In Defense Of Freedom From Political Overlords (Credit to dsayers for awakening me)

[IsaacGage860]

This is some philosophical insight that has occurred to me recently, and that I would be remiss if I did not articulate/disseminate it. I am a man of my principles and I will not apologize for that, nor will I compromise on them for the sake of perceived political expediency and incremental improvements. Either you introduce a new paradigm that makes the old one obsolete or you continue to justify the current model through intimidation, sophistry, and Darwinist Nihilism. Take what you will from the following insight, but do not attempt to explain to me how the state is moral and justified in any way and how moral ideals are Utopian or impractical to achieve, you'll be wasting your own time:

 

When it comes to political power and influence, fundamentally when the governed of a nation acquiesce their freedom and individual rights to a state they are knowingly abdicating their own agency to determine their lives and that of their families to the will of the government. So logically it follows that one cannot advocate for the necessity of government and for it to have unlimited power/authority and then complain when the people one does not like get the reins of power. Just imagine for a second if we did not have the reins of power to begin with. A lot of people are upset now and scared for their lives that the candidate they did not choose has gotten a hold of the One Ring to Rule Them All. These same phenomena also apply vice versa when the candidate from the Democrat party in this case is elected. This anger and frustration at having another's persons will imposed onto them involuntarily is certainly valid but this anger is never internalized. Ironically, there is no cognitive dissonance that occurs. In other words, it sucks that someone else's will is being imposed on me so my response is to bide my time and then impose my will on others come next election. And thus, the pointless exchanging and transferring of ultimate power continues unabated and the pendulum of political dominance swings to either extreme AD Infinitum.

 

With all of this bread and circus nonsense/false dichotomy between Republican and Democrat party, never is the concept of true freedom discussed. We always have to put some in power to grant us our freedom, rather than getting it ourselves through voluntary exchange, a respect for property rights, consistent rule of law, the non-aggression principle, and just Free Market Capitalism in general. So, with all this information I have to ask you my friends, why it is such power needs to exist in the first place? And not just for it to exist but also for it to be consolidated into the hands of supposedly "moral" leaders who in theory should be immune from corruption but in practical reality take every chance to indulge in their influence. Why must this power exist? If we cannot be trusted with our own freedom and rationality, then the last thing we want to do is give a group of inherently irrational humans the power to determine the course of history. That makes no rational or logical sense at all. It's like finding out that someone is certifiably incompetent financially and giving them control over trillions of dollars. Hmm where have I heard of this before? (Hint: Central Banks and fractional reserve banking). It is massively hypocritical for people to be upset now that the government is under control of the Republicans and authority to make executive orders has been granted to Trump while also not campaigning for LIBERTY AND FREEDOM from political overlords.

 

I'm reminded of a famous quote by John Dalberg Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely." Maybe Trump will be able to change the course or nature of the state but I highly doubt that. When you legitimize the initiation of the use of force against others, albeit less in an ideal Minarchist society, all you get is more violence. When you make arbitrary exceptions to morals rules that are supposed to be universal and axiomatic you get an unresolvable contradiction wherein certain groups of society can perform certain actions that for anyone else would be considered criminal and in violation of law.

With Voluntarism, which is defined as an acceptance of property rights of not just land but also of the individual economic actor and the non aggression principle you get a prosperous society. In a stateless society, everything is decentralized and there is no need for politburos or state sanctioned Pravda to propagandize and indoctrinate the population, especially the young, while controlling literally every aspect of our lives cradle to coffin. No one to impose their will unjustly onto others. True cooperation between people and peace is thus achieved. Perhaps these are thoughts that could provoke serious philosophical thought and introspection within some of you. To everyone else, unfriend and unfollow me now because you will not be seeing compromise in this regard from me ever again. 

 

For those still not convinced:

If you fundamentally are fine and have no moral compunction over the initiation of the use of force, I do not ever want to hear you complain about how the military operates because you support the system and ethics that justify it. Millions of innocent people dead because Statists like YOU want to force their will onto others. I don’t ever want to see a single tear come from your eye regarding the military or anything where force is used to get what one desires because that would make you a massive HYPOCRITE.  I don’t ever want to hear about how taxpayer money is being wasted or mismanaged in the hands of, according to your own words, inherently greedy, selfish, and evil humans indifferent to the plight and interests of different groups of people. These people would be the unaccountable bureaucrats and central planners with no incentive to utilize money or other resources efficiently because they are insulated from the disciplines of the free market. The system is going to collapse under its own impossible weight and quite frankly I look forward to that day. If you will not submit to reason and evidence and the preponderance of historical facts supporting my position but instead choose to accuse me of being “brainwashed” then it is clear you have no interest discovering the nature of truth and reality and are no different than the immoral religious dogmatists of the Middle Ages, Ancient Rome and Greece, and the 20^th Century with the communists. According to you logic, because the use of force is permissible to people classified in a certain group, then that means I am allowed to join that group and arbitrarily impose my will on whoever I want. Don’t like gun control? Well tough shit, now I’m calling the shots. Disagree with foreign intervention, too fucking bad, the decision is not yours to make. Pick any issue and if you have a disagreement with me, your concerns are irrelevant. To extend your wonderful logic, if morals and ethics are not universal and axiomatic but merely subjective and relative and all you do is introduce arbitrary exceptions to the rules then its fine for me to do whatever I want then if I manage to get into the halls of power. All of the lessons of not using violence to achieve my ends taught to me in my youth are pointless and a waste of time trying to disseminate to the next generation because you have all of these exceptions to the rule. So, for example, the next time I want to possess money, instead of taking the initiative and working hard to EARN it, I will either steal it myself or petition the government to steal it through taxation and redistribution. Who needs a college education and a job when I can just be lazy, complacent and leech off the success of others? I am a down trodden and hopeless minority in your eyes after all, so why not use it to my advantage? (Disclaimer: These questions/statements are rhetorical and not meant to indicate serious intent on my part. They are meant to hopefully expose the blatant hypocrisy of wanting a peaceful society but also supporting the state at the same time).            

 

A Potential Solution:

 

Peaceful parenting is the key. People have to stop rationalizing the use of force against others and start actually taking their principles seriously. How hard is it to NOT abuse children or anyone for that matter? Apparently, the task is impossible and so we will continue to languish in this lower realm of existence. Unfortunately, change may have to come through disaster and a complete collapse of the system as it always had to throughout history before people seriously question their preconceived ideas and biases. If any can spare the time, I suggest reading Stefan Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behavior: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" available for free on his website. The arguments are so easy to grasp children understand them early on in their development. If mature adults cannot wrap their minds around the concept of peace, negotiation, and the non-aggression principle, then why even bother with this human experiment? We may as well just nuke everything on the planet now.

[aviet]

 

the sake of perceived political expediency and incremental improvements.

 

How else do you think you are going to get any improvements? Humans didn't go from illiterate barbarism to the modern world in one step. If at every step of the way there were people refusing to act to increase freedom and rationality because it wasn't perfect freedom and perfect rationality, then we would still be in illiterate barbarism. Right now there isn't even a battle between in the US between somewhat limited, constitutional government and actual limited, constitutional government. The battle of 2016 was a battle between a regressive system of open borders with unlimited welfare and handing control over to unaccountable globalist instruments that will be hard to extricate from and preserving somewhat limited constitutional government. Your not going to get to the battle between actual limited, constitutional government and libertarianism; and between libertarianism and minarchism; and between minarchism and practically no government if you refuse to first preserve somewhat limited, constitutional government.

 

 

If you will not submit to reason and evidence

 

Most people wont. It is an imperfect situation and completely sidelining yourself in a small minority will achieve nothing. As Stefan has covered in his some of his videos, particularly the one titled: The Death of Reason: Why People Don't Listen to Reason and Evidence, most people do not want to operate in the realm of even trying to be reasoned and empirical. Most of the world wouldn't even be able to tell you what that means. They instead operate in the world of biological and subconscious impulses. Dropping everyone into anarchy when that's how people operate will result in only one thing: the imposition of new power structures. Getting to 'thou shall not impose thy will' is probably going to take as long as getting to 'thou shall not kill' and it will probably be just as bloody, just as hard and just as riddled with having to accept imperfect compromises.

[IsaacGage860]

How else do you think you are going to get any improvements? Humans didn't go from illiterate barbarism to the modern world in one step. If at every step of the way there were people refusing to act to increase freedom and rationality because it wasn't perfect freedom and perfect rationality, then we would still be in illiterate barbarism. Right now there isn't even a battle between in the US between somewhat limited, constitutional government and actual limited, constitutional government. The battle of 2016 was a battle between a regressive system of open borders with unlimited welfare and handing control over to unaccountable globalist instruments that will be hard to extricate from and preserving somewhat limited constitutional government. Your not going to get to the battle between actual limited, constitutional government and libertarianism; and between libertarianism and minarchism; and between minarchism and practically no government if you refuse to first preserve somewhat limited, constitutional government.

 

 

Most people wont. It is an imperfect situation and completely sidelining yourself in a small minority will achieve nothing. As Stefan has covered in his some of his videos, particularly the one titled: The Death of Reason: Why People Don't Listen to Reason and Evidence, most people do not want to operate in the realm of even trying to be reasoned and empirical. Most of the world wouldn't even be able to tell you what that means. They instead operate in the world of biological and subconscious impulses. Dropping everyone into anarchy when that's how people operate will result in only one thing: the imposition of new power structures. Getting to 'thou shall not impose thy will' is probably going to take as long as getting to 'thou shall not kill' and it will probably be just as bloody, just as hard and just as riddled with having to accept imperfect compromises.

I suppose I am just frustrated with how unnecessarily difficult this has to be when the answer is merely "the initiation of the use of force against others is immoral and wrong" Its like slavery. The people who had slaves could not conceive of a world where there were no slaves. Who would pick the cotton? Who would tend to the fields? The abolitionists didn't know how these things were going to be done either, they just knew it was wrong and that the institution of slavery needed to be abolished. For this reason, I will not concede my position. Either you introduce a new paradigm that makes the old completely obsolete or you don't. Making incremental changes is enough to satisfy people to the point where the fundamental concept they were pushing for gets buried underneath the so called "progress." At the end of the day you still have an arbitrary category of people with the right to initiate the use of force against otherwise peaceful people and get them to submit to a worldview with guns. The contradiction still exists and therefore peace can never exist. I do not know what Trump will be able to achieve or not achieve, but the fact remains that we will still have taxation and still have regulations stacking up to the ceiling and you'll still have free markets restricted by the state. Maybe Trump will be able to change these things but then again Reagan was supposed to be the president of small government and what did we get? Lower taxes but increased deficit spending. Nixon ran on a Republican small government platform but then did a 180 and went full Keynesian. I am going to reserve judgment on this but I'm not overly optimistic.     

 

This is a thread from another board member dsayers that explains the reasoning behind my original post:

https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/42043-is-step-in-the-right-direction-a-myth/ 

[aviet]

I suppose I am just frustrated with how unnecessarily difficult this has to be when the answer is merely "the initiation of the use of force against others is immoral and wrong" Its like slavery. The people who had slaves could not conceive of a world where there were no slaves. Who would pick the cotton? Who would tend to the fields? The abolitionists didn't know how these things were going to be done, they just knew it was wrong and that the institution of slavery needed to be abolished. For this reason, I will not concede my position. Either you introduce a new paradigm that makes the old completely obsolete or you don't. Making incremental changes is enough to satisfy people to the point where the fundamental concept they were pushing for gets buried underneath the so called "progress." At the end of the day you are still have an arbitrary category of people with the right to initiate the use of force against otherwise peaceful people and get them to submit to a worldview with guns. The contradiction still exists and therefore peace can never exist. I do not know what Trump will be able to achieve or not achieve, but the fact remains that we will still have taxation and still have regulations stacking up to the ceiling and you'll still have free markets restricted by the state. Maybe Trump will be able to change these things but then again Reagan was supposed to be the president of small government and what did we get? Lower taxes but increased deficit spending. Nixon ran on a Republican small government platform but then did a 180 and went full Keynesian. I am going to reserve judgment on this but I'm not overly optimistic.     

I share your frustration and think that your point that the paradigm has to be shifted is a good one; and that people don't know exactly what would replace the current paradigm a good observation. But a gargantuan paradigm shift that is well beyond the realm of the most people's mental and philosophical evolution is not possible, as the paradigm is the sum total of people's mental and philosophical evolution. For example, if the US shifted towards highly limited government and allowed tens of millions of third world people to gain citizenship, they would quickly dial the state back up as they would not be getting the standard of living they demand, regardless of their own actions. We have the level of societal evolution we collectively deserve. Regardless of whether you desire collectivism as a formalised political force or not, the soup of people we live among defines our society. If you had an AnCap society in which 100% of the people agreed with that social structure, but after ten generations degenerated to the point that only 33% of people believed in AnCap, AnCap would be done away with and some sort of coercive government structure put in its place. Governmental structures or lack of are a making of both the will of the people and the raw political force of whoever has a democratic mandate or ascent to dictate.

 

As for paradigm shifts, I think we have just entered one, led in by the Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. The main component of the shift is people's perceptions of the media. The US Pres. election and Brexit were major news cycles yet many mainstream news outlets either had little difference or a decline in audience and outlets like FDR, Infowars and Breitbart have gone through the roof and this trend looks permanent. And of those three outlets, among others, the sentiment is very much more for limited government and a preservation of Western culture and limited government ideas, which were threatened by the mass immigration of people attracted to free stuff. This shift has also unleashed a whole new generation of young people who may have otherwise not taken an interest in politics. These people are currently unpolished and as such will be receptive to libertarian ideas.

 

Before this I didn't trust the media, but now I despise them; as do many others.

 

There has also been a big shift away from globalist ideas that are one of the biggest threats to liberty. Last year it looked like globalisation, such as the EU, was going to continue on unabated. Now, in 2016, its difficult to see how they can continue and the trends are running against globalism.

 

Beyond those paradigm shifts, Trump will have saved the US from paradigm sifting in the other direction, towards big government and globalism.

 

It does not make sense to me why someone would sit by and allow more and more government to wash over them.

 

As for Trump's policies, you are right that they could fail the libertarian bell-weather in terms of finance. But there are ways in which they should:

 

- devolution of powers back to the states

- exposing schools to market forces

- less interventionist

- cutting taxes

- for every new regulation, two need to be repealed

 

Though I would agree that its quite likely that Trump will do the same as Reagan. It is certainly the easiest option. We can only wait and see. Personally, I am not overly bothered as to what happens to the nations' finances. Like yourself I think we are heading towards collapse, but in the meantime I'd like to make as much money as possible to feather my nest for said collapse; and in a country which does not have open borders.

[dsayers]

How else do you think you are going to get any improvements?

His very next words answered this. Were telephones incrementally improved to evolve into the smartphones we have today? Or was the technology erected in tandem until the market decided that telephones were obsolete?

 

@Voluntarist860: I like your approach of simply making the case that the State is immoral. In all of my materials on the topic of voting here, I just assumed my audience already understood as much because it's FDR. The prudent thing to do would be as you did: Simply make the case instead of treating it like a given.

 

I would caution against the closed mindedness you exhibited in the beginning, as well as the anti-social hostility you exhibited later on. I for one am open to any argument that challenges my conclusions. I do not fear them because they will either bear out my conclusion as accurate or help me to improve my own understanding. It's win-win. And as for people who reject the immorality of the State, they are victims. Verbally attacking them is essentially victimizing them for being victims. Yes, I realize that they are advocating institutionalized violence, even against you and me. However, such things are fashionable. It's easy (for me) to be compassionate with such people because I was once lied to and indoctrinated as well. Plus, because it is fashionable, many people reject it out of fear of social ostracism. A very real and powerful motivator. We have to at the very least demonstrate that while they may lose some of their lower quality support network for accepting the truth, there are quality people that are ready to embrace them for doing the right thing, as it is literally tantamount to saving the world. Does that make sense?

[Matthew Ed Moran]

The moral case for anarchism might do a lot of good right now, but it might not. I tend to trust the guy with a direct line to the people and decades of experience making the moral case, when he says the moral case is limited in its ability to change others right now.

 

Since government schools are currently monopolized, and since governments are being dysgenic, especially with regards to IQ, and small government, relatively peacefully parenting cultures; the playing field isn't exactly fair to make the moral case. It's not exactly easy to convince someone who grew up in Mexican culture where small government beliefs are shunned, who received 15+ years of government propaganda, to believe in anarchism. If schools can be privatized and if cultures hostile to anarchist ideals can be curtailed, then that offers a more fertile breeding ground for anarchist ideas to spread.

 

If there is any threat to the only culture that has a tradition of limited government and individual rights, then it is more wise to do whatever can be done to preserve that culture in the moment, so that it can continue to make progress in the areas we all want - peaceful parenting, privatization of production, common law - in the future. Other cultures are outbreeding our culture and taking control of the government, and are spreading propaganda that is favorable to their interests more effectively than Western European society right now. Islam is also on the rise and is pushing into Western Society. I am all for anarchist ideals being adopted, but it's not going to come from societies and cultures that have no tradition of enlightenment ideals. Those cultures and societies need to be stopped from taking over the monopolies of government right now, because we know what they will do to small government, individual right believers in the future. Just look at what they have done already.

[IsaacGage860]

His very next words answered this. Were telephones incrementally improved to evolve into the smartphones we have today? Or was the technology erected in tandem until the market decided that telephones were obsolete?

 

@Voluntarist860: I like your approach of simply making the case that the State is immoral. In all of my materials on the topic of voting here, I just assumed my audience already understood as much because it's FDR. The prudent thing to do would be as you did: Simply make the case instead of treating it like a given.

 

I would caution against the closed mindedness you exhibited in the beginning, as well as the anti-social hostility you exhibited later on. I for one am open to any argument that challenges my conclusions. I do not fear them because they will either bear out my conclusion as accurate or help me to improve my own understanding. It's win-win. And as for people who reject the immorality of the State, they are victims. Verbally attacking them is essentially victimizing them for being victims. Yes, I realize that they are advocating institutionalized violence, even against you and me. However, such things are fashionable. It's easy (for me) to be compassionate with such people because I was once lied to and indoctrinated as well. Plus, because it is fashionable, many people reject it out of fear of social ostracism. A very real and powerful motivator. We have to at the very least demonstrate that while they may lose some of their lower quality support network for accepting the truth, there are quality people that are ready to embrace them for doing the right thing, as it is literally tantamount to saving the world. Does that make sense?

It does make sense, it just gets extremely frustrating having to DEFEND the concept of non initiation of force when I have my whole childhood to reference.  

[dsayers]

It does make sense, it just gets extremely frustrating having to DEFEND the concept of non initiation of force when I have my whole childhood to reference.  

Believe me, I understand the frustration. How much have you pursued self-knowledge? The first step I took was accepting my capacity for error. This was a huge relief because it allowed for me to be wrong after it being modeled for me as a child that failure was a flaw. When you're capable of being wrong, I found it was easier to discuss ideas. The more self-knowledge I gained, the more I could see people trying to deflect from the ideas being discussed to make it personal or otherwise indicate that they weren't even considering the idea by offering non-arguments as if they're arguments. It's sad to behold, but it's nice 1) that people really do wear their intentions on their sleeves and 2) that self-knowledge makes it easier to read such things.

 

If you haven't already, check out Stef's Bomb in the Brain series. The bottom line is that in order to change people's minds, you have to first understand WHY they think what they do. If they adhere to a conclusion they didn't arrive at by way of logic, reason, and evidence, then such things will not dissuade them. In fact, because from their perspective, their conclusion was under fire and survived, you'll actually strengthen their resolve; The opposite of your stated goal. Self-knowledge will help you to realize that you are frustrated with yourself for wasting additional time/effort where you know it is ineffective.

 

If you want my amateur opinion, I think you're making the same mistake before. Namely allowing your zeal to lead you to charging in unprepared. Before, you were stating things you hadn't researched as certainties. Now, you're putting forth new ideas in a very divisive way. Not saying you shouldn't, but I certainly think there is a better was as outlined by my original criticisms. If nothing else, do you recall when you accepted that you had made this error? You specifically thanked me for being able to hold the discussion without injecting emotional investment into the subject matter. If you think this is a beneficial approach, then you can emulate it for greater effect. In fact, I referenced this emulation in the context of self-knowledge here.

 

The moral case for anarchism might do a lot of good right now, but it might not. I tend to trust the guy with a direct line to the people and decades of experience making the moral case, when he says the moral case is limited in its ability to change others right now.

In what way does abandoning the moral case to perpetuate the exact opposite conducive to spreading the moral case in the future? If you're going to appeal to authority, do not forget that that same man has made the case that 1) Empires die because that which is unsustainable cannot be sustained, 2) That dying empires declare war on their own citizens (which has been underway in the US), and 3) It would be bad for Ron Paul to win because then he'll be in the driver's seat when the whole thing collapses, which would signal that freedom doesn't work, which is the opposite of the truth.

 

If schools can be privatized and if cultures hostile to anarchist ideals can be curtailed, then that offers a more fertile breeding ground for anarchist ideas to spread.

Again the question is raised: In what way does abandoning the moral case to perpetuate the exact opposite conducive to a more fertile breeding ground for anarchism in the future? People home/unschool amid a statist paradigm already. Not to mention that the philosophical case for anarchism has been alive for what, centuries at the very least. It really has a foothold in human consciousness present day due in part to the ways in which our IQ has risen AND because that's the beauty of the truth: You can't violence it away. They tried when the heliocentric model of the solar system was first introduced. They tried when the idea that slavery was immoral first gained traction. And so on. Short of the State nuking us all into extinction, it's days are numbered. Perpetuating the State when you accept it to be predicated on immorality only serves to prolong the window in which it can render us extinct.

 

If there is any threat to the only culture that has a tradition of limited government and individual rights, then it is more wise to do whatever can be done to preserve that culture in the moment

How do you know? This is a baseless assertion. History tells us that the State actively devours traditions of "limited" government (self-detonating claim BTW) and individual rights. Preserving that culture actively erodes it because that is a feature of that culture!

 

so that it can continue to make progress in the areas we all want - peaceful parenting, privatization of production, common law - in the future. Other cultures are outbreeding our culture and taking control of the government, and are spreading propaganda that is favorable to their interests more effectively than Western European society right now. Islam is also on the rise and is pushing into Western Society. I am all for anarchist ideals being adopted, but it's not going to come from societies and cultures that have no tradition of enlightenment ideals. Those cultures and societies need to be stopped from taking over the monopolies of government right now, because we know what they will do to small government, individual right believers in the future. Just look at what they have done already.

Again, how does growing and legitimizing the weapon they're clamoring for stopping them?! If you rip the band-aid off, if you starve the addicts, if you help the delusional see the truth, the State evaporates. There's no more gun for anybody to reach for. I'll take my chances of the POSSIBILITY of a theater getting bombed over the CERTAINTY of every single person being stolen from, threatened, assaulted, raped, and/or murdered EVERY DAY.

 

The latter of which, you have no right to inflict upon anybody, no matter how lofty your wrap up your rationalization. Or the rationalization of somebody else since you are unwilling to think it through for yourself.

[Anuojat]

In the current climate of mostly indoctirnated people and with death of reason entirely with so many others. I dont see making the case for free society/anarcism working on large enough scale and on short enough amounth of time for it to make any differance. As stefan has said there is no time left, if left alone the regressive left and completely cuckservative Repudlicans would have tkaen over what little freedom people had left and destroyed any change freedom had. That goes for europe as well though in here its already much worse. Stefan has many times said and i agree with him that road to free society is multi generational change, that change is impossible under western societys becoming 3rd world ones. Completely backwards approach to parenting and even worse schools. No amounth of rational arguements, small groups of homeschooling or being "correct" would defer at this point in history the demise of the spread of philosofy.

 

IF there was a way to spread peaceful parenting and freedom without tangling up in politics... if i am mistaken about this id gladly be shown otherwise.

 

Also: What is your goal? Because mine is free society and more rationally NOT dead people  in this world thus more philosofy (trough peaceful parenting.)

[NotDarkYet]

Point 1:

 

When we achieve freedom it will be because:

 

1. We argued the case
2. Raised our children peacefully
3. The state increasingly sucked at its job

 

Voting (or not voting) doesn't invalidate our long-game.

 

If you declare "but we don't have to vote", I rebut thusly:

 

Point 2:

 

Yes, non-participation with the state is, technically, possible:

 

• I COULD live with the consequences of not paying my taxes (ie, living in the woods, or being poor, or expatriating)

 

• I COULD also live with the consequences of not voting (ie, living in a 3rd world hellhole)

 

For the sake of my (relative) freedom I will participate in these ugly things until the world is ready for capitalism.

 

If you declare "but voting only supports the system", I rebut thusly:

 

 

Point 3:

 

Voting, in some circumstances, may lead to greater freedom. 

 

Imagine a situation where a state (say, New Hampshire) was voting to succeed from the federal goverment  - - -, your vote could lead to a lessening of government power.

[dsayers]

In the current climate of mostly indoctirnated people and with death of reason entirely with so many others. I dont see making the case for free society/anarcism working on large enough scale and on short enough amounth of time for it to make any differance.

"Non-rape isn't working fast enough for my liking, so I choose to manage my anxiety over this by participating in the rape." That's your choice, but it doesn't change the moral identity of your choice. So many people willing to parrot vague narratives about the future, all in an attempt to deflect from this fact.

 

IF there was a way to spread peaceful parenting and freedom without tangling up in politics... if i am mistaken about this id gladly be shown otherwise.

This is not true. I've made sure that nobody on these forums and other places are exposed to these ideas. In order to say what you are saying, you are actively rejecting them.

 

When we achieve freedom... Voting (or not voting) doesn't invalidate our long-game.

By definition, legitimizing and adding to institutionalized violence invalidates any claim to be working towards freedom.

 

Voting, in some circumstances, may lead to greater freedom. 

Demonstrably false. Accepting that humans do not exist in different, opposing moral categories and therefore the State is predicated on violations of property rights is what makes you free. Political voting is a demonstration that you are not free. And when coupled with your claim, also demonstrates that you're trying to farm out your responsibility to act with integrity to somebody who has already demonstrated they can't do it for you.

 

You guys (talking to all pro-Trump/voters) need to own what you've done. You don't regret it and that's fine. But stop trying to wrap up the enslavement of 300 million people as if you're doing them a favor. That's how tyrants talk and it's disgusting.

[Matthew Ed Moran]

I didn't say to abandon anything. I said the moral argument is limited in its effect right now. You can either make the moral argument to a decreasing number of people with lessening agency, who by the way already are closer to accepting anarchist principles than anyone on the planet, or you can join them in the fight against their enemies (and presumably gain their trust and sense of credibility), so they can reproduce and continue to fight for freedom of speech. 

 

If other cultures were intent on replicating the freedoms we have, they would have attempted to do so already. They don't want to replicate Western society - they want to destroy it. Dumb genes are in competition with smart genes, so obviously dumb genes are not going to be in favor of the free market and debate which naturally favors smarter people.

 

So I'm not against arguing for anarchy. In fact I think I recognize the people most willing to allow you to argue for anarchy are Western Europeans, and they are in danger right now from other cultures. If you ally with them, then the conversation can continue. If you don't, then you might as well be their enemy. The current world doesn't give a damn about truly rational principles apart from a very small few. Stefan has millions of listeners. If the growth of philosophy were exponential, then all we would need to do is wait for Stef's message to spread across the internet. The evidence is that most people aren't consistent rationally, and they chose their conclusions more on tribalism and in-group preferences. Simply appealing to logic isn't working fast enough - I understand that's why the man behind the show has adapted his plans.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way dsayers, since apparently you don't put faith or credibility in a guy who invests his life for reason and evidence like Stef when it comes to this topic, then isn't it extremely irresponsible that you aren't running your own philosophy show? If you have reason and evidence better than is being offered here, then you really need to start a public show because your skills are desperately needed in the world. Limiting them to a forum really is actually incredibly cruel to the world.

--------------------------------------------------------

 I support allying with conservatives and supporting them in their political endeavors. For now, they are highly invested in free speech, because they have the most to lose if it goes away! People with conformist opinions lose nothing if free speech goes away. If free speech continues, then the conversation for anarchy can continue.

[Tyler H]

How does Stef have millions of listeners?

[IsaacGage860]

In the current climate of mostly indoctirnated people and with death of reason entirely with so many others. I dont see making the case for free society/anarcism working on large enough scale and on short enough amounth of time for it to make any differance. As stefan has said there is no time left, if left alone the regressive left and completely cuckservative Repudlicans would have tkaen over what little freedom people had left and destroyed any change freedom had. That goes for europe as well though in here its already much worse. Stefan has many times said and i agree with him that road to free society is multi generational change, that change is impossible under western societys becoming 3rd world ones. Completely backwards approach to parenting and even worse schools. No amounth of rational arguements, small groups of homeschooling or being "correct" would defer at this point in history the demise of the spread of philosofy.

 

IF there was a way to spread peaceful parenting and freedom without tangling up in politics... if i am mistaken about this id gladly be shown otherwise.

 

Also: What is your goal? Because mine is free society and more rationally NOT dead people  in this world thus more philosofy (trough peaceful parenting.)

That is my goal as well. I figure if you want to reach people you have to appeal to their emotions somehow. Facts, reason, and evidence don't work so its all about Pathos rhetoric. 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

That is my goal as well. I figure if you want to reach people you have to appeal to their emotions somehow. Facts, reason, and evidence don't work so its all about Pathos rhetoric. 

 

No matter how good your rhetoric is, you're not going to be able to convince people against their biological self interest (in general).  Reason doesn't work on some people because they have something to lose evolutionarily from accepting reasonable positions, and their detection of reasonable positions and their volatile emotional response has been programmed into them by years of historical experience. See "Why People Aren't Rational"; recent video (it will explain way better than I can).

 

If they accepted reason, then they would already be flocking to this show and others that are based on reason and evidence. They're not doing it voluntarily, which suggests they will only conform when the consequences of not believing in reason and evidence exceed the costs of their emotional hysteria.

[dsayers]

I didn't say to abandon anything.

A fair point. However, if a person is willing to violate the property rights of others, it's of little value that they understand that it is wrong. Especially while they're also so busy telling you why it's right. So while I yield to your point that a person could violate the property rights of others while not intellectually having abandoned the validity of property rights, it's a distinction without a difference.

 

or you can join them in the fight against their enemies

This is a vague appeal to emotion and borderline poisoning of the well. I assume that here, "them" refers to people who find value in "Western civilization." The State is the enemy of us all. Joining the State (political voting) is NOT joining those who find value in Western civilization in order to fight against their microscopic-by-comparison enemy. I've already made the case that the State actively devours Western civilization and that this is a characteristic of Western civilization. This vague claim of yours here deflects from that. Is there a reason you cannot address the empirical evidence of this?

 

If other cultures were intent on replicating the freedoms we have, they would have attempted to do so already.

More vague, obfuscating language that anthropomorphizes "culture." PEOPLE are already the world over actively rejecting ideas such as genital mutilation and the ways in which the culture you fear treats its women as property. This happens in spite of the State that displaces the culture you fear, forces you to let it into your back yard, nourishes it, and adopts the tenets you fear. Fueling that same State actively prohibits your stated goal!

 

They don't want to replicate Western society - they want to destroy it. Dumb genes are in competition with smart genes, so obviously dumb genes are not going to be in favor of the free market and debate which naturally favors smarter people.

Especially when "smart people" grow the State, providing dumb people with a platform through which to subsidize their bad decision, and experience social acceptance of institutionalized violence. Again, your approach achieves the opposite of your stated goal! This is really important to understand because your words are the closest I've seen to somebody admitting that political voting is immoral, but so what cuz reasons. If your reasons are vague fearmongering, then YOU have a responsibility to amend or replace them.

 

By the way dsayers, since apparently you don't put faith or credibility in a guy who invests his life for reason and evidence like Stef

You poison the well with your use of the word faith. It is not a character flaw to lack faith. Also, your use of the word credibility is presumptive. I have gone out of my way not to talk about him because my issue is with the idea that violence is acceptable as long as we agree with how we THINK it will be used, and the fact that people are willing to adopt this specifically because somebody credible says it's cool.

 

then isn't it extremely irresponsible that you aren't running your own philosophy show? If you have reason and evidence better than is being offered here, then you really need to start a public show because your skills are desperately needed in the world. Limiting them to a forum really is actually incredibly cruel to the world.

Again, "limiting them to a forum" is presumptive. It's this lack of intimacy that makes your advice fall flat. By this I mean that you have made no effort to get to know me. In fact, I recall a time when in the shortest time frame imaginable, you went from delighted that we were FDR "friends," butting heads on a challenging topic, to regarding me as if I were a monster, with no direct interaction between us in between.

 

In order for somebody's advice to be beneficial, they have to understand what a person's goals are. What their experiences are. Did you know that in the past year, I've stood on the highest peaks as well as plunged to the greatest depths? My life was destroyed and I've been battling back from hell/ground zero. You can't pour from an empty cup and yet I HAVE considered what you're saying. You don't know any of this and yet presume to be able to recommend a course of action by way of implicating an unchosen positive obligation. It's a shame too because this is good advice and yet your method of delivery couldn't possible be effective with most.

 

Which is incredible when you consider that this is exactly what you're trying to argue for in order to excuse functionally abandoning one's values and principled conclusions!

 

No matter how good your rhetoric is, you're not going to be able to convince people against their biological self interest (in general).  Reason doesn't work on some people because they have something to lose evolutionarily from accepting reasonable positions, and their detection of reasonable positions and their volatile emotional response has been programmed into them by years of historical experience.

This was true of slavery too. And then it wasn't. Thanks to the people who stood steadfast on principles, unwilling to yield to such temporary opposition. I understand these ideas BECAUSE of the man you have faith in. The most amazing person I've ever known, I was only able to attract and connect with because of the ways I've remained virtuous in the face of social adversity. We're the alpha heroes doing the heavy lifting not because it's easy, but because it's the right thing to do. Try as you may, you cannot stop the truth. It's unfortunate that you're surrounded by enough of an echo chamber that you have the luxury of shirking this responsibility of yours!

[NotDarkYet]

1.  You pay your taxes. 

 

You could find a way to not pay taxes.  There are ways.

 

But no.  You choose to negotiate with the thugs...to keep some semblance of freedom.  

 

Just like the voters.

 

It's fine.

 

We are NOT the bad guys.

 

----

 

2.  Your argument is voting can never increase freedom.  That is demonstrably false.  Voting will never give us 100% freedom - true by definition.  But it can bring relative freedom at certain moments.  

 

A vote to decriminalize drugs IS a vote for less violence - for example.

 

Also, State succession is another example.

 

----

 

3.  A person can bring more freedom into the world (Stef for example) who also votes.  If a voter can bring more freedom to the world than they take out - I would not call them a moral monster.  Let's spend time yelling at other people.

 

---

 

On a personal note:  My instincts say that you've drawn some very stark lines in the sand with somebody important in your life - and now, you've fighting the possibility that you've verbally attacked somebody who didn't quite deserve it.  Now you've got to defend yourself.

 

But I could be wrong.

[Guest Gee]

... I suggest reading Stefan Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" ... The arguments are so easy to grasp children understand them ... If mature adults cannot wrap their minds around the concept ... We may as well just nuke everything ...

[dsayers]

1.  You pay your taxes. 

"Rawk! You pay your taxes, hypocrite! *whistle*" The State threatens you with violence if you do not pay your taxes. Same as EVERY SINGLE OTHER TIME this non-argument gets carted out by parrots who reject their own capacity for error. Don't waste my time.

[Tyler H]

The state says pay up or we impose a negative. Payment guarantees relief from the imposed negative.

 

There is no such agreement with voting for a politician, no way to guarantee relief for an imposed negative, nor knowledge of what that negative will be, nor knowledge of what consequences the action of voting will have in ameliorating or exacerbating negative consequences either the ourselves or others.

 

I understand the argument that they both support and perpetuate the state, but it is my argument that the absence of knowledge and presence of choice in regards to voting makes us ethically liable where the presence of knowledge and absence of choice in regards to taxes relieves us of moral responsibility.

[NotDarkYet]

"Rawk! You pay your taxes, hypocrite! *whistle*" The State threatens you with violence if you do not pay your taxes. Same as EVERY SINGLE OTHER TIME this non-argument gets carted out by parrots who reject their own capacity for error. Don't waste my time.

 

1.  We do not have to pay our taxes:  

 

There are lifestyles that allow you to not contribute to the state:  https://steemit.com/freeliving/@staatenlos/the-secret-to-live-tax-free-the-perpetual-traveling-lifestyle

 

You bargain with the state.  Just like me.

 

2. Voting can bring relative freedom in specific scenarios:  Legalizing drugs.  School vouchers.  State choice.  To continue imprisoning drug users when you had the ability to vote against it - is a strange form of "assistance" to these victims.

 

3.  No,  I am not 'liable' for what some politician does that wasn't stated in his platform.

 

---

 

The tanks of state are rolling over my legs - I don't feel guilty for begging them to not hit my vital organs.  It's worth a shot.

[IsaacGage860]

 

... I suggest reading Stefan Molyneux's "Universally Preferable Behaviour: A Rational Proof of Secular Ethics" ... The arguments are so easy to grasp children understand them ... If mature adults cannot wrap their minds around the concept ... We may as well just nuke everything ...

 

Well way to take that out of context and not understand the shock factor. The arguments are so easy that children understand them early on in their development. Children have quite anarchic tendencies which are beaten and emotionally manipulated out of them as they attend the 12-16 years of public school indoctrination and proselyztizaition of their minds into embracing the state. If mature adults cannot understand the concept of the NAP and peaceful parenting then there's not much point in continuing the human experience now is there? I mean if you people are just going to be Darwin Nihilists and proclaim biological reality as an excuse to not stick steadfast to principles then why have them at all? What is there left to defend? 

[Matthew Ed Moran]

The state says pay up or we impose a negative. Payment guarantees relief from the imposed negative.

 

It doesn't necessarily guarantee any kind of future safety, even for the person paying the taxes (they can still come after you; the IRS targeting groups is just one example).

 

Second, paying taxes does facilitate the state's access to resources. Giving the state resources is definitely not a positive thing except for the people on the receiving end. The resources will be used to kill innocents, jail others for victimless crimes, waste capital that could be used to feed the poor, etc. So paying for relief is not guaranteed, and it is only relief in a particular aspect.

 

Paying taxes (and on occasion political advocacy) is a cost/benefit calculation between doing what is necessary to survive in the system, so that you can fight it over a longer period of time.

 

The only way I can see the case that voting (or advocating for voting) is unethical, is if you're severely uninformed or you're supporting the worse candidate for freedom. If there is no difference between the candidates, then it's hard to say a person is responsible for anything other than wasting time that could be better spent.

[dsayers]

1.  We do not have to pay our taxes

Not the point. The immorality that taxes fund accrues to the ones doing the threatening. Voters (in the US) are under no such threat, so their immorality accrues to them.

 

2. Voting can bring relative freedom in specific scenarios:  Legalizing drugs.  School vouchers.  State choice.  To continue imprisoning drug users when you had the ability to vote against it - is a strange form of "assistance" to these victims.

I've noticed that when cornered, pro-voters will sometimes shift away from rulers to issues. It's a demonstration that they accept that their position is flawed, but lack the humility to admit it even to themselves consciously.

 

The context of the discussion is choosing a ruler. Even if that ruler decides to no longer lock up people for having a plant, they're still going to violate property rights to the tune of 300 million. You know this, you inflict them onto those 300 million, you are morally responsible for this.

 

 

It doesn't necessarily guarantee any kind of future safety, even for the person paying the taxes (they can still come after you; the IRS targeting groups is just one example).

 

Second, paying taxes does facilitate the state's access to resources. Giving the state resources is definitely not a positive thing except for the people on the receiving end. The resources will be used to kill innocents, jail others for victimless crimes, waste capital that could be used to feed the poor, etc. So paying for relief is not guaranteed, and it is only relief in a particular aspect.

 

Paying taxes (and on occasion political advocacy) is a cost/benefit calculation between doing what is necessary to survive in the system, so that you can fight it over a longer period of time.

All of this is true. However, none of it changes the fact that by inflicting a credible threat, those doing the threatening are taking moral responsibility away from their victims (by force) onto themselves.

 

The only way I can see the case that voting (or advocating for voting) is unethical, is if you're severely uninformed or you're supporting the worse candidate for freedom.

Worse is subjective, yet was used as if objective. People have experiences and perspectives. If a woman wants "free" birth control, she might choose the left candidate for example. Both will violate property rights and therefore both are incompatible with freedom.

 

If there is no difference between the candidates, then it's hard to say a person is responsible for anything other than wasting time that could be better spent.

If a person could punch you so hard that it knocks you unconscious or could kick you so hard it knocks you unconscious, the fact that the harm is comparable does nothing to alter the moral identity of the behavior. Credible threat inflicted against those who do not consent is what makes political voting immoral.

 

It's also NOT just a waste of time. The State doesn't exist. It's believed to, which means the lifeblood of the State is its perceived legitimacy. Political voting adds to this. I've made this case numerous times. Would you care to refute it by way of logic, reason, and evidence? Saying "I accept these chains" is not at all just wasting time.

 

[Jot]

 

 

If we suppose for a moment that the self-defense argument in regards to voting is valid and sound (when it comes to this election), would this cause you to turn your position to 180 degrees and say that voting Trump was a wise act? Would you have encouraged voting in that case?

 

 

I raised this question because this is where I think you fundamentally differ from FDR's Trump supporters, they argue that voting Trump was self-defence and you argue that voting cannot be self-defence.

[Tyler H]

If we suppose for a moment that the self-defense argument in regards to voting is valid and sound (when it comes to this election), would this cause you to turn your position to 180 degrees and say that voting Trump was a wise act? Would you have encouraged voting in that case?

 

 

I raised this question because this is where I think you fundamentally differ from FDR's Trump supporters, they argue that voting Trump was self-defence and you argue that voting cannot be self-defence.

For me, I have some weakness for the self defense argument. I've made the argument against it before based on the fact that you are unleashing an unknown amount of force (that certainly isn't 0) on unknown targets (innocent or guilty) with an unknown outcome of whether or not you'll actually defend yourself. I think this nullifies the use of voting (for rulers) as a proper tool for self defense, however if this is the case then the against me argument should be applied to pro-Trump anarchists.... hence my emotional weakness to find a way to accept the self defense argument and my concomitant fervor in attempting to change the minds of people I wish to retain in my life.

[dsayers]

If we suppose for a moment that the self-defense argument in regards to voting is valid and sound (when it comes to this election), would this cause you to turn your position to 180 degrees and say that voting Trump was a wise act? Would you have encouraged voting in that case?

I'm a strike at the root kind of guy. So peaceful parenting and self-knowledge are the acts of self-defense that would save us from State created ills. Why do you ask? I'm curious because I don't recall you asking the FDR Trump supporters how their position might be altered if self-defense isn't an accurate description. Despite the fact that I've made the case and they've made the appeals to emotion.

[Jot]

I'm a strike at the root kind of guy. So peaceful parenting and self-knowledge are the acts of self-defense that would save us from State created ills.

 

They would definetly accomplish that but I am actually not sure what your postion is here. So given that we momentarly assumed that voting could be considered self-defense under certain cirumstances, would you have still encouraged people not to vote in this election even though you would not had had any moral problem with it? 

 

Why do you ask? I'm curious because I don't recall you asking the FDR Trump supporters how their position might be altered if self-defense isn't an accurate description. Despite the fact that I've made the case and they've made the appeals to emotion.

 

The topic of this election has never been of much interest to me, have heard couple of snippets from Stefan here and there and skimmed through couple of these threads but since it is so disconnected from my political (due to the region I live in) and emotional reality I did not find it of enough value to make me dvelve deep into the topic. 

 

I asked you because I mostly read your comments on these threads and also you have been the singular most energetic voice against this voting campaign here on FDR and it is much more practical to ask you than to go after dozens of guys who supported the idea of voting. 

 

Of course if I will reach the conclusion that voting can not be considered self-defense then I will focus on challenging the pro-voting camp.

 

[dsayers]

 

So given that we momentarly assumed that voting could be considered self-defense under certain cirumstances, would you have still encouraged people not to vote in this election even though you would not had had any moral problem with it? 

 

This is difficult to answer. It's not that I'm not capable of imagining a square triangle for the sake of argument, but you're asking me to entertain a notion that is the opposite of reality. Choosing to be enslaved to protect one's self?

 

I will say this: It wasn't until after the election that I had realized that political voting was in fact immoral. Prior to that, one of my largest motivations was that people who accept property rights were rejecting property rights. That people who had the tools to be free were refusing to be free within their own mind.

 

Also, as I said, I'm a strike at the root kind of guy. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So I would still focus on addressing the problem rather than chasing after one symptom. At the same time, I would never suggest somebody not defend themselves. It's just that voters are engaging in a behavior that forces 300 million to one to have to defend themselves, so...

 

Does that help at all? I still don't see the value in the question to be honest.

 

I asked you because I mostly read your comments on these threads and also you have been the singular most energetic voice against this voting campaign here on FDR and it is much more practical to ask you than to go after dozens of guys who supported the idea of voting. 

 

Of course if I will reach the conclusion that voting can not be considered self-defense then I will focus on challenging the pro-voting camp.

 

Thank you for clarifying. I wonder why you said "if." If you're read my posts, have you also read my articles on Steemit? The first one I wrote that was on the topic of political voting specifically addressed the self-defense claim. The bottom line being that 300 million to 1 is not proportionate and that like a missile or a bomb, you cannot control the yield, which also makes it disproportionate. I defend myself from the State by helping people to wake up to the reality that there is no State. There's just adults playing make believe, stealing, assaulting, raping, and murdering people in the name of the State and they only get away with it BECAUSE people believe it's real, just, noble, etc.

[jpahmad]

dsayers has a mental block when it comes to recognizing that one does not have to participate in states revenue collecting system.  

[dsayers]

one does not have to participate in states revenue collecting system.  

...under threat of violence. Which makes it different from political voting. Which was what I had said. And without the juvenile, 3rd person, passive-aggressive snark because that's one of the benefits of speaking the truth instead of sophist attempts to wriggle out of my own immorality: you don't need to be emotionally offended in somebody challenging your position. Have a nice day!

[Jot]

This is difficult to answer. It's not that I'm not capable of imagining a square triangle for the sake of argument, but you're asking me to entertain a notion that is the opposite of reality.

 

Actually it is impossible to imagine a square triangle (otherwise you would have been able to draw it) or any other logical contradiction. 

 

And I am aware of the fact that from your perspective imagining voting as not immoral is not diffrent from having to imagine than theft or rape is not immoral, thus it must literally be impossible for you to imagine that voting could be moral since if this were not the case you would have to do away with logical principles and I am not even sure this is even possible.

 

So of course if you KNOW (meaning that you can put forward an irrefutable proof of the fact that voting is intrinsically immoral) then what I asked you to do is non sense because one cannot go outside logic and entertain illogical things.

 

My exercise of imagination was forwarded within the premise that until that point you could not acctually prove that voting is immoral. ( I still have to review your proof on this)

 

 

Choosing to be enslaved to protect one's self?

 

I am sure you have encountered this counter-argument already but since on a rapid evaluation it looks sound to me I will advance it.

 

Whether or not we vote as long as the State exists we are enslaved. 

 

So could it be possible to choose to not be ensalved? 

 

I will say this: It wasn't until after the election that I had realized that political voting was in fact immoral. Prior to that, one of my largest motivations was that people who accept property rights were rejecting property rights.

 

This looks contradictory to me...if at that point you did not believe that polictical voting was immoral how come you were making the case that people were rejecting property rights by voting? 

 

Is it not true that if voting violates property rights this MUST mean that voting is immoral? 

 

If voting were not immoral how could its exercise mean a rejection of property rights?

 

That people who had the tools to be free were refusing to be free within their own mind.

 

Given that voting is immoral, right? I assume that by free within their mind you mean NOT caving in reason and logic in order to bypass the fact that they were both accepting and rejecting property rights so if voting were immoral you need to compromise your reason in order to be able to do it.

 

Once again, I do not see how you argued for this if at that point you  were opertaing on the premise that voting is not immoral. (am I missing something here?)

 

Also, as I said, I'm a strike at the root kind of guy. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So I would still focus on addressing the problem rather than chasing after one symptom. At the same time, I would never suggest somebody not defend themselves. It's just that voters are engaging in a behavior that forces 300 million to one to have to defend themselves, so...

 

Prevention is better than cure that is for sure but if the sickness already exists and we are at the risk of getting even sicker or there is another option that we have good reason to believe it would improve the health (even if it does not cure it) and assuming that opting for that thing that reduces the sickness is not immoral, would it not be a wise decision to do it? 

 

Does that help at all? I still don't see the value in the question to be honest.

 

I wanted to see if your problem was solely a moral one or if in spite of the moral issue you still thought that partaking in this elction cycle and voting Trump was still a bad decsion. 

 

The bottom line being that 300 million to 1 is not proportionate and that like a missile or a bomb, you cannot control the yield, which also makes it disproportionate. I defend myself from the State by helping people to wake up to the reality that there is no State. There's just adults playing make believe, stealing, assaulting, raping, and murdering people in the name of the State and they only get away with it BECAUSE people believe it's real, just, noble, etc.

 

Thanks for pointing me to the argument. I will have to have a deeper look and evaluate the argument before commenting on it.

[Jot]

...under threat of violence. Which makes it different from political voting. Which was what I had said. And without the juvenile, 3rd person, passive-aggressive snark because that's one of the benefits of speaking the truth instead of sophist attempts to wriggle out of my own immorality: you don't need to be emotionally offended in somebody challenging your position. Have a nice day!

 

If an action is immoral does this justify indulging in it even under the threat of violence?

 

Excuse me if this is a mischaracterization of your argument, that is how I see it though... 

[Tyler H]

If an action is immoral does this justify indulging in it even under the threat of violence?

 

Excuse me if this is a mischaracterization of your argument, that is how I see it though...

 

To me, it makes no sense to hold moral ideals above one's own existence because without that existence one has no capacity to be moral. Plus the coercive agent is the initiator of force without which you would never participate in the immorality he has generated, which removes any culpability from you.

 

If someone mugs you, he is responsible for the coercion and theft; he is responsible for what he uses the money for, not you. Paying your taxes under threat of force is the same in that regard. Voting is giving the mugger the gun and the social reinforcement that there will be no consequences for his immorality (to a certain extent).

[dsayers]

If an action is immoral does this justify indulging in it even under the threat of violence?

Where coercion is present, choice is not. The person engaging in the coercion is taking the choice away.

 

Consider a scenario where you work as a cashier for a convenience store. Somebody walks in, points a gun at you, and tells you to empty the cash register into a bag and give it to them. If you comply, you are not stealing from your employer, the robber is. I realize that literally speaking, you do have a choice. You can refuse, you can fight the robber, etc. A reasonable person would also comply. If that is the victim's "choice," they are not responsible for the consequences/immorality of that choice, because choice had been forcibly taken from them as evidenced by the fact that they would not have taken the cash were they not under the threat of violence.