Then you are screwed. I have never heard of an ancap who accepts the authority of others to exercise power of others to his life and property.
That is exactly what voting is. By voting and playing the political game, you are using the same mechanism the state gains authority from for your own ends. You are exercising democratic, majority power to the detriment of any minority that might oppose you. Not to mention that the entire election process and serving in government in the first place is a coercive business. You necessarily have to profit from state theft and violence.
I just can’t see how any kind of serious ancap can support a little stealing now for electoral success (and presumably more stealing later). It’s completely an ends justify the means argument, which every libertarian rejects when he accepts the NAP.
If by common, you mean the mass man. Sure… Mencken’s quotes come to mind.
You don’t feel a need to point out to someone, make it clear for them, with your choice of words - what is actually in their self interest? That was exactly my point. “Sets up the premise”? Haha, negative. I’m implying anyone, is a fool when it comes to tactics and strategy, if they completely rule out choosing phrases that help make clearer the immoral actions of the state. It is an anti-social institution. You know that, so why hold back on the rhetoric that makes it more evident? They are the ones with the gun to our heads. Show it. The point is they are advocating coercion, we’re not.
It’s not that I recognize that authority, not by a longshot. I just don’t want to get thrown in jail, so I comply. If I can vote for a more benevolent master, I will.
And this, everybody, is the very heart of the matter. What do you know, Robert Nisbet is right once again. Now, once you’ve got rid of religion, the family and tradition, unfortunately for you, the road to serfdom will be nicely paved. Which leaves you with a dilemma, given that hierarchy is naturely, which one do you want?
Statelessness is very conducive towards religion, this holds in both theory and practise. But would I advocate totalitarianism in the name of religion? No more than the hippies on these forums would advocate totalitarianism in the name of their PC agenda.
I shouldn’t be ashamed of anything. Fact is, these forums are provided by people who are, by and large, Christians and traditionalists. Some people tend to forget this and launch their usual snide Randian attacks on religion.
As I’ve said, if you want to do that sort of thing, Cato only has open arms for you.
But you do recognize their authority. That’s what voting is. By voting you are saying the State is legitimate. Voting is the illusion that the State is giving you a choice in the States existence. Benevolent master or not, the master is taking your freedom and you are saying it’s ok - cause you vote and keep the statist process going. I mean at least in voting you are not being coerced to vote or not. So you voting is totally your free-will on keeping the statist process.
I do not see how having a dogma I do not agree with having power over my life is going to be any better than a government I do not agree with…
I did not get rid of religion, I just do not agree with yours, and the sets of rules it imposes on the day to day lives of private individuals, I do not agree with the notion that I need a religious organization to be rid of government, I can worship what I choose as I choose on my own time, in the privacy of my own home or a designated place of worship owned by people that believe as I do, and this can be completely independent of politics
Not to knock SST or the current Catholic church, but, if you recall history, it was the Catholic Church that made the claim that being a good serf and paying your tithe was the road to heaven
I do not see how not being a fan of right wing Christians, not all of them, just those that accept totalitarianism if it is a Christian package is rejecting family and tradition, as my family and traditions have nothing to do with the Christian faith
All you are saying about natural hierarchy is that it is man’s nature to dominate one another, all you are doing is looking to replace government with another government, and call it religion, are you an ancap?
This still does not answer, having the Christian religion as your religous state interference is conducive to statelessness, what stops them from becoming the state?
LS made mention that you believe that your Christian agenda would uphold in the market, I personally disagree, as it is not very profitable, but that is my opinion. If you decided your Utopian Libertarian Society was legitimized to make the demands of it’s “citizens” that government does, how is that stateless, if, on the other hand you expect the free market to follow your Christian beliefs, if it does not, what do you do?
So majority is right?
I am not attacking religion, I am attacking people who use religion to justify aggression towards others
The thing you do not seem to understand is that I do not care what your religion is, and why should I? I can live my entire life without knowing that your religion exists and the superiority that some members believe they have over others because your religion tells them such. If this is an attack on your religion, my non recognition that is, then maybe you need to examine your faith, as what I believe should matter not to you…
This attempt to tell me that not agreeing with religion that replaces the role of government as protector makes me unwelcome here is something to be ashamed of, it is a testament to verify left wing socialist’s claims on right wing religious people.
Now I am sure this will not make it in your reply, because how can someone that does not advocate religion as government interference believe this, but I do appreciate the lessons learned in the bible, that is the basis for life in a community, do not murder each other, steal, rape, and such, it is the dogmatic inconsistency that people advocate that I have an issue with…
Compliance is one thing. Voting and politics is another. The very same system that would throw you in jail, is the one that gains consent when you vote for and participate in it.
The great myth of western society is that the people own the government and can change it.
+1 on compliance != submission. Compliance out of reluctance is sometimes the only option you have for self-defense of your own being, as well as those you care about (family, etc.).
Voting voluntarily, however, walks the line between reluctant compliance & endorsement, & unless you are voting to purposely game voting itself (such as None of The Above, or attempt a wrte-in campaign for an absurd choice, such as a celebrity, or a dead person), it’s hard to see how voting is an act of self-defense unless someone forced you at immediate gun-point to choose someone at the voting booth.
The government has a gun on all of us, yes, but for the mean time, it is not literally forcing people to vote. In the meantime, it is still largely reinforced through social-ostracism, abliet, out of ignorance & faith in government, & one can still choose to not vote at all.
No one should be surprised if that changes, though.
The cynic in me wouldn’t be surprised that if these FEMA camps ever do crop up (to help us through tough economical anarchy due to hyperinflation, of course, not to hurt us), that voting booths would also be there in case there is any detainees during the elections, and a nicely captioned picture of a smiling child (maybe two or, one or two of them being minorities) is posted on the booths with the caption, “Voting will set you free.”
Be thankful that the road to blowback is taking as long as it is, methinks; we still have time to prepare / get out of the country / pray. I’m frankly surprised it hasn’t happened sooner, but a lot of stuff could happen this summer to make the heat seem like a blessing
There’s the self-defense line of Spooner and Rothbard, arguing that the voting process pits person and voting bloc against each other, so you defend yourself by voting for the person who’s going to steal the least from you.
How in the world do you figure out what politician will steal the least from you? The conservative compassionate Bush? small government Reagan? Obama who’s not about foreign intervention? lies… all lies.
You’re missing my point, you can feel free to advocate this hyperindividualism you desire, just as the folks over at Cato do. However, when it comes to it, the only way you’re going to get this is to lobby the state for it. As Hayek and Nisbet have pointed out, there are various institutions that have their position between the state and the individual, if you want to get rid of the state these institutions are essential, if you want your “individualism” these institutions are inadmissible.
It’s man nature to need leaders, whether they be familial or spiritual. The fact of the matter is that only a few people are meant to be leaders of any sorts, and whether or not you like it, they will be just that. Now, they can be leaders of the Church and the family, or they can be leaders of the secular state.
Well, I’d rather have a theocracy than modern democracy to begin with, so if we do abolish the state only to see the rise of religious states, we’ve seen a step foward. In any case, your question proves far too much, but the answer is that the other institutions in society stop them from “becoming a state” (whatever the means).
You’d do well to do some research on how states have usually arisen and so why your theory doesn’t match the “reality” you Randians are so fond of.
The state has done everything it has to either coopt religion or outcompete it, neither of which is difficult considering the funding the state has access to. Nonetheless, the Church has not fared too badly.
Fact is, once parents are allowed to actually teach their children, you’ll see religion gaining ground.
No, I’ve said that perhaps you’d be better off over at Cato.
Why are you saying this to me? I’ve said it a million times, I’m not Catholic. In any case, when the state appeals to religion for legitimacy, they’d best abide by the rules of that religion: most often religions tend to look down on the wanton murder of millions of the country’s own citizens.
See, Hitler’s regime was not too dissimilar to those of Mussolini, Franco and Salazar. Difference is, the last three were “all in the hands of the papacy” (as Hitler said, wrt why he hated Mussolini and Franco), the other difference is that Hitler killed more than the last three combined.
My apologizes. I wasn’t saying you are Catholic. I’m pointing out the theocracy bit.
The catholic church, muslims, and hebrews each have stories of aggressive warfare. Having to travel far to get to their destination of conflict. Again, I’m not against religion per say, but their hands are not clean. I’d rather focus on not having war.
And a murderer that kills only one is somehow off the hook now cause Mussolini, Franco, and Salazar killed more than the lone murderer? I’m not sure of your point here.
Unless they’re all “rookies”, the best you can do is look at the track record and what they actually say, i.e. whether or not what they’re talking about makes sense or sounds like every single political platitude ever.
I know that no one expects it. And its chief weapons are surprise, fear, ruthless efficiency, an almost fantatical devotion to the pope, and nice red uniforms.
