Xenophage
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,098
Truth Warrior, would this accurately summarize your beliefs about voting?
Voting is an initiation of force. It is, in fact, the ultimate expression of violence in a society. We live in a society that practices institutionalized violence against its citizens. On election day, some tens of millions of people commit an act of violence against you and against each other. What do you do about it? It would seem to make sense that you just stop voting. End the cycle. Become the change you want to see, as Ghandi says.
But this assumes that violence, or the initiation of force against another individual, is immoral. If that's true, consider this scenario: You're walking along the street, and a piano is about to fall on some hapless stranger's head. In a rush, you slam your body against the stranger, knocking him out of the way of the piano just in time to save his life. This was clearly an initiation of force against this individual - he did not consent to having his body assaulted by you. But was it immoral? Obviously not! You saved his life!
So there are SOME types of initiated force that are perfectly moral, as I've illustrated. What types then, are not? Coercive force might be one type. If you had told this same stranger, "I will throw a piano at your face unless you move," you would be committing an act of coercion. Likewise, brutalizing someone merely for the sake of brutalizing them, or for deriving sadistic pleasure out of the act, is just as deplorable and wrong.
What if you had been wrong about the piano? Maybe it would have only landed harmlessly five feet to his left, and your initiation of force against this individual served no purpose whatsoever except to leave him with some bruises and a bloody nose. Would THAT have been immoral? No! You had exercised reason in your decision, and hardly anyone could fault you, unless your reason was completely out of touch with reality (e.g. the piano fell somewhere five blocks down the street, or didn't exist at all, and you must be insane). Even considering the case of insanity you could be said to have had right intentions and exercised a correct use of force based on what you believed to be reality.
In the case of someone obviously out of touch with reality, no matter how right their intentions may be, it is in the society's interest to prevent that individual from acting out on their insane delusions. If you were standing next to this individual, and recognized his insanity and potential for causing harm to himself or others, you might attempt to restrain him and you would be entirely right to do so. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable and moral to initiate coercive force against an insane person to strip them of their liberty.
So it cannot even be said, as a rule, that the initiation of coercive force is always an evil act.
So, if you're voting for Ron Paul as president, are you evil?
Voting is an initiation of force. It is, in fact, the ultimate expression of violence in a society. We live in a society that practices institutionalized violence against its citizens. On election day, some tens of millions of people commit an act of violence against you and against each other. What do you do about it? It would seem to make sense that you just stop voting. End the cycle. Become the change you want to see, as Ghandi says.
But this assumes that violence, or the initiation of force against another individual, is immoral. If that's true, consider this scenario: You're walking along the street, and a piano is about to fall on some hapless stranger's head. In a rush, you slam your body against the stranger, knocking him out of the way of the piano just in time to save his life. This was clearly an initiation of force against this individual - he did not consent to having his body assaulted by you. But was it immoral? Obviously not! You saved his life!
So there are SOME types of initiated force that are perfectly moral, as I've illustrated. What types then, are not? Coercive force might be one type. If you had told this same stranger, "I will throw a piano at your face unless you move," you would be committing an act of coercion. Likewise, brutalizing someone merely for the sake of brutalizing them, or for deriving sadistic pleasure out of the act, is just as deplorable and wrong.
What if you had been wrong about the piano? Maybe it would have only landed harmlessly five feet to his left, and your initiation of force against this individual served no purpose whatsoever except to leave him with some bruises and a bloody nose. Would THAT have been immoral? No! You had exercised reason in your decision, and hardly anyone could fault you, unless your reason was completely out of touch with reality (e.g. the piano fell somewhere five blocks down the street, or didn't exist at all, and you must be insane). Even considering the case of insanity you could be said to have had right intentions and exercised a correct use of force based on what you believed to be reality.
In the case of someone obviously out of touch with reality, no matter how right their intentions may be, it is in the society's interest to prevent that individual from acting out on their insane delusions. If you were standing next to this individual, and recognized his insanity and potential for causing harm to himself or others, you might attempt to restrain him and you would be entirely right to do so. Thus, it is perfectly reasonable and moral to initiate coercive force against an insane person to strip them of their liberty.
So it cannot even be said, as a rule, that the initiation of coercive force is always an evil act.
So, if you're voting for Ron Paul as president, are you evil?
