Political Theory

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

Solid_Choke — Thu, 08 May 2008 20:06:48 GMT

Fred Furash:

You must be consistent in order to have any valid ethical basis. The goal is no government. You cannot dissolve government by using government as your means. You must instead setup or participate in some sort of alternative institutions (agorism basically).

Your self-defense argument doesn't make sense either, since if you were to consistently apply it, every time someone from the government came to take your money, you would protect your property with deadly force. But you don't (I'm assuming). And so pleading with your overlord in the form of a vote does not constitute self-defense.

You say that government cannot be reduced from inside the system like its a fact. There has even been times in the past where people voted for more liberty. In 1977 when the Indian government was forcing people to get sterilized they voted the government out of power in favor of one that allowed more freedoms. By no means am I saying democracy is a great protector of liberty, but to say that it is incapable of brining about more liberty than currently exists is by no means a settled fact. I am not saying that voting is a good strategy to further your fight against statism, but you cannot rightfully claim that it is impossible to gain more liberty through the democratic process.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

maxpot46 — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:36:08 GMT

Fred Furash:
The reason these things can be rolled back is that the government never releases the shackles, it merely loosens the noose and lengthens the chain. You are lured into a false sense of freedom, but the institution of coercion is still there.

You're speaking of aggregates and in generalities. You say "the government" and "it" implying "a monolithic entity which we cannot influence". Further, with such sweeping statement you also imply that "you, maxpot46, do not have the power to enter politics and strike positive blows for freedom."

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. I see quite clearly a reformist strategy to attain specific goals. I believe in myself so strongly that I believe I can attain these goals. I believe in mankind so strongly that I know that others will try as well, and that eventually one of us will succeed. As I said, every generation fights this battle, and though we libertarians have quite a losing streak going, we can absolutely get a winning streak going as well.

Fred Furash:
Once security, arbitration, education, health care, etc. are all taken care of by the free market, in a far more efficient manner, with lower costs, with no inflation, etc. then I see no real reason for statism to rear its ugly head again.

This is remarkably optimistic. No reason for statism to rear its head? How about human nature? Some people will always strive to be the boss, and a remarkably large number of people will always be willing to let them. Some people will always want to fight wars. We're talking about human beings here.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

Ego — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:24:31 GMT

Fred Furash:

maxpot46:

And then they can be re-rolled back again. Your anarchic society also can be rolled back and the statist society re-enacted (e.g. wasn't there some kind of agorist enclave back in the 80's?). Every generation has to fight this battle. Thus your point is not a weakness of reformism but rather a fact of nature, which reformists deal with by emphasizing the importance of grooming leaders and which agorists deal with by ??? (from my perspective, it seems like denial is the preferred strategy, but I'm hoping to be shown otherwise).

Actually, that's a false analogy. The reason these things can be rolled back is that the government never releases the shackles, it merely loosens the noose and lengthens the chain. You are lured into a false sense of freedom, but the institution of coercion is still there.

The whole point of anarchy is that government's functions are taken over, and ran far more efficiently, by private firms and voluntary association. Once security, arbitration, education, health care, etc. are all taken care of by the free market, in a far more efficient manner, with lower costs, with no inflation, etc. then I see no real reason for statism to rear its ugly head again. Remember, the state depends upon people believing that its various services cannot be provided without coercion.

There will always be lefitists/statists! People like that won't magically go away, just like libertarians don't magically go away just because there is a state. Of course, there will always be people who will be convinced by leftists; it happens time and time again, and it always will. Don't think that we'll be done with leftists once we kick them out of power! They live for power.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

CaptainMurphy — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:21:41 GMT

You're not punching the state that is stealing from you, you're endorsing it, while hurting a bunch of other people. Sure some of those other people contributed to punching you, but some of them didn't. As I said, vicarious liability.

How does a vote for lower taxes hurt people? They are going to be taxed regardless of whether or not you vote, it's just a matter of whether you want statists to have all the say in how much people are taxed.

Don't equate voting with using public goods such as roads. Voting is optional, using roads or other goods you are coerced into using does not constitute a choice, at least no way near the same choice, as the consequences are very different.

How are you coerced into using public roads? You're coerced into paying for them, but using them is a voluntary decision. Is using roads that you've been forced to pay for legitimizing government roads? I would say no. Similarly, voting in a political system in which you are forced to contribute your tax dollars to does not legitimize democracy.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

Solredime — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:16:43 GMT

maxpot46:

And then they can be re-rolled back again. Your anarchic society also can be rolled back and the statist society re-enacted (e.g. wasn't there some kind of agorist enclave back in the 80's?). Every generation has to fight this battle. Thus your point is not a weakness of reformism but rather a fact of nature, which reformists deal with by emphasizing the importance of grooming leaders and which agorists deal with by ??? (from my perspective, it seems like denial is the preferred strategy, but I'm hoping to be shown otherwise).

Actually, that's a false analogy. The reason these things can be rolled back is that the government never releases the shackles, it merely loosens the noose and lengthens the chain. You are lured into a false sense of freedom, but the institution of coercion is still there.

The whole point of anarchy is that government's functions are taken over, and ran far more efficiently, by private firms and voluntary association. Once security, arbitration, education, health care, etc. are all taken care of by the free market, in a far more efficient manner, with lower costs, with no inflation, etc. then I see no real reason for statism to rear its ugly head again. Remember, the state depends upon people believing that its various services cannot be provided without coercion.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

maxpot46 — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:13:48 GMT

I'm starting to like this analogy: Anarchy is to Agorists what equilibrium is to neo-classical economists.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

Ego — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:12:02 GMT

Fred Furash:

You're not punching the state that is stealing from you, you're endorsing it, while hurting a bunch of other people. Sure some of those other people contributed to punching you, but some of them didn't. As I said, vicarious liability.

Let's say that I am vocal about my belief in the tyranny of democracy (which I am), while, at the same time, I vote against a state initiative to increase taxes. How on Earth am I endorsing the system? It's self-defense, my friend. If you don't vote, the leftists/statists will run all over you faster than they already do.

Don't equate voting with using public goods such as roads. Voting is optional, using roads or other goods you are coerced into using does not constitute a choice, at least no way near the same choice, as the consequences are very different.

I didn't use the example of roads! I used the example of depositing a Social Security check. If I can afford to not deposit my Social Security check, am I endorsing the system by doing so? Of course not; you're simply living in an unfair system.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

maxpot46 — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:09:22 GMT

Fred Furash:
In trying to push through Libertarians to seats of power, you end up placing good people in government, but this can never last. Its actually very destructive, because these good people will boost the image of the government in the eyes of the citizens, and soften them up for any government expansion. At that point in time, whatever laws may have been rolled back becomes irrelevant, since they can be re-enacted in a very short time.

And then they can be re-rolled back again. Your anarchic society also can be rolled back and the statist society re-enacted (e.g. wasn't there some kind of agorist enclave back in the 80's?). Every generation has to fight this battle. Thus your point is not a weakness of reformism but rather a fact of nature, which reformists deal with by emphasizing the importance of grooming leaders and which agorists deal with by ??? (from my perspective, it seems like denial is the preferred strategy, but I'm hoping to be shown otherwise).

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

Solredime — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:06:09 GMT

Exactly! When someone punches you, you punch back. The notion that it's noble to do otherwise is ridiculous.

You're not punching the state that is stealing from you, you're endorsing it, while hurting a bunch of other people. Sure some of those other people contributed to punching you, but some of them didn't. As I said, vicarious liability.

When a free-market capitalist chooses to deposit a Social Security check, he isn't "endorsing Social Security", he's living in it.

Don't equate voting with using public goods such as roads. Voting is optional, using roads or other goods you are coerced into using does not constitute a choice, at least no way near the same choice, as the consequences are very different.

Not if you vote while decrying the tyranny of a system in which you must vote to defend yourself.

That's called hypocricy. Voting while critising the entire institution through which you vote. Don't expect people to then take you seriously. Calling yourself an anarchist already emotes large amounts of mockery. Tell them that you're also voting and you can be sure they won't be taking your ideology seriously, because you yourself do not consistently believe in it.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

Ego — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:51:57 GMT

Push back the power to steal by exercising that very same power?

Exactly! When someone punches you, you punch back. The notion that it's noble to do otherwise is ridiculous.

Are you serious? You do realise that by voting you endorse the institution through which you vote.

Not if you vote while decrying the tyranny of a system in which you must vote to defend yourself.

When a free-market capitalist chooses to deposit a Social Security check, he isn't "endorsing Social Security", he's living in it.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

Solredime — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:50:26 GMT

Ego:

In 2000, Al Gore would have been the best president, and in 2004, John Kerry would have been the best president.

You're only saying that because they never became presidents. You have no idea what they may have been capable of. Green communism comes to mind...

Ego:

The goal is to end the current coercive system; it's not inconsistent to be opposed to initiating coercion while at the same time voting against a tax increase; it just doesn't follow. In fact, it's sinister to imply why should allow leftist advances to take place.

Are you serious? You do realise that by voting you endorse the institution through which you vote. Have you heard of vicarious liability? It doesn't matter who or what you vote for, eitherway you vote within the framework of a coercive institution, and are thus liable for any coercion that occurs. Not only are you liable for your own taxes, but you condemn others to taxes too.

Ego:

You cannot dissolve government by using government as your means. You must instead setup or participate in some sort of alternative institutions (agorism basically).

We disagree entirely.

Think of it this way. The amount of freedom individuals have under the state are not so much determined by the laws, but by the authority of the state. If the social conditions are right, the state can grasp almost complete power in very short time periods (remember Hitler?). When I say social conditions, I mean the appearance of the legitimacy of the state in the eyes of citizens. In trying to push through Libertarians to seats of power, you end up placing good people in government, but this can never last. Its actually very destructive, because these good people will boost the image of the government in the eyes of the citizens, and soften them up for any government expansion. At that point in time, whatever laws may have been rolled back becomes irrelevant, since they can be re-enacted in a very short time.

You have to realise that no matter how many good people you place in the power of a coercive and evil institution, they will still cause evil.

Ego:
When everyone else has that kind of power, you have to push back to keep them from running all over you.

Push back the power to steal by exercising that very same power?

I recommend you read this essay: http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/EthicsVoting.html

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

Ego — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:48:00 GMT

So you really don't draw any distinction between Neal Boorz and Paul Krugman? Really?

Plus, there's nothing wrong with practicing agorism and voting for candidates who will be less brutal in trying to squash it.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

ThorsMitersaw — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:46:06 GMT

Ego:

I prefer the politician who would have the least ability to do anything;

none better than the dead!

On left and right labels and libertarian strategy:

I am sick to death of left and right labels. I cannot stand them. I do not like applying them often and feel as if I am taking part in something filthy and ignorant when I do. Even in the contexts of left as revolutionary and right as 'conservative'.They are virtually meaningless and entirely mutable. And I think they basically are but a tool of state to create false dichotomies.

There are those who want freedom and those who do not. There are those who want a revolution in ideas and those who do not. There exist men who take part in honest life and those who quite simply do not. Those of a slave mentality and those of the rebel mind. Criminals and honest men. One cannot hang with thieves and expect no ill results... especially upon your own character.

There are, as Nic puts it: the revolutionaries, and as I would put it: everyone else. In this "everyone else" bucket is placed all the slop who support institutions of murder or even use the institution of murder to rid themselves or others of the institution (a result of ignorance or of outright fraud). Though I might argue that they float at the top of the bucket of *** they are still taking part in this filth and refuse to see where they lie and why they can never leave. Only those crawling out, hanging over the edge, or sitting on the floor outside of it, are the folk who shall bring about any damn change. Escape! is the means, to overturn the vat of *** is the goal, and to destroy the vat itself a dream.

Albert Jay Nock once said that there are political and economic means. Voting political buffoons (like this Ego guy and others who are genuinely evil men... I do not think ego has any real malice in him, he is but misguided...) and those who wish change the world by involving themselves in honest trade and friendship outside of the corruption and war of politics. Enabling the flourishing of the rebel, the producer, the honest.

Mises said that any attempt to imitate market means in political economy is to but 'play market' and is doomed to failure. He was absolutely right. And in this market for liberty, I do NOT intend to 'play market'.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

Ego — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:21:14 GMT

I prefer the politician who would have the least ability to do anything; this election cycle, I prefer Hillary, then McCain, then Obama as a distant last.

In 2000, Al Gore would have been the best president, and in 2004, John Kerry would have been the best president.

Re: Anti-Voting Quotes?

Len Budney — Thu, 08 May 2008 18:17:26 GMT

The system isn't so much "us versus them", it's individuals versus other individuals. When everyone else has that kind of power, you have to push back to keep them from running all over you.

I sympathize, but this is a republic. Voting on a referendum to cut taxes fits your argument nicely. But voting for McCain? You may think you're voting against socialized medicine, but he will claim you're voting for an invasion of Iran, and act accordingly. What's the point of voting for your favorite thief? The founders would be the first to say that a representative republic is doomed if there are no righteous men to do the representing.

In 2000 I was much more open to your argument. But I'm humbled by the fact that, had I voted at that time, I would have voted for Bush. We'd have been better off if Clinton managed to beat the 22nd Amendment and spent the last eight years turning the Oval Office into (more of) a brothel. Bush out-spent Clinton, out-murdered him. And in the end, Bush wasn't even any better at controlling his D*ck than Clinton. Clinton's thrust itself at women's faces; Bush's shot a hunting buddy and funneled billions to Haliburton.

--Len