Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

Food for thought:


Reject the 'Anarchist' Voters
-Francois Tremblay, May 23 2007

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.
~ Henry David Thoreau

[/ QUOTE ]

I hardly want to be seen as a "divider," a person who seeks to reject people from the movement for no understandable reason. I want to include as many people as possible. To ostracize each other merely serves to slow down our movement.

However, what is one to make of this new wave of pro-voting "Anarchists"? Now that a rich, white, male, ruling class politician (Ron Paul) presents himself nicely, and is able to utter some true statements, our so-called friends trip over each other to support him the most, and profess to get ready to vote for him!

If Anarchy is to mean anything at all, it must be a wholesale rejection of political coercion. So what are we to make of people who call themselves Anarchists, but who at the same time support the coercive process of democracy, who support social warfare? What do we call someone who professes one thing, and then willfully and consistently acts against it? We call him a hypocrite.

These so-called "Anarchists" are as dogs, who first raise their right paw and pretend to be one of us, saying "democracy is immoral" and "disengagement is the way," and then, when the ruling class waves a shiny new bone at them, run after the bone, barking the slogans of their temporary masters, fighting against everything we hold dear. They no doubt expect that, the elections over and their ruling class politician having lost, they will reintegrate our movement, proud of "having done something," when all they did was legitimize democracy!

I want to make some things clear. I am definitely not against people who co-opt the elections, and Ron Paul's campaign, to propagate ideals of freedom. Those people are doing good work. We should definitely co-opt the rare good elements within the political process whenever possible.

Also, if voting was a legal obligation, and not voting incurred heavy penalties, then I would be the first to say that voting or not voting should be left to one's conscience, until the movement has grown enough to be able to disengage from the State. But this is not the case! On the contrary, not voting costs you absolutely nothing. To vote, in these circumstances, means that one cannot be trusted for any revolutionary action.

Suppose that we are 30 or 40 years in the future, and our growing Market Anarchist community disengages from State institutions, starting its own police and courts. How can we trust these turncoats to reject the State? The second a court case turns against them, they will quickly take refuge under a State judge's skirt. They will denounce us; they will betray us at the first occasion they get, because the ruling class threw them another shiny bone.

We must send a clear message to all that Anarchists are above this den of violence and corruption called politics, and that we will have nothing of it. These voters can be called our sympathizers, sure; but do not let them call themselves Anarchists any longer. Ruling class sycophants are not our friends!

For those of you who argue that Rothbard himself was engaged in the political process, that may be so, but did he not say:

[ QUOTE ]
(I)f the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do people convinced of the illegitimacy of the State participate in its processes? Do people oppressed by a Mafia gang vote for its rulers?

[ QUOTE ]
The attempt to use governmental or political processes to reform or abolish the evils of coercion is not a voluntaryist means because it rests on coercion. The distinguishing marks of voluntaryism -- that it is at once both nonviolent and non-electoral in its efforts to convince people to voluntarily abandon the State -- set it apart from all other methods of social change. The voluntaryist insight into the nature of political power does not permit people to violently overthrow their government or even use the electoral process to change it, but rather points out that if they shall withdraw their cooperation from the system, it will no longer be able to function or enforce its will.
~ Carl Watner

[/ QUOTE ]



p.s. I have permission from the author to publish this "everywhere"

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

I will not be voting. However, I will be wagering on the outcomes.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

I'm not really immersed enough in anarchist theory to assess the propriety of voting for Paul, but I am a little confused about the tone of this article. Is being an anarchist some sort of club that you can be voted out of? Isn't the whole purpose of the movement to allow people to disagree without coercing one another? Isn't the long-term goal for everyone to be an anarchist?

Perhaps even more troubling, what does the author believe should be done with these apostates? Should they just be excluded from anarchist society? And if that's what they want to do to people who voted once for Ron Paul, what do they want to do to the rest of us, who have been voting and paying taxes enthusiastically for years?

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

Is being an anarchist a club? No. Statism is a club. The club of statism is dependent on belief in the club and in support of the club. Francois is trying to outline that falling back into belief and support of the club is higly detrimental to the cause of abandoning the statism club.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
If Anarchy is to mean anything at all, it must be a wholesale rejection of political coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and Ron Paul is the first canidate in a long time to support rapid decentralization. Why the hell wouldn't libertarians and anarchists support him?

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

Some people just prefer to live in the real world rather than fantasy land.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]

Johnsson: Who would you support in the 2008 elections?

Rockwell: I would like to see elections for public office abolished, and that is particularly true for the presidency. The idea of the president was initially that some far-seeing, wise person would emerge from the aristocratic class who would sit atop the apparatus of the state and make sure that all things ran well. The founders were not stupid: they knew there was potential for abuse. So they made it possible to impeach the president if there was the slightest slip up. Unfortunately, this didn't work. It was like putting the chief inmates in charge of overseeing the conduct of the other inmates. The problem is that they all end up working together.

If you look at the crop of people who are running for president today, you gain new understanding of Hayek's phrase "the worst get on top." What an amazing bunch of dangerous nothings they are. The Democrats look positively dreadful. The antiwar people among them have touted the idea that every young person should be enslaved into national service. What are these people thinking? Most of them are nothing but voices for a special interest cause. The Republicans are creepy too: people in love with the idea of military force and who think more jails and more wars will solve all the world's problems.

In many ways, it seems like the 30s all over again, when everyone thought we had to choose between socialism and fascism and that there was no other path. At least the confusions of the 30s have the excuse that a depression was raging. What's our excuse for forgetting the liberal vision today? It is really disgusting.

Of course I'm cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood. Ultimately, however, I do not believe that politics offers a way out. What we need is a new consciousness concerning the idea of human liberty.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/...interview.html


[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
(I)f the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure of this. If 65% of the people don't want a state, but you only "count" the votes of the other 35% then the rule of majority through representatives of the minority will still persist.

Now, you may say "but if 65% of the population doesn't want a government then they'll just use their collective force to overcome the power of the government". But in that case, you are still asserting yourself and forcing others to involuntarily disband their state. Taking the "high road" and not voting doesn't wash you clean of the necessity to coerce those that still want their state to give it up when the time comes.

[ QUOTE ]
The attempt to use governmental or political processes to reform or abolish the evils of coercion is not a voluntaryist means because it rests on coercion. The distinguishing marks of voluntaryism -- that it is at once both nonviolent and non-electoral in its efforts to convince people to voluntarily abandon the State -- set it apart from all other methods of social change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes.

I don't see the ethical dilemma with "voting anarchist". If the statists are willing to count your vote and have their powers limited by anarchist representatives, I don't see how the anarchists are forcing anyone to do anything (at least, not to a greater extent than they are by sitting on the sidelines).

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The attempt to use governmental or political processes to reform or abolish the evils of coercion is not a voluntaryist means because it rests on coercion. The distinguishing marks of voluntaryism -- that it is at once both nonviolent and non-electoral in its efforts to convince people to voluntarily abandon the State -- set it apart from all other methods of social change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes.

[/ QUOTE ]


How so? Hiring private defense is not the same thing as a coervice monopoly. It's the difference between defense and offense. When I get a gun for the purpose of self-defense, I'm not de facto coercing other people.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Some people just prefer to live in the real world rather than fantasy land.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean, AlexM?

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some people just prefer to live in the real world rather than fantasy land.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean, AlexM?

[/ QUOTE ]


I think he means.....

To do something about our current situation we have to ummmmm errr maybe DO SOMETHING instead of just talk out of our ass

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
because if we actually begin to achieve some of our goals and work towards a free society. Then Neilso would have less to bitch about. Also Alex Jones might shrivel up and die with less moronic international conspiracy theory's to foster.


in case I'm not clear .. people advocating lack of action as a way to enact change are IDIOTS

[/ QUOTE ]


When the action out there is a coercive monopoly, then the lack of such action and it's support would be preferred, would it not? I don't understand how I would be an idiot for thinking so. Can you explain it to me?

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes.

[/ QUOTE ]


How so? Hiring private defense is not the same thing as a coervice monopoly. It's the difference between defense and offense. When I get a gun for the purpose of self-defense, I'm not de facto coercing other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are arguing from the position of an anarchist, though. You are saying that "it is ethical for me and my friends to defend myself from the state with force, so that makes it non-coercive" but what I am saying is that you need to consider that the moral code of the minority may disagree that the state is an evil entity. In that case, you are really just living your moral code through force as opposed to the statists living their moral code through force.

Imposing your morality on someone counts as coercion, too. If they don't agree with your morality and you say "tough, I've got the most guns" that's coercion even if you think it's morally justified.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
because if we actually begin to achieve some of our goals and work towards a free society. Then Neilso would have less to bitch about. Also Alex Jones might shrivel up and die with less moronic international conspiracy theory's to foster.


in case I'm not clear .. people advocating lack of action as a way to enact change are IDIOTS

[/ QUOTE ]


When the action out there is a coercive monopoly, then the lack of such action and it's support would be preferred, would it not? I don't understand how I would be an idiot for thinking so. Can you explain it to me?

[/ QUOTE ]


how you gonna get other people to reject the stus qou with you? or are they all just gonna wake up one day with a mises library in there heads?

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

If Ron Paul got us all closer to Anarchism, why WOULDN'T you vote for him?

It's great to have ideals and personal philosophy, but if it accomplishes nothing what's the point?

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

I think alexM, much like other ACers is trying to distance himself from you. People see Nielso as a 'representative' of ACers, and that is unfortunate for them, as while I think AC is a silly idea, I don't think all ACers are bat [censored] crazy.


Here is the idea,

If you think No government is good, then surely you must think less government is better than the status quo. If you want to show no government is good, then it is easier to lead people down that path, if you show how much BETTER having less government would be.

Also, the more people decide to not vote, the more likely we turn into a tyranny of a minority.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are arguing from the position of an anarchist, though. You are saying that "it is ethical for me and my friends to defend myself from the state with force, so that makes it non-coercive" but what I am saying is that you need to consider that the moral code of the minority may disagree that the state is an evil entity. In that case, you are really just living your moral code through force as opposed to the statists living their moral code through force.

Imposing your morality on someone counts as coercion, too. If they don't agree with your morality and you say "tough, I've got the most guns" that's coercion even if you think it's morally justified.


[/ QUOTE ]
Me defending myself from those that think aggression against me is justified is not coercize.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes.

[/ QUOTE ]


How so? Hiring private defense is not the same thing as a coervice monopoly. It's the difference between defense and offense. When I get a gun for the purpose of self-defense, I'm not de facto coercing other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are arguing from the position of an anarchist, though. You are saying that "it is ethical for me and my friends to defend myself from the state with force, so that makes it non-coercive" but what I am saying is that you need to consider that the moral code of the minority may disagree that the state is an evil entity. In that case, you are really just living your moral code through force as opposed to the statists living their moral code through force.

Imposing your morality on someone counts as coercion, too. If they don't agree with your morality and you say "tough, I've got the most guns" that's coercion even if you think it's morally justified.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't intend to coerce anyone or hire anyone to do so.

Borodog has a gun. Borodog is not a murderer or a thief. The gun is for defensive purposes. He will only use it when someone else is trying to hurt him or take his property.

Borodog is not forcing his moral compass onto anyone. He intends to stop others from doing just that onto him and his family.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes.

[/ QUOTE ]


How so? Hiring private defense is not the same thing as a coervice monopoly. It's the difference between defense and offense. When I get a gun for the purpose of self-defense, I'm not de facto coercing other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are arguing from the position of an anarchist, though. You are saying that "it is ethical for me and my friends to defend myself from the state with force, so that makes it non-coercive" but what I am saying is that you need to consider that the moral code of the minority may disagree that the state is an evil entity. In that case, you are really just living your moral code through force as opposed to the statists living their moral code through force.

Imposing your morality on someone counts as coercion, too. If they don't agree with your morality and you say "tough, I've got the most guns" that's coercion even if you think it's morally justified.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't intend to coerce anyone or hire anyone to do so.

Borodog has a gun. Borodog is not a murderer or a thief. The gun is for defensive purposes. He will only use it when someone else is trying to hurt him or take his property.

Borodog is not forcing his moral compass onto anyone. He intends to stop others from doing just that onto him and his family.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. If someone believes they have a right to Borodog's wife, and he shoots him, Borodog is imposing his morals on him.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Some people just prefer to live in the real world rather than fantasy land.

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean, AlexM?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Voting doesn't support the state, it's simply a weapon (although admittedly a damned crappy one).

2. We aren't going to see anarchy in our lifetimes. The vast majority of people simply don't want it and are even too stupid/brainwashed to even understand it beyond "OMG chaos!!!" Just talking about it is never going to convince these people.

3. Working with the system is the only real means to enact change in our favor at this time. Will it get us what we really want? No, but then nothing we do will. It can, however, make things a little bit better, and considering how much the rest of society is against us, "a little bit better" is all we can realistically expect.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not so sure of this. If 65% of the people don't want a state, but you only "count" the votes of the other 35% then the rule of majority through representatives of the minority will still persist.

[/ QUOTE ]

There may be some majority but if the balance did move to this ratio the influence of the state would start diminishing very rapidly. People would basically be in open defiance of the state in many, many areas. Once that ball gets rolling, it will be very difficult to stop.

[ QUOTE ]
Now, you may say "but if 65% of the population doesn't want a government then they'll just use their collective force to overcome the power of the government". But in that case, you are still asserting yourself and forcing others to involuntarily disband their state.

[/ QUOTE ]

There are two ways to look at this:

1) A man is quietly stealing from me in order to feed his habits at the pony track. I finally discover his theft, and take measures to prevent it. Am I "forcing" him to disband his pony habit? Perhaps. But since he wasn't entitled to the resources he was using to feed that habit, he can't legitimately object.

2) Same situation; of course, he's still free to continue his habit, he just has to find some other way to pay for it.

Refusing to be imposed upon is not an imposition upon others. These other people's "moral codes" don't change this at all. If there is a conflict between two people with different "moral codes" the only way to consistently proceed is to either

1) get voluntary consent from both parties before an interaction proceeds (assuming both are in equal moral classes)

2) demonstrate that one party is in a superior moral class to the other, and therefore does not need consent to initiate the transaction

3) not interact

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Also, the more people decide to not vote, the more likely we turn into a tyranny of a minority.

[/ QUOTE ]

It depends. Do they still believe in the state and are just too lazy/uninterested in the differences between candidates to vote? Or do they actually believe that the state is unnecessary, counterproductive, morally objectionable?

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog has a gun. Borodog is not a murderer or a thief. The gun is for defensive purposes. He will only use it when someone else is trying to hurt him or take his property.

Borodog is not forcing his moral compass onto anyone. He intends to stop others from doing just that onto him and his family.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If someone's personal moral code says that humanity has an obligation to have a state and that all humans have an obligation to contribute to the state, if Boro uses his violent force to prevent them from acting on that moral principle then he is imposing his morality on them. You are still saying "In my moral code it is immoral for someone to take my things, and therefore if all I am doing is defending my things then that's not imposition of morality" which is clearly false, IMO.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ruling class sycophants are not our friends!

For those of you who argue that Rothbard himself was engaged in the political process, that may be so, but ...

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Convenient exceptionaments.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Borodog has a gun. Borodog is not a murderer or a thief. The gun is for defensive purposes. He will only use it when someone else is trying to hurt him or take his property.

Borodog is not forcing his moral compass onto anyone. He intends to stop others from doing just that onto him and his family.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If someone's personal moral code says that humanity has an obligation to have a state and that all humans have an obligation to contribute to the state, if Boro uses his violent force to prevent them from acting on that moral principle then he is imposing his morality on them. You are still saying "In my moral code it is immoral for someone to take my things, and therefore if all I am doing is defending my things then that's not imposition of morality" which is clearly false, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]
If someones moral code validates aggression then I'm not violating his moral code by doing anythng he percieves to be aggression.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
There may be some majority but if the balance did move to this ratio the influence of the state would start diminishing very rapidly. People would basically be in open defiance of the state in many, many areas. Once that ball gets rolling, it will be very difficult to stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the collective force of the majority would be hard to stop. How does that make it "more just" than the current majority being unstopable, unless you happen to agree with the moral code of that future hypothetical majority?

[ QUOTE ]
Refusing to be imposed upon is not an imposition upon others. These other people's "moral codes" don't change this at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is wrong. You are defining imposition within your own moral code and then saying it's not an imposition for when you act on your moral code because it doesn't violate the terms of your moral code. This is circular. If you stick to this, then you must also grant me the moral authority to say "In my moral code the state is not an imposition because participation is a moral obligation. Therefore when I collect taxes with force it's not imposition because it's not imposition under my moral code."

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]

These so-called "Anarchists" are as dogs, who first raise their right paw and pretend to be one of us, saying "democracy is immoral" and "disengagement is the way," and then, when the ruling class waves a shiny new bone at them, run after the bone, barking the slogans of their temporary masters, fighting against everything we hold dear. They no doubt expect that, the elections over and their ruling class politician having lost, they will reintegrate our movement, proud of "having done something," when all they did was legitimize democracy!


We must send a clear message to all that Anarchists are above this den of violence and corruption called politics, and that we will have nothing of it. These voters can be called our sympathizers, sure; but do not let them call themselves Anarchists any longer. Ruling class sycophants are not our friends!

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: I've never kissed a girl.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

These so-called "Anarchists" are as dogs, who first raise their right paw and pretend to be one of us, saying "democracy is immoral" and "disengagement is the way," and then, when the ruling class waves a shiny new bone at them, run after the bone, barking the slogans of their temporary masters, fighting against everything we hold dear. They no doubt expect that, the elections over and their ruling class politician having lost, they will reintegrate our movement, proud of "having done something," when all they did was legitimize democracy!


We must send a clear message to all that Anarchists are above this den of violence and corruption called politics, and that we will have nothing of it. These voters can be called our sympathizers, sure; but do not let them call themselves Anarchists any longer. Ruling class sycophants are not our friends!

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: I've never kissed a girl.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't understand what you mean.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do people convinced of the illegitimacy of the State participate in its processes?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course, I can't speak for everybody, but *you* participate.

Welcome to the internet.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There may be some majority but if the balance did move to this ratio the influence of the state would start diminishing very rapidly. People would basically be in open defiance of the state in many, many areas. Once that ball gets rolling, it will be very difficult to stop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that the collective force of the majority would be hard to stop. How does that make it "more just" than the current majority being unstopable, unless you happen to agree with the moral code of that future hypothetical majority?

[/ QUOTE ]

What force?

How is it unjust? You can't impose your moral code upon others until you demonstrate membership in a superior moral class. And I haven't seen anyone do that. I haven't even seen anyone *assert* that such a class exists.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Refusing to be imposed upon is not an imposition upon others. These other people's "moral codes" don't change this at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is wrong. You are defining imposition within your own moral code and then saying it's not an imposition for when you act on your moral code because it doesn't violate the terms of your moral code. This is circular. If you stick to this, then you must also grant me the moral authority to say "In my moral code the state is not an imposition because participation is a moral obligation. Therefore when I collect taxes with force it's not imposition because it's not imposition under my moral code."

[/ QUOTE ]

You snipped the important part:

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a conflict between two people with different "moral codes" the only way to consistently proceed is to either

1) get voluntary consent from both parties before an interaction proceeds (assuming both are in equal moral classes)

2) demonstrate that one party is in a superior moral class to the other, and therefore does not need consent to initiate the transaction

3) not interact

[/ QUOTE ]

It's quite simple. The only way one can trump the other is if one is superior to the other. Do you believe all men are created equal? Yes or no, please.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

These so-called "Anarchists" are as dogs, who first raise their right paw and pretend to be one of us, saying "democracy is immoral" and "disengagement is the way," and then, when the ruling class waves a shiny new bone at them, run after the bone, barking the slogans of their temporary masters, fighting against everything we hold dear. They no doubt expect that, the elections over and their ruling class politician having lost, they will reintegrate our movement, proud of "having done something," when all they did was legitimize democracy!


We must send a clear message to all that Anarchists are above this den of violence and corruption called politics, and that we will have nothing of it. These voters can be called our sympathizers, sure; but do not let them call themselves Anarchists any longer. Ruling class sycophants are not our friends!

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: I've never kissed a girl.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't understand what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean that this guy needs to get laid or something, because this is a complete waste of time. He's writing a polemic attacking his own people? How the hell is THAT supposed to influence people to his side? You guys don't just attack statists, you attack anyone who doesn't see EVERYTHING exactly the same way you see it. Do you really think that is going to turn people on to your point of view? Calling them "dogs" just because they're misguided? Jesus, these people already believe in liberty, just be a little nicer to them!

I've spoken to Francois before and I thought he was a pompous little jerk off. I can't fathom how any of you guys manage to promote liberty by being condescending and cruel to everyone that disagrees with you.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes.

[/ QUOTE ]


How so? Hiring private defense is not the same thing as a coervice monopoly. It's the difference between defense and offense. When I get a gun for the purpose of self-defense, I'm not de facto coercing other people.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are arguing from the position of an anarchist, though. You are saying that "it is ethical for me and my friends to defend myself from the state with force, so that makes it non-coercive" but what I am saying is that you need to consider that the moral code of the minority may disagree that the state is an evil entity. In that case, you are really just living your moral code through force as opposed to the statists living their moral code through force.

Imposing your morality on someone counts as coercion, too. If they don't agree with your morality and you say "tough, I've got the most guns" that's coercion even if you think it's morally justified.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't intend to coerce anyone or hire anyone to do so.

Borodog has a gun. Borodog is not a murderer or a thief. The gun is for defensive purposes. He will only use it when someone else is trying to hurt him or take his property.

Borodog is not forcing his moral compass onto anyone. He intends to stop others from doing just that onto him and his family.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. Borodog will only shoot you if you intrude upon his property. As he defines it.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

These so-called "Anarchists" are as dogs, who first raise their right paw and pretend to be one of us, saying "democracy is immoral" and "disengagement is the way," and then, when the ruling class waves a shiny new bone at them, run after the bone, barking the slogans of their temporary masters, fighting against everything we hold dear. They no doubt expect that, the elections over and their ruling class politician having lost, they will reintegrate our movement, proud of "having done something," when all they did was legitimize democracy!


We must send a clear message to all that Anarchists are above this den of violence and corruption called politics, and that we will have nothing of it. These voters can be called our sympathizers, sure; but do not let them call themselves Anarchists any longer. Ruling class sycophants are not our friends!

[/ QUOTE ]

Translation: I've never kissed a girl.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't understand what you mean.

[/ QUOTE ]

I mean that this guy needs to get laid or something, because this is a complete waste of time. He's writing a polemic attacking his own people? How the hell is THAT supposed to influence people to his side? You guys don't just attack statists, you attack anyone who doesn't see EVERYTHING exactly the same way you see it. Do you really think that is going to turn people on to your point of view? Calling them "dogs" just because they're misguided? Jesus, these people already believe in liberty, just be a little nicer to them!

I've spoken to Francois before and I thought he was a pompous little jerk off. I can't fathom how any of you guys manage to promote liberty by being condescending and cruel to everyone that disagrees with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can't impose your moral code upon others until you demonstrate membership in a superior moral class.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, so if you say "it's immoral for you to take my property" and Joe Statist says "no it's not, it's a moral obligation for you to contribute so please hand it over", have you "demonstrated membership in a superior moral class"? If not, why do you get to use physical force to stop him when he takes your stuff?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Refusing to be imposed upon is not an imposition upon others. These other people's "moral codes" don't change this at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is wrong. You are defining imposition within your own moral code and then saying it's not an imposition for when you act on your moral code because it doesn't violate the terms of your moral code. This is circular. If you stick to this, then you must also grant me the moral authority to say "In my moral code the state is not an imposition because participation is a moral obligation. Therefore when I collect taxes with force it's not imposition because it's not imposition under my moral code."

[/ QUOTE ]

You snipped the important part:

[ QUOTE ]
If there is a conflict between two people with different "moral codes" the only way to consistently proceed is to either

1) get voluntary consent from both parties before an interaction proceeds (assuming both are in equal moral classes)

2) demonstrate that one party is in a superior moral class to the other, and therefore does not need consent to initiate the transaction

3) not interact

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

This set of "offical pvn rules for morality conflict" are not internally consistent. Sure, they will allow you to mediate conflicts between you and others that also adhere to your fundamental belief of voluntary transactions and property rights, but what about when someone else's morality says you're morally obligated to give them your property? You can't default to the "no interaction" response because that is consistent with your morality but not theirs. This still boils down to you saying "it's not immoral under my morality so it's not immoral" circular argument.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
You are arguing from the position of an anarchist, though. You are saying that "it is ethical for me and my friends to defend myself from the state with force, so that makes it non-coercive" but what I am saying is that you need to consider that the moral code of the minority may disagree that the state is an evil entity. In that case, you are really just living your moral code through force as opposed to the statists living their moral code through force.

Imposing your morality on someone counts as coercion, too. If they don't agree with your morality and you say "tough, I've got the most guns" that's coercion even if you think it's morally justified.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, of course you would be using force--but the important thing is whether it is legitimate of illegitimate force (after all, self-defense is often forceful). But ij order to know if A's use of force constitutes self-defense or aggression, we must know what rights we actually have and whether there is in the situation a real violation of rights.

So anarchists using force to defend themselves from statism only constitutes aggression if we are wrong about what rights we really have. (Just like how we view A 'stealing' B's watch depends on objective facts, eg if B had previously stolen the watch from A then A is in no way 'aggressing' by taking the watch back.)

Clearly everyone has a right to believe in whatever morals, rights, etc that they want to (and to say what they want about them, etc)--but everyone is still answerable to the rights we all really have.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've spoken to Francois before and I thought he was a pompous little jerk off.

[/ QUOTE ]


hmk ... his name is "Francois" and that didn't clue you in to just walk away? Some people are born a douche and some have to learn it.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly everyone has a right to believe in whatever morals, rights, etc that they want to (and to say what they want about them, etc)--but everyone is still answerable to the rights we all really have.

[/ QUOTE ]

But everyone disagrees as to what rights we really have, so that gets us nowhere. Except, of course, that the most forceful group gets to mandate it's conception of real rights.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
But everyone disagrees as to what rights we really have, so that gets us nowhere.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, no one is saying its not a practical problem; if there was no disagreement, then we wouldn't need to have this discussion and there'd already be no state to worry about [img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]
But this is like saying that it "gets us nowhere" to try and find the correct economic theory because there is such widespread disagreement. But so what? People disagree about stuff all the time; we have these arguments to find the correct answers.

[ QUOTE ]
Except, of course, that the most forceful group gets to mandate it's conception of real rights.

[/ QUOTE ]

Might will generally make right, if we're talking about legal rights or de facto rights. But while powerful people or groups might try to mold legal/de facto rights as they see fit, they can never change our natural rights, since natural rights are prescriptions for how people should be treated and have no connection with how people actually are treated.
So no group or person can ever mandate our natural rights--at best they can trick people into believing that they don't exist.

Re: Reject the \'Anarchist\' Voters
 

[ QUOTE ]
I will not be voting. However, I will be wagering on the outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I have a feeling that some of you will not be voting not because you choose not to vote but because you aren't eligible. Make sure to vote for Prom Queen, however.