Reject the 'Anarchist' Voters

[pvn]

[ 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.

[hmkpoker]

[ 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.

[jogger08152]

[ 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.

[AlexM]

[ 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

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[nietzreznor]

[ 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.

[NeBlis]

[ 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.

[mosdef]

[ 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.

[nietzreznor]

[ 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.

[MrMon]

[ 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.