"No, voting is not a crime. "
It contains all the elements of crime.
Intent- voters at very least statist ones( not sure about libertarians) vote with the intention to use government/government intervention (the means) to achieve their desired ends(e.g. minimum wage laws etc)
It is surprising because libertarians tend to think of crimes are direct physical aggression but remember a terrorist posting a letter bomb which the courier delivers which then explodes and kills someone, is still a criminal aggressor even though they are distanced from te aggression but time and location.
“That’s like saying “speeding” is a crime.”
Speeding isn’t a crime because there’s no victim,no aggression or rights violation, no intent to aggress or violation rights,no use of means to do so and no end goal e.g. rape.
" There is no victim in either case. "
The victim/s are those who are directly aggressed against by the voter’s act of voting for minimum wage laws say.
“(unless you are voting for someone that wants to let you opt out of taxes, then I don’t think it would be stupid).”
True,I agree however knowing the nature of the state that’ll never happen.
Never gonna happen but then it wouldn’t be criminal to vote infact it would be highly moral.
Political voting.
Voting in general is innocent though in some cases immoral or aggression.
I think referendums are more preferrable to voting since it’s giving the choice of do you want minimum wage laws for example or not and so you can make a chose that would be non aggressive in some cases.You never get that sort of choice in voting and I don’t buy the voting in defense argument.
@E. R., I was contrasting it with a crime in the legal sense.
Skyler, I don’t understand the word in any other sense, except maybe like with the “fashion police”. Democracy’s days are numbered. Yes, I personally find it to be “going out of fashion”. That it doesn’t achieve the desired effect (“putting the people in power” or whatever) means there is nothing else to do but try anarchy or continue living in a perpetual state of war.
If you voted against Hitler you are still part responsible for everything Hitler did. Cause you have accepted and participated in this system of violence.
HK, this isn’t true. Responsibility ends at the people who administer government hegemony of activities that would be legitimate in a free market (letter carrying, health care, etc.) or down to the individuals committing the actual crimes (murdering brown people for oil).
Intent- voters at very least statist ones( not sure about libertarians) vote with the intention to use government/government intervention (the means) to achieve their desired ends(e.g. minimum wage laws etc)
Scott, both libertarian-ish and leftish voters don’t see what they are doing as tacit acceptance of a system of institutionalized violence. They are convinced otherwise to the level of religious indoctrination. I’m quite aware of threats constituting aggression. In analyzing this problem, we must become aware of another sub-category of aggression, pedagoguery (ex. X politician preaching that “Health care is a right.”)
If voting were a crime (and there is no way it is), this lack of intention would eliminate half of the “teeth” portion of the allowable punishment.
It is surprising because libertarians tend to think of crimes are direct physical aggression but remember a terrorist posting a letter bomb which the courier delivers which then explodes and kills someone, is still a criminal aggressor even though they are distanced from te aggression but time and location.
Comparing ballots to letter bombs is a material fallacy.
Speeding isn’t a crime because there’s no victim,no aggression or rights violation, no intent to aggress or violation rights,no use of means to do so and no end goal e.g. rape.
Voting isn’t ordering any certain action. This is very similar to the type of conflict created by advocates of intellectual property “rights”, in a way. Based on a faulty perception of the chain of causation, you are multiplying responsibility to include those not directly involved. Imagine that I only cast one vote ever, and it was for some dude who died the first day in office and never did anything. It seems like that, by your reasoning, this would still be a crime.
I know that some of you are going to continue to disagree with me, so I am making an appeal to pragmatism. Who would you rather first apprehend for crimes of statism, those who I outlined as guilty or “every voter”? This reminds me of pseudo-libertarian forum member Spideynw insisting that parents have the right to rape or murder their own children. I rigorously proved this to be false, but one has to wonder if he thinks that arguing for such things advances the cause of liberty or, more likely, paints all libertarians as nutjobs.
If you haven’t read Mises’ works, or Kinsella and Block on proportional punishment theory (plus other stuff really), you have exactly zero credibility in my eyes on what is or is not a crime. Rothbard said that punishment theory is underdeveloped and I agree with him. There’s yet to be written an extension of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics in Misesean terms. Once you get attuned to thinking praxeologically, why the mere act of voting is not a crime will be apparent to you.
Tuesday I went to the uni to grade exams. As I was walking through Budapest I saw it was in a state of perpetual war. There were minefields, dead bodies, tanks stuck in trenches and all that shit. Everything was devastated. And so was I.
Tuesday I went to the uni to grade exams. As I was walking through Budapest I saw it was in a state of perpetual war. There were minefields, dead bodies, tanks stuck in trenches and all that shit. Everything was devastated. And so was I.
You are an unemployed, Canadian college dropout and have never been to Budapest. See how fun lying and making crap up is?
No.
Voting is not a crime.
Unless you are the individual who is a “representative”, and vote to increase the size of the state - then you become a criminal and liable for the damages you cause (if the bill passes).
@E. R., though voting yourself wealth (redistribution) or the abridgment of someone’s freedom to associate with certain others is not against the laws of the land, a crime, it would be a “crime” under libertarian philosophy. That is all I meant.
@E. R., though voting yourself wealth (redistribution) or the abridgment of someone’s freedom to associate with certain others is not against the laws of the land, a crime, it would be a “crime” under libertarian philosophy. That is all I meant.
Sorry but that is not a crime in any way, shape, or form.
I completely disagree with “redistribution”, but saying, “that would be awesome if you go grab that old lady’s purse” is not a crime in and of itself.
@E. R., I’m not sure how that equates with voting for someone whose intentions to commit theft are advertised and the motivation behind their receiving your vote. Hoping someone would perform a crime and enabling them (on purpose) to do it is the difference. One is criminal, one is not, under libertarian philosophy.
How is writing someone’s name on a piece of paper enabling them to do anything to anyone else?
So consent is the crime?
@Spideynw, really? You don’t know how voting works? Obama’s in office with the power to do all sorts of things to all sorts of people because others “wrote his name on a piece of paper”.
Voting in a govt election is akin to hiring someone to commit an act of theft or violence. And I think that it’s a double-edged sword for those who attempt to vote in self-defense.
“@Spideynw, really? You don’t know how voting works? Obama’s in office with the power to do all sorts of things to all sorts of people because others “wrote his name on a piece of paper”.”
Why do you think I don’t know how voting works?
Does voting endow people with power over others? I would hope you understand that of course it does not. Do people expect the person they vote for to do things to other people? Not necessarily. Do most people support politicians harming others without consent? Yes, and that is the crime. But if I vote for someone, with the full expectation that the person I vote for will only rule over me and anyone else that votes for that person, how is that a crime?
@Spideynw, now you’ve qualified the question beyond it’s original intent.
You don’t think intent is taken into consideration when talking about a crime? Saying “voting” is always a crime is like saying “killing someone” is always a crime. Neither statement is true.
If you are saying, “voting to decide who gets to harm others is a crime”, I would probably agree, since they would then be considered accomplices.
@Spidernw, this was the original question of which I am referring, “Could we say a statist voting with the intent to use the means of government/government intervention to achieve their desired ends in terms of a vision of society, are crime by collaborating in use of aggression?”
“If you voted against Hitler you are still part responsible for everything Hitler did. Cause you have accepted and participated in this system of violence.”
“HK, this isn’t true. Responsibility ends at the people who administer government hegemony of activities that would be legitimate in a free market (letter carrying, health care, etc.) or down to the individuals committing the actual crimes (murdering brown people for oil).”
I disagree.I think you are part responsible if you wanted to use Hitler and his rise to power to achieve the ends which he claimed to set out to do.
**"**Scott, both libertarian-ish and leftish voters don’t see what they are doing as tacit acceptance of a system of institutionalized violence. "
I didn’t argue that voting implies acceptance of the system only that it means the voting is collaborating in the evil of the system by the act of voting when they vote with the intent to have a candidate enforce x unlibertarian law or policy.
" we must become aware of another sub-category of aggression, pedagoguery (ex. X politician preaching that “Health care is a right.”)"
I disagree that is aggression.
“If voting were a crime (and there is no way it is),”
I have outlined how it could be.
“this lack of intention would eliminate half of the “teeth” portion of the allowable punishment.”
It’s undeniable that at very least statist voters(not sure about libertarians who vote) vote with the intention of using it to pass laws/policies they favour .It’s undeniable that voters act with intent to vote to use the means of government to achieve the vision of society they want.
It is surprising because libertarians tend to think of crimes are direct physical aggression but remember a terrorist posting a letter bomb which the courier delivers which then explodes and kills someone, is still a criminal aggressor even though they are distanced from te aggression but time and location.
“Comparing ballots to letter bombs is a material fallacy.”
While there is alot of difference in some ways they are quite similiar .The voter is distanced from the violence of government(similiarity) but acts with intent to use government to achieve their ends(collaboration with the state .The state is to the voter the equivalent of the courier however the state also uses violence so it’s one person pretty much asking government to do evil(that government has convinced them is a good idea) that government wants to do.The fact that voters intent to use government to impose ends and have been tricked deceived and brainwashed into believing this is good and necessary in no way negates their responsibility or makes their intention any less real.
“Voting isn’t ordering any certain action.”
Your voting for x candidate who aims to do x ,say enforce minimum wage laws(I’m deliberately picking a promise a politician would keep).
Your voting for candidate(means) who is aiming to be in government(means) who will use government intervention(means)to impose mimum wage(ends) so those under paid a certain wage forced by law to get get a certain pay(end) .
Imagine that I only cast one vote ever, and it was for some dude who died the first day in office and never did anything.
I would say in this case that yes ,you probably are innocent.
"If you haven’t read Mises’ works, "
not in depth I must admit.
"or Kinsella and Block on proportional punishment theory "
I had read Kinsella on this plus causation and aggression as mentioned above and Block on punishment too except punishment for working for government,I haven’t read that and digested it’s truth’s yet.
“you have exactly zero credibility in my eyes on what is or is not a crime.”
I’ve read most of what you’ve stated here and yet we disagree so either one of us misunderstood it or one of us sees the implications or non implications of it while one doesn’t.
I would say this view I advocate does appear to follow from Kinsella’s reasoning.He even mentions voting in passing though not saying it’s a crime or aggression though it appears to be implied.
"Rothbard said that punishment theory is underdeveloped and I agree with him. "
Well it’s true,it’s not completely figured out but I think Rothbard,Kinsella and Block have advanced it pretty far.
There’s yet to be written an extension of Hoppe’s argumentation ethics in Misesean terms.
I’m not sure what you mean.the only areas argumentation ethics misses out misesean concepts is intention,means and ends I think.correct me if I’m wrong.
“Once you get attuned to thinking praxeologically, why the mere act of voting is not a crime will be apparent to you.”
I’m not sure I agree.In causation and aggression,Kinsella’s whole argument is praxeologically based and so is mine’s here.