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

[DaVinci]

I think there is a difference between self defense where someone randomly punches you in the face on the street and you punch them back to protect yourself, and getting into a boxing ring to defend yourself (assuming you are under some "Get in the ring or else" type threat of aggressive violence) where you might be defending yourself but also simultaneously legitimizing government run spectator boxing as a means for defense. 

 

To me, the core issue seems to be bringing people over to the anarchy/peaceful parenting/atheist message at an accelerated pace, which seems impossible given Stef's message that it is a multi-generational change. I don't think we have 500 years to convince people. We honestly probably have less than 25. It's not like all these terrible people aren't going to try to reclaim power after Trump, and you know if they get back in it will be back to business as usual and they will pick up the pace to make up for lost time. 

 

Maybe voting bought a couple years, but the strategy has to change or the game is over. 

[dsayers]

To me, the core issue seems to be bringing people over to the anarchy/peaceful parenting/atheist message at an accelerated pace, which seems impossible given Stef's message that it is a multi-generational change. I don't think we have 500 years to convince people. We honestly probably have less than 25.

Don't know where these numbers are coming from. The claim of multi-generational is referring to human acceptance of violence. If we could evaporate the State today, we'd still be living side by side with people who have unprocessed trauma. In order to reach a world the only reads of the language of violence in history books, we need to raise our children peacefully, so that they will, all the while all of us setting an example, encouraging therapy, etc. Legitimizing the State is not setting an example.

 

Maybe voting bought a couple years

With all due respect, I think this is intellectual sloth. Government doesn't exist (comprised of matter and energy); true or false? People with the title of politician, a badge, or a costume do not have super-human powers; true or false? Yet this minority somehow summons such a threat of violence that they are able to subjugate an incredibly larger populace; true or false? How is this possible? It's because people believe the State exists and these threats are righteous. Kind of like how when slavery in the US ended, most slaves didn't want to be free and actually saw slavery as a benefit to them.

 

To sum up the above: The lifeblood of the State is its perceived legitimacy. It only exists in people's minds. The moment you reach for the State, you are growing it. Growing cancer is not buying yourself a few years, it is taking years away. Now, these same people who claim they wanted to buy time to spread the word--and mystically aren't spreading the word at all--will be met with justifiable objections such as, "Wait, didn't you vote for somebody to rule over me? Didn't you vote for somebody to rule over my children? You're going to lecture me about how the State is invalid and I shouldn't hit my children, but didn't you enslave my children and perpetuate a system that stole from them long before they were conceived?"

 

Just as it's challenging for a fat person to sell a diet book, it's hard for somebody who is not free in their own mind and chooses to enslave 300 million people will have a hard time selling messages such as peaceful parenting and State immorality.

[DaVinci]

Don't know where these numbers are coming from. The claim of multi-generational is referring to human acceptance of violence. If we could evaporate the State today, we'd still be living side by side with people who have unprocessed trauma. In order to reach a world the only reads of the language of violence in history books, we need to raise our children peacefully, so that they will, all the while all of us setting an example, encouraging therapy, etc. Legitimizing the State is not setting an example.

 

They are arbitrary numbers, but I'm thinking it must be similar to accepting that the world is round, or that the Sun is the center of the Solar System. Just in this case the Sun isn't in danger of exploding if people don't get on board with heliocentrism. 

 

 

 

With all due respect, I think this is intellectual sloth. 

 

 

I'm just entertaining the idea that even if voting bought a couple years that it is a moot point if the strategy to bringing people to peaceful parenting proceeds in exactly the same manner as it has for the past 10 years. 

[Tyler H]

My opinion, people who don't listen through reason will only change through personal experience. I was told growing up you can learn the easy way, or the hard way. You can listen to those with experience, knowledge, and just authority, or you can go through the pain yourself. Since people who listen to reason are in the vast minority, I think a cataclysm is necessary for change, and at this point almost certainly unavoidable.

[Jot]

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).

 

 

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. 

 

So if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to kill someone, the act of you killing that person is not immoral because it makes no sense to hold the moral ideal of not initiating force against an innocent person if you would end up dead otherwise?

 

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.

 

This is the pet favorite excuse all abusers use, the reason I stole from you is because I was stolen from, had I not have been stolen from I would have never stolen from you, thus I am not culpable of stealing 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).

 

I am not sure how good of an analogy this is...paying your taxes is not similar to being mugged because:

 

When you are being mugged the threat is presumably immediate and unavoidable, your only option is to give the money on the spot or risk being killed, there is also no escape from the situation. 

 

However, the state does not hold his gun to your head 24/7 and demands that you pay him on the spot otherwise he kills you. You have plenty of time to leave the country and go to a place where there is no government. 

 

The state will not even try to stop you if you want to leave it but a mugger might kill you if you do so.

 

This is why I do not see how you are analogizing these 2.

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.

 

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

 

As you pointed out later choice is present even in the face of coercion. 

 

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.

 

Tyler H made the same analogy, I will copy paste the response I gave to him where I expressed why I do not think the State is analogous to a mugger.

 

Paying your taxes is not similar to being mugged because:

 

When you are being mugged the threat is presumably immediate and unavoidable, your only option is to give the money on the spot or risk being killed, there is also no escape from the situation. 

 

However, the state does not hold his gun to your head 24/7 and demands that you pay him on the spot otherwise he kills you. You have plenty of time to leave the country and go to a place where there is no government. 

 

The state will not even try to stop you if you want to leave it but a mugger might kill you if you do so.

[D-Light]

So if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to kill someone, the act of you killing that person is not immoral because it makes no sense to hold the moral ideal of not initiating force against an innocent person if you would end up dead otherwise?

 

The person holding you at gun point has initiated the use of force/violence. Your choice is one of self-defense or self-sacrifice. From a moral standpoint, you can't really be held responsible for the act of self-defense by killing another innocent person, even though it's a very disturbing situation.

 

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.

 

This is the pet favorite excuse all abusers use, the reason I stole from you is because I was stolen from, had I not have been stolen from I would have never stolen from you, thus I am not culpable of stealing from you.

 

That is a grossly unfair characterization. It is not a matter of two separate activities, but rather a villain forcing you to act as their proxy.

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).

 

I am not sure how good of an analogy this is...paying your taxes is not similar to being mugged because:

 

When you are being mugged the threat is presumably immediate and unavoidable, your only option is to give the money on the spot or risk being killed, there is also no escape from the situation. 

 

However, the state does not hold his gun to your head 24/7 and demands that you pay him on the spot otherwise he kills you. You have plenty of time to leave the country and go to a place where there is no government. 

 

The state will not even try to stop you if you want to leave it but a mugger might kill you if you do so.

 

I agree with this point here, although the prospect of leaving the country you're in to go to a place there is no government is next to impossible, and so the suggestion is more than a little disingenuous. The situation is more in line with attempting to choose which mugger you want to give your money to.

[Jot]

The moment you reach for the State, you are growing it.

 

This is not a logical axiom thus we cannot say that this must always be the case.

Each case should be analyzed on its own. 

 

Why am I wrong?

[dsayers]

However, the state does not hold his gun to your head 24/7 and demands that you pay him on the spot otherwise he kills you. You have plenty of time to leave the country and go to a place where there is no government. 

 

The state will not even try to stop you if you want to leave it but a mugger might kill you if you do so.

On what do you base this claim that the State will not even try to stop you? What do you think passports are? And forfeiture "laws"? And customs/border patrols?

 

On what do you base the claim that the State is not threatening you 24/7? When is there a window of amnesty? Suppose you "own" your own house and land. If you do not pay your protection money, they will take that way. The utilities you pay for are laden with State theft. When you go out and purchase something at a store, you don't have the choice of it not being taxed. You can't negotiate with the store to not take sales tax. If you seek employment, the very suggestion of being paid tax free could end up with you getting reported. That's what's referred to as slave on slave violence and it's this constant threat that allows a minority to leverage control over the majority.

[D-Light]

On what do you base this claim that the State will not even try to stop you? What do you think passports are? And forfeiture "laws"? And customs/border patrols?

 

On what do you base the claim that the State is not threatening you 24/7? When is there a window of amnesty? Suppose you "own" your own house and land. If you do not pay your protection money, they will take that way. The utilities you pay for are laden with State theft. When you go out and purchase something at a store, you don't have the choice of it not being taxed. You can't negotiate with the store to not take sales tax. If you seek employment, the very suggestion of being paid tax free could end up with you getting reported. That's what's referred to as slave on slave violence and it's this constant threat that allows a minority to leverage control over the majority.

You need to stop being so accurate.

[Jot]

 

So if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to kill someone, the act of you killing that person is not immoral because it makes no sense to hold the moral ideal of not initiating force against an innocent person if you would end up dead otherwise?

 

The person holding you at gun point has initiated the use of force/violence. Your choice is one of self-defense or self-sacrifice. From a moral standpoint, you can't really be held responsible for the act of self-defense by killing another innocent person, even though it's a very disturbing situation.

 

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.

 

This is the pet favorite excuse all abusers use, the reason I stole from you is because I was stolen from, had I not have been stolen from I would have never stolen from you, thus I am not culpable of stealing from you.

 

That is a grossly unfair characterization. It is not a matter of two separate activities, but rather a villain forcing you to act as their proxy.

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).

 

I am not sure how good of an analogy this is...paying your taxes is not similar to being mugged because:

 

When you are being mugged the threat is presumably immediate and unavoidable, your only option is to give the money on the spot or risk being killed, there is also no escape from the situation. 

 

However, the state does not hold his gun to your head 24/7 and demands that you pay him on the spot otherwise he kills you. You have plenty of time to leave the country and go to a place where there is no government. 

 

The state will not even try to stop you if you want to leave it but a mugger might kill you if you do so.

 

I agree with this point here, although the prospect of leaving the country you're in to go to a place there is no government is next to impossible, and so the suggestion is more than a little disingenuous. The situation is more in line with attempting to choose which mugger you want to give your money to.

 

 

From a moral standpoint, you can't really be held responsible for the act of self-defense by killing another innocent person, even though it's a very disturbing situation.

 

-> Provide argument.

 

It is not a matter of two separate activities, but rather a villain forcing you to act as their proxy.

 

Indeed. I think that I mischaracterized his position there due to me not taking his mugger scenario literally and instead thinking of it as an analogy to the state.

 

My apologies.

 

I agree with this point here, although the prospect of leaving the country you're in to go to a place there is no government is next to impossible, and so the suggestion is more than a little disingenuous.

 

I did not suggest that he should move to other country, my argument was meant to show that there is choice, whether good or bad...this was beyond the scope of the argument.

 

 The situation is more in line with attempting to choose which mugger you want to give your money to.

 

Irrelevant to my argument since there is the choice to go somewhere where there is no state, once again I am not suggesting that anyone should do that.

 

 

You need to stop being so accurate.

 

Why?

On what do you base this claim that the State will not even try to stop you? What do you think passports are? And forfeiture "laws"? And customs/border patrols?

 

On what do you base the claim that the State is not threatening you 24/7?

When is there a window of amnesty? Suppose you "own" your own house and land. If you do not pay your protection money, they will take that way. The utilities you pay for are laden with State theft. When you go out and purchase something at a store, you don't have the choice of it not being taxed. You can't negotiate with the store to not take sales tax. If you seek employment, the very suggestion of being paid tax free could end up with you getting reported. That's what's referred to as slave on slave violence and it's this constant threat that allows a minority to leverage control over the majority.

 

On what do you base this claim that the State will not even try to stop you? What do you think passports are? And forfeiture "laws"? And customs/border patrols?

 

Saying that it will not try to stop you was inaccurate indeed, sorry for that.

 

However, I do not think this affects my argument because the State offers you the possibility of acquiring a passport and all the procedures involving leaving a state (which are cumbersome but can be done fairly easily), a mugger gives you no similar choice. 

 

On what do you base the claim that the State is not threatening you 24/7?

 

I think this was inaccurate as well.

 

What I really wanted to say was that the State is not making an immediate threat, which leaves you the possibility of leaving it before he will come after you.

 

The State does not come knocking on your door demanding money out of the blue without your knowledge that they will come at some point, after repeated notices. A mugger does not warn you before coming. 

 

You have plenty of time to escape the State and go somewhere else before it comes for you. 

[D-Light]

From a moral standpoint, you can't really be held responsible for the act of self-defense by killing another innocent person, even though it's a very disturbing situation.

 

-> Provide argument.

 

I am expressing my personal sentiment against holding someone responsible for killing another person while under threat or duress of losing their own life. I consider the person threatening their life to be the morally culpable person. I would not consider the person faced with killing another to be morally culpable for murder... at most, involuntary homicide/manslaughter (3rd degree murder). I would not consider a person not under threat of duress to be in the same predicament, or someone who is faced with a life/death situation where the "force" acting against them is non-volitional (i.e., force or nature,)

 

 

 

It is not a matter of two separate activities, but rather a villain forcing you to act as their proxy.

 

Indeed. I think that I mischaracterized his position there due to me not taking his mugger scenario literally and instead thinking of it as an analogy to the state.

 

My apologies.

 

 

 

Irrelevant to my argument since there is the choice to go somewhere where there is no state, once again I am not suggesting that anyone should do that.

 

Where?

[Jot]

 

 

 

I am expressing my personal sentiment against holding someone responsible for killing another person while under threat or duress of losing their own life. I consider the person threatening their life to be the morally culpable person. I would not consider the person faced with killing another to be morally culpable for murder... at most, involuntary homicide/manslaughter (3rd degree murder). I would not consider a person not under threat of duress to be in the same predicament, or someone who is faced with a life/death situation where the "force" acting against them is non-volitional (i.e., force or nature,)

 

Alright, but this is not an argument...

 

Where?

 

Some places in Middle East and Africa I heard, some regions of Somalia I think.

 

Even if there were no countries there would still be the possibility of going into an unlived region where no one comes to you to tax you.

[NotDarkYet]

Murray Rothbard discusses the merits and morality of voting in a great interview from 1972:

 

NEW BANNER:  Some libertarians have recommended anti-voting activities during the 1972 election.  Do you agree with this tactic?

 

ROTHBARD:

 

I’m interested to talk about that.  This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that.  The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus.  Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement — if five million people, let’s say, pledged not to vote.  I think it would be very useful.  On the other hand, I don’t think voting is a real problem.  I don’t think it’s immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people.

 

Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea.  The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist’s position.  You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections.  In other words, you’re really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy — that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary.  And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing.

 

[..]...as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position.  They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state.  The state, however, allows you a limited choice — there’s no question about the fact that the choice is limited.  Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn’t try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions.  So by voting you can’t say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public.  It’s not a fully voluntary situation.  It’s a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can’t vote out of existence.  For example, we can’t vote the Presidency out of existence — unfortunately, it would be great if we could, but since we can’t why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people.  And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least.  So in that case why not make use of it.  I don’t see that it’s immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open — provided that you don’t think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! — which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote.

The second part of my answer is that I don’t think that voting is really the question.  I really don’t care about whether people vote or not.  To me the important thing is, who do you support.  Who do you hope will win the election?  You can be a non-voter and say “I don’t want to sanction the state” and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they’ll elect.  And it’s important, because I think that there is a difference.  The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance.  It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years.  So, I see no reason why we shouldn’t endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate.  I really don’t agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn’t vote: he is also saying that we shouldn’t endorse anybody.  Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in.  Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins?  I don’t see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us.

[jpahmad]

 

 The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist’s position.  You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections.  In other words, you’re really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy — that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary.  And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing.

 

I have been saying this same thing for a while now.  It seems to go over everyone's head.  I don't know how it can be delivered any clearer than it is above.

[dsayers]

However, I do not think this affects my argument because the State offers you the possibility of acquiring a passport

This is pretty disgusting to me. You're talking about getting stolen from as if that's a valid form of avoiding being stolen from.

 

The State does not come knocking on your door demanding money out of the blue without your knowledge that they will come at some point, after repeated notices. A mugger does not warn you before coming. 

So the State isn't threatening you just because it takes longer for that threat to come to fruition? Then once it does, if you're not caged, you're more heavily stolen from, with a blight on your reputation that will follow you for life? Where they mostly don't have to come after folks because they've already assaulted the minds of defenseless children, so most will co-operate out of fear or self-preservation? This is somehow better than the mugger who has to victimize one at a time, netting only a wallet, while understood by all to be in the wrong?

 

What is your null hypothesis? You seem to be going to great lengths to believe that people do not pay taxes under threat of violence.

[D-Light]

I am expressing my personal sentiment against holding someone responsible for killing another person while under threat or duress of losing their own life. I consider the person threatening their life to be the morally culpable person. I would not consider the person faced with killing another to be morally culpable for murder... at most, involuntary homicide/manslaughter (3rd degree murder). I would not consider a person not under threat of duress to be in the same predicament, or someone who is faced with a life/death situation where the "force" acting against them is non-volitional (i.e., force or nature,)

 

Alright, but this is not an argument...

 

Moral sentiments never are. All sentiments are non-rational. No rational argument can be made for them, only attempts at rationalization which ultimately fall back to sentiment.

 

Where?

 

Some places in Middle East and Africa I heard, some regions of Somalia I think.

 

Even if there were no countries there would still be the possibility of going into an unlived region where no one comes to you to tax you.

 

I see, so one can brave the privations of war lords, and other forms of near certain death, or one can escape into the wilderness in the hope of never being discovered and bothered, but somehow this is not akin to being held up by robbers or pursued by robbers or slavers. There comes a point where it's simply more prudent to deal with the initiation of violence with retaliatory violence.

[NotDarkYet]

If voting "legitimizes" the state, then you DO believe in democracy. 

 

If voting can never legitimize the state, then voting CAN be used defensively.  

 

---

 

If somebody punches a baby because it was put to a vote - don't blame the voter....blame the baby puncher for using violence.  Not the voter for using a pen.

[Tyler H]

I am expressing my personal sentiment against holding someone responsible for killing another person while under threat or duress of losing their own life. I consider the person threatening their life to be the morally culpable person. I would not consider the person faced with killing another to be morally culpable for murder... at most, involuntary homicide/manslaughter (3rd degree murder). I would not consider a person not under threat of duress to be in the same predicament, or someone who is faced with a life/death situation where the "force" acting against them is non-volitional (i.e., force or nature,)

 

Alright, but this is not an argument...

 

Where?

 

Some places in Middle East and Africa I heard, some regions of Somalia I think.

 

Even if there were no countries there would still be the possibility of going into an unlived region where no one comes to you to tax you.

Somalia is always the go to argument for the statist and a terrible example because as anarchists we reject the state because it is a coercive system, so the ideal place for us to go if we had a choice is not a place without a state but a place free from coercion - which Somalia certainly is not. The other options are Bir Tawil, Hala'ib Triangle, or Marie Byrd Land. Seeing that those places are either a barren desert or frozen wasteland they don't really offer much in the way of sustaining human life. Maybe we can start a bitcoin mining facility run by solar energy.

 

 

 

I have been saying this same thing for a while now.  It seems to go over everyone's head.  I don't know how it can be delivered any clearer than it is above.

. I found Rothbard's words quite compelling, I would be interested in seeing the post in which you argued this to see if I had read it and if so why it didn't give me the pause I'm experiencing now.

[D-Light]

If voting "legitimizes" the state, then you DO believe in democracy. 

 

If voting can never legitimize the state, then voting CAN be used defensively.  

 

---

 

If somebody punches a baby because it was put to a vote - don't blame the voter....blame the baby puncher for using violence.  Not the voter for using a pen.

The baby puncher takes courage from the assent of the masses. To make the corollary argument, instead of punching babies, you're voting for the rapist who beats their victim less than they other. The real question is, does "not voting" send ANY message at all to the rapists that their actions are wrong? Wouldn't a better response be to vote for the less violent rapist and then ferociously resist rape and encourage the other captives to do likewise, treating those who aid and abet the rapist as rapists themselves? Would not a peaceful demonstration backed by the power and will to engage in violent self-defense not send a stronger message? Without the resistance, the vote supports the rapist, with resistance, the vote is simply a tactic. Ironically, it's probably easier to rally people against a more brutal and violent rapist than one who is kinder and gentler.

[NotDarkYet]

The violence actor is responsible for violence - not the voter, or talker, or encourager.

 

That means

 

• A vote can never be a legitimate endorsement of violence.

 

And if you think voting actually legitimizes state action, then you are arguing against the whole idea of objective morality.

[jpahmad]

 

. I found Rothbard's words quite compelling, I would be interested in seeing the post in which you argued this to see if I had read it and if so why it didn't give me the pause I'm experiencing now.

 

It's right in here:

 

[Jot]

I think at this point it is important to have in mind the progress of the argument.

 

 

1. jpahmad "made the claim" that as long as one participates in the state's revenue collecting system one is also immoral and is not in a position to "call people out" on behaving immorally (voting) as long as one subsidizes the state when he has the option not to.

 

(At least this is what I extracted from here: (post 30) "dsayers has a mental block when it comes to recognizing that one does not have to participate in states revenue collecting system."  

 

2. Your counter-argument was that one is not behaving immorally (through subsidizing the state through paying taxes) as long as one does so under the threat of violence: (post 31) "...under threat of violence."

 

(This is what I wanted to challenge.

 

The fact that this threat of violence is avoidable (through leaving the country) and not immediate (unlike the case in one is mugged) one is still making the choice to partake in the continuation of the state through paying taxes when he does not have to since one could leave it (even if as a result of a cumbersome process).

 

3. In post 35 you made the shop lifter analogy, if this were an accurate analogy to how the state collects money then I would be proven wrong on the fact that state violence is avoidable, not immediate and escapable. However, if this analogy is not accurate my above challenge remains untouched. 

 

To defend my position in post 40 I made the argument that was set out to prove that your analogy was not accurate thus my challenge would still remain. 

 

Every back and forth between us since was debating the accuracy of the analogy.

 

 

This is pretty disgusting to me. You're talking about getting stolen from as if that's a valid form of avoiding being stolen from.

 

So the State isn't threatening you just because it takes longer for that threat to come to fruition? Then once it does, if you're not caged, you're more heavily stolen from, with a blight on your reputation that will follow you for life? Where they mostly don't have to come after folks because they've already assaulted the minds of defenseless children, so most will co-operate out of fear or self-preservation? This is somehow better than the mugger who has to victimize one at a time, netting only a wallet, while understood by all to be in the wrong?

 

What is your null hypothesis? You seem to be going to great lengths to believe that people do not pay taxes under threat of violence.

[D-Light]

The violence actor is responsible for violence - not the voter, or talker, or encourager.

 

That means

 

• A vote can never be a legitimate endorsement of violence.

 

And if you think voting actually legitimizes state action, then you are arguing against the whole idea of objective morality.

Objective morality isn't real for the same reason that subjective facts aren't real.

[NotDarkYet]

Objective morality isn't real for the same reason that subjective facts aren't real.

No. Morality is objective.

 

And voting doesn't legitimize the state.  

 

The state is illegitimate by definition no matter what is written slips of paper.

 

So, vote, or don't vote.  It's a practical/strategic question.  Not a moral one.

 

A man walks into your house pointing a gun and says "pick one...your TV or your stereo".  Are you telling me that sharing a preference to have your TV stolen over your stereo means that suddenly you are colluding with your own thief?  One of those scenarios will be inflicted upon me.    Not my fault.  He started it. 

[Tyler H]

It's right in here:

 

Thanks, I did watch it but I can't remember that argument so I will watch it again.  

 

"The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist’s position.  You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections.  In other words, you’re really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy — that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary.  And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing."

 

I think for people who "accept" the social contract and would willingly sign an actual contract that supports the system as it is, the state would be voluntary.  The problem is that the current system encapsulates people involuntarily who would not sign such a contract; as I'm sure you're aware, this is where our particular breed of anarchist take issue.  Because the state continually imposes edicts on people involuntarily who do not or cannot vote it can never be said to be voluntary.  The legitimization is illusory, but people falsely believe in that legitimization (what we are trying to change).  As long as that belief is held, the illusory legitimization has real life effects which is why if you cast your vote and put someone in power then you are somewhat fractionally responsible for their crimes, I think especially so if you have the knowledge we have.

[Tyler H]

A man walks into your house pointing a gun and says "pick one...your TV or your stereo".  Are you telling me that sharing a preference to have your TV stolen over your stereo means that suddenly you are colluding with your own thief?  One of those scenarios will be inflicted upon me.    Not my fault.  He started it. 

I think the scenario you put forward would be more accurate if there are two thieves and one of them will steal the TVs and the other will steal the stereos of everyone in the neighborhood, and the neighborhood gets to vote on which one of them gets the gun with which to go around stealing.  Add to that the fact that you don't know that all they're going to do with the gun is steal TVs or stereos; one may do just what he says, or steal both, or go around raping all the women in the neighborhood, or murder everyone's pets, or visit the next street down the road and start robbing them, leaving notes saying "robbed on behalf of (Your Street Name Here) St. residents" pissing them off and starting a neighborhood war, all the while what you do know is that part of the reason that guy has a gun is because of your vote.  

 

Do you want to participate in that or do you want say to your neighbors "Hey, I told you guys not to give one of those lunatics a gun, do you want to listen to me now?"

[NotDarkYet]

I think the scenario you put forward would be more accurate if there are two thieves and one of them will steal the TVs and the other will steal the stereos of everyone in the neighborhood, and the neighborhood gets to vote on which one of them gets the gun with which to go around stealing.  Add to that the fact that you don't know that all they're going to do with the gun is steal TVs or stereos; one may do just what he says, or steal both, or go around raping all the women in the neighborhood, or murder everyone's pets, or visit the next street down the road and start robbing them, leaving notes saying "robbed on behalf of (Your Street Name Here) St. residents" pissing them off and starting a neighborhood war, all the while what you do know is that part of the reason that guy has a gun is because of your vote.  

 

Do you want to participate in that or do you want say to your neighbors "Hey, I told you guys not to give one of those lunatics a gun, do you want to listen to me now?"

 

Nope.

 

Not my fault when other people use violence.  Regardless of whether I ticked letter "A" or letter "B".  

 

Human adults are responsible for their own violence.

 

A violent act is not legitimized (or de-legitimized) by my scribblings. 

 

I'd scribble "less stealing".   Otherwise, we get more stealing.  I have almost no control over the state.  Except one little loophole.  This is one way keep them honest...er.... at least keep their guard up.  When the right-thinking people quit voting - they'll have carte blanch on our rights.

[Tyler H]

Nope.

 

Not my fault when other people use violence.  Regardless of whether I ticked letter "A" or letter "B".  

 

Human adults are responsible for their own violence.

 

A violent act is not legitimized (or de-legitimized) by my scribblings. 

 

I'd scribble "less stealing".   Otherwise, we get more stealing.  I have almost no control over the state.  Except one little loophole.  This is one way keep them honest...er.... at least keep their guard up.  When the right-thinking people quit voting - they'll have carte blanch on our rights.

Do you mean conservative-thinking or correct-thinking?

[NotDarkYet]

Do you mean conservative-thinking or correct-thinking?

 

Freedom-friendly.

[jpahmad]

Objective morality isn't real for the same reason that subjective facts aren't real.

 

morality is by definition objective

[dsayers]

If voting "legitimizes" the state, then you DO believe in democracy. 

You're missing some steps as one does not follow the other. "Voting legitimizes the State" is an objective claim. Meaning it exists/is valid outside of independent consciousness. As such, it makes no presumption as to the beliefs of anybody, whether it is true or false. Which by the way, it is true. The State does not exist (comprised of matter and energy). Therefore behaving as if it does exist only legitimizes the claim by those who behave as if it does.

 

If voting can never legitimize the state, then voting CAN be used defensively.  

Even if voting did not legitimize the State, this doesn't follow either. You're either not aware of the counter-arguments or unwilling to refute them. Either way is intellectual sloth and/or bias confirmation. You cannot control the yield of your vote, nor is it proportionate to what you'd be defending yourself against. As such, it is the creation of a new, much larger debt. It is retaliation/escalation. It is itself immoral.

 

If somebody punches a baby because it was put to a vote - don't blame the voter....blame the baby puncher for using violence.  Not the voter for using a pen.

That's true! However, we're not talking about freelance violence. We are talking about candidates for political office. You KNOW they are going to violate property rights. Their running is a credible threat. As such, your asking them to do just that IS itself immoral.

On the off chance you literally have not been exposed to this yet, you can find the debunking of the "immorality by proxy is not immoral in the context of politicians" here. You can find the debunking of the self-defense claim here.

 

@jpahmad: Your initial assertion has been refuted. Your not addressing this is a form of deflection, if not willful dishonesty.

 

@Ferssitar: Your summary does not address my challenge. In order to avoid something, that something must first be there. Therefore the avoidability of something (after it) can have no bearing on its identity. A threat is a threat even if you can avoid it. Not that you have yet made the case for avoidance. People engage in agorism, and it's a great way to starve the State and avoid some of the taxation. People engaging in agorism are still under that threat. Also, it's already been pointed out that leaving the country is not a way to avoid it, because you must first engage in it in order to "avoid" it, which isn't avoiding it at all. Address these challenges instead of reminding me what took place prior to them, please.

[Jot]

This is pretty disgusting to me. You're talking about getting stolen from as if that's a valid form of avoiding being stolen from.

 

So the State isn't threatening you just because it takes longer for that threat to come to fruition? Then once it does, if you're not caged, you're more heavily stolen from, with a blight on your reputation that will follow you for life? Where they mostly don't have to come after folks because they've already assaulted the minds of defenseless children, so most will co-operate out of fear or self-preservation? This is somehow better than the mugger who has to victimize one at a time, netting only a wallet, while understood by all to be in the wrong?

 

What is your null hypothesis? You seem to be going to great lengths to believe that people do not pay taxes under threat of violence.

 

This is pretty disgusting to me. You're talking about getting stolen from as if that's a valid form of avoiding being stolen from.

 

The argument I was talking about was the one that challenged the shop lifter analogy being accurate.

 

The analogy would be accurate only as long as the state gave you as much opportunity to escape it as a mugger does, which I argued that this is not the case because you have the means of leaving the state fairly easily (even if cumbersome) without the risk of getting shot but a mugger does not give you that choice. 

 

So the State isn't threatening you just because it takes longer for that threat to come to fruition?

 

I never argued that the state is not threatening you.

 

I argued that the threat is not immediate and avoidable if one leaves the state. 

 

What is your null hypothesis? You seem to be going to great lengths to believe that people do not pay taxes under threat of violence.

 

Every aspect of the state is predicated upon the initiation of the use of force. 

Taxes are paid under the threat of violence.

 

I never argued against those.

 

My challenge to you was only that not all threats of violence are the same in respect of their avoidability.

 

I will give you the best analogy I can come up with at the moment:

 

 

Imagine leaving in a cage with a bunch of people. The cage has a door which is locked. Inside the cage a group of few people claim ownership over all the other people and also claim to own the land on which the cage is built on. In order for the cage to continue existing it needs money. The money is taken from people through taxing their labor. However, individuals inside the cage have the option of leaving the cage if they wish through acquiring certain acts and documents which can be acquired fairly easily.

 

Now, is it not the case that choosing to remain inside the cage and giving money to the rulers of the cage is immoral? 

Is it not the case that in order to maintain one's moral integrity one has to leave the cage? 

 

This is what I have been talking all along.

[Jot]

 

 

I see, so one can brave the privations of war lords, and other forms of near certain death, or one can escape into the wilderness in the hope of never being discovered and bothered, but somehow this is not akin to being held up by robbers or pursued by robbers or slavers. There comes a point where it's simply more prudent to deal with the initiation of violence with retaliatory violence.

 

 

Rhetoric is not making any arguments.

 

If you want to sustain that moving to a place with really bad conditions is the same thing as being held up by robbers present your argument.

 

Rhetoric adds nothing to the validity of your position.

Somalia is always the go to argument for the statist and a terrible example because as anarchists we reject the state because it is a coercive system, so the ideal place for us to go if we had a choice is not a place without a state but a place free from coercion - which Somalia certainly is not. The other options are Bir Tawil, Hala'ib Triangle, or Marie Byrd Land. Seeing that those places are either a barren desert or frozen wasteland they don't really offer much in the way of sustaining human life. Maybe we can start a bitcoin mining facility run by solar energy.

 

I agree completely but this is irrelevant to the argument I made. 

 

As long as there is any place one can go where he is not subsidizing the state my argument stands unchallenged. 

 

How bad those places are is a whole different discussion.

[D-Light]

morality is by definition objective

No. Morality is, by definition, imperative and therefore inherently subjective.

[NotDarkYet]

No. Morality is, by definition, imperative and therefore inherently subjective.

 

Am I objectively wrong?  Or just subjectively wrong?