Ron Paul and the Singularity

[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.

[tomdemaine]

I kinda wish this had been in it's own thread rather than tacked onto some nonsense about living forever I wonder if iron would change the title of this thread.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, so libertarians and ACists are constantly warning us against the dangers of falling victim to outlandish campaign promises and pie-in-the-sky rhetoric that 'mainstream' Democrats and Republicans in America throw at us.

Good thing you guys haven't fallen victim to that:

[ QUOTE ]
vote Ron Paul and live for 100,000,000 years at a level of consciousness beyond your wildest dreams, personally visiting other solar systems, etc. etc. etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ron Paul: A vote for immortality and interplanetary tourism!

[/ QUOTE ]
I guess to be fair I should mention the downside. The 2nd law of thermodynamics and asymptotic de Sitter space mean you still have to die eventually, and it will be all the more a tragedy after such a long and glorious life. Even Ron Paul can't grant you godhood, as much as it pains me to say so.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
I kinda wish this had been in it's own thread rather than tacked onto some nonsense about living forever I wonder if iron would change the title of this thread.

[/ QUOTE ]
You dirty bastard, how dare you. I'll be sure and bump this thread when we're both in the tax funded, government-run nursing home and people are talking about FDA approval for nano-repaired brain and body function "in as few as ten to twelve years."

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok. But when you vote for Ron Paul, that X is your signature on the social contract that the statists keep going on about.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not.

[ QUOTE ]
You're saying that certain forms of taxation are ok

[/ QUOTE ]

No you're not.

[ QUOTE ]
you're saying that governments can do better than the market in some areas

[/ QUOTE ]

No again!

[ QUOTE ]
you're saying that voting for the lesser of two evils is a worthwhile choice

[/ QUOTE ]

If the ldifference between evils is extreme enough, it is. Could you seriously not choose between say FDR and Hitler? I could easily choose FDR there and I think he was one of our worst presidents.

[ QUOTE ]
and that democracy can work.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really, but debatable.

[ QUOTE ]
You're conceding the whole game

[/ QUOTE ]

This is backwards. The people who refuse to vote are the ones conceding the whole game.

[ QUOTE ]
and giving up the only bargaining chip we have, the moral high ground

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope. Haven't given up the moral high ground. You only think this because you think voting means a lot more than it really does.

[ QUOTE ]
for a fools hope that Ron Paul can somehow cause a change in the US

[/ QUOTE ]

He has a better chance than you.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Let's put it this way. Ron Paul has absolutely no shot in the world of being sworn in to office in January of 2009.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed

[/ QUOTE ]

Because of people like you. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
Choosing not to vote isn't a move towards ACism but is in fact tilting at windmills at best and (more likely) a huge step backward for ACism at worst

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP

[AlexM]

[ 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 ]

Not at all. I'm a moral ACist, but I've said many times that I prefer to live in reality than in fantasy land. This means I'm going to fight for ways to make the world better rather than do absolutely nothing like all these "OMG voting is immoral!" ACists. I will vote for Ron Paul. This doesn't mean I completely support Ron Paul, what he will do or his policies. It's entirely a "lesser evil" scenario. Is the lesser evil still evil? Of course, but if I know that by not choosing to be stolen from I'm going to be to murdered, guess what I'm "choosing"? The lesser evil winning is the only thing I can hope to have happen that might improve my freedom.

[ojc02]

[ 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 ]

Not at all. I'm a moral ACist, but I've said many times that I prefer to live in reality than in fantasy land. This means I'm going to fight for ways to make the world better rather than do absolutely nothing like all these "OMG voting is immoral!" ACists. I will vote for Ron Paul. This doesn't mean I completely support Ron Paul, what he will do or his policies. It's entirely a "lesser evil" scenario. Is the lesser evil still evil? Of course, but if I know that by not choosing to be stolen from I'm going to be to murdered, guess what I'm "choosing"? The lesser evil winning is the only thing I can hope to have happen that might improve my freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree but the danger is that this is the same argument that will cause people to vote for Rudy Giuliani the authoritarian over Hillary Clinton the communist...

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
Nope. Haven't given up the moral high ground. You only think this because you think voting means a lot more than it really does.


[/ QUOTE ]

Just a little OT question for everyone, is there anyone that starts an argument from the postion "Well I don't have the moral highground but..."?

Also, what is the moral high ground?

Cody