set fire to 2% of my cash savings. If voting can have some small effect on this, it's worth it. I can't spend my moral superiority at the supermarket.

[dsayers]

When Secretary Clinton says, "the rich will pay their fair share" she's figuratively waving the gun in my face. When the Fed sets a target of 2% inflation, Janet Yellen is figuratively saying she thinks it's right to set fire to 2% of my cash savings. If voting can have some small effect on this, it's worth it. I can't spend my moral superiority at the supermarket.

I'm not arguing from effect or claiming it's not of value to you. I'm saying it's also immoral, which is an objective claim whose truth value is true. Oh and I had just come from the supermarket before I got home and read this. I spent cash there after having not tried to enslave anybody through political voting. So I think you've put forth a false dichotomy.

 

I also think you're poisoning the well with your use of the word superiority. The actual word you're looking for is consistency.

 

Without a State, nobody could level that extent of theft against you and everybody else. The State doesn't exist. So instead of using our energies to try to enslave each other, we could help those out there who don't understand that the State doesn't exist and evaporate the State and save us all the wealth.

[labmath2]

All of this has been debunked numerous times. You don't know what ruler X or ruler Y will do. Just that they WILL violate property rights. You know that nobody is saying to you "vote (absolute) or I will violate your property rights."

 

The self-defense claim has already been debunked. You don't know what ruler X or ruler Y will do. Just that they WILL violate property rights. Violating property rights disproportionately is never self-defense, it is the creation of a much larger debt, making it its own initiation of the use of force. You don't get to try to enslave 300 million people because you're being stolen from and threatened. The disparity is 300 million to 1.

 

If you're going to accuse me of not addressing an "argument," make it something I haven't already addressed a dozen times or more.

Your responses don't actually address the point. Merely stating that we don't know what they will do in the future does not address the fact that they made threats now. If both threats are identical to you, then i can understand your not voting. Even so, you still haven't answered the question. What threats count as coercion? Regardless of your position on voting as an appropriate response, would threats (made in the form of promises) made by Hillary Clinton count as coercion? On the flip side would you also consider threats made by Trump coercion?

 

Your response to the second question also misses the point. The threat is already made. It's not about what candidate X or Y will do in the future, it's about what they are doing now. You can argue about how commited they are to the threats (campaign promises) or how we cannot know if they will do worse than they threatened to do, but we have have to respond to those threats. You think an appropriate response is doing nothing. Doing nothing, at least in terms of voting, means acquiescing to those threats when a candidate wins. Unless you are willing to refuse to hand over your money or follow rules you disagree with (given that you are not in prison, i don't think this is the case). Given the differences between the threats, is it not practical to opt for the less coercive threat (for those who see a difference between the threats made)? Their vote doesn't change the political system (everyone will be subject to the political outcome), it merely changes the political outcome. They are not voting on what the candidate will do, but on the threats made by the candidates in the form of campaign promises.

[Tyler H]

I can't spend my moral superiority at the supermarket.

I also think you're poisoning the well with your use of the word superiority. The actual word you're looking for is consistency.

I see this accusation a lot, moral superiority, virtue signaling... what I am doing, and dsayers I think too (correct me if I'm wrong), is trying to help others who hold moral values important stay consistent with those moral values for their own happiness. Countless podcasts convinced me that going against your principles is bad for your own mental health. Hundreds of times I've heard Stef argue "I don't care about the effect, I don't care about the effect, I dont't care how cotton gets picked in the future I care that slavery is immoral". This is the stance we are taking (again correct me if I'm wrong dsayers).

 

We accept that voting for a politician violates the principles that the philosophical ancaps hold here, and for their sake are pushing back. Maybe we are wrong, but if we thought so we wouldn't be trying to convince you otherwise. It isn't moral superiority - its pushing back for what we believe is right for the sake of others we care about and who care about morality.

 

If you accept the initiation of force as evil-

 

Politicians give orders to initiate force

The initiation of force is evil

Politicians command evil

That which commands evil is evil for commanding it

Politicians are evil

 

Politicians attain their position by the support of their voters

Every voter for a winning politician is responsible for placing that politician in a position to command evil

Every voter supports evil.

 

Not an airtight syllogism but a good representation of where I'm coming from. Correct my errors so we can find the truth.

[Guest Gee]

If you accept the initiation of force as evil-

 

The definition of these three words is where the problem is, Tyler.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I'm still chuckling that this thread isn't losing momentum.

 

And I'm still euphoric that the seeds of freedom and anarchism will continue to have fertile ground in which to grow.

[Tyler H]

The definition of these three words is where the problem is, Tyler.

It is certainly important we define these terms, and perhaps we can start a thread on that very subject, but the arguments I make against voting are for those who have accepted that conclusion already. I understand not everyone here accepts that argument so that's why I said "If you accept".

[dsayers]

I see this accusation a lot, moral superiority, virtue signaling... what I am doing, and dsayers I think too (correct me if I'm wrong), is trying to help others who hold moral values important stay consistent with those moral values for their own happiness. Countless podcasts convinced me that going against your principles is bad for your own mental health. Hundreds of times I've heard Stef argue "I don't care about the effect, I don't care about the effect, I dont't care how cotton gets picked in the future I care that slavery is immoral". This is the stance we are taking (again correct me if I'm wrong dsayers).

This is part of it. The other if freedom and the advancement of humanity. I lived my life for decades without self-knowledge. I prevented me from doing so much. Then I got to see the ways in which others are held back by their abusers and cannot even figure out where to begin to overcome it.

 

Then you have the FDR community. People who have been widely exposed to numerous ideas, and all the progress they can bring humanity... Then choosing to jettison it all. Falling for the exact same tricks that they learned better than. It's tragic enough to watch people who don't have the answer be powerless to improve anything. Watching those who have the answers choose to throw it away and actually fight against it... I don't even know how to describe that experience. But I know that I and my future child cannot be free until they're free too.

[D-Light]

@D-Light: Making a claim is not the same as making a proof. You cannot claim I'm engaging in a fallacy of existence when I've never claimed existence for example.

 

My mistake. You were not arguing existing from necessity, you were merely arguing that people must keep in mind that only your description of morality which you claim is objective (although it's not) fits all their preferred criteria of morality.

 

I won't address your arguments any further in this post. I've refuted the very basis of your moral system, but you undoubtedly will reject reason in favor of sentiment and cling to your belief in spite of the evidence of its error. I will, nevertheless point out that your use of the term "performative contradiction" in attempting to justify your position on morality is likewise erroneous. A performative contradiction is an action which refutes the claim it is making, which is different from hypocrisy. A performative contradiction is declarative, not imperative (as all moral claims or assertions are).

 

I can't even follow what you're saying here. Is this a strawman?

No, it was an illustration of how an action could be immoral when the moral system is founded upon a sentiment different from volition.

 

Yes, worth is subjective. The moment somebody explores what they think people OUGHT to do, they are expressing the preference for accuracy. It is accurate that arbitrary inflicting of wills is worthless within that context.

No. The moment someone explores what they think people ought to do (or not to do), they are expressing a preference for ethical behavior, not accuracy. If you were truly interested in accuracy, you would reevaluate that last statement and alter your thinking accordingly.  Imperatives like "should" and "ought" in this context are imperative, not predictive.