on voting

I find it amusing that clinging to vulgar arguments somehow entails "living in the real world", and therefore necessitates clinging to irrational (& disproven) arguments.  Reminds me of pretty much every argument at The Liberty Papers, but I guess false realism has it's uses.

Isn't it essentially the same "argument" statists often use? That anarchists are all naive because in the real world we need leaders or rulers or whatever term they want to use.

GilesStratton:

Isn't it essentially the same "argument" statists often use? That anarchists are all naive because in the real world we need leaders or rulers or whatever term they want to use.

More or less, yes; it's in this aspect that I view Statism itself a largely conservative system, since it constantly denies all other alternatives via monopoly, coercion, puts "realism" as the reason why it's required in the first place, & deems it absurd that rulers (in this case, oligarchies & collectives competing for the levers of power) aren't required to keep things together.

Essentially, it seeks to perpetuate itself, and therefore, seeks to perpetuate stasis within the an inherently dynamic society, of inherently dynamic beings (humans). 

I subsequently find this ironic, since that would also mean finding liberals conservative for sticking with such an out-dated* system, as well.  Doubly when you consider the conservative portion of socialism (oligarchical rule) that many liberals (although not all) hold so deal.

*I say out-dated in the sense it's been proven to not work correctly & should be abandoned in favor of more efficient means such as the market, which the internet has provided an apt model for; not out-dated in the sense that it needs to be "updated" .

Of course, at this point, I think it would just be "too much work" for some to think of otherwise.  The lack of accountability & responsibility bred in a society ruled by "representative democracy" sure doesn't help that situation either.

An example of libertarians appealing to "reason" & "realism", would be the amount of rationalizing over Bob Barr at TLP, which is mainly due to libertarians wanting to appear "reasonable" to their Statist "counter-parts" by not being consistent (and subsequently, more radical), for the sake of attracting support from the political mainstream.

If Statism is "reality", as in, static & forever existing, incapable of not being replaced by something considerably better (but would require responsibility & accountability), as some make it out to be, then I'd rather join Major Tom in orbit, while those below snub thousands of years of biological & social evolution.

Last I recall, we eventually got out of the stone-age; eventually we will get out of Statism, whether via some critical mass of it's own doing, or by tireless efforts at chipping away at propaganda, misconceptions of alternatives, and the fear of the unknown.

Nitroadict:

Last I recall, we eventually got out of the stone-age; eventually we will get out of Statism, whether via some critical mass of it's own doing, or by tireless efforts at chipping away at propaganda, misconceptions of alternatives, and the fear of the unknown.

The state will fall of its own weight but to remain permanently dead we will need to educate "the public" or at least a significant number of them. That is why organizations like the LvMI and others are so vital.

katja328:

considering all of the offered options for the november election are horrible I am considering not voting at all. I just don't see who I could possibly vote for. Does anybody even read the write ins?

Am I, by not voting, throwing away my right to vote or am I sending a signal that I am really not happy with what's going on?

What are your plans for November?

I don't participate in the cess-polls known as elections because I consider my choices and actions to be my 'vote'! I have never desired to be 'represented', especially in the manner known as government which lets face it is hardly an organization set up to further MY best interests Voting in the government sense means that I put my stamp of approval onto a process and decisions that I DON'T want to see happen let alone pay for. And any one who thinks that a 'majority' can make positive changes is seriously delusional don't ya think?

Jain

 

 

katja328:

or am I sending a signal that I am really not happy with what's going on?

If you are making choices based on sending a signal, you're doing it wrong.  Nobody is listening, and even if they were, your voice would be less than a whisper at a rock concert. 

The only useful consideration is whether voting does you more harm than good, not the effect it has on "the system". I don't vote.

 

ryanpatgray:

I also think that in order to have any hope of convincing enough people to abandon the myth of the beneficial state ... Until we can get a critical mass of people on our side...

It will never happen. Thinking like that is putting your life in the hands at others, leaving it subject to the whims of popularity and collective movements.    The only reasonable course is to take responsibility for your own life, to make of it what you can in the given circumstances, and to protect yourself as best you can. Voting is a weak and misguided effort at that defense. There's nothing wrong with trying to change external circumstances when there is a viable opportunity to do so, but relying on them changing in order to have what you want and need will leave you dead long before you are free.  That might mean of old age, but not necessarily.

 

 

The Ron Paul campaign sent a message to me.  And it was received and embraced.

 

Byzantine:

How does one go about getting rid of the welfare-warfare state so long as it is allowed to enlarge its constituency?

You don't.  Nor can you stop it from enlarging it's constituency.  Faster or slower, it's growth is a given. 

Luckily, since there is no answer to your question, it's the wrong question.  The right question is:  How do I remove myself from the welfare system?  There's no easy answer, but it's at least answerable.

 

liberty student:

The Ron Paul campaign sent a message to me.  And it was received and embraced.

I'm betting that message was sent and recieved long before a single vote was cast, right?  What message did his actual vote totals send?

There's nothing wrong with sending messages.  The problem is when the message is "please" in regards to your ability to exercise your rights, and that plea is the strategy you're pursuing for protecting them.

histhasthai:

I'm betting that message was sent and recieved long before a single vote was cast, right?  What message did his actual vote totals send?

Why would we care about his vote totals?  I only care about his message.  Votes are not, and were not his goal.

histhasthai:

There's nothing wrong with sending messages.  The problem is when the message is "please" in regards to your ability to exercise your rights, and that plea is the strategy you're pursuing for protecting them.

How is this relevant to the discussion?

 

 

 

 

liberty student:

Why would we care about his vote totals?  I only care about his message.

That's my point.  Voting sent no useful message whatsoever.

liberty student:

histhasthai:

There's nothing wrong with sending messages.  The problem is when the message is "please" in regards to your ability to exercise your rights, and that plea is the strategy you're pursuing for protecting them.

How is this relevant to the discussion?

Your post about Ron Paul's message came two posts after one I made about the futility of sending messages as a strategy for protecting one's rights.  Since you didn't provide any context, I assumed it was a response to that.  Sorry if that was not the case.

 

 

GilesStratton:

Byzantine:

I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this.  How does one go about getting rid of the welfare-warfare state so long as it is allowed to enlarge its constituency?

Surely not by advocating that the state expand its power?

How about we advocate a policy that reduces state interefence instead of one that changes the form it takes?

1. Stop interefing in the movement of people across the border.
2. Stop subsidizing immigration by rewarding it with citizenship.

Clearly the most anarchistic policy would be one where the government didn't even know immigration was happening.

Funny how many "anarchists" think citizenship is a right.

 

You've just set up a straw man by conflating citezenship and migration. Nice try, but no cigar.

The most anarchistic "policy" is no immigration policy, for there to be no government and for migration to be free. Anarchism is inherently incompatible with the enforcement of the territorial dominions of states and protectionism in the labor market, which is what border security and politically enforced immigration restriction amounts to.

What immigration restrictionists tend to advocate is not less state interferance, it's more police or paramilitary interferance and the strict enforcement of protectionistic laws in the name of combating the future growth of the welfare state. Increasing intervention in one area in reaction to the effects of intervention elsewhere. In other words, interventionism.

Brainpolice:

You've just set up a straw man

I'm not sure you understand the term.

Brainpolice:

by conflating citezenship and migration.

Then why were they seperated into #1 and #2?

 

Brainpolice:

What immigration restrictionists tend to advocate is not less state interferance

.

Relevence?

Brainpolice:

The most anarchistic "policy" is no immigration policy, for there to be no government and for migration to be free. Anarchism is inherently incompatible with the enforcement of the territorial dominions of states and protectionism in the labor market, which is what border security and politically enforced immigration restriction amounts to.

You have a habit of retreating into a lecture without addressing my point.

Great, the most anarchistic policy is anarchy. However, what I described was anarchy in immigration, which does not require a completely stateless society to exist.

 

 

JonBostwick:

GilesStratton:

Byzantine:

I've yet to hear a satisfactory answer to this.  How does one go about getting rid of the welfare-warfare state so long as it is allowed to enlarge its constituency?

Surely not by advocating that the state expand its power?

How about we advocate a policy that reduces state interefence instead of one that changes the form it takes?

1. Stop interefing in the movement of people across the border.
2. Stop subsidizing immigration by rewarding it with citizenship.

Clearly the most anarchistic policy would be one where the government didn't even know immigration was happening.

Which is essentially what I'm advocating, with a minor change to your second point.  I would say "Stop subsidizing immigration by rewarding it with welfare benefits."  That is no public education, no WIC, no SCHIPS, no Medicare/Medicaid -- nothing.  My biggest issue with "illegal" immigration is the granting of welfare to these people.  Not to beat a dead horse but I wouldn't care about "illegal" immigration if these people didn't receive welfare benefits.  Of course no one should receive welfare benefits but I don't see that going away anytime soon.

 

 

 

kingmonkey:

Of course no one should receive welfare benefits but I don't see that going away anytime soon.

There's the problem with accepting part of the status quo while seeking to change another part.  If the policy advocated is not thoroughly grounded in correct principles, there will be irreconcilable contradictions.  Trying to reconcile them into a concrete position will inevitably lead to advocating something that goes against those principles.

There is no solution short of eliminating the state's authority over both wealth distribution and migration, and any attempt to solve only one part of it will create policies fraught with unintended consequences, rights violations, and that will ultimately do more harm than good.

Of course a complete solution is more difficult, but that difficulty does not change what is the correct solution, nor does it support a partially incorrect solution as viable.

 

 

 

JonBostwick:

How about we advocate a policy that reduces state interefence instead of one that changes the form it takes?

1. Stop interefing in the movement of people across the border.
2. Stop subsidizing immigration by rewarding it with citizenship.

Clearly the most anarchistic policy would be one where the government didn't even know immigration was happening.

Funny how many "anarchists" think citizenship is a right.

 Indeed, why is there even a concept of "citizenship" except as a way of recognizing that one belongs to a particular nation?  If rights are universal, why shouldn't a government respect everyone's rights, regardless of citizenship?

 

kingmonkey:

Which is essentially what I'm advocating, with a minor change to your second point.  I would say "Stop subsidizing immigration by rewarding it with welfare benefits."  That is no public education, no WIC, no SCHIPS, no Medicare/Medicaid -- nothing.  My biggest issue with "illegal" immigration is the granting of welfare to these people.  Not to beat a dead horse but I wouldn't care about "illegal" immigration if these people didn't receive welfare benefits.  Of course no one should receive welfare benefits but I don't see that going away anytime soon.

 

 It would be a small step in the right direction of anti-immigrationists would at least recognize that welfare, education, health care, etc., are not rights, and therefore there's no problem with government not offering these things to illegals.  But to do that, they would have to recognize that there's no problem with government not offering these things to citizens, too, since they're not rights.

 

Byzantine:

Nor is immigration, since welfare requires an ever larger tax base.

 

"Welfare State" also requires a large base of people advocating it, demanding it, defending it. Given what kind of immigration one gets, the required power base for doing so can grow.

I think that not voting is interpereted by most as meaning you are happy with either choice.

 

Many people voting third party, or writing in someone, would send a much bigger message than staying at home. How great would it be if the percentages for the R and the D added up to much less than 100? If the R and the D only added up to 50%, that would undermine the legitimacy of the system far more than a low voter turnout.

Harksaw:

I think that not voting is interpereted by most as meaning you are happy with either choice.

 

Many people voting third party, or writing in someone, would send a much bigger message than staying at home. How great would it be if the percentages for the R and the D added up to much less than 100? If the R and the D only added up to 50%, that would undermine the legitimacy of the system far more than a low voter turnout.

The legitimacy of the system consists of other people's opinions of it. What I do isn't going to do much to change that. I refuse to vote because I refuse to give any positive, explicit sanction to any of the candidates, even the so-called "libertarian" ones. If an outspoken anarchist were to run, I would give him/her my sanction. But not to anybody who would preserve the state by their actions in office.

Harksaw:

I think that not voting is interpereted by most as meaning you are happy with either choice.

All the birds can fly in the WRONG direction. Such an 'interperetation' reminds we of the saying that assumptions make an A$$ out of U and ME (assume). This is way too lemming an attitude too. Or is it an ostrich one? Either way it denies the reality of what 'voting' means to those that don't choose to participate in the cess-poll that are called elections. I have come to regard my choices and actions as my 'vote' - every day in all that I do. The (free) market recognizes and 'counts' my input, but the coerced enFORCEment bunch don't want to honor that which does NOT 'support' what they want. Too flaming bad ;-)

Jain

 

Harksaw:

Many people voting third party, or writing in someone, would send a much bigger message than staying at home.

Yeah, Perot and Nader won the hearts and minds of America, eh?

As far as I've seen, people are more engrosed in the "lesser of evils" thing because of it.

 

Harksaw:

How great would it be if the percentages for the R and the D added up to much less than 100? If the R and the D only added up to 50%, that would undermine the legitimacy of the system far more than a low voter turnout.

How great would it be to see all those people that voted instead defy the state in black market activities? In fact you'd just need a fraction of the people (than you would need to vote) to do it successfully.

Byzantine:

kingmonkey:

Of course no one should receive welfare benefits but I don't see that going away anytime soon.

 

Nor is immigration, since welfare requires an ever larger tax base.

Oh, so how does that work? I was under the impression that you thought immigration drained more from the state’s budget than it contributed.