Politico: Libertarians don't matter until they disagree with Rand Paul

[Occam's Banana]

How are the authoritarian statist tyrants chosen and put in public office?

By any of a variety of means. However, you were talking about voting ...

So: how is it a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to put marks on a piece of paper and then put that piece of paper in a box?

Statement of Purpose: Voluntaryists are advocates of non-political, non-violent strategies to achieve a free society. We reject electoral politics, in theory and in practice, as incompatible with libertarian principles. Governments must cloak their actions in an aura of moral legitimacy in order to sustain their power, and political methods invariably strengthen that legitimacy. Voluntaryists seek instead to delegitimize the State through education, and we advocate withdrawal of the cooperation and tacit consent on which State power ultimately depends.

http://voluntaryist.com/

What does any of that have to do with whether putting marks on a piece of paper is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle?

 

[Ronin Truth]

By any of a variety of means. However, you were talking about voting ...

So: how is it a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to put a mark on a piece of paper and then put that piece of paper in a box?

That wouldn't be voting. That would be, to put a mark on a piece of paper and then put that piece of paper in a box.

I could do that all day everyday and nothing at all would happen.

What does any of that have to do with whether putting marks on pieces of paper is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle?

That was my answer to some else's question (as you well know).

//

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

FWIW, not in my opinion. Voting is a violation of the NAP.

Voting is a violation of the NAP, but border enforcement isn't?

 

[Ronin Truth]

Voting is a violation of the NAP, but border enforcement isn't?

When did this turn into "libertarian world"?

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

When did this turn into "libertarian world"?

Taxation and other property violations in order to enforce migration preferences on unwilling participants = not aggression

Voting to end the above = aggression

Well played, that's sound logic.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Taxation and other property violations in order to enforce migration preferences on unwilling participants = not aggression

Voting to end the above = aggression

Well played, that's sound logic.

Taxation is theft AND as such also a violation of the NAP.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Taxation is theft AND as such also a violation of the NAP.

Border enforcement is magic, and requires no agents, bureaucracy, legislature, or court system, or the money necessary for these entities to function. Which also appears out of thin air.

 

[Occam's Banana]

By any of a variety of means. However, you were talking about voting ...

So: how is it a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle to put marks on a piece of paper and then put that piece of paper in a box?

That wouldn't be voting.

Wherein else does the act of voting consist?

That would be, to put a mark on a piece of paper and then put that piece of paper in a box.

Which is all that one does when one engages in the act of voting.

I could do that all day everyday [...]

I suppose you could ...

[...] and nothing at all would happen.

... which is why that would not be a violation of the NAP, either.

What does any of that have to do with whether putting marks on a piece of paper is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle?

That was my answer to some else's question (as you well know).

I don't know any such thing. The person to whom you replied did not ask you a question. But I did - and apparently, you don't have any answer ...

So right back at you.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Wherein else does the act of voting consist?



Which is all that one does when one engages in the act of voting.



I suppose you could ...



... which is why that would not be a violation of the NAP, either.



I don't know any such thing. The person to whom you replied did not ask you a question. But I did - and apparently, you don't have any answer ...

So right back at you.

Pass on silly.

 

[cajuncocoa]

BOO YAAA I called this two weeks ago.

We're simultaneously politically irrelevant and also sinking Rand's campaign.


SCHRODINGER 2016!!!! ALL THE WAY, BABY!!!!!

Weird, huh?

 

[presence]

What does any of that have to do with whether putting marks on a piece of paper is a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle?

In short:

The State = monopoly on use of coercion
Coercion is a violation of NAP
Voting legitimises the state.





there is sound rhetoric here:

http://voluntaryist.com/articles/001a.html

"A ruling organization will be called 'political' insofar as its existence and order is continuously safeguarded within a given territorial area by the threat and application of physical force on the part of the administrative staff. A compulsory political organization with continuous operations will be called a 'state' insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of Its order"
(Economy and Society, Univ. of California Press, 1978, 1, p. 54).

"Nobody in particular seems to exercise 'the authority' and yet authority is exercised, and we can identify people who do not participate in its exercise. Thus the superficial impression of subordination in many minor bureaucratic roles must not deceive us. All bureaucratic roles are defined with reference to the total process of the exercise of authority to which they contribute to whatever small extent."

After we understand the purpose for which the State was designed, we are able to undertake an institutional analysis similar to the automobile factory discussed earlier. There we discussed how the overall product (the car) may be unintended from the perspective of specialized workers. We also examined the importance of roles in the production process. It is thus possible to refer to an institutional product and process being integral to the factory's structure. The worker, in filling a role (doing his job), participates in the process and contributes to the product, quite apart from his personal intentions and goals.
Similarly, we may examine the "State-factory," the institution designed to monopolize power and thereby sustain territorial sovereignty. Sovereignty is the "product" of this association (or the most fundamental among many); a monopoly on legitimized coercion is the "process." But roles in the State apparatus, like roles in the factory, need human beings to fill them. There are increasing specialization and division of labor as the State expands its power and jurisdiction. Many of the individuals in specialized roles may have little knowledge of, or interest in, the institutionalized process and product to which their labor contributes. Their contribution, in this sense, may be unintended. (But, to repeat an earlier point,




unintended does not mean unforeseeable.)

 

[danda]

10 wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner.

Let's say 9 wolves vote aye on a proposal for the 10th wolf to slaughter the sheep. The sheep votes nay.

The ayes have it.

The 9 ayes did not slaughter the sheep. They only voted. With full knowledge that if their vote carries, the NAP will be violated by their elected representative.

Pretty clearly, a vote for any policy that would violate the NAP is a violation of the NAP.

Since most any law carries with it penalties in terms of use of force for those that peacefully violate the law, a vote for most any new law is likewise a violation of the NAP.

An exception could be made if the new law is made with regards to a crime that itself violates the NAP such as theft, murder, etc. In that case, it can be argued that society is justified to use force to bring about justice and restitution. So in this narrow case, voting itself possibly might not violate NAP.

just my thoughts.

 

[Occam's Banana]

apparently, you don't have any answer

Pass on silly.

quod erat demonstrandum

 

[Occam's Banana]

Voting legitimises the state.

No it doesn't.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[Occam's Banana]

Pretty clearly, a vote for any policy that would violate the NAP is a violation of the NAP.

That is not clear at all.

A vote is, at worst, nothing more than an expression of agreement with (or an expression of a desire for) a NAP-violative policy.

But expressions of agreement (or desire) are not NAP violations - not even if the thing being agreed with or desired is or would be a NAP violation.

Endorsements of NAP violations are not themselves NAP violations. This is why voting (which is just a kind of endorsement) is not NAP-violative.

 

[fisharmor]

10 wolves and a sheep voting over what to have for dinner.

Let's say 9 wolves vote aye on a proposal for the 10th wolf to slaughter the sheep. The sheep votes nay.

The ayes have it.

The 9 ayes did not slaughter the sheep. They only voted. With full knowledge that if their vote carries, the NAP will be violated by their elected representative.

Pretty clearly, a vote for any policy that would violate the NAP is a violation of the NAP.

Since most any law carries with it penalties in terms of use of force for those that peacefully violate the law, a vote for most any new law is likewise a violation of the NAP.

An exception could be made if the new law is made with regards to a crime that itself violates the NAP such as theft, murder, etc. In that case, it can be argued that society is justified to use force to bring about justice and restitution. So in this narrow case, voting itself possibly might not violate NAP.

just my thoughts.

You're describing ballot initiatives, which are nowhere near as common as legislatively enacted laws, and often also are voted on by the legislature before presentation to the electorate.

Technically that's the only time someone can vote directly for a law. All other times one is voting for a representative who will do it. And obviously voting for someone whom you have reason to believe will not vote for NAP violating laws doesn't come close to violating NAP.

Also, I don't believe voting to create a new crime is even possible. Law exists outside the state. Murder doesn't become ok simply because the state doesn't have a code for it. And murder would not become suddenly OK if the state repealed its law. Likewise, that the state says running a lemonade stand is a crime doesn't make it so.

 

[cjm]

Voting legitimises the state.

Voting is a form of self-defense. If you wear the "I voted" sticker, you legitimize the State. I always turn them down.

 

[danda]

I might agree with you about voting for elected representatives not violating NAP if we lived in some type of libertarian utopia where politicians never enacted laws whose enforcement violates NAP. But in the real world, in every country, the vast majority of laws do not fit that criteria. Therefore, anyone who votes for a politician in today's environment has every reason to believe their vote is empowering someone that will violate NAP, and almost zero reason to believe otherwise.

This goes back to the sheep and wolves example. The 9 that voted for the wolf had every reason to believe the 10th wolf would kill the sheep. He could of course take a different action, but hard to do after all those "mutton for dinner" campaign promises. It is in fact trivial to modify that example, so that both the sheep and the wolf are running for the office of "Executive Chef". The result is the same. and the metaphorical blood on the voters hands is the same.

The only way to be CERTAIN that one's vote will not empower a violation of the NAP, is not to cast one.

You're describing ballot initiatives, which are nowhere near as common as legislatively enacted laws, and often also are voted on by the legislature before presentation to the electorate.

Technically that's the only time someone can vote directly for a law. All other times one is voting for a representative who will do it. And obviously voting for someone whom you have reason to believe will not vote for NAP violating laws doesn't come close to violating NAP.

Also, I don't believe voting to create a new crime is even possible. Law exists outside the state. Murder doesn't become ok simply because the state doesn't have a code for it. And murder would not become suddenly OK if the state repealed its law. Likewise, that the state says running a lemonade stand is a crime doesn't make it so.

 

[cjm]

I might agree with you about voting for elected representatives not violating NAP if we lived in some type of libertarian utopia ...

Actually, this is a common misunderstanding of the NAP. The NAP prohibits one from *initiating* aggression. It doesn't prohibit the use of force in self defense. No utopia required. Government voting means the government is already there and claiming a monopoly on force -- including the initiation of force. To avoid that (self-defense), one can vote without violating the NAP.