A Modest Proposal

It seems like you're trying to explain to me the evils of democracy. Believe me, I'm not a fan!

The left's favorite excuse for trashing rights is that "the people agreed", and you have to realize that I hate democracy with every ounce of my being.

That doesn't mean that I'm not going to participate in it, though. We all agree that democracy is a tool used to transfer property and rights from one group of individuals to another group of individuals, regardless of whether the victims voted or not. That's the problem. When you say things like:

There are 3rd parties or innocent bystanders of people that are effected.

You're almost implying that by not voting, those people won't be affected. Well, they will be, and that's the entire reason that democracy is a sham. If they weren't affected, then we'd have no right to oppose it! By voting for the lesser of two evils, you are minimizing the injustice.

Don't say that all injustice is created equal! For an extreme example, the United States' government is much, much less evil than the North Korean government; neither is legitimate, but one violates more rights.

 

In casting a vote for any politician, you are supporting their position of power by definition.

No, it's acknowledging the fact that their position of power will exist, regardless of whether I vote.

 

edit: some typos

Let me present a (rather realistic) hypothetical, Ego. Suppose the presidential election comes down to Obama vs. McCaine. You reason, being your anti-leftist self, that "the left" is always worse so therefore you are voting for McCaine in "self-defense" against Obama. Does voting for McCaine really seem like a strategy for bringing about the goals of libertarianism? Does voting for McCaine truly constitute "self-defense" when McCaine himself is an aggressor? McCaine would be an aggressor against you and everyone else.

At best, you could try to rationalize your vote for McCaine by proclaiming that he will increase the government a little bit less than Obama (which probably isn't even true, but let's assume it is for the sake of argument). But how is very slighty avoiding future increases in the power of the state, only in a comparative sense to boot, a strategy for actually eliminating the state? It isn't even a strategy for reducing the state. And you're not actually being "defended". Your vote will not have lead to the liberation of anyone.

What would the actual result be of McCaine gaining power? To make an educated guess: The Iraq War would continue indefinitely, we might invade Iran, the police state and surveillance apparatus would either remain or expand, and if you're lucky institutional pressure from conservatives will force McCaine to make a few measly tax cuts. The federal reserve would remain. The government would continue to borrow a bunch of money and monetize the debt. The state and its essential features would remain. No significant change in the status quo would take place. Not even an overall minimization of power. The libertarians would continue to cower their heads and be frustrated.

This "lesser of two evils" logic only leads to the perpetuation of evil. It is totally futile if one intends to actually uphold a principle. It is the disease of pragmatism.  

By voting for the lesser of two evils, you are minimizing the injustice.

What you fail to see is that by voting for the "lesser of two evils" (1) you are necessarily voting for evil per se and (2) you are perpetuating and enabling evil. It is not an actual solution to the problem of evil! I would think that libertarians would be above this "lesser of two evils" crap. Isn't that precisely why people get disgusted with the two main parties in the first place?

Furthermore, are the evils presented to us really that different or lesser or greater than eachother? It's a package deal! It's two sides of the same coin! You get a great big dose of evil whichever way you slice it. Both parties and all canidates are all around statist. They all support the same fundamentals. They mostly only disagree on nuances and implementation. They're pretty much all pro-war and pro-intervention. And they all want the same thing: a position of political power over everyone for themselves. So it's absolutely futile to engage in such a process with the hope that it will actually lead to the elimination of the problem itself. You're not striking at the root, and not even at the branches. You're missing the target altogether.

It does not logically follow that you're minimizing anything. In practise, the state (and hence the injustice) will most likely continue to actually grow. At best, you're minimizing future increases in injustice. But that's hardly a strategy for someone who wants to abolish injustices as an ultimate goal. It's absolutely counterproductive. If you so clearly see democracy as a sham then that would be all the more reason to not participate in it. The objective evidence of what actually often happens when the democratic process occurs is entirely against you, regaurdless of who the canidates are. The problem is institutional, not a matter of personalities. You can't defeat institutional problems with a mere regime change.

Don't say that all injustice is created equal! For an extreme example, the United States' government is much, much less evil than the North Korean government; neither is legitimate, but one violates more rights.

It does not logically follow that I should therefore have voted for George W. Bush because he is allegedly comparatively less evil than Kim Jong Ill or whatever his name is. It does not logically follow from the fact that some governments are worse than others that supporting the "less evil" government is a strategy for anarchism. Due to your pragmatism, you turn the debate into a ridiculous quantative one rather than a qualative one. We can waste our time all day making a comparative analysis of the quantity of injustice perpetuated by different governments and different rulers. It would do nothing to address the qualative problem of injustice itself. Actively participating in electing a more "benevolent" dictator is not a sensible strategy if one's goal is actually eliminating dictators, no matter which way you cut it.  

No, it's acknowledging the fact that their position of power will exist, regardless of whether I vote.

As usual, your reasons for voting are actually reasons against voting. If it's true that even if you do vote, the institutional problem will remain no matter who you vote for, then if your goal is to actually eliminate the institutional problem, obviously voting is not going to get you anywhere! It logically follows that if voting is futile with respect to the goal of actually eliminating positions of power, in the place of voting one should try to find other ways to obtain the goal that aren't futile (hence, the need for something like Agorism). Do I have to beat a dead horse? Sheesh. You keep making arguements based on the premise that the choice is between voting and doing nothing. I keep asserting that voting is futile, and you keep responding with the notion that therefore not voting is futile too. You're ignoring the alternatives to voting. You argue as if there is a vacuum in the absence of voting, which is not the case. I don't merely suggest that you don't vote, I suggest that you engage in direct action instead of voting.

Obviously, no changes will ever be brought about by simply doing that; If that's what you thought my position is, I assure you it's not. We need to stop sitting on our hands and actually get involved in the political process! We need to begin to support electable libertarian candidates with moderate, palatable platforms (Ron Paul was still way too radical) for the major two parties. As people see the reforms working, I have faith that they will support more like-minded candidates. Out of principle and laziness, we've let the statists monopolize the process.

As for McCain? Delaying nationalized health care is reason enough to vote McCain into office over Obama. Leftist programs are nearly impossible to dismantle, as we've gone over before, due to the perpetual-and-ever-increasing dependents and votes they create.

You raise a valid point when you said that it's not always clear-cut which candidate is less statist. I agree. You mentioned that McCain would be more hawkish than Obama; I actually disagree with that, I honestly think it would be the other way around! Still, I understand your point.

That doesn't mean we have to be paralyzed, though; just because we will be ruled by one of two statists doesn't mean we should sit on our hands and accept whichever ones the statists throw at us! We have to make value judgements and decide which candidate does the least long term damage, under which candidate would it be easier to practice agorism, etc.

I feel my last post made more sense than this one; I'm falling asleep. I'll just say that while I absolutely support non-electoral strategies, especially education, we need to get involved in the political process. As long as the statists are able rewrite the laws at will, we'll never win. 'Night!

 

Nationalized healthcare will be harder to dismantle than "100 years" of war?

 

 

banned:

Nationalized healthcare will be harder to dismantle than "100 years" of war?

 

 

 

Aside from the fact that McCain never said that, yes. Wars have come on and gone throughout history; nationalized healthcare has never gone away.

Ego:

No, we aren't. Maybe, just maybe, you are correct if we use the original definition (but even that's a bit of a stretch). Still, why would you stop there? "Left" didn't always have a political usage, does that mean that the political usage is incorrect because it wasn't the original definition?

To comment about voting: I'm not "supporting the state" if I speak out against the concept of democracy while casting a vote in self-defense against Obama. It just doesn't follow.

Besides: revolutions (of all sorts) rarely turn out well; incrementalism has been king throughout history.

I don't know what the link was for.

 

Left in the context of political usage always had a single definition. I don't know why you continue to grasp at straws like this.

 

On voting, yes, you are supporting the state. You're supporting the state as a "defender," you're a supporter of statists. I'm sorry that you don't like that, but political action has no other purpose than political action - unlike actions such as using roads or buying groceries. In any case, I'm not really interested in debating about the morality of it, because quite frankly I no longer care about doing that. Whether supporting the state is moral or not, you're still giving the state power while draining your own strength. It follows.

 

Besides, revolutions ( of all sorts) usually turn out better than reform; incrementalism hasn't a thing to do with that though.

 

 

Ego:

 

You are correct; you go wrong when you start claiming that voting in self-defense (especially while denouncing the concept of democracy and voting for less-statist candidates) promotes the state any more than denouncing Social Security while depositing the checks.

Of course it's different! - though it excuses neither.

The former onlly has the purpose of promoting statists; the second has the purpose of living as a victim.

 

 

Ego:

Obviously, no changes will ever be brought about by simply doing that; If that's what you thought my position is, I assure you it's not. We need to stop sitting on our hands and actually get involved in the political process! We need to begin to support electable libertarian candidates with moderate, palatable platforms (Ron Paul was still way too radical) for the major two parties. As people see the reforms working, I have faith that they will support more like-minded candidates. Out of principle and laziness, we've let the statists monopolize the process.

As for McCain? Delaying nationalized health care is reason enough to vote McCain into office over Obama.

 

Ego, do us all a favor in the libertarian movement and stop calling yourself a libertarian. Please, just leave.

 

May the Lord bury you in the coals of the phlegethon for your support of a mass murdering, pagan priest.

 

Mortacci tua

Let's say you were given two choices: you could be stabbed in your eyeball or you could be stabbed your lower thigh.

If you chose to be stabbed in your lower thigh, that doesn't mean you are "supporting" it. Your misleading language and arrogance belong on the left. Wow.

Ego:

Let's say you were given two choices: you could be stabbed in your eyeball or you could be stabbed your lower thigh.

If you chose to be stabbed in your lower thigh, that doesn't mean you are "supporting" it. Your misleading language and arrogance belong on the left. Wow.

I'd rather belong on the left than on the walls of the City of Dis.

 

I'm done with you, you're a disgusting, iniquitous snake.

 

I personally have never voted because no one has been worth my vote.  I share the agorists moral qualms about voting, and refuse to get blood on my hands in the name of choosing between evils.  I don't intend to vote until I can do so for a candidate I believe in, but none has yet appeared.

Now here is my line of thinking in regards to that situation.  It bothers me that there are no good candidates to vote for.  It dissatisfies me.  Normally, when dissatisfied, I take action to improve the situation.  Given that I can't control other people, and given that the deck is strongly stacked such that the worst get on top and the best are disgusted by politics, there is only one remaining option...  one I've resorted to many times in order to solve past problems -- do it myself.  Hence my current path of grooming myself as a candidate, trying to find others willing to groom themselves as candidates, and trying to craft a strategy that can acheive certain specific goals that I think are within reach and capable of striking mighty blows for freedom.  Sure, I'm probably doomed to failure, but I'm the type that can forgive myself for losing to superior competition but not for standing by when the ship is sinking and me thinking I can do something about it.

My thinking is generally unchanged by agorism, which I don't see as a viable option.  IMO it just doesn't appeal to enough personality types to ever reach critical mass (i.e. the ability to resist a government crackdown).  But I respect agorists and their views... after all, history shows that the worst get on top, so why should they assume things will change in the future?  A most reasonable view.  To which I can only think to myself, I have to show them it can be done.  So that's part of the plan as well.  In the meantime, I respect what they're trying to do and will help out where I can (believe me, I'm down for tax-free transactions).

I do think it's a waste of energy for agorists to get all bent out of shape about reformists.  My view is that it's better to focus on what you can control (i.e. yourself) instead of what you can't (i.e. other people who disagree despite your arguments).

I always thought left and right were economic terms. Oh well, I think arguments pertaining to them are rediculous and I guess the meaning is subjective now since I've heard it used so many ways.

 

When I first came across your agressive, vitriolic talk of "purging" and such I thought it was a bit extreme. Then I thought back to some of my attempts to find common ground with anarchists of the communist, primitivist etc. variety and realized that my frustrations in getting through to them have a great deal to do with vulgar libertarianism. There are certainly a lot of dullards in the anarchist movement who seem to think everything but the market can be free in anarchy and all that garbage; but a great part of the difficulty in forming alliances with these sort of anarchists who have a lot of potential to be revolutionaries is that so many libertarians like to side with conservatism and thus appear (rightfully so) to be defenders of the status quo and counter-revolutionaries. It would be great if the far left brain dead anarcho-communists, marxists posising as anarchists (ie Chomsky), vulgar libertarians and conservative wanabee libertarians would cut it out, but alas, they seem to be stuck in these naivetes. I haven't made up my mind on the best strategy, but maybe some sort of separation (I prefer that to "purge") is in order. Have you seen the film "Anarchism in America?" Karl Hess tells the filmakers to go to the LP and they say "oh no, we Libertarians aren't anarchists blah blah blah." Hess thought (rightfully) that these young anarchists should get in contact with libertarians. Unfortunately, he sent them to the parlor revolutionaries who have to insist on being more moderate than they are to try and win (and end up losing) an election. Of course this sort of reformism does gradually truly take root and the parlor revolutionaries actually become what they were pretending to be for the sake of reform. I guess you can't spend years trying to dance like a monkey without some genuinely simian characteristics taking root in your very essence. No wonder they think we're "conservatives who smoke pot."

majevska:

When I first came across your agressive, vitriolic talk of "purging" and such I thought it was a bit extreme. Then I thought back to some of my attempts to find common ground with anarchists of the communist, primitivist etc. variety and realized that my frustrations in getting through to them have a great deal to do with vulgar libertarianism. There are certainly a lot of dullards in the anarchist movement who seem to think everything but the market can be free in anarchy and all that garbage; but a great part of the difficulty in forming alliances with these sort of anarchists who have a lot of potential to be revolutionaries is that so many libertarians like to side with conservatism and thus appear (rightfully so) to be defenders of the status quo and counter-revolutionaries. It would be great if the far left brain dead anarcho-communists, marxists posising as anarchists (ie Chomsky), vulgar libertarians and conservative wanabee libertarians would cut it out, but alas, they seem to be stuck in these naivetes. I haven't made up my mind on the best strategy, but maybe some sort of separation (I prefer that to "purge") is in order. Have you seen the film "Anarchism in America?" Karl Hess tells the filmakers to go to the LP and they say "oh no, we Libertarians aren't anarchists blah blah blah." Hess thought (rightfully) that these young anarc