Political Theory

Re: on voting

ryanpatgray — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 16:46:29 GMT

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.

Re: on voting

banned — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:06:24 GMT

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.

Re: on voting

Jain Daugh — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 18:34:19 GMT

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

Re: on voting

MacFall — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 14:24:44 GMT

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.

Re: on voting

Harksaw — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:15:59 GMT

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.

Re: on voting

Torsten — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:00:30 GMT

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.

Re: on voting

macsnafu — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:31:28 GMT

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.

Re: on voting

macsnafu — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:24:04 GMT

JonBostwick:

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

Stop interefing in the movement of people across the border.

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?

Re: on voting

histhasthai — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:01:22 GMT

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.

Re: on voting

kingmonkey — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:04:15 GMT

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?

Stop interefing in the movement of people across the border.

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.

Re: on voting

Bostwick — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:53:00 GMT

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.

Re: on voting

Brainpolice — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:32:37 GMT

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.

Re: on voting

Bostwick — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 03:53:04 GMT

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?

Stop interefing in the movement of people across the border.
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.