Anti-Voting Quotes?

[Solreyus]

@maxpot46

And then they can be re-rolled back again. Your anarchic society also can be rolled back and the statist society re-enacted (e.g. wasn’t there some kind of agorist enclave back in the 80’s?). Every generation has to fight this battle. Thus your point is not a weakness of reformism but rather a fact of nature, which reformists deal with by emphasizing the importance of grooming leaders and which agorists deal with by ??? (from my perspective, it seems like denial is the preferred strategy, but I’m hoping to be shown otherwise).

Actually, that’s a false analogy. The reason these things can be rolled back is that the government never releases the shackles, it merely loosens the noose and lengthens the chain. You are lured into a false sense of freedom, but the institution of coercion is still there.

The whole point of anarchy is that government’s functions are taken over, and ran far more efficiently, by private firms and voluntary association. Once security, arbitration, education, health care, etc. are all taken care of by the free market, in a far more efficient manner, with lower costs, with no inflation, etc. then I see no real reason for statism to rear its ugly head again. Remember, the state depends upon people believing that its various services cannot be provided without coercion.

[CaptainMurphy]

You’re not punching the state that is stealing from you, you’re endorsing it, while hurting a bunch of other people. Sure some of those other people contributed to punching you, but some of them didn’t. As I said, vicarious liability.

How does a vote for lower taxes hurt people? They are going to be taxed regardless of whether or not you vote, it’s just a matter of whether you want statists to have all the say in how much people are taxed.

Don’t equate voting with using public goods such as roads. Voting is optional, using roads or other goods you are coerced into using does not constitute a choice, at least no way near the same choice, as the consequences are very different.

How are you coerced into using public roads? You’re coerced into paying for them, but using them is a voluntary decision. Is using roads that you’ve been forced to pay for legitimizing government roads? I would say no. Similarly, voting in a political system in which you are forced to contribute your tax dollars to does not legitimize democracy.

[Ego]

@Fred Furash

@maxpot46

And then they can be re-rolled back again. Your anarchic society also can be rolled back and the statist society re-enacted (e.g. wasn’t there some kind of agorist enclave back in the 80’s?). Every generation has to fight this battle. Thus your point is not a weakness of reformism but rather a fact of nature, which reformists deal with by emphasizing the importance of grooming leaders and which agorists deal with by ??? (from my perspective, it seems like denial is the preferred strategy, but I’m hoping to be shown otherwise).

Actually, that’s a false analogy. The reason these things can be rolled back is that the government never releases the shackles, it merely loosens the noose and lengthens the chain. You are lured into a false sense of freedom, but the institution of coercion is still there.

The whole point of anarchy is that government’s functions are taken over, and ran far more efficiently, by private firms and voluntary association. Once security, arbitration, education, health care, etc. are all taken care of by the free market, in a far more efficient manner, with lower costs, with no inflation, etc. then I see no real reason for statism to rear its ugly head again. Remember, the state depends upon people believing that its various services cannot be provided without coercion.

There will always be lefitists/statists! People like that won’t magically go away, just like libertarians don’t magically go away just because there is a state. Of course, there will always be people who will be convinced by leftists; it happens time and time again, and it always will. Don’t think that we’ll be done with leftists once we kick them out of power! They live for power.

[maxpot46]

@Fred Furash

The reason these things can be rolled back is that the government never releases the shackles, it merely loosens the noose and lengthens the chain. You are lured into a false sense of freedom, but the institution of coercion is still there.

You’re speaking of aggregates and in generalities. You say “the government” and “it” implying “a monolithic entity which we cannot influence”. Further, with such sweeping statement you also imply that “you, maxpot46, do not have the power to enter politics and strike positive blows for freedom.”

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. I see quite clearly a reformist strategy to attain specific goals. I believe in myself so strongly that I believe I can attain these goals. I believe in mankind so strongly that I know that others will try as well, and that eventually one of us will succeed. As I said, every generation fights this battle, and though we libertarians have quite a losing streak going, we can absolutely get a winning streak going as well.

@Fred Furash

Once security, arbitration, education, health care, etc. are all taken care of by the free market, in a far more efficient manner, with lower costs, with no inflation, etc. then I see no real reason for statism to rear its ugly head again.

This is remarkably optimistic. No reason for statism to rear its head? How about human nature? Some people will always strive to be the boss, and a remarkably large number of people will always be willing to let them. Some people will always want to fight wars. We’re talking about human beings here.

[Solid_Choke]

@Fred Furash

You must be consistent in order to have any valid ethical basis. The goal is no government. You cannot dissolve government by using government as your means. You must instead setup or participate in some sort of alternative institutions (agorism basically).

Your self-defense argument doesn’t make sense either, since if you were to consistently apply it, every time someone from the government came to take your money, you would protect your property with deadly force. But you don’t (I’m assuming). And so pleading with your overlord in the form of a vote does not constitute self-defense.

You say that government cannot be reduced from inside the system like its a fact. There has even been times in the past where people voted for more liberty. In 1977 when the Indian government was forcing people to get sterilized they voted the government out of power in favor of one that allowed more freedoms. By no means am I saying democracy is a great protector of liberty, but to say that it is incapable of brining about more liberty than currently exists is by no means a settled fact. I am not saying that voting is a good strategy to further your fight against statism, but you cannot rightfully claim that it is impossible to gain more liberty through the democratic process.