Voting is immoral!, pt2. Trumpian Boogaloo

[Guest Gee]

Hey guys, though I'd give the voting is immoral argument a proper crack because it didn't get the full UPBing.

 

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

 

Voting is immoral!

 

Let voting be an expression of preference whist under coercion.

 

(I do not mean coerced to vote, I mean that voters are citizens and citizens exist in a state of coercion)

 

V = voting

P = expression of preference

C = under coercion

 

V  = P and C

 

V = True --> P and C = True --> P = True and C = True

 

So if it is true that voting is immoral, it must be true that an expression of preference under coercion is immoral, and it is true that an expression of preference is immoral and being under coercion is immoral.

 

If P = False --> P and C = False --> V = False

 

So if it is false that an expression of preference is immoral then it is false that voting is immoral.

 

If C = False --> P and C = False --> V = False

 

So if it is false that being under coercion is immoral then it is false that voting is immoral.

 

Thus, if it is false that an expression of preference is immoral or it is false that being under coercion is immoral then it is false that voting is immoral.

 

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

 

Secret determinism?

 

Putting aside being under coercion and focusing on the immorality of an expression of preference...

 

An expression of preference is a choice, so if an expression of preference is immoral than making a choice is immoral.

 

If making a choice is immoral then morality is only possible if no choices are ever made.

 

If no choices are ever made then everything is determined.

 

Thus, the argument that it is immoral the vote has implicitly assumed the validity of determinism.

 

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

 

Cheers.

[neeeel]

a problem I can see with that is that your definition

 

V = P AND C is not valid, in that you can have voting without coercion

 

so you could have V = P OR ( V = P AND C)

 

With regards to determinism, you realise that you are discounting the validity of determinism, without actually showing that its not valid. Determinism could be true, in which case your argument is valid.

[Guest Gee]

a problem I can see with that is that your definition

 

V = P AND C is not valid, in that you can have voting without coercion

 

so you could have V = P OR ( V = P AND C)

 

With regards to determinism, you realise that you are discounting the validity of determinism, without actually showing that its not valid. Determinism could be true, in which case your argument is valid.

 

No, only citizens can legitimately vote and citizens exist in a state of coercion (laws). I wasn't totally clear on that point, thank you.

 

w.r.t. determinism:

 

If determinism is valid then there are no choices and there can be no morality. Arguing something is immoral when your argument implicitly assumes that morality doesn't exist is a preformative contradiction (because you would be arguing that choice exists when you have implicitly assumed choices do not exist).

 

The UPB argument against determinism is the UPB argument against the proposed immorality of voting.

[dsayers]

Self-defense.

 

Done.

As if. Been debunked many times. Enslaving 300 million people could not be considered defense of anything, but rather the creation of a much larger debt. It's akin to dropping a bomb on somebody's apartment building for stealing a candy bar. You cannot control the yield. I do not consent!

 

You're still being stolen from. You're still being threatened. You haven't changed anything except to convince that many more people in joining you to legitimize, perpetuate, and inflict this on us all for that much longer.

[NotDarkYet]

Crux of the argument here:

 

• Voting doesn't validate the state.

 

@Alpha Male:  How could it?  A person who believes that voting "validates" the state is rejecting objective morality.

 

So vote, or not.  It's a strategic question.

[Mister Mister]

Crux of the argument here:

 

• Voting doesn't validate the state.

 

@Alpha Male:  How could it?  A person who believes that voting "validates" the state is rejecting objective morality.

 

So vote, or not.  It's a strategic question.

Yes I think that's true.  E-mails from Hillary's camp came out saying that they prefer people to be apathetic and disengaged with the system.  If only 10% of the population voted, would the State lose any power?

[dsayers]

You're a broken record.

 

You spend a lot of time typing on the message board - what are you actually doing in the real world to make a positive impact?

Projection. Deflection. Not an argument.

[NotDarkYet]

So Alpha Male:  Does voting actually legitimize the state?

 

Do you seriously believe in Democracy?

[dsayers]

You're a broken record.

 

It's a question

No, it's projection. If you were to address any dissenting argument, one wouldn't have to remind you of the ways in which your claim is false.

 

Polishing laurels is still not an argument.

[NotDarkYet]

The government initiates violence.   Not a person who ticks "A" or "B" twice a decade.

[jpahmad]

As if. Been debunked many times. Enslaving 300 million people could not be considered defense of anything, but rather the creation of a much larger debt. It's akin to dropping a bomb on somebody's apartment building for stealing a candy bar. You cannot control the yield. I do not consent!

 

You're still being stolen from. You're still being threatened. You haven't changed anything except to convince that many more people in joining you to legitimize, perpetuate, and inflict this on us all for that much longer.

 

dsayers. stop paying your taxes and maybe I'll take you seriously.

[shirgall]

Been debunked many times.

 

No, violence in self-defense is still violence, but that doesn't make it wrong. I have not seen the self-defense argument debunked.

 

For the sake of argument, if the self-defense is invalid, then we fall back to the doctrine of competing harms: It is permissible to do something wrong that risks or causes harm if, by doing so, greater harm is avoided.

[dsayers]

The government initiates violence.   Not a person who ticks "A" or "B" twice a decade.

An entity that is predicated on people pretending it is real/valid only exists because people "tick A or B" and other things. Also, A and B are credible threats, so "ticking" is making a credible threat against everybody that will be bound by it. That's aggression.

 

dsayers. stop paying your taxes and maybe I'll take you seriously.

How do you know I pay taxes? How do you know I have the option not to? How do you continue to tell yourself that something somebody is forced to do is comparable to something somebody chooses to do?

 

Typing chairsitter without arguments lambasts non-chairsitter who is involved with a production which has produced more arguments concerning this topic than anybody else alive.

 

Keep typing, really makes the world a better place! I hear less children are aggressed against when you type exclamation points or something.

 

(mic drop)

Still no arguments despite refutations offered. Just tripling down on laurel polishing as if that is an argument.

 

No, violence in self-defense is still violence, but that doesn't make it wrong. I have not seen the self-defense argument debunked.

 

For the sake of argument, if the self-defense is invalid, then we fall back to the doctrine of competing harms: It is permissible to do something wrong that risks or causes harm if, by doing so, greater harm is avoided.

I just pointed out how it's neither self nor defense. This is willful ignorance. Also, you cannot fall back to competing harms because part of the proof that it's NOT defense is by looking at competing harms. Enslaving 300 million people vs being stolen from/threatened. By my count, that's disproportionate 300 million to 1. Since you cannot control the damage the system will unleash, turning to it is reckless and aggressive... still.

[shirgall]

I just pointed out how it's neither self nor defense. This is willful ignorance. Also, you cannot fall back to competing harms because part of the proof that it's NOT defense is by looking at competing harms. Enslaving 300 million people vs being stolen from/threatened. By my count, that's disproportionate 300 million to 1. Since you cannot control the damage the system will unleash, turning to it is reckless and aggressive... still.

 

And yet you didn't point out how voting for me when I ran for office was a vote for enslavement. Not all votes are votes for enslavement. In fact, if you ask everyone who votes very few votes are votes for enslavement. Still, when there's a chance of reducing harm versus no chance of reducing harm, the doctrine holds that voting to reduce harm is preferable.

[jpahmad]

 

How do you know I pay taxes? How do you know I have the option not to? How do you continue to tell yourself that something somebody is forced to do is comparable to something somebody chooses to do?

 

 

 

You choose to participate in a system where you will be forced to give up a portion of your earned income.  You don't have to participate.  You can barter.  You can live off the grid.  You can get paid in cash and hide it under the bed like they do in India. etc..  There is always a choice.  

[dsayers]

dsayers. stop paying your taxes and maybe I'll take you seriously.

I'm so used to Neo-ing this shit, I almost forgot to point out that this is an appeal to insecurity. It's also bias confirmation when you consider this post.

 

And yet you didn't point out how voting for me when I ran for office was a vote for enslavement. Not all votes are votes for enslavement. In fact, if you ask everyone who votes very few votes are votes for enslavement. Still, when there's a chance of reducing harm versus no chance of reducing harm, the doctrine holds that voting to reduce harm is preferable.

I don't know the specifics of you running for office and I choose to discuss ideas rather than people and events because the ideas and events fall under the ideas. Also, the context has always been POTUS. Regardless of the context, if it's going to be binding upon people without their consent, it is immoral (the topic). Saying reducing harm is moving the goalposts and/or tautological from self-defense. Enslaving 300 million is not less harm.

 

You choose to participate in a system where you will be forced to give up a portion of your earned income.  You don't have to participate.  You can barter.  You can live off the grid.  You can get paid in cash and hide it under the bed like they do in India. etc..  There is always a choice.  

Saying I could avoid the threat substantiates the threat. No such threat is present when it comes to political voting in the US. Even if everything you said here is true, it would have no bearing on whether or not VOTING is immoral. How many times do you need to see that you cannot deflect? I was raised by the king of deflectors. I've had much practice in seeing through this stuff 

[NotDarkYet]

D-sayers:

 

If you believe voting legitimizes the state, then you're not an anarcho-capitalist - you're a democrat.

 

The state isn't voluntary - - - - and voting doesn't make the state voluntary.

 

 

And if by some miracle only 10% of X-location voted, do you think they'd give up power?  No.  

 

Let say NOBODY votes.... 

 

Google it:

 

What happens if nobody votes in an election?

 

If one bothered to vote in the general election, then the states would be forced to decide another way to chose their electors. There is nothing in the Constitution that says the states need to hold a popular election to chose electors, just that the legislatures must decide.

[shirgall]

I don't know the specifics of you running for office and I choose to discuss ideas rather than people and events because the ideas and events fall under the ideas. Also, the context has always been POTUS. Regardless of the context, if it's going to be binding upon people without their consent, it is immoral (the topic). Saying reducing harm is moving the goalposts and/or tautological from self-defense. Enslaving 300 million is not less harm.

 

I've given the specifics before, but the summary that I ran for state legislature as a libertarian who actively promoted the idea of voluntarism and limited government.

 

Voting for POTUS is not binding on anyone. The POTUS performing his (or her) job is. There is no difference between voting and not voting in this aspect.

 

If you vote for someone that says they will raise taxes, and they do, I suppose there's an argument there. Voting for someone who says they will try to eliminate government programs and who proceeds to do so when they are in office is not "enslaving 300 million people". There is a difference in candidates. There is a difference in resulting policies. There is a material difference in how voting affects things the more local in scope the vote becomes.

[jpahmad]

 

 

Saying I could avoid the threat substantiates the threat. 

 

I never said there wasn't a threat.  I said that you could conceivably avoid the threat.  

 

 

 

 

No such threat is present when it comes to political voting in the US. 

Sure there is a threat.  It goes like this:  If you don't do everything you can to get this person elected (including voting) then this (insert one of many bad things) will happen to you.

[WasatchMan]

So much time and energy wasted on debating the approximate 0.00000076923077% real world impact your single vote had on selecting the leader of a branch of government that makes up 1/3 of one government.

 

Why pussy foot around this issue?  The only thing worth discussing is whether political action, where you are stumping/advocating/selling the idea that people should use their 0.00000076923077% influence and one hour of their time to vote the way you argue they should, is immoral/moral.  If you can convince 1.3 million people to go your way, you now have had a 1% influence.  Get up to 13 million, you now have had a 10% impact.

 

Now if we are talking about that [political action], and you logically conclude, and make the rational case, that the outcome will determine the life or death of the most moral civilization known to humanity [western civilization], and someone is going to be chosen regardless of what you say or do [you have no practical chance of convincing everyone to suddenly band up and become anarcho-capitalists], than to me it is a pretty cut and dry case for self defense.  Since self defense is moral, political action is moral under these circumstances.

 

However, if you flip it around to the single vote argument, you have to ask yourself, is 0.00000076923077% real world impact worth the possibility that you aren't acting in self-defense?  I personally say no.

[dsayers]

 

If you believe voting legitimizes the state, then you're not an anarcho-capitalist - you're a democrat.

There's no belief here. The State does not exist. What DOES exist is a popular belief that theft is righteous when called taxation, murder is righteous when called war, etc. If you behave in a way that supposes that the State exists, you are legitimizing that belief by definition. This is a case, where is an argument against it?

 

Voting for POTUS is not binding on anyone. The POTUS performing his (or her) job is.

This is like saying that pointing a gun at somebody is not binding upon them, but putting a bullet through them is. While such a claim is technically true, we understand that the first example is a credible threat, and therefore still the initiation of the use of force. You KNOW that POTUS will steal from and threaten people, so asking them to do so is utilizing a credible threat. Immoral.

 

If you vote for someone that says they will raise taxes, and they do, I suppose there's an argument there. Voting for someone who says they will try to eliminate government programs and who proceeds to do so when they are in office is not "enslaving 300 million people". There is a difference in candidates. There is a difference in resulting policies.

How do you know that RAISING taxes is the measure? Is not taxation of any amount theft? You don't know what a candidate will or will not do, but empirical evidence says that what they claim they will do is no indicator. What you DO know is that taxation WILL continue (to be involuntary).

 

If "eliminate government programs" is your stated goal, then participating in the government program of voting is antithetical. That's basic math.

 

I don't see the point in stating there is a difference in candidates when what matters is the ways in which all rulers are the same.

 

Sure there is a threat.  It goes like this:  If you don't do everything you can to get this person elected (including voting) then this (insert one of many bad things) will happen to you.

Pretending to know the future. The only future you know for sure in the context of political voting is that whomever gets in WILL steal from and threaten people. Which your vote asks for and condones. Immoral.

 

to me it is a pretty cut and dry case for self defense.  Since self defense is moral, political action is moral under these circumstances.

What about the arguments made even right here that it is neither self, nor defense? Also, I don't think it's sincere to conflate political voting with political action. Political action is undefined, but when I hear the phrase, I imagine things like protesting, petitioning, writing letters, etc. None of which are binding upon others, as political voting is.

[Three]

Let's say I'm in a situation where my elders forcibly arrange my marriages.
 

They tell me I can either "choose" Sue or Jessica and it has to be either Sue or Jessica. This is not a situation of voluntarism.

So, even if I say I don't want either Sue or Jessica to be my wife the result will be that I will end up having to live with one of them and pay their bills no matter what.
 

Now, let's say that, since I'm going to be forced to live with one of these women, because under no circumstance will a marriage not be forced on me,  I decide to choose the woman I know is going to be much nicer to me.

 I choose, despite loathing arranged marriages, because no matter what I'm going to be forced to marry one of the women.
 

The incentive is there for me to make the best of the situation because if my elders choose the terrible woman I'm screwed, especially if I want kids because I want my children to have the best environment possible in that situation.

I could take a stand and say "I don't consent", but still, the end result is that a marriage is forced on me.
 

In that situation am I "legitimizing" arranged marriages? If I make the "choice" to marry Jess because she's way nicer than Sue, even though I am against arranged marriages, am I being a "unprincipled?"
 

No. Because there's no moral choice to be made. If there is any one to lecture in that situation it's the people who created the environment wherein those are the incentives. 
 

Similarly, the people who voted for Trump are in a situation of coercion. To quote Stef, 

Half of your property is going to be taken from you by force, your children are usually going to be forced to go into government schools, or you are at least forced to pay for those government schools, which result in massive amounts of indoctrination. Your property is not your own because you have to rent it by paying property taxes or they’ll take it away from you.Your productivity and your life and your labor and the productivity of your future life and labor of your children are all stolen from by the government to borrow money collateral from their future productivity. Your money is not your own because you can take it out of the bank put it under your mattress only for the invisible government elves of inflation to steal it from you repeatedly, so you are in a situation of near universal compulsion when you are a basal of the state.



No, we did not  "impose our will" on people by voting with the hope of better conditions, especially in the context of Trump vs Hillary. It's not like we are in a situation of voluntarism and then after voting for Trump we all of a sudden enter a state of coercion. 


To direct your moral outrage at the most reasonable people in this equation, the people who voted for Trump, while ignoring the empirical context in which many of us made the decision to vote for Trump(that context being a situation of open violence) is not just wrong like 2+2=5, but completely abhorrent and dangerously anti-empirical. 
 

[Guest Gee]

I regret expending effort to write op.

[rosencrantz]

Seeing the purity spiral turn is pretty entertaining. So the op had a positive effect.

[Guest Gee]

Seeing the purity spiral turn is pretty entertaining. So the op had a positive effect.

 

Then I'll call it a win, enjoy.

[Three]

If I give someone a million dollars to start a business and then he decides to start a business, he's *technically * choosing to start a business, but it's not quite the exact same thing as if he's starting a business on his own accord without subsidies.

 

Saying "well, voting is a choice" as if people are not in a situation of coercion, as if people are not bribed by politicians, as if politicians aren't putting forward policies which threaten people's livelihoods, (thus giving some the incentive to vote against such policies) —to ignore the empirical context in which people are making the "choice" to vote is anti-empirical and anti-empathy.

[shirgall]

I don't see the point in stating there is a difference in candidates when what matters is the ways in which all rulers are the same.

 

How has absolutism solved the problem here?

[dsayers]

there's no moral choice to be made.

Your analogy is not analogous. Because your behavior is not binding upon others, it's not eligible for moral consideration. It is amoral.

 

No, we did not  "impose our will" on people by voting with the hope of better conditions, especially in the context of Trump vs Hillary. It's not like we are in a situation of voluntarism and then after voting for Trump we all of a sudden enter a state of coercion. 

So if you happen upon somebody being raped, you can join it, right? Because your action did not take the person from a state of not being raped to being raped. No, this is not the measure of morality. The measure is consent. I do not consent to be ruled by Trump. So everybody that voted (for any candidate) inflicted him upon me by pretending that the entire circus is legitimate. You knew better and you did it anyways to manage your anxieties. And now you justify your actions, providing no arguments, just an explanation as if that is not already understood and/or is the point of contention.

 

How has absolutism solved the problem here?

Address the point of contention, then we can talk about other things. Otherwise, this just looks like deflection.

[shirgall]

Address the point of contention, then we can talk about other things. Otherwise, this just looks like deflection.

 

I did address the point of contention. Repeatedly. In many threads. No choice (including abstention) solves the problem completely, so progress beats no progress, even if other distasteful aspects of the system remain.

 

This is pretty much the same as my argument that one should never resist an arrest by the police in the street over a moral issue--one fights the arrest in court where it's less likely to end in immediate bloodshed. But one should contest the arrest in court rather than meekly accepting it and doing nothing. Using the court is not an endorsement of the court's authority and not fighting it in court will never improve a situation.

 

There is no immediate bloodshed in voting, and there is a chance to improve the situation. There is absolutely no chance to improve the situation by not voting. No one invested in the system gives a crap about people who do not participate.

[NotDarkYet]

Voting is fine.

 

Voting can never grant actual legitimacy to the state because the state is not legitimate by definition.

 

It's strange to hear a UPB-AnCap say that that voting is somehow granting legitimacy to the state.  How could it?  How could you argue against democracy then?

[dsayers]

Voting can never grant actual legitimacy to the state because the state is not legitimate by definition.

Legitimize doesn't mean make legitimate. It means to make the illegitimate seems legitimate. If you understand that it's illegitimate, why co-operate?

 

No choice (including abstention) solves the problem completely, so progress beats no progress, even if other distasteful aspects of the system remain.

You would have to define what the problem is. Government is institutionalized immorality that is perceived as righteous.This perceived legitimacy is the problem because it turns people who would fight/ostracize thieves into people who praise/champion taxation. Not playing along solves the problem of perceived legitimacy as much as that decision could in an individual's life. Making your claim false. Also, the fact that immorality remains is precisely how you know that "progress" was not achieved. In fact, regress was achieved as people who know better play along anyways despite their capability of helping others to understand the truth.

 

There is no immediate bloodshed in 

...stealing a candy bar. Guess it must be moral then. Or perhaps "immediate bloodshed" is not the measure of morality? Because I'm pretty sure consent is. I do not consent and yet you inflict this on me anyways!

I'm not usually one for quotes, but because I'm trying to write a book and have grown weary of making the exact same arguments to the exact same people making the exact same non-arguments, I'm going to bow out of this subject on FDR by sharing a quote that while not a proof, and likely won't appeal to the emotions of those emotionally driven, is still delicious to feast upon all the same:

 

"To pay taxes is not voluntary; but to vote is not compulsory.

So you tell me which voluntarily grants legitimacy towards government. Paying taxes when disobedience is met with violence to jail and confine or voting which gives you a sticker for participation?

-JLD"

[shirgall]

Legitimize doesn't mean make legitimate. It means to make the illegitimate seems legitimate. If you understand that it's illegitimate, why co-operate?

 

The "immediate bloodshed" is you getting killed on the spot for resisting.

 

Voting is like going to court. Yes, you are working within the system, but it won't get you killed, and you have a chance of reducing the moral problems in the system.

 

Not-voting is not like not-paying your taxes. They may both be moral, but one will get you killed and one won't.

 

You still have not proven that voting for a President is always immoral. If you vote for someone that improves the morality of the government that's a net gain.

[NotDarkYet]

D-Sayers, I believe the following argument is definitive:  

 

We agree that the state doesn't have actual legitimacy - - - and voting (or not voting) does not magically grant it actual legitimacy...

 

Now we are left with the (non-argument) that voting "seems" like it grants legitimacy to the state.

 

Well, the sun seems like it revolves around the Earth.  

 

As philosophers we aren't in the business of managing "seems" - only truths.

[Three]

You knew better and you did it anyways to manage your anxieties. And now you justify your actions, providing no arguments, just an explanation as if that is not already understood and/or is the point of contention.

 

 

Very deep insights into my inner world. You really know how to cut through the fog.

[jpahmad]

dsayers, why do you continue to engage with people you deem to be involved in immoral activities?  Don't you have more productive things to do?