Political Theory

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

AnonLLF — Mon, 24 May 2010 17:05:17 GMT

I just realized I didn't understand the argument I read fully.

I think it meant that by the act of voting you use government to coerce others to achieve goals you like and in that way it is collaborating in aggression.

I think this is the forerunner to the type of arguments seen in Stephan Kinsella's Causation and Aggression.

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

Conza88 — Fri, 19 Feb 2010 05:01:51 GMT

Are you able to properly format?

Sorry, I can't read it.

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

AnonLLF — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 21:15:39 GMT

Yeah personally, I think the "voting no matter what" is wrong (the lesser of two evils is still evil),

That's how I feel because they you support the idea that "if only the right guy gets in" ( what I call the accidental theory of governmental abuse) which is bogus.

but so is the "never vote at all". It can be defensive.

I've heard this before.I disagree.

I see it as those in power (congress) if the individual ever increases the size of the state, they're criminal. So that includes all of them. Bar Ron Paul. Though, should he ever do so - I guess I'd also have to consider him personally liable for the damage the policy caused.

I don't however, like it was mentioned above in the OP - that criminality extends to the voters, i.e if they vote them in etc. As pointed out, it's not voluntary at all - there are restricted options.

I agree.I just don't thing voting is practical.

So personally, am I forced to vote - last local election, there were 3 parties (liberals / repubs), Labour (Democrats) and Greens.

I would argue in that case that IF it was wrong to vote then it wouldn't be in this case since your being coerced.

You get fined if you don't provide a good enough excuse, or get yourself marked off the electorate roll.

That sucks.

There are secret ballots however. Good / bad?

Hmm. well it's bad in that it lessens a feeling of responsibility. I can't really see any positives.

And even though it is illegal to not put the ballot in the booth or correctly fill the form out, it is practically impossible to police.

Which is great.Maybe you could avoid getting caught.

So since they all suck just as much as the other... and I don't want to support any of them (no Ron Paul), you "donkey vote". Cross them all out. Write voluntarist quotes on the ballot etc. lol. They don't count them or anything like that.

I support with that tactic.

A "none of the above" would be fcken ideal intermediary step. Man, I'd love to see how many votes that would get.

Trouble is - encouraging others to not vote is also a criminal offense... >.>

Wow.Oh well,do it anyway.

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

AnonLLF — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:59:30 GMT

Marko:

Conza88:

ROTHBARD: 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.

Here I can see what Rothbard is thinking but I still disagree.

I think having a personal preference is different from endorsing someone.

Well if it's just keeping in your head " guy X is better than guy Y " that's fine though I don't see how anyone could think that knowing that both are bad.

As I understand it endorsement of a candidate is helping him campaign. So it would make sense only if he is better in relative terms than the counterpart

on every single isolated issue.

which almost never happens except maybe Ron Paul.

Else it is like pressing a button which makes 50,000 cripples able to walk again, but also breaks the spine of one or two healthy people.

which is exactly how I feel about voting only it's 2 or more people able to walk and 50,000 crippled.

I agree that non-voting is in theory only a tactical decision,

I'm beginning to think it is only a tactical and practical matter not a moral one.

but in practice given the options we are presented with it, which are almost always at least somewhat ambiguous from the viewpoint of which of the options is more libertarian, it is also strictly speaking a moral one.

See I've heard this "voting in self defence" argument but my thoughts are self defence shouldn't involve innocents and voting does.It means whoever you vote for innocents will be harmed by what that candidate does.I just don't buy that argument.

Anyway thanks for the text Conza, you are like a walking database of these things.

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

Marko — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:28:13 GMT

Parties are like armies. Voting is like fighting. Take the ACW, the ethically sound position is to fight for neither the Union nor the Confederate army, but to desert. Because one is an invading army, and the other is a pro-slavery army. However one can desert jet still have a personal preference for one or the other army to win. Also, it is not necessarily true that those who fight for either armies are doing so out of illiberal motives. It is hard to fault a southern farmer who fights to defend his home. And it is hard to fault a former slave who joins the Union army because its victory would mean immediate freedom for blacks in the South, his relatives among them. Jet taken under the loophole aside from both fighting for worthy goals they are also both committing aggression against each other.

Still I am not willing to pass too harsh a judgement on them, because under certain circumstances where it was a matter of survival I imagine it possible I would do similarly and join a less than perfect army which was in some - to my mind comparatively smaller - way an aggressor to someone. The difference is that I would not try to pretend my choice was 100% in tune with ethics, but would in my head acknowledge my fighting is also contributing to some rotten stuff the political leadership is bent on.

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

Conza88 — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:59:05 GMT

Marko:

Conza88:

ROTHBARD: 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.

I think having a personal preference is different from endorsing someone. As I understand it endorsement of a candidate is helping him campaign. So it would make sense only if he is better in relative terms than the counterpart on every single isolated issue. Else it is like pressing a button which makes 50,000 cripples able to walk again, but also breaks the spine of one or two healthy people.

Yeah personally, I think the "voting no matter what" is wrong (the lesser of two evils is still evil), but so is the "never vote at all". It can be defensive.

So personally, am I forced to vote - last local election, there were 3 parties (liberals / repubs), Labour (Democrats) and Greens. You get fined if you don't provide a good enough excuse, or get yourself marked off the electorate roll. There are secret ballots however. Good / bad? And even though it is illegal to not put the ballot in the booth or correctly fill the form out, it is practically impossible to police.

A "none of the above" would be fcken ideal intermediary step. Man, I'd love to see how many votes that would get.

Trouble is - encouraging others to not vote is also a criminal offense... >.>

Marko:
Anyway thanks for the text Conza, you are like a walking database of these things.

Hehe. Thanks. I seem to have a good enough memory and ability to track down the best resource I know of that addresses the issue raised.

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

Brainpolice — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:58:09 GMT

*boinks voting*

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

Marko — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:45:47 GMT

Dondoolee:

You do have a choice on not being taxed, you just don't like it, and find paying taxes an acceptable to condone violence.

You do not have a free choice. It is a hampered choice.

Calling that 'a choice' is like placing a positive obligation on a victim of robbery to resist because the spoils may help the robber expand his criminal activities.

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

William — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:41:19 GMT

You do have a choice on not being taxed, you just don't like it, and find paying taxes an acceptable to condone violence. Just as well you have a choice to or not to vote, you just find not complying acceptable and right.

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

Marko — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:39:38 GMT

Conza88:

ROTHBARD: 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.

I think having a personal preference is different from endorsing someone. As I understand it endorsement of a candidate is helping him campaign. So it would make sense only if he is better in relative terms than the counterpart on every single isolated issue. Else it is like pressing a button which makes 50,000 cripples able to walk again, but also breaks the spine of one or two healthy people.

I agree that non-voting is in theory only a tactical decision, but in practice given the options we are presented with it, which are almost always at least somewhat ambiguous from the viewpoint of which of the options is more libertarian, it is also strictly speaking a moral one.

Anyway thanks for the text Conza, you are like a walking database of these things.

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

AnonLLF — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 04:00:21 GMT

Dondoolee:

1) Voting does exist and it exists in my society, it is accepted in my society, and it is a language that can be more effective to communicate an idea than using the ancap language. Saying voting should / should not exist on moral grounds does not work. Morality is not agreed on by anyone, more people respond to the moarality of a democratic society than they do of ancap rhetoric. Voting is the reality we have to deal with.

I mean Voting in the political sense.It's true voting could be relevant in a voluntary society that is not un-libertarian though arguments could be made both ways that in some cases it may or may not work.

I was merely stating someone else's argument not saying I fully agree or have though all of it through yet.

Out of curiosity in countries in which health care is nationalized: are all Doctors evil SOB's who endorse violence?

not necessarily.

Are all teachers evil statists?

not always but more often than not though not usually self aware ones.

Is paying ANY tax an act of evil that endorses state violence?

No.You have no choice

Is grouping people so broadly into good / evil categories really preaching individualism?

Yes.Such is the nature of reality.

4) My point is about "rule of thumb" vs "libertarian rule of law"

everything is either "peaceful" or "violent/murdering" being a bad way to look at things.

Well there really only is peace or violence ,there is no alternative.It's reality.

The philosophy of individualism telling individuals how to act a certain way to be individualists

No one said anything like this and in anycase Individualist doesn't mean no authority.It's not libertine.

or get condemned to "collectivist/statist hell" seems a bit odd as well.

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

AnonLLF — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:50:53 GMT

Marko:

Scott F:

Marko:

Yes. Creating laws is like issuing orders to the police and the courts.

what about this is aggression? Sorry I don't straight off see what you mean.

Himmler didn't kill anyone personally but he ordered institutions he had power over to do it. Would you say he was not an aggressor?

As in he was hiring or paying people to kill (or in a lesser example - violate rights) thus he was also an aggressor in the crime?

That intuitively makes sense.Is that consistent with a strict NAP?

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

Conza88 — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 03:19:52 GMT

Scott F:

are legislators criminals for creating unjust laws?

is the getaway driver to a bank robber a criminal?

Yes. Causation and Aggression - Kinsella & Tinsley.

Latter example is expanded upon and the former is mentioned.

Scott F:
If you answer yes then it follows that people who are involved in bringing whose who desire unjust laws to power are criminals or that even voting for anyone is criminal.(this he bases on the legal concept of vicarious liability)

It does? If that's the case, then it follows that democracy actually is representative. Does it not? lol.

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.

I don't think this is true, because 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.

To throw a spanner in the works even more - voting is compulsory where I am. lol

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

Marko — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:30:18 GMT

I can believe that.

Re: A voluntaryist challenge to voting?

Caley McKibbin — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 01:19:46 GMT

He is a wealthy Canadian pot smoker that supported the New Democrat Party because they were willing to make changes in drug law. The NDP is a member of Socialist International. Emery is a libertarian.