5 Reasons to Abandon Politics

[Cabal]

When you agree to play the game (vote), you send the message that you are accepting the system and the terms. You are saying that it's not the State apparatus and its system of violence that is the problem, it's just the hood ornament. You are saying that meaningless campaign seasons are worthwhile. And you are saying that win, lose, or draw, you accept whatever follows since you agreed to play in the first place. But then you cry foul when that same system proceeds to murder, and destroy, and enslave, and steal, as if you actually believed things would somehow be different this time around.

And maybe all of that does describe you. It doesn't describe me. So, for me to vote would go against my principles, my sense of morality, and would make me a hypocrite as it would totally contradict the message and manner in which I live my life--by voluntary interaction. As LoneStarLocke puts it, it's walking the walk. No amount of voting is going to change the facts. The gun in the room is going to continue to be wielded and used so long as the State persists. And the State will continue to persist so long as people continue to accept its claim of legitimacy.

You can believe that voting in this manner is 'fighting', but it's not. It's participating. It's legitimizing. It's approving of. It's conceding. It's giving in. It's condoning. It's accepting. You're agreeing that it's not the violence that is wrong, it's just a matter of who is wielding it, and at whom it is directed. I fundamentally and categorically disagree. Your precious Constitution cannot help you, and neither can the next sell-out candidate. The ratchet effect proceeds and the violence gets worse. But it's okay, because at least you can still check a ballot box, right? The real rub of it is you believe yourselves to be fighting some great battle when you're not even 'fighting' in the appropriate field of battle.

They voted in ancient Rome too.

 

[Theocrat]

Try Again

How has voting?

That's extremely simplistic. Voting is not the only cause of the problems in our political culture, Cabal. There are other factors involved, many of which are ethical in nature.

But, how does anarchism/voluntaryism stop the effects of voting (since voting is evil)?

 

[heavenlyboy34]

That's extremely simplistic. Voting is not the only cause of the problems in our political culture, Cabal. There are other factors involved, many of which are ethical in nature.

But, how does anarchism/voluntaryism stop the effects of voting (since voting is evil)?

As a casual observer/non-participant of this thread (I officially checked out yesterday), it seems to me you are the one who should be presenting evidence, as you are making the positive claim.

 

[Cabal]

That's extremely simplistic. Voting is not the only cause of the problems in our political culture, Cabal. There are other factors involved, many of which are ethical in nature.

But, how does anarchism/voluntaryism stop the effects of voting (since voting is evil)?

I never said voting was the cause of any problem, let alone the only cause of any problem. I said, basically, voting is ultimately pointless.

My response of turning your question around on itself was to demonstrate the absurdity of the question being asked. Your question carries with it the implication that voting has, or could be a way of, "stopping the gun" in a way that non-voting could not. As I have already pointed out, history is clearly at odds with such an implication since voting has been around for a very long time, and the State has done nothing but grow, and grow, and as a result become more, and more capable of carrying out its oppressive, and violent nature--there's a wealth of data and analysis to support this if it's not already plainly apparent.

I never made the assertion voting was evil. Voting, among other things, is the bread and circuses orchestrated by the system to delude the masses. It's entirely impotent and divisive by design. I did say the institution of the State is evil based on its necessary reliance on monopolized violence, and that the act of voting is, in a sense, a way of legitimizing this illegitimate institution of violence, which is why I refuse to participate in it.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

This is what Ron Paul had to say about it:

This is what Ron Paul actually had to say about it:

"Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty."

A state, by the way, by definition, is not respectful of individual liberty. That's what makes it a state. It's an institution which refuses to respect individual liberty regarding choosing a dispute resolution provider, and refuses to respect individual liberty regarding allowing men to keep the fruits of their labors.

 

[Matt Collins]

The point of the graphic is to show you the morality of the situation. It's lose/lose.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

 

[Matthew5]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

Your argument for politics: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

See, two can play at this game.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

And yours (you've used this a few times in this thread alone): https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy[h=1]the fallacy fallacy[/h][h=3]You presumed that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.[/h]It is entirely possible to make a claim that is false yet argue with logical coherency for that claim, just as is possible to make a claim that is true and justify it with various fallacies and poor arguments.
Example: Recognising that Amanda had committed a fallacy in arguing that we should eat healthy food because a nutritionist said it was popular, Alyse said we should therefore eat bacon double cheeseburgers every day.

 

[Matt Collins]

Your argument for politics: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

See, two can play at this game.

I'm not arguing that it is a good thing, I'm merely pointing out that it exists, always has, and until human nature changes, it always will. That is not debatable. Whether people acknowledge it or not doesn't matter, it's a fact of life.

 

[Matt Collins]

When you agree to play the game (vote), you send the message that you are accepting the system and the terms. You are saying that it's not the State apparatus and its system of violence that is the problem, it's just the hood ornament.

Not at all actually. But it isn't good enough just to vote, you have to do other things too, including running candidates and causing political pain, and working on getting legislation passed/killed.

You are saying that meaningless campaign seasons are worthwhile. And you are saying that win, lose, or draw, you accept whatever follows since you agreed to play in the first place. But then you cry foul when that same system proceeds to murder, and destroy, and enslave, and steal, as if you actually believed things would somehow be different this time around.

If more of our people get elected there will be a lot less of that sort of thing.

But even if our people don't get elected, we can run serious candidates who force the establishment to deplete their funds that is still considered winning. Electoral victory is not needed to change the behavior of elected officials. Causing them severe political pain will be enough in most cases.

That of course involves organizing your neighborhood and district and getting to know the players, seeking out other-like-minded individuals, and mobilizing them when the time comes. It's almost like being in a "political militia"

in which I live my life--by voluntary interaction.

If you think you live your life by voluntary interaction then you are delusional because the government controls much of your life, whether you acknowledge that or not.

No amount of voting is going to change the facts.

Incorrect. 50%+1 DOES indeed change the facts. And in many cases, it's much less than that.

The gun in the room is going to continue to be wielded and used so long as the State persists. And the State will continue to persist so long as people continue to accept its claim of legitimacy.

No, it'll exist through force, the question is who controls it. It's either going to be people like us who believe that less government is best, or it's going to be people who are statists. I'm not going to just sit back, do nothing, whine, and let the government run over me. I'm going to stand up and fight, which I have been doing for the last few years.

You can believe that voting in this manner is 'fighting', but it's not. It's participating. It's legitimizing. It's approving of. It's conceding. It's giving in. It's condoning. It's accepting. You're agreeing that it's not the violence that is wrong, it's just a matter of who is wielding it, and at whom it is directed.

No, not at all. You are making assumptions here.

First off as I've explained dozens of times, the act of voting itself, is only a small sliver of the actual fight. It's a significant part of it, but it's small. And just because I vote doesn't mean I approve of what the government does. And no, violence isn't right, although it can be justified in some circumstances (such as upholding justice, enforcing contracts, self-defense, etc).

Your precious Constitution cannot help you, and neither can the next sell-out candidate.

I don't disagree, but there is much more to it than just a single election or a single candidate.

 

[Matthew5]

No, it'll exist through force, the question is who controls it. It's either going to be people like us who believe that less government is best, or it's going to be people who are statists.

Actually, all those who believe in government, however limited, would be a statist. There's simply varying degrees of severity within that realm. Some view it as a tool while others view it as a god or moral force.

I'm not going to just sit back, do nothing, whine, and let the government run over me. I'm going to stand up and fight, which I have been doing for the last few years.

Why do you keep repeating this line?

 

[Matt Collins]

Actually, all those who believe in government, however limited, would be a statist. There's simply varying degrees of severity within that realm. Some view it as a tool while others view it as a god or moral force.

No, government isn't a belief, it's a fact. And just because one wants to limit the government doesn't make them a statist. Nice try though...

Why do you keep repeating this line?

Because it obviously hasn't been understood by many in this thread.

 

[Cabal]

And just because one wants to limit the government doesn't make them a statist. Nice try though...

That's not what makes you, or anyone else a statist. But then your response was a straw man anyway, so w/e.




Anyway, I found it convenient that this video was published today. I think it has bearing on what's been taking place here.



6:48 to jump to relevant subject matter.

 

[Matthew5]

Because it obviously hasn't been understood by many in this thread.

That you feel that a large swath of the liberty movement are nothing but a bunch of whiny ne'er-do-wells who are reduced to tank fodder?

 

[Matt Collins]

That you feel that a large swath of the liberty movement are nothing but a bunch of whiny ne'er-do-wells who are reduced to tank fodder?

No, not at all, but it's endemic of society that most people don't fight for their rights, even among people realize they are not as plentiful as they should be.

 

[IDefendThePlatform]

If you don't fight the invasions of our rights by corrupt politicians today, then you're just allowing despots to rule your children tomorrow. And that is a fact.

"The only thing needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Who was it who said something like this? Evil triumphs when good men do nothing.


Disgusting is what it is.

So you can sit back and take it, or you can fight.

No, not at all, but it's endemic of society that most people don't fight for their rights, even among people realize they are not as plentiful as they should be.

Its interesting that a forum that prides itself on seeing through the bs of the MSM can so thoroughly buy into the mainstream's best ever canard, that "If you're not voting and emailing politicians, then you're doing nothing!"


Ill keep pining for some debate on relative effectiveness of agorism vs politics, and re-repost this list of agorist actions:




Stop voting
Don't endorse political candidates
Don't participate in any political or civil campaign
Refuse to participate in the hero cult of police and military
Turn your TV off
Homeschool your kids or send them to a private school
Leave or don't join nationalistic organizations (e.g. Boy Scouts)
Don't give to "charities" or funds that support civic organizations (encourage private enterprise instead)
Grow your own food
Barter more
Reduce your debt
Shall I go on? There's lots of little practical steps one can take and it will begin to have a cumulative effect.
Donate the money you would have sent to politicians to liberty-minded podcasters or talk radio hosts like Ian and Mark at FreeTalkLive
Buy some bitcoin
Promote bitcoin usage at your local small businesses and with friends
Instead of handing out flyers encouraging people to vote for one or the other politician, hand out flyers on why voting is a sham
Promote Bastiat's "The Law" (Ron Paul's favorite book) and other liberty minded philosophical literature by donating them to the local library or schools, or by writing quality, positive reviews on Amazon
Buy some Gold/Silver/Shire Silver
Take the time to research and support agorist owned businesses
Support private institutions that fill the roles currently usurped by government such as private schools, private security and private mass-transit.
Take government money every chance you get (The more money you take from the government the better libertarian you are-Walter Block via FeedingTheAbscess)
Start a business: http://www.policymic.com/articles/44...eaking-awesome
Email an accountant
Hold fewer FRNs

 

[Matt Collins]

Its interesting that a forum that prides itself on seeing through the bs of the MSM can so thoroughly buy into the mainstream's best ever canard, that "If you're not voting and emailing politicians, then you're doing nothing!"

No, the MSM just wants people to vote. But there is a lot more to the fight than just voting, that's only one tiny sliver of the battle.... in case you missed it the previous 10 times I've explained it.

 

[Matthew5]

No, not at all, but it's endemic of society that most people don't fight for their rights, even among people realize they are not as plentiful as they should be.

Again, that's the bias in devaluing the efforts of agorist and saying that only politicians can save us.

 

[Matt Collins]

Again, that's the bias in devaluing the efforts of agorist and saying that only politicians can save us.

I never said that "politicians can save us", don't put words in my mouth, and don't jump to conclusions. Only us can make us more free, but to do that means fighting them at their level which is the political arena.

 

[Matthew5]

I never said that "politicians can save us", don't put words in my mouth, and don't jump to conclusions. Only us can make us more free, but to do that means fighting them at their level which is the political arena.

...which is run by politicians.

There has also been several agorist methods brought up and you keep repeating this line of "whiny do-nothings". Which means that you have little faith or respect for methods outside of politics. You have also stated that government participation is the only method to ensure freedom. Therefore, one could logically conclude that you place your trust in a system that is designed by and run by politicians. Which means you have faith they can save us, otherwise you wouldn't have put so much time, money, and effort into your particular gladiator.

How is that inaccurate?