5 Reasons to Abandon Politics

[Matt Collins]

Ok, I get that you're saying that since politics exists, the American government brand is just one more arrow in the quiver of politics as a social interaction. Therefore it's a legitimate system. Am I understanding this correctly?

Most of what the government does isn't legitimate.

However, what other form of politics has so much concentrated power to affect the lives of millions through the force of violence and to be wielded by such an elite few? You won't find such at the work place, in the market, at a business conference, or at your church picnic.

And that's what makes the government unique; it has a monopoly on force.

You keep speaking of wielding the power...we're trying to destroy the Ring here, not make sure it stays in the correct hands. Controlling the means of force and violence isn't a good goal to have, eradicating the mechanism all together would be a more noble pursuit, wouldn't you say?

Human nature will not allow that to happen any time soon. The Founders understood this, which is why they put as many roadblocks to accumulating power as possible. Unfortunately it largely failed.

The goal should be to acquire the power and then diffuse it so that it can't be concentrated. That's the only realistic approach, but its a human institution so it will never be perfect.

 

[Matthew5]

The goal should be to acquire the power and then diffuse it so that it can't be concentrated. That's the only realistic approach, but its a human institution so it will never be perfect.

Agreed on any human institution not being perfect...anarchism, communism, socialism, fascism, monarchy, or constitutional republic. All are inventions of men and will have their limitations. But which system promotes the most liberty, peace, and non-violence?

Also, you keep speaking of "the foreseeable future" as if state-ism has a determined shelf life. Perhaps you can't see the forest through the trees, but it's not about time tables (again, a by product of political thinking). Peace and non-violence is a goal that men have been striving for since early history and may never come to humanity until the Last Judgment. That doesn't make it any less of a goal to pursue. We can't simply throw up our hands and say, "Well, we're stuck with this system for the foreseeable future, might as well use it." Again, I harken back to the example of fire or transportation.

We have to commit to evolving and spend our energies toward that new invention, no matter the cost. Because we honestly believe that it's worth it to have a society where peace and liberty are maximized.

 

[Matt Collins]

which system promotes the most liberty, peace, and non-violence?

A very very very small, minimal, and limited government.

The trick is to restrain something whose natural inclination is to grow.

Also, you keep speaking of "the foreseeable future" as if state-ism has a determined shelf life. Perhaps you can't see the forest through the trees, but it's not about time tables (again, a by product of political thinking). Peace and non-violence is a goal that men have been striving for since early history and may never come to humanity

Exactly. I personally believe that a truly free society is out of reach of humanity, just based upon history and human nature as I know it. But many people said the same thing about slavery for thousands of years.

We can't simply throw up our hands and say, "Well, we're stuck with this system for the foreseeable future, might as well use it."

That's our only choice. We can't abolish it, and we definitely can't bury our heads and pretend that it doesn't exist. Or that if we ignore it it will go away. None of those are options.

 

[helmuth_hubener]

The definition really is that politics is the adjudication of power. Power being defined as being able to get others to do what you want them to do.

And you know perfectly well that that is not what anyone was talking about except for you. And so it is totally miscommunicating/misdirecting/lying when you say that IDefendthePlatform and LoneStarLocke and etc. are wrong to give up on politics because politics is all human interaction! That a completely and totally invalid argument and you know it. You must know it. You must just be engaging in manipulation and sophistry.

IDefendthePlatform, LoneStarLocke, et. al., are not giving up on all human interaction. They are not giving up on "being able to get others to do what they want them to do." They still want their wives and bosses and customers and whoever to do things which they want them to do. Is this a big revelation to you? Do you understand and agree with this?

Then admit, please, that your entire series of one-liners in this thread revealing to us (as if we were three years old) the inevitability and universality of politics and power when used in an expansive sense, are a totally failed and irrelevant argument against giving up electioneering. They don't even address it.

The politics everyone else is talking about = electioneering (and related activities to attempt to control or change the state).
The politics you are talking about = loving your mother.

Those quitting electioneering have said: "I am quitting electioneering, and here are my thought-out reasons why". You have replied: "You're stupid and naive. You can't expect all people to stop loving their mothers!" Your reply is a non-reply.

All the arguments for quitting electioneering still stand. They have not been addressed, much less refuted. IDefendthePlatform in particular has done a lot of electioneering in the past for Ron Paul in Iowa. He knows of what he speaks. He's highly experienced. He's not a baby to be lectured by you.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

And you know perfectly well that that is not what anyone was talking about except for you. And so it is totally miscommunicating/misdirecting/lying when you say that IDefendthePlatform and LoneStarLocke and etc. are wrong to give up on politics because politics is all human interaction! That a completely and totally invalid argument and you know it. You must know it. You must just be engaging in manipulation and sophistry.

IDefendthePlatform, LoneStarLocke, et. al., are not giving up on all human interaction. They are not giving up on "being able to get others to do what they want them to do." They still want their wives and bosses and customers and whoever to do things which they want them to do. Is this a big revelation to you? Do you understand and agree with this?

Then admit, please, that your entire series of one-liners in this thread revealing to us (as if we were three years old) the inevitability and universality of politics and power when used in an expansive sense, are a totally failed and irrelevant argument against giving up electioneering. They don't even address it.

The politics everyone else is talking about = electioneering (and related activities to attempt to control or change the state).
The politics you are talking about = loving your mother.

Those quitting electioneering have said: "I am quitting electioneering, and here are my thought-out reasons why". You have replied: "You're stupid and naive. You can't expect all people to stop loving their mothers!" Your reply is a non-reply.

All the arguments for quitting electioneering still stand. They have not been addressed, much less refuted. IDefendthePlatform in particular has done a lot of electioneering in the past for Ron Paul in Iowa. He knows of what he speaks. He's highly experienced. He's not a baby to be lectured by you.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to helmuth_hubener again.

Someone +rep helmuth for me, plz?

 

[Matthew5]

Someone +rep helmuth for me, plz?

Got em!

 

[helmuth_hubener]

We can't abolish it

Yes, we can. There is no logical reason why we cannot do this, why this cannot happen. The future is unknown. What's more, unpredictable.

 

[Matthew5]

Yes, we can. There is no logical reason why we cannot do this, why this cannot happen. The future is unknown. What's more, unpredictable.

I agree, not sure why people place government on the level of human nature, morality, spirituality, ethics...etc. Some immaterial things exist outside of our control and will always be. Government is not one of those. It's an invention by man to solve a problem.

Government wasn't created by God. In fact, the people of Israel demanded that God give them over to a king. They saw that nations around them had invented this thing called a monarchy and they craved to have a king of their own. But before such a time, a judge settled disputes among the people, a system not too far from some proposed an-cap societies.

Such it is with us. We can throw off our request to be governed by another and choose to govern ourselves. It doesn't violate a law of nature to do so and is entirely possible. We know this because humans have recorded such societies and lived beyond one generation.

 

[Matt Collins]

The politics everyone else is talking about = electioneering (and related activities to attempt to control or change the state).
The politics you are talking about = loving your mother.

Actually it is the same thing, but again, electioneering (to use your phrase) does indeed work if you do it right.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Before y'all get into a 30 page debate with Collins, remember that he has a personal and financial interest in perpetuating electioneering and politics generally. He's not just someone with a differing opinion.

 

[Matt Collins]

Before y'all get into a 30 page debate with Collins, remember that he has a personal and financial interest in perpetuating electioneering and politics generally. He's not just someone with a differing opinion.

HA! Are you kidding?

Working to change the government has cost me a ton of money and other things...

 

[Cabal]

I don't see how politics is part of human nature any more than government is part of human nature, which is to say, not part of human nature at all.

 

[Matt Collins]

I don't see how politics is part of human nature any more than government is part of human nature, which is to say, not part of human nature at all.

Politics is how people interact with each other.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

Politics is how people interact with each other.

You're confusing politics with sociology. Politics describes relationships and actions within a political context.

 

[Cabal]

Politics is how people interact with each other.

Politics is concerned with government according to virtually every dictionary you may check.

An example of how people interact with each other would be speech. Two people speak to each other, they do not politic with each other.

 

[Matthew5]

Politics is concerned with government according to virtually every dictionary you may check.

An example of how people interact with each other would be speech. Two people speak to each other, they do not politic with each other.

Lemme go all 8th grade book report:

"Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines politics as the art or science of government, the art or science concerned with guiding or influencing governmental policy, or the art or science concerned with winning and holding control over a government..."

Yep, nothing about human nature here.

 

[Cabal]

Yep, nothing about human nature here.

True.

 

[Teenager For Ron Paul]

I'll give you one reason: politics.

 

[LibertyEagle]

I'll give you one reason: politics.

You may abandon politics, but politics will unfortunately, not abandon you. They will keep impacting you whether you participate or not.

This is what Ron Paul had to say about it:

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/

 

[Theocrat]

Exactly

You may abandon politics, but politics will unfortunately, not abandon you. They will keep impacting you whether you participate or not.

This is what Ron Paul had to say about it:

“I have many friends in the libertarian movement who look down on those of us who get involved in political activity,” he acknowledged, but "eventually, if you want to bring about changes … what you have to do is participate in political action.” -- Ron Paul

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2008/sep/22/00019/

Politics is not neutral, and Matt Collins is right when he says that politics involves human interaction. Some of the members of this forums can be so naive when it comes to subjects like this. We live in a constitutional republic. It affects everything in civil life, from how many jobs are available in a state to what your car payment will be per month. Non-involvement in politics is not going to change anything, especially of you have kids. What kind of world do you want them to live in when they become your age? 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.