[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm with tomd here -- there seems to be an *apparent* tension between consequentialism and deontology in the ACist camp; if ACists are to whole-heartedly embrace Ron Paul (and it sure seems like that's happening on this forum), then it would seem to imply that the normative moral and ethical claims ACists are fond of making are at least somewhat meaningless, given how readily they abandon them if it means "a step in the right direction" or some face time on CNN or whatever other justification is used for supporting Paul.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a consequentialist ACist, I'm just not going to crucify those that are. The position is so fringe as it is, why bother starting fights in our own camp? That's why I said the last post was "probably" my last of the thread (though I knew it wouldn't be)- because I was tired of going on the defensive for a group of people I'm not even part of (those that intend to cast a vote for Ron Paul).

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand why you don't want to get involved in the fight.

But what I think Tom is saying is that the group of anarchists that are saying "finally a guy I can get behind and vote for, because he'll produce some of the outcomes I want!" should be troubling to the non-consequentialist camp, since it justifies everyone else who votes because voting might produce 'desirable' outcomes *they* want.

"Don't tax me because it's wrought by threat of force, and threatening people with force is immoral" loses alot of its meaning if all we're really concerned with, as moral actors, are the consequences that actions produce.

So I understand why you don't want to fight about it with your brethren, it sounds like something you might want to consider fighting about, given how important many of those moral imperatives are.