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

[danda]

the point of the original claim is that voting is (usually) a form of initiating aggression because the likely results will be force or fraud and are realistically forseeable by the voter.

voting on best costume does not violate NAP.

voting for one candidate vs another, when it is known that either candidate will then have power to enact laws that violate NAP.... does violate it.

in my view, at least.

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.

 

[cjm]

in my view, at least.

Fair enough. I would suggest considering another view or two though....

the point of the original claim is that voting is (usually) a form of initiating aggression because the likely results will be force or fraud and are realistically forseeable by the voter.

Are there really "forms of initiating aggression"?. I'd argue that one either initiates aggression or one doesn't. If I walk down the wrong street at night, "the likely results will be force or fraud and are realistically forseeable by the" walker (me). That doesn't mean I initiated anything, it means I made a poor choice. The assailant is still on the hook for initiating force.

BTW, fraud isn't a violation of the NAP either. The NAP deals with force. Caveat emptor.

voting for one candidate vs another, when it is known that either candidate will then have power to enact laws that violate NAP.... does violate it.

Laws don't violate the NAP, people do. Voting is merely an expression of opinion. Ultimately the responsibility for aggression rests on the aggressor's shoulders, not on people that express opinions. Unless thought crimes (and speech) are a violation of the NAP?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Laws don't violate the NAP, people do. Voting is merely an expression of opinion. Ultimately the responsibility for aggression rests on the aggressor's shoulders, not on people that express opinions. Unless thought crimes (and speech) are a violation of the NAP?

EXACTLY. There are cogent criticisms of voting, and it is entirely unnecessary to twist the NAP into knots in order to make them. Words have meanings - and the only initiation of aggression involved in "voting violates the NAP" is the aggression that has to be initiated against the English language in order to defend such a position.

 

[nayjevin]

Voting is more than an endorsement. It is putting a hand on the side of the teetertotter. If enough hands collect there, the fatman on the other end is overturned.

Each 'voter' has aided in aggression.

If the fatman has contracted to save all humankind from poverty, if only enough people will lift him up to the appletree by pushing down the teeter to his totter, then each voter has aided no aggression whatsoever.

Voting for a perfect adherent to the NAP or against NAP violations in legislation is zero aggression. Voting for Hitler is aggression. Voting for semi-Hitler is some aggression.

And we guess who is Hitler and who isn't, in a game ripe with lies, propaganda, and misinformation.

Voting for an almost-libertarian is some aggression - we can be fairly sure some aggression will result, along with some reduction in aggression.

But no worry, for driving a car is just as much a violation, as we can be fairly sure some aggression will result from it - inadvertent as it may be.

Purists are not. What is chosen to be viewed as unacceptable aggression, for the purist, is inexplicably among the lesser forms - voting - while domestic violence for instance, a true scourge, is completely ignored.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[osan]

Those are "Big L" libertarians, who the little L's call LINOs

Well, like it or not we have two mechanisms by which to affect meaningful change in this land: the ballot box and the cartridge box. The sanctity of the former appears to have been grossly compromised, up to and including possible rigging of presidential elections. That leaves a rather narrow menu of alternatives.

 

[osan]

the point of the original claim is that voting is (usually) a form of initiating aggression because the likely results will be force or fraud and are realistically forseeable by the voter.

voting on best costume does not violate NAP.

voting for one candidate vs another, when it is known that either candidate will then have power to enact laws that violate NAP.... does violate it.

in my view, at least.

All well and good. And what should we be taking away from this lesson?

 

[LibertyEagle]

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

Yeah, but you are an Anarchist; not a libertarian.

 

[Ronin Truth]

Well, like it or not we have two mechanisms by which to affect meaningful change in this land: the ballot box and the cartridge box. The sanctity of the former appears to have been grossly compromised, up to and including possible rigging of presidential elections. That leaves a rather narrow menu of alternatives.

How's that "affect meaningful changey" thing been working out for you lately?

 

[nayjevin]

How's that "affect meaningful changey" thing been working out for you lately?

When you heckle from the sidelines at the courthouse, you get arrested. When you do it here, people listen. That says nothing of right action.

 

[nayjevin]

Playing any game affirms the rules of the game

So if I play backgammon without the doubling cube I am prohibiting myself from being able to play with the doubling cube without being a hypocrite? Doesn't make sense.

- in this case it's the Good Intentions Paving Company's "majority rule" ("might makes right"). But if you get enough voters to vote along with you, you'll be able to force everyone else to be free.

This is clever quipping but not sound logic. Voting for a candidate who will use less force and remove legislation that authorizes force in no way equates to forcing anyone to be free.

Further, voting does not endorse majority rule. This is proven by the fact that I do not endorse majority rule, but I vote.

There are better arguments for not voting, but there are no good arguments for encouraging others not to vote.

 

[Ronin Truth]

When you heckle from the sidelines at the courthouse, you get arrested. When you do it here, people listen. That says nothing of right action.

You must have a really tough courthouse. Here, at mine the sidelines hecklers just get laughed at and ignored.

Of course it doesn't. It only asks a question. Your confusion is understandable.

 

[nayjevin]

There's a pretty good argument for voting for any politician who will do any single thing that increases freedom while in office.

Government marches on, bloating and increasing it's own power/budget.

We can measure the growth and extrapolate it into the future.

It could be that any action that slows that undesirable growth is to be endorsed.

It's like saying we need budget cuts, when talking about slowing the growth.

It's like our elected representative Rand Paul says, we need to talk about real cuts, not slowing the growth.

A Senator is your natural ally. Your brain OK?

 

[Ronin Truth]

So if I play backgammon without the doubling cube I am prohibiting myself from being able to play with the doubling cube without being a hypocrite? Doesn't make sense.



This is clever quipping but not sound logic. Voting for a candidate who will use less force and remove legislation that authorizes force in no way equates to forcing anyone to be free.

Further, voting does not endorse majority rule. This is proven by the fact that I do not endorse majority rule, but I vote.

There are better arguments for not voting, but there are no good arguments for encouraging others not to vote.

How's that "less force use and legislation removal of authorizing force" thing been working out for you lately?

 

[Ronin Truth]

There's a pretty good argument for voting for any politician who will do any single thing that increases freedom while in office.

Government marches on, bloating and increasing it's own power/budget.

We can measure the growth and extrapolate it into the future.

It could be that any action that slows that undesirable growth is to be endorsed.

It's like saying we need budget cuts, when talking about slowing the growth.

It's like our elected representative Rand Paul says, we need to talk about real cuts, not slowing the growth.

A Senator is your natural ally. Your brain OK?

It's really tough to fight an enemy that maintains outposts in your head.

 

[nayjevin]

How's that "less force use and legislation removal of authorizing force" thing been working out for you lately?

You mean like racism and slavery being universally abhorred, and women having relative equality? Living a priveleged life in one of the better places that exist in the world? Daily annoyances such as unfriendly DMV employees rather than poverty and sickness? Fighting about economic philosophies instead of trying not to be burnt as a witch?

Everything is fine. Awesome, in fact.

 

[nayjevin]

It's really tough to fight an enemy that maintains outposts in your head.

I guess the implication is that you are less susceptible than others? At minimum it's easier for me to see yours that still exist than my own.

CIA is seeding anti-activism quips into yours.

 

[Ronin Truth]

You mean like racism and slavery being universally abhorred, and women having relative equality? Living a priveleged life in one of the better places that exist in the world? Daily annoyances such as unfriendly DMV employees rather than poverty and sickness? Fighting about economic philosophies instead of trying not to be burnt as a witch?

Everything is fine. Awesome, in fact.

Most of the sheeple get the exact shepherds that most of the sheeple deserve.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Playing any game affirms the rules of the game - in this case it's the Good Intentions Paving Company's "majority rule" ("might makes right").

An affirmation is not a NAP violation - not even if that which is being affirmed would be a NAP violation, were it actually to be forcibly enacted.

Nor does a reasonable expectation of actual forcible enactment constitute a NAP violation. Only the forcible enactment itself is NAP-violative.

But if you get enough voters to vote along with you, you'll be able to force everyone else [...].

No, you won't - not unless you have enough actual NAP violators (as distinct from mere "affirming" voters) who actually go out and actually initiate actual aggression against "everyone" (or even just "someone").

Every single person in a society could vote in favor of the forcible extraction of wealth from certain members of that society - but if no one in that society actually goes out and starts foricbly extracting wealth from others, then there is no NAP violation. However, if someone in that society actually does go out and starts forcibly extracting wealth from others, then there is a NAP violation - but the NAP violation consists in the subsequent forcing, not in the antecedent voting or "affirming."
____________________

N.B.: None of this is to suggest that the "affirming" or "legitimizing" aspects of voting do not exist or they are not objectionable, seriously problematic, or profoundly deleterious. It is only to say that they do not make voting a violation of the NAP.

(IOW: I am not defending voting. I am defending the NAP.)

 

[Ronin Truth]

An affirmation is not a NAP violation - not even if that which is being affirmed would be a NAP violation, were it actually to be forcibly enacted.

Nor does a reasonable expectation of actual forcible enactment constitute a NAP violation. Only the forcible enactment itself is NAP-violative.



No, you won't - not unless you have enough actual NAP violators (as distinct from mere "affirming" voters) who actually go out and actually initiate actual aggression against "everyone" (or even just "someone").

Every single person in a society could vote in favor of the forcible extraction of wealth from certain members of that society - but if no one in that society actually goes out and starts foricbly extracting wealth from others, then there is no NAP violation. However, if someone in that society actually does go out and starts forcibly extracting wealth from others, then there is a NAP violation - but the NAP violation consists in the subsequent forcing, not in the antecedent voting or "affirming."
____________________

N.B.: None of this is to suggest that the "affirming" or "legitimizing" aspects of voting do not exist or they are not objectionable, seriously problematic, or profoundly deleterious. It is only to say that they do not make voting a violation of the NAP.

(IOW: I am not defending voting. I am defending the NAP.)

Is Voting an Act of Violence?
by Carl Watner
http://voluntaryist.com/articles/103.html#.VlDAhl4RESU