Voting is immoral!, pt2. Trumpian Boogaloo

[dsayers]

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.

shirgall, I respect you a great deal, but I do not share your belief that less/softer rape is "more moral." Especially when you're talking about something that is literally mass hysteria. The people who act in the name of the State are people. They do not have special powers. If enough people understood this (which I'm certain present company is entirely included), there would be NO immorality accepted in the name of the State. You don't teach people this by playing along as if their power is real though.

 

I think I have made the case in my most recent article that voting for a slavemaster of others is always immoral. If you think I have not, then I would expect more than a claim of as much, such as a philosophically sound refutation. You don't know what the slavemaster you choose will do. This simultaneously defeats the claim of self-defense and your claim that doing so would result in a net gain. This, presuming that net gain is even attainable, which my first paragraph illustrates is not.

 

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.

Your analogy is not analogous. Stars and planets are not people. Meanwhile, there are people that believe (seems) that certain people have magical powers that allow them to get away with stealing from, assaulting, raping, and murdering other people. That is not an insignificant perception when you consider all the statistics for democide, people jailed, arrested, or even "just" pulled over for victimless "crimes." These things happen and nothing is done about them because so many people believe (seems) this to be righteous. And why shouldn't they? After all, the very people touting ideas like property rights, self-ownership, peaceful parenting, and anarchy are willing to toss it all out the window to pretend like the system is real, works, can help, etc. If the problem is that these people's superpowers seem to be real, the adding to it is the opposite of detracting from it. You add to the problem since the problem is perceived legitimacy itself.

 

Oh and you still don't own me. So even if you think my case is complete bullshit, you still do not have the right to choose a slavemaster for me. I do not consent!

 

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?

Anything to actually avoid considering a position that runs contrary to your emotionally necessary conclusion, eh? In your haste to deflect and appeal to insecurity, you failed to notice the performative contradiction as you literally just described somebody that would vote for a political candidate! You made my case for me!

[shirgall]

shirgall, I respect you a great deal, but I do not share your belief that less/softer rape is "more moral." Especially when you're talking about something that is literally mass hysteria. The people who act in the name of the State are people. They do not have special powers. If enough people understood this (which I'm certain present company is entirely included), there would be NO immorality accepted in the name of the State. You don't teach people this by playing along as if their power is real though.

 

I think I have made the case in my most recent article that voting for a slavemaster of others is always immoral. If you think I have not, then I would expect more than a claim of as much, such as a philosophically sound refutation. You don't know what the slavemaster you choose will do. This simultaneously defeats the claim of self-defense and your claim that doing so would result in a net gain. This, presuming that net gain is even attainable, which my first paragraph illustrates is not.

 

 

I did not claim it was more moral, I claimed it was a net gain in value. Morality is bichromatic, it either is or isn't, but value is a continuum. Voting in self-defense is not mass hysteria, literally or figuratively. Unlike self-defense against immediate violence, it can be cautious and calculated, too.

 

Is the good life for you living morally no matter what it costs? Or is it surviving? Or is it making your part of the world better than you found it?

[jpahmad]

 

 

Anything to actually avoid considering a position that runs contrary to your emotionally necessary conclusion, eh? In your haste to deflect and appeal to insecurity, you failed to notice the performative contradiction as you literally just described somebody that would vote for a political candidate! You made my case for me!

 

Lol.  In politics, coercion is involved.  There is no coercion to keep you engaging on the FDR forum.

[D.D.]

A trimmed (36 minutes) pod-cast diving into the psychology when posting on the FDR board:

FDR_983_Sunday_Call_In_Show_Feb_17_08_trimmed.mp3

[dsayers]

I did not claim it was more moral, I claimed it was a net gain in value. Morality is bichromatic, it either is or isn't

You claimed it was a net gain in value BECAUSE it was "more moral." As you rightly point out here though, "more moral" isn't attainable.

 

Is the good life for you living morally no matter what it costs? Or is it surviving? Or is it making your part of the world better than you found it?

You poison the well when you say "world better." It has been a point of contention all along that perpetuating human slavery is NOT good, let alone better.

 

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "living morally no matter what it costs." It's entirely possible for a person to vote because of reason X AND accept the fact that it is immoral. Based on the amount of deflection, ad hominem, appeals to emotion/authority/popularity/insecurity I've tasted, I think the question should be posed to those who are DEMONSTRATING that they are living not in accordance with their values. I have no emotional investment in "voting is immoral" being true. That's why all of my input on the subject has either been rational arguments, or revealing the ways in which the opposition's offerings are not. THEY are the ones telling themselves that they are living morally because they voted and will stop at nothing to preserve the cognitive dissonance that this is incompatible with voting.

 

I have made no claims of living morally (making your implication a strawman). My position is that binding somebody without their consent is immoral. A valid conclusion and a sentiment I was lauded over to great lengths prior to FDR saying Trump was cool. The variable isn't on this side of the table, my friend.

[shirgall]

You claimed it was a net gain in value BECAUSE it was "more moral." As you rightly point out here though, "more moral" isn't attainable.

 

You poison the well when you say "world better." It has been a point of contention all along that perpetuating human slavery is NOT good, let alone better.

 

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "living morally no matter what it costs." It's entirely possible for a person to vote because of reason X AND accept the fact that it is immoral. Based on the amount of deflection, ad hominem, appeals to emotion/authority/popularity/insecurity I've tasted, I think the question should be posed to those who are DEMONSTRATING that they are living not in accordance with their values. I have no emotional investment in "voting is immoral" being true. That's why all of my input on the subject has either been rational arguments, or revealing the ways in which the opposition's offerings are not. THEY are the ones telling themselves that they are living morally because they voted and will stop at nothing to preserve the cognitive dissonance that this is incompatible with voting.

 

I have made no claims of living morally (making your implication a strawman). My position is that binding somebody without their consent is immoral. A valid conclusion and a sentiment I was lauded over to great lengths prior to FDR saying Trump was cool. The variable isn't on this side of the table, my friend.

 

"Improving morality" is not he same as "more moral". Electing someone who will actively strive to stop immoral things has more value than electing someone who will strive to do more immoral things, no?

 

I do not think it's immoral to vote for someone that is striving to improve government by curtailing its activities as much as possible for that person to do, and I don't think it's immoral to vote for someone that will do less immoral things than the other viable options.

 

I admit this is the first time someone I voted for (for POTUS) won, even if that person did not win my state. So I'm still useless as a moral voter, even now.

 

As for living morally no matter the cost, I'm talking about abstaining from voting no matter what, even when it is possible to change things (and I admit it's far more possible to change things at a local level). The people that voted for me to be a Ron Paul delegate may have had a subtle effect in my state. The people that voted for me as a libertarian in SW Portland may have had more of an effect even though I lost.

 

You made the claim that the only moral choice is not to vote. I asked if that was therefore the only choice for a good life. I'm skeptical that it is. I offered alternatives. I'm sorry if that honest question ended up being a personal attack. It wasn't intended as one.

 

I have some theories were some government actions can be consensual. I would vote for them. People who voted for them would not be immoral.

 

I don't think anyone is claiming Trump is perfect. I think people are claiming voting for him was preferable to the other choices, including not voting.

[dsayers]

"Improving morality" is not he same as "more moral".

Fair enough. What then does "improving morality" even mean? I would think it would mean helping people to have a better understanding of what it means. We don't do this by perpetuating and participating in a system that is immoral. If "improving morality" was your goal, then political voting would be inconsistent with that stated goal, which was my position from the very beginning.

 

Electing someone who will actively strive to stop immoral things has more value than electing someone who will strive to do more immoral things, no?

shirgall, have you partaken of any of my arguments? In Null Hypotheses and Political Voting, I enumerated that your vote has no effect on the outcome, you don't know what they will do*, and that one person doesn't have the power to effect the changes you hope they will. Even if all that were not true, *what we do know is that they will steal from and threaten innocent people.

 

Up until Stef said Trump, he was pointing out that the only way to win at politics is to not participate. That you cannot change the system from within the system. Something I know resonates with you as you had once pointed out that if it could be effective in the way you imagine, it would be illegal. It's the circus. It's distraction. It's illusion. And so many who knew better fell for it mostly BECAUSE (return to start of paragraph).

 

I don't think it's immoral to vote for someone that will do less immoral things than the other viable options.

Will you say softer rape? Because you say this with the nonchalance as if "less cancer" is what a cancer patient is interested in. It takes less effort to say in your own head that humans cannot exist in a different, opposing moral category than it does to "tick a box".

 

You made the claim that the only moral choice is not to vote. I asked if that was therefore the only choice for a good life.

At the risk of picking nits, I haven't said, nor could I say that not voting is a moral choice. As inaction isn't even action, let alone binding upon another, it is ineligible for moral consideration. I have said that voting is immoral. I have said that it legitimizes the system. Not voting amid all the propaganda that you HAVE to vote is basically responding to somebody coming up to you and saying "Do you want to be owned by X or Y?" and you answer "GTFO." X and Y are only there when not enough people choose Z (themselves).

 

I think "good life" is undefined also. Regardless, I don't think there would be only one path. Nor did I ever talk about the relationship between voting and "good life." All I said is it was immoral. The ruler was probably coming either way, so if somebody said, "Yeah, it's immoral, but I thought maybe I could... [insert all the perceived benefits you've put forth]" I would at least respect their status as capable of rational thought. All I've seen when trying to discuss the topic here is emotional clinging and lashing out in an attempt to avoid rational consideration. Even in your case where "lashing out" looks like making claims that can't be true, such as knowing what a politician will do with his imaginary ring of power.

 

I have some theories were some government actions can be consensual. I would vote for them. People who voted for them would not be immoral.

Do tell of these theories of consensual rape. If it was consensual, it wouldn't be government. For even if they passed legislation saying I'm free to patronize Taco Bell whenever I want, but also am free to decline whenever I want," I still would have had money stolen from me to pay somebody to write that down and they're still going to try and tax my visit there, my transportation to there, etc.

 

I don't think anyone is claiming Trump is perfect. I think people are claiming voting for him was preferable to the other choices, including not voting.

I don't care what they're claiming. I know that he's willing to rule over 300 million people. I know he will substantiate a system that is not valid. I know that people who vote for him are willing to throw their neighbors under the bus to avoid having to interact with those same neighbors to try and come up with solutions themselves. He is a human being, same as the rest of us. Rate him wherever you like in your own life, but you do not get to inflict him upon me. I DO NOT CONSENT!

[D.D.]

I DO NOT CONSENT!

Dude, I'm concerned about you a little bit, my friend.

 

You've made your arguments on this board multiple times with condensed linked articles written by you, thank you

You've contributed >4000 posts (~avg 3.97 posts per day since active membership) and an established reputation of >1000 is outstanding!

 

I think it's safe to say that you've helped people and they appreciate you for that.

 

When it comes to making your arguments on this topic of voting - When will it be enough for you?

[shirgall]

... a lot ...

 

Not all candidates are rapists. Not all government actions are rape. Calling them all equivalent to rape is hyperbole that obscures the real choices that people are making.

[Gavitor]

Enslaving 300 million people

 

How does one enslave those that are already enslaved?

 

On a serious note I'm not surprised you're still at it, I admire your tenacity and persistence however its a shame your argument is based on a false premise and faulty logic. No matter how many people explain it to you, you will continue to repeat yourself like a broken parrot while ignoring valid counter arguments. You continue to repeat yourself as though that makes you correct even though the election is over and you are not putting forth any ways to actually increase freedom other than obstinance which doesn't necessarily increase freedom and in some cases can actually restrict it.

 

Why don't you call in already and have a formal (or informal) debate with Stef (or Mike)? If your argument has any leg to stand on then it shouldn't be an issue for you.

 

PS: in before "I'm not going to respond to your post because you said something I don't like"

[Three]

 

I don't see the point in stating the differences between heroin and kratom. Encouraging Kratom use as a way of harm reduction? That's supporting addiction. Moving from heroin to kratom? That's not progress. An addiction is an addiction.

[NotDarkYet]

Voting is morally neutral.

 

1. Democracy is invalid, no matter how many people vote.
2. The State is violence, whether you vote or not

 

If you believe voting magically makes the state voluntary - you're a Democrat - not an Ancap.

 

The effects of voting may be for more freedom, or less freedom. 

 

But the question is practical, not moral.

 

This "but you don't have to vote" argument is a complete red-herring.  It's not relevant to the question at hand.  

[Will Torbald]

Even if voting were immoral, the road to a moral society need not be moral itself - only effective. If the road to a moral/free society could be 100% ethical then we'd already be in a moral society, thus being paradoxical. The idea that the road to a better place must contain the qualities of the better place will only result in paralysis.

[dsayers]

I don't see the point in stating the differences between heroin and kratom. Encouraging Kratom use as a way of harm reduction? That's supporting addiction. Moving from heroin to kratom? That's not progress. An addiction is an addiction.

Analogy is not analogous for the same reason your last one wasn't. And is still a deflection from your claim that joining in a rape in progress isn't rape.

 

Which addresses"

 

How does one enslave those that are already enslaved?

 

Meanwhile, both

When it comes to making your arguments on this topic of voting - When will it be enough for you?

you will continue to repeat yourself like a broken parrot while ignoring valid counter arguments. You continue to repeat yourself as though that makes you correct

...reveal a bias. For FDR has made FAR many more efforts to claim that Trump/voting is beneficial, FAR many more efforts to reveal that political action is ineffective, voting immoral, and the State immoral than I have. Combined, I would say dissenters to my current position on political voting weight in about 5:1... Yet you address me. So it's not frequency that makes you anxious, but rather your inability to answer for the ways in which it challenges your irrationally held position.

 

Gravitor, saying something is (not) an argument doesn't make that true. This post alone has revealed the ways in which some things are NOT arguments.

 

Look at NotDarkYet. Every post I've seen him make on the topic is "If you believe... you're a Democrat" as if he's auditioning for the Blue Collar Tour or something. Never addressing any correction made or flaw in his claims pointed out. It's a very rigid demonstration to say the least. As is the fact that I've put forth null hypotheses that nobody has tackled, while those who support Trump/voting have offered not one null hypothesis, even when challenged to do so. THAT is all you really need to know about a discussion of any topic.

 

Even if voting were immoral, the road to a moral society need not be moral itself - only effective.

Thank you for your illustration. This is a great example of the mental prison statism leads to. You spoke like a true tyrant. To hell with property rights, it's for the greater good!

 

When you're dreaming, playing D&D, or watching a movie, there's no ROAD back to reality. You wake up, you decided your gaming sessions is over, or the movie ends. People do not exist in different, opposing moral categories is a true statement. To not pretend that they do is simply accepting reality. It's as effortless as making a decision in your head. There's no road. "Step in the right direction" is how they fool you into negotiating with them, letting them keep 80% of their theft/threats while you tell yourself at least it's not 90%.

 

Thank you for being the first person to say that you don't care if it's immoral or not. Probably the first example of at least feigning honesty.

[Three]

I'm an atheist in a christian country that is being invaded my Muslims, but don't expect me to side with the christians. Both muslims and christians are equally irrational. There are no important nuances that distinguish Christianity and Islam. Religion is religion, period. Muh principles.

[Will Torbald]

Thank you for your illustration. This is a great example of the mental prison statism leads to. You spoke like a true tyrant. To hell with property rights, it's for the greater good!

 

When you're dreaming, playing D&D, or watching a movie, there's no ROAD back to reality. You wake up, you decided your gaming sessions is over, or the movie ends. People do not exist in different, opposing moral categories is a true statement. To not pretend that they do is simply accepting reality. It's as effortless as making a decision in your head. There's no road. "Step in the right direction" is how they fool you into negotiating with them, letting them keep 80% of their theft/threats while you tell yourself at least it's not 90%.

 

Thank you for being the first person to say that you don't care if it's immoral or not. Probably the first example of at least feigning honesty.

 

I'd appreciate a rebuttal of the explanations put forth in the section you cut off from my post. Maybe it went over your head, or they were so advanced that they seemed unintelligible to you?

[D.D.]

...reveal a bias. For FDR has made FAR many more efforts to claim that Trump/voting is beneficial, FAR many more efforts to reveal that political action is ineffective, voting immoral, and the State immoral than I have. Combined, I would say dissenters to my current position on political voting weight in about 5:1... Yet you address me. So it's not frequency that makes you anxious, but rather your inability to answer for the ways in which it challenges your irrationally held position.

How do you know I'm anxious?  You didn't ask me.

It appears to me, correct if I'm wrong, that you may have some anxiety over others "inability to answer for the ways in which [your arguments] challenges [their] irrationally held position."  This is why I asked "When will it be enough for you?"

 

I'm here posting about the effects this topic has on you.

I'm focusing on you because you've made your arguments, rebutted others arguments, pointed out their irrationality, yet you continue to argue with them.

 

This isn't an attack on you.  You and I have some minor history on this board and I appreciate the help you've given me.

I thought I'd help you see the effects this voting topic has on you.  I thought maybe you have an emotional drive to post here; you wouldn't be the first nor the last.  Of course, you're not required to open-up about any of this and you're free to write me off as "projecting / poisoning-the-well / irrational / biased / a dissenter / etc."

 

Anyway, I just wanted to pop-in and convey my thoughts to you and now I'll be stepping out to focus back on getting my one-man corporation off the ground.

[NotDarkYet]

D-Sayers thinks voting legitimizes the state.

 

But voting doesn't magically make the state valid.  How could it?!

 

The State is illegitimate if... 

 

• 100% of the people vote, and if...

 

• 0% of the people vote.

 

I suspect D-sayers inflicted his wrath on some people (voters) in his life.  After destroying those relationships, he can't just turn around and take it all back.  But I have no proof of this.

[dsayers]

How do you know I'm anxious?  You didn't ask me.

It appears to me, correct if I'm wrong, that you may have some anxiety over others "inability to answer for the ways in which [your arguments] challenges [their] irrationally held position."  This is why I asked "When will it be enough for you?"

 

I'm here posting about the effects this topic has on you.

I'm focusing on you because you've made your arguments, rebutted others arguments, pointed out their irrationality, yet you continue to argue with them.

 

This isn't an attack on you.

I don't think it's an attack and I'm impervious to attacks that lack logic, reason, and evidence. What I addressed that it was singling me out. If your intentions were to draw attention to X, Y, Z, it seems rational to me to address them where they are, and where they're in far greater numbers. You're right that I did not ask you how you feel. It is my bias that irrational behavior is the result of managing one's anxiety NOT by way of processing it. If this presumption is erroneous, I would love to see a separate topic started on the subject as I have recently learned the ways in which I was conditioned to use judgement to isolate myself and wish to remedy that.

 

I'm an atheist in a christian country that is being invaded my Muslims, but don't expect me to side with the christians. Both muslims and christians are equally irrational. There are no important nuances that distinguish Christianity and Islam. Religion is religion, period. Muh principles.

Analogy is not analogous for the same reason your last one wasn't. And is still a deflection from your claim that joining in a rape in progress isn't rape.

 

I'd appreciate a rebuttal of the explanations put forth in the section you cut off from my post. Maybe it went over your head, or they were so advanced that they seemed unintelligible to you?

Ad hominem! Your position must have tremendous merit. If you'd appreciate it so much, why would you speak as if it's not there while carrying it along with you?

[A4E]

Dsayers. I don't want to, nor have any intention to attack you. But I would like to ask you a question to try to let out the steam of this whole situation.

 

Lets say you have a friend. He agrees 100% with all your principles.

 

An election comes up, your friend does research on the candidates, their history, what good or bad things they have done, which would be a good indicator of what they will do in the future. He concludes for himself that one candidate is on the satan side of the scale. And the other candidate has helped people everywhere, and improved his society's standard of living as a result through peaceful trade for decades.

 

Your friend gets scared. He is imagining the satan candidate getting into power. He still agrees 100% with you. -That participating in an immoral system will legitimize the system. (for the sake of this example, voting is immoral because it legitimizes the system.).

 

He tells you that he got so scared that he went to vote for the candidate that has done much good.

 

So even if he agrees with you, his emotions got the best of him. And he tells you all the reasons how he got scared enough to vote.

 

Will you be disappointed in your friend, because it is still just an appeal to emotion?

[powder]

If I understand the description of 'self defense' and the idea that it is an acceptable, even necessary, reason to advocate and participate in political action then why was Ron Paul not a good option?  Is the only reason that Donald is an 'outsider'?  As near as I can tell with my cursory glance at the policies talked about by both, Paul's ideas of getting the Fed in its place and pulling the US military out of other countries would seem to me to be appealing for those who considering a 'step in the right direction' for improving things if that is the goal? 

[Will Torbald]

Ad hominem! Your position must have tremendous merit. If you'd appreciate it so much, why would you speak as if it's not there while carrying it along with you?

 

You can't just yell "Ad Hominem!" after calling me a True Tyrant, but I won't say dwell on that. But no, you're not correct about there not being a road. All transformations have a path that must be travelled. If I declare the state to be illegitimate, it doesn't go away. If I decided I hated my wife, I would still be married - divorce is a long procedure. Desmantling the state is also a long procedure. Ancapistan is an incredibly unpopular idea, and no one will take to it kindly, not even minarchists. The transition from monarchy to republic had war and upheaval. All socio-political transformations have "a road". And while voting for less government doesn't turn people into anarchists, it increases the confidence in the private sector. And you need full 100% confidence in private enterprise if you want to have a society of full 100% private services. Anything that increases that confidence is "the road".

[jpahmad]

Here is that "road":

 

 

[dsayers]

Dsayers. I don't want to, nor have any intention to attack you...

 

Lets say you have a friend. He agrees 100% with all your principles.

Why do people keep using the word attack?

 

Why are you calling it principles or mine? As an objective claim, "political voting is immoral" is either true or false.

 

An election comes up, your friend does research on the candidates, their history...

Faulty premise. People who are free in their own mind do not seek out a savior. As such, they do not waste their time familiarizing themselves with would be tyrants.

 

Will you be disappointed in your friend, because it is still just an appeal to emotion?

"Appeal to emotion" describes the process of trying to convince somebody of something not by providing an argument. As you tell the story, the friend would not be trying to convince me I should vote or that it was okay that they voted, but rather explaining WHY they did despite knowing it was immoral. What you're describing is not an appeal to emotion.

 

I don't know why you ask. 1) I've already stated in this thread "The ruler was probably coming either way, so if somebody said, 'Yeah, it's immoral, but I thought maybe I could... [insert all the perceived benefits you've put forth]' I would at least respect their status as capable of rational thought." By the by, "capable of rational thought" being a requisite for anybody I'd call friend even at the FB level.

 

2) I've already demonstrated what I would do. When FDR'ers first indicated that they they accepted property rights and that the State is predicated on violations thereof, but they were going to use the State to beg for continued State, I felt betrayed. These were people that had previously demonstrated that they could think rationally, maintain challenging positions, and uphold integrity. When I saw them acting not in accordance with their stated goals, what did I do? I tried to help them to manage their anxieties. I tried to help them see the truth. I tried to help them understand what a colossal waste of time and resources they were engaging in. I tried to help them grasp how much they were holding human progress back by perpetuating something they knew could not be sustained and shouldn't.

 

With the exception of those truly willing to draw lines in the sand over being challenged, I haven't stopped caring or investing myself. Because I understand that I cannot be free--my future child cannot be free--until we are all free. And somebody who was presented a choice as to which make of car will run them over that actually participates in the false dichotomy is not free, even in their own mind. That's what I would do for my tribe. Even when they gang up to make me a pariah for accepting truth as true, that is what I'll do for my tribe.

 

Also, don't let the gallery get it twisted. The three highest quality relationships I've ever had in my life all came from FDR. They were attracted to me BECAUSE of my commitment to integrity. They've offered me complimentary feedback of the highest order. Whether to vote or not was never even a topic of discussion, or contention. Because the more self-knowledge you have, the more self-knowledge you attract. Not that it takes a high level of self-love to stop seeking external authorities. My point being that just because there are a vocal few here does not mean that all "anarchists/philosophers/empiricists" have fallen for this circus. They're as in disblief as I am that FDR('ers) can't see the truth despite being able to just one year ago.

 

you're not correct about there not being a road. All transformations have a path that must be travelled.

Tautology; Just another way of asserting road.

 

If I declare the state to be illegitimate, it doesn't go away.

If you tell yourself a mugger has no legitimate claim to your wallet, they won't go away. So what?

 

Desmantling the state

Is demonstration that you don't know what the State is. The State is the superstition in people's minds that some people can exist in a different, opposing moral category. Because they believe this, they behave as if it's true. Like by voting. Accepting the truth actively depletes from their perceived legitimacy. Google network strength. Google creative destruction. You don't need to dismantle anything that you can outmode. Nobody had to overthrow the telephone or the 8-track cassette.

[Will Torbald]

you're not correct about there not being a road. All transformations have a path that must be travelled.

Tautology; Just another way of asserting road.

 

If I declare the state to be illegitimate, it doesn't go away.

If you tell yourself a mugger has no legitimate claim to your wallet, they won't go away. So what?

 

Desmantling the state

Is demonstration that you don't know what the State is. The State is the superstition in people's minds that some people can exist in a different, opposing moral category. Because they believe this, they behave as if it's true. Like by voting. Accepting the truth actively depletes from their perceived legitimacy. Google network strength. Google creative destruction. You don't need to dismantle anything that you can outmode. Nobody had to overthrow the telephone or the 8-track cassette.

 

So what? I actually want the mugger to go away. Closing my eyes doesn't make the world disappear. Knowing that the state is deontologically immoral won't make it go away. If every civilian in the US or any other country thought the same, the state would still be there. It is a body of people really willing to use force against you. It is not an abstraction in people's minds when they have tanks and missiles aimed at you.

[Gavitor]

Gravitor, saying something is (not) an argument doesn't make that true. This post alone has revealed the ways in which some things are NOT arguments.

 

I didn't say "not an argument", also I wasn't making an argument. I'm simply pointing out how you will continue to behave, being the predictable person you are.

 

I must have touched a nerve because you're doing what everyone else does when I say something that touches a nerve. You purposefully misspell my name.

 

Have a good one dsayers.

[DaVinci]

 I think everyone here would snap their fingers and change things if they could but that's not reality. Neither is thinking that people will suddenly reject the use of violent force when they have been brined in it their whole lives. 

[dsayers]

So what? I actually want the mugger to go away.

And you think telling them "I choose you" will accomplish this? XD

 

I didn't say "not an argument", also I wasn't making an argument. I'm simply pointing out how you will continue to behave, being the predictable person you are.

 

I must have touched a nerve because you're doing what everyone else does when I say something that touches a nerve. You purposefully misspell my name.

1) You said "your argument is based on a false premise and faulty logic... while ignoring valid counter arguments." And then I said that these are assertions; Not true just because you claim them.

 

2) Thank you for appreciating my consistency, but it's not the character flaw your appeal to insecurity presumes it to be.

 

3) It in fact was not on purpose, but look how much you've derived from it. And I'm supposed to pretend there's no bias at play?

 

4) Projection of emotional investment to an objective debate.

 

 I think everyone here would snap their fingers and change things if they could but that's not reality. Neither is thinking that people will suddenly reject the use of violent force when they have been brined in it their whole lives. 

Are you coming into this cold, pretending that you are coming into it warm? Saying "Yes, 2+2 DOES equal 4" is even easier than snapping fingers. And my efforts have been aimed not to convert people, but to remind them of the very values they so recently espoused themselves. Which makes the 2nd half of your post making terrible excuses for them.

[DaVinci]

 

 

Are you coming into this cold, pretending that you are coming into it warm? Saying "Yes, 2+2 DOES equal 4" is even easier than snapping fingers. And my efforts have been aimed not to convert people, but to remind them of the very values they so recently espoused themselves. Which makes the 2nd half of your post making terrible excuses for them.

 

I'm not making excuses for people here. I'm not even really talking about the people here. I'm talking about society in general. 

 

I think you have some good points, but I know from my own experience the second I walk outside that almost no one else thinks the things we talk about here. To me that seems to be the main point of contention in this thread. That everyone else seems to recognize that there is a world full of dangerous people outside the realm of the internet and you don't. You might be right that they are not following their values but at the same time you aren't being realistic. 

[NotDarkYet]

D-sayers is right.  

 

Our freedom depends on

 

- 0% voter turnout...and then....

- ....the state voluntarily giving up its power as a result

 

Both are hilariously impotent fantasies.

 

1.  There will always be some people incentivized to vote, and

 

2.  0% turnout doesn't mean shit to the state....

 

Google it:

• If no 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).

BUT none of this matters:

 

The state isn't validated by your vote.

 

The State is invalid regardless of the arrangement of ink on paper.

[dsayers]

 

It's okay to say, "I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion. Tell me more." Nobody said anything about voter turnout.

 

If somebody came up to you and tried to take your wallet, bystanders might trip the robber, obstruct their path, tackle them, etc. If that same somebody had on a badge or arrived in a car that had stickers on it, they would be glad that your wallet was getting taken. These scenarios are mechanically identical. The only real variable is perceived legitimacy. If they see you telling the person with the badge, "I choose you to take my wallet," they would have absolutely no reason to question the validity of what they saw, because you were behaving as if it was legitimate, when it wasn't legitimate, which could be accurately described as legitimizing it, even though it's not actually making it legitimate, which was already explained to you.

[DaVinci]

It's okay to say, "I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion. Tell me more." 

 

No one needs your permission to ask you questions, and they don't specifically need your validation either. I've asked you several questions recently in several different threads and you ignore me.

 

I'm here to learn. Maybe my questions don't make sense. Maybe I can ask things in a better way. But if you have the answers to my questions and you refuse to give them, then how you can complain about anyone dropping their principals and expect to be taken seriously? 

[Guest Gee]

Anyone find a hole in OP? thx.

[Will Torbald]

Anyone find a hole in OP? thx.

 

I just think it's incomplete. "Expression of preference" doesn't cut it for voting. Preferences can be negative, but you can't cast a negative vote. You're also most likely unable to vote for your actual preferred candidate in the end because they can't win so you vote for the next best thing that can. Under coercion isn't enough to describe it since you're also voting to see who coerces you later. It's a complex equation in reality.

[Guest Gee]

I just think it's incomplete. "Expression of preference" doesn't cut it for voting. Preferences can be negative, but you can't cast a negative vote. You're also most likely unable to vote for your actual preferred candidate in the end because they can't win so you vote for the next best thing that can. Under coercion isn't enough to describe it since you're also voting to see who coerces you later. It's a complex equation in reality.

 

What is a negative preference?