The non-voter just chooses to let voters decide who his ruler will be. If it were possible to divide up one’s vote into shares and distribute them equally amoung the remaining voters, this would be no different from what the non-voter does. Unless there are no other voters, the non-voter is in the same position as if he cast his ballot the same way all other voters have. One is in the same moral position if they vote as they are if they don’t vote. The best one can do is cast their ballot in favour of a lesser evil.
Surely you recognize that the non-voter does not truly “choose” or “consent” to anything. They obviously do not consent to the authority of the ruler, nor do they consent to the decision of the voter to select their ruler for them.
One is not in the same position in terms of virtue. While it is a common sentiment to proclaim that “you didn’t vote, therefore you don’t have a right to complain”, I think that the opposite is closer to the truth. Those who didn’t vote didn’t actively participate in the process selecting from the package deal of thugs. Those who did vote did actively participate in the process and therefore are somewhat complicit in enabling the state of affairs that comes about from the process. The non-voter has more virtue on their side and more of a reason to complain because they did not asquiesce to the political process. Those who did vote have less virtue on their side because they did asquiesce.
Ah yes, the disease of pragmatism. What happens when the “lesser evil” happens to nonetheless still be eggregiously evil? What are you doing for the cause of liberty by voting for them? Nothing, that’s what. In fact, you’re undermining it.
No, no, no! Everyone knows that whether you vote or not, you’re going to be affected by the election.
For example, let’s say that there is a initiative on the ballot to raise taxes. It’s not hypocritical or “selling-out” to vote against it! It’s called self-defense, and to be honest, anyone who doesn’t want those taxes has an equal right to complain, regardless of whether they voted.
That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m not talking about whether or not one is affected by the election, I’m talking about one’s degree of complicity in bringing about the current state of affairs through the democratic process. The non-voter has zero complicity because they did not actively participate or asquiesce. The voter has some degree of complicity because they did participate or asquiesce. If you voted for George W. Bush, while you certainly didn’t consent to everything he went on to do, you are somewhat complicit in his rise to power. The person who simply chose not to vote, on the other hand, has no complicity at all in the matter. The voter for the “lesser of two evils” has a certain lack of virtue, I.E. they lack patience, vigilance and civil disobedience. They think more short-term and pragmatically than the principled non-voter who would never allow themselves to even be indirectly complicit in selecting an evil.
I’m sorry to say this, but you’re beginning to become a little too high-and-mighty.
It’s not a noble virtue to abstain from self-defense in the name of non-violence; it’s stupid! Likewise, it’s not a noble virtue to abstain from voting against a tax hike in the name of non-voting.
To be honest, it makes you complicit. To the leftists, you are nothing more than a useful idiot. Just like the pacifists who would rather get beaten to death than fight back, it’s hard to feel sorry for you when your taxes are raised.
It’s not noble, but it is useful when exploiting a martyr paradigm.
I’m sorry but once again the analogy doesn’t hold. You are not actually engaging in self-defense by voting for John McCaine. You’re making a pragmatic decision that doesn’t defend you or anyone else and will quite likely lead to aggression against you and others. I see abstinance from pragmatism as a virtue because one is attempting to remain consistant to a principle. It indeed is a virtue to abstain from choosing something that you know is wrong. It is indeed virtous to not participate in decisions that involve some degree of something that you know is wrong - such as voting FOR something that contains something you are against. Like, say, any political canidate of any party.
Then merely existing in society allegedly makes me complicit and “consent” to the state, and you’ve merely reinforced the false premise of statism.
I was using the example of voting against a tax increase. Voting for one of two candidates is more murky, but that doesn’t mean that one won’t be worse than the other.
Do I really think that abstaining from voting against a tax increase makes you complicit? Of course not! I’m merely pointing out the absurdity of that accusation (which you love to level at me). If I’m put in the middle of a situation where more of my money will be robbed if a tax-increase resolution passes, I’m not complicit by voting against it; I’m simply in the middle of a a shitty situation.
LOOK I’M NEW HERE AND I DON’T KNOW HOW YOU GUYS DO THINGS AROUND BUT THIS IS F*****G ABSURD. IF THE HARD-CORE ANARCHISTS ARE CONVINCED VOTING IS SELF-DEFEATING JUST LEAVE THEM BE. SIMILARLY, MINARCHISTS AND SOFT-CORE ANARCHISTS (ONES WHO VOTE) AREN’T GOING TO BE CONVINCED ANY DIFFERENTLY.
SO JUST SHUT UP. WHAT’S THE GD POINT HERE? THIS IS WHY I’M EMBARASSED TO BE LIBERTARIAN. ALL THIS PHILOSOPHICAL DRIVEL AND ARGUMENTS AMONGST OURSELVES SERVES TO FACTION US INTO A BILLION PIECES. WHO CARES?
WE’VE ALL GOT A SIMILAR GOAL. BICKERING ABOUT METHODS ONLY DIRECTS ACTION INWARD. WE NEED TO ACT OUTWARDLY, ON THE PEOPLE WHO NEVER VISIT THIS SITE AND HAVE NEVER THOUGHT ABOUT NOT VOTING AND WHO ALWAYS VOTE MAJOR PARTY WITH NO CONCERN OF INCREASING STATE POWER.
AND THERE IS NO CODIFIED UTOPIA. ANARCHY AND MINARCHISM STILL REQUIRE SIGNIFICANT SOCIAL EFFORT TO REMAIN PEACEFUL AND PROSPEROUS. TOO BAD MOST OF THE PEOPLE HERE ARGUING WOULD RATHER MAKE RULES THAN MAKE IT WORK. YOU WILL ALL MAKE YOURSELVES HERMITS BEFORE YOU MAKE COMPROMISES…THAT IS SAD.
…MAYBE THE REASON THE STATISTS ARE WINNING THIS FIGHT IS BECAUSE THEY USE THEIR BALLS AND THEIR FISTS, WHILE YOU GUYS GO BACK AND FORTH WITH YOUR QUIPS AND YOUR LIPS…
THE LARGEST FREEDOM MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY IS OCCURRING RIGHT NOW, AND ITS PARTICIPANTS HAVEN’T THOUGHT ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF VOTING AND THE STATE OUT. THEY ARE SIMPLY ACTING ON THEIR DESIRE, RATHER THAN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THEY WANT. YOU MIGHT WANT TO JOIN IT.
And as long as we’re just going to masturbate with our minds on this forum, could someone please answer my post about how primary dealers interact with the FED and what specific entity actually holds the government securities (gaining the ability to create money)? At least that would have a point.
Epic!
I’m not sure what post you’re referring to, so I’ll just make the general point that there are various strategies for having your questions answered by a community of people, and that possibly the worst is shouting obscenities and insults.
As for me, I would personally never be embarrassed to be part of a movement precisely because people in that movement understand the importance of ideas and philosophy. If you would, perhaps you need to rethink the assumptions on which that is based.
If statists succeed because they use fists (a questionable assumption - I hold that they succeed because more people agree with them) have you ever asked why they use their fists when not aggressed against? Ah, it’s because they’re statists. So urging libertarians to do likewise is not going to be helpful.
Why did the RP movement fall apart? Could it have had something to do with the utter lack of a philosophical basis? It was a temporary situation, and quickly dissolved, with members returning to all corners of the political spectrum, precisely because there was no attempt made to shore up the philosophical premises, just a focus on particular issues.
The socialists had a large, non-philosphical contingent, but also a hardcore of people who did understand the (entirely false) philosophy. To attack libertarianism for having a theory is absurd. Politics may run the world in the short-term, but ideas run it in the long term. If you don’t develop the ideas, you will not put forth a long-term solution. In fact, you won’t even succeed in the short term. You’ll have things like people thinking libertarians are pro-life and anti-immigration, you’ll attract large groups of anti-semities and give a mistaken impression to the world of what a libertarian is - and you’ll have the Libertarian Party itself putting out press releases in favor of the police state, opposing withdrawal from Iraq, and attacking candidates who happen to be consistent libertarians.
It fell apart? Are you kidding me? They just forced the GOP to collapse the Nevada convention and Paul is on a celebrity tour with his new book, drawing very large crowds.
While people complain about his philosophical underpinnings, he’s out there DOING SOMETHING. He’s reaching people. He’s challenging the Leviathan state. He’s challenging the right/left paradigm. He’s promoting free markets.
Sometimes I wonder if the people I read here who criticize Paul, ever joined the movement at all. Or if they just watch and comment. Because Paul has done a lot, and he’s created opportunities for everyone, from Minarchists to Agorists. If they will get off their butts and take advantage of it.
First, in my case, I was active. I campaigned in New Hampshire, volunteered with my meetups here, wrote for Students for Ron Paul, wrote op-eds, and donated. Second, the choice is not between campaigning for Ron Paul and sitting on your butt - there are other options. Third, it is not very logical to complain that people who are critical of the Paul campaign were not out there campaigning for him.
Now, on your other points. I notice that one of the characteristic refrains of the statists is that action is preferable to inaction - as in, “We must do something!” There is no need for libertarians to pick up this particular, odd piece of illogic. How does one challenge the left/right paradigm by constantly telling people that he is more conservative than his critics, that he is the only “real” Republican, and so on?
As far as falling apart - how many people are active in meetups now, as compared to a year ago? How many non-libertarian Paul supporters are now flacking for Obama? How many now think they have to support “Republican unity?” How many went back to their anti-semitic/Jewish banker conspiracy beliefs? How many will support Chuck Baldwin? How many support Bob Barr? In short, how many now have turned their backs on the libertarian aspects of Paul’s campaign? To believe that we have what we had a year ago is absurd. After New Hampshire half the people were gone, I’d reckon. For the record, just what was accomplished in Nevada, other than demonstrating once again that working through the GOP is foolish? What happened in Nevada is what happens if you start to win - and it wasn’t the worst, they got out alive. If they were really winning, that might have been different.
Paul drew roughly 500 people in NYC. Last year he packed Grand Central Station. The energy is gone. Our meetups now draw 4 or 5 people, where they used to draw 20. The ones who still come are the libertarians.
By the way, unlike many of his supporters, Paul does have philosophical underpinnings. He is well-read in Austrian economics, and knows the theory quite well, including the anarchist literature even if he disagrees, or at least publicly disagrees. While I think he is mistaken on some issues, overall I like his worldview very much, far more than that of some of his more vocal and aggressive supporters.
My criticism is not of Paul, it is of the mindset that these kinds of political tactics are the ONLY option for liberty; they aren’t. I certainly also don’t like the image that was pushed by the campaign staff that libertarianism is conservatism. I thought Bob Barr’s introduction at CPAC was terrible, and the packaging of Paul as a “real conservative” was irresponsible. The TV ads were also atrocious - on seeing on particular right-wing one upon my arrival in New Hampshire, I considered packing my things and leaving.
I think counting the RP movement as libertarian, and believing that those show libertarian numbers, gives us a false sense of security. The lack of philosophical underpinnings in the movement, as opposed to the man, made votes flutter away easily. I remember being told by literally hundreds of people, who had previously told the campaign that they would vote Paul, that now they were voting McCain because of some point he made at the debate. These were not necessarily committed people, and they certainly did not support non-aggression. There was little attempt made to show the larger issues, which I felt at the time meant that libertarianism would gain little over the long haul from the campaign.
Neither the voter nor the non-voter have the choice of government. Given that this choice is gone, one has the choice of voting to try to reduce his burden, or not voting and letting others decide who his next master will be.
This depends on what we consider to be virtuous. I’m not sure the extent to which virtue can be objectively defined or argued. But I think you are looking only at what one allows to occur by voting. What about what one prevents by voting? If voting brings about a reduction in the state, is this still unvirtuous? I don’t know why you consider voting immoral. Can you explain it?
Yet within this statement you basically aknowledge my point: that those who vote are selecting who will be other people’s master. It is not “self-defense” from the standpoint of the 3rd parties of people. And why do you repeatedly assume that voting for a politician is the ONLY way to “reduce your burden”? That’s what I don’t understand. You act as the lack of voting is a total void of possible action to bring about progress. That’s simply not true.
Brainpolice, no one has ever stated that he/she opposes using other methods aside from voting.
Still, if there’s an initiative on the ballot to raise taxes, it’s nutty to miss the opportunity to vote in self-defense.
Actually the bulk of my arguement has been in the attempt to practically and empirically prove the premise that voting cannot bring about the ultimate end of no state or any significant or permanent reduction in the state. The only time I start getting into the moral aspect of it is when people try to make a self-defense argument for voting. The problem is that actions that affect innocent bystanders and 3rd parties of people cannot be said to be true “self-defense”. My position is not that voting is immoral strictly speaking, but it does represent asquiescance to one’s own plunder (which represents a certain lack of virtue) and the voter cannot be said to have zero complicity or responsibility in the matter.
If one votes he may choose who will be the master, but he does not impose that master on the non-voter or himself. The ruler is a given. If the voter selects a ruler less exploitative than there would be without his vote, what does the non-voter have to complain about?
I don’t think voting is the only way to reduce one’s burden. Counter-intellectual work is the only way to eliminate the government in the long run. Not voting and complaining about government, especially in a sophisticated and intelligent manner, can also destroy the governments legitimacy. Whether or not this is more effective than what Hoppe is suggesting is an entrepreneurial judgement. But what Hoppe is suggesting is certainly an effective way to produce political decentralization. Disenfranchising net tax-recipients (maybe this should include as well everyone who benefits from government cartelization such as professionals, union labourers, and employees of certain corporations) would reduce taxation. And a sucessful vote to suceed would also be a move in the direction of total abolition.
What if the voter could be sure that the politician would not be an aggressor? Would this make the voter complicit?