An aside, I loved the part in Brewster's Millions where he campiagns for mayor as "none of the above."

Anyway, I agree with the Long metaphor from Smallville. To refuse to ride the machine because the mere posession of power is an act of agression is wrong, it would indeed mean that my posession of a gun, for means of self-defense constitutes agression, which, it does not. I have to use the gun, or the power, or the "machine" agressively to be judged an agressor. Hence, using politics in self-defense is not agression. I agree that the existence of political power is probably too dangerous, yet when we refuse to confront it, or turn it against itself, we allow the machine to run roughshod over everything, destroying Smallville and leaving it free and undamaged to destroy again. I will try and use every tool at my disposal, even those that are provided me by the enemy, to destroy it. I mean, when the state attacks us with gus, will we blame the guns, or the men? Is it the ends or the means we judge? My gun defends me, a criminal's robs me, and the states oppresses me. Are guns to blame? Am I evil for using a gun against the robber or the oppressor?

Hi everyone,

I'm new here. This is my first post. Found these forums just now through the link on SM's wikipedia entry which was referred to as some kind of explanation of the criticisms of SM and FDR.

I intend to do a bit more browsing around and reading, but I have been having some fun reading just the things posted here about FDR as I have noticed a lot of it myself (my personal inkling on SM and C's relationship is that it is one of some kind of arrogant self-delusion and is an outgrowth of SM "I'm always right"-ness). However, I have to also admit that, like many other former-FDR people here, I have gotten some interesting viewpoints/ideas from SM/FDR so, laughable as SM might be at times, I'm not about to completely write him off just yet, just as I occasionally visit LRC/LvMI and read things even though I am convinced that most of the people contributing these days are hypocritical morons.

Okay, enough of my introduction, I just wanted to do a little defending of the anti-Block position, because I noticed that this discussion seemed to be suffering from the same kind of thing you accuse SM of (one-sided debating, arguing with non-existent opponents, readily agreeing without critically thinking), which I think is kind of normal because human beings by nature seem to associate with people they agree with. You don't usually find people voluntarily associating with people who disagree with them on everything (libertarians and socialists, not usually the best of friends) or abuse them any chance they get.

And let me preface this with the fact that I believe I am always right a lot of the time too, I am definitely wowed by my own intellect and I have trouble not being the authority on things all the time, that's a psychological issue I need to get over, obviously, but I have learned that it is easier to admit one is wrong when one stops and asks, "What do I really lose by admitting I am wrong/haven't thought things through as well as I should have?" and then realizing the answer is nothing, especially when asked in consideration of a bunch of like-wise anonymous morons from the internet who I never have to associate with ever again if I should be too ashamed to do so.

Block argues that there is some kind of hypocrisy involved when people argue that using the State's right to vote is a statist measure, all while they continue to use the State's resources such as roads, "corporations," etc. He also does engage in name-dropping, which is a logical fallacy in this case as it is "Argument From Authority." There is no need for Block to try to bully skeptics into believing him by pointing out that a favorite libertarian of theirs agreed with him, all libertarians are human (so far as I know!), all humans are fallible, therefore it's possible a libertarian could hold a position and be wrong about it.

I listened to this podcast but I don't remember if they discussed why driving on the roads is not hypocritical. I think the reason it is not hypocritical to use the State's roads while decrying voting, for instance, is because no one has any choice in the matter. You can not survive AND not utilize the roads. To survive, you must utilize the roads. Why is this? Because the State has a monopoly on the roads, and encircles your home with them. Part of the NAP is that you don't do something like buy all the land around someone's property and then fence them in so they starve to death. You're aggressing against the person at that point and that's wrong... no one, libertarian or otherwise, is obliged to respect your walls by not blowing them to pieces and passing through them when that happens. I think the same thing goes for a road... when the State encircles your home with roads, so that you have no choice but to travel the road to leave your home and engage in peaceful, voluntary interactions with other people, you are not being a hypocrite by using those roads. Saying you are a hypocrite in this case is an example of "blaming the victim" which I saw someone arguing was illogical earlier. (Oddly, I never have seen anyone who believes Block is correct in this argument ever stop and point out what a giant old hypocrite and violator-of-own-principles that person must then be, why, we'd be no better than any other statist out there were it true!).

Similar logic can be used to explore other areas where the State either maintains a total monopoly (say first-class mail... you are not obligated according to libertarian principles to pay $10 to FedEx your daily correspondence around simply because the FedGov has outlawed private carriers of first-class mail), or a partial one/regulatory intervention, say with corporations. While there are obvious fascistic benefits to willfully forming a State-sanctioned corporation, I don't think corporations would be the norm or be as prevalent in a free society as they are now. Most business people would forgo that kind of legal organization. But the truth is that the State intervenes in this situation and creates an environment where a business must incorporate or be run off the block. I don't think businesspeople are obligated according to libertarian principle to tie their hands behind their back and be slaughtered by the competition just so they don't have to let the State man-handle their business. And I don't think customers can be faulted for interacting with such a business just because the corporation probably wouldn't exist without the State, because again they don't have a choice. No one is obligated to be a subsistence farmer (a Thoreau) just because the State has entangled itself with every other person and organization attempting to freely interact with them.

I think McElroy is off the track with her example about voting against Hitler and how that shows why someone shouldn't vote in political elections. If her example were to ever occur, ie, there was a vote for Fuehrer and Hitler was up and it was WME's vote that would keep him from power (not sure how this would even work, the vote would have to be tied in the first place for her one vote to swing things, and if she refused to vote it'd probably go into a tie-breaker in which case she wouldn't vote and Hitler might still win), she'd be, I think, an utter fool to NOT exercise that power and make the rise to power of a mad-man just a little bit tougher. He might get into power anyway, or another might take his place, but if you ever had the power, individually, to vote and decide whether or not he got to sit on his throne THEN or later/never and start destroying things, I don't see how a liberty advocate wouldn't vote against him.

But see, that's the problem with the "Would you vote to stop Hitler?" question and WME odd-ball response to it... it can't EVER happen in real life like that and it's a flawed question theoretically as well, for reasons I pointed out above. WME would better serve her argument to point out that in modern electoral systems (ALL electoral systems concerning candidates, not legislative proposals?), and in the case of Hitler's election, the elections are not "YES/NO" for one person or party, but "A/B/C/D/..." for multiple persons or parties.

So, going back to the Hitler question, to vote "against" Hitler, you'd necessarily have to vote FOR another candidate, one of the people running against Hitler. And because those other candidates are trying to wield the power of the State against innocent 3rd parties just like Hitler (though maybe not for the exact same reasons or to the same extent), I think at that point a libertarian/anarchist can make a strong point that by doing so (voting) they're contributing to/sanctioning the violence that would follow.


On a more personal note, I will not vote in this upcoming election (America), nor do I plan to vote in any future elections, as I do believe voting is wrong. I think voting, in almost all cases, is simply a sanctioning of the State, and even when I have a choice to vote for a mostly-anti-State candidate like Ron Paul, I still have a problem with lending any kind of support or endorsement to a person who, for all his pro-freedom policies, still supports random acts of statist aggression against innocent 3rd parties of his preference. I'm not down with that, so I shan't be votin' for 'im.

I open this topic up now to responses/retorts/rebuttals. And I'll do my best to admit I am wrong if I realize I am.

I like your analysis of the "To vote or not to vote, that is the question..?" problem. Would you vote for Ron Paul in the republican party's voting for presidental candidate? You aren't really voting for anyone to wield the power of the state at that vote.

By the way, I welcome you to this humble Bulletin Board System of bannished people.

Hi Metroid,

No, I won't vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primaries, for the same/similar reasons as for why I wouldn't vote for him in a national election: anything I can do to help this man into power (which includes voting for him in primaries) I will not do, as I am not in agreement with him on the fact that he thinks it is permissible to use force against non-violent people in some situations (ie, immigration, me if I don't pay my taxes/attempt to secede, etc.)

Hi madvillain. Welcome to LiMi.

I like your post - it was clear, stated your position well, and did not include any name-calling or insults. I look forward to more discussions with you.

I agree with most of your points, and I think that whether you hold this position about voting or not, you still might have rational reasons to vote or not vote (i.e., to act counter to your position). But you said:

madvillain wrote:

If her example were to ever occur, ie, there was a vote for Fuehrer and Hitler was up and it was WME's vote that would keep him from power...she'd be, I think, an utter fool to NOT exercise that power and make the rise to power of a mad-man just a little bit tougher.

...and...

madvillain wrote:

On a more personal note, I will not vote in this upcoming election (America), nor do I plan to vote in any future elections, as I do believe voting is wrong. I think voting, in almost all cases, is simply a sanctioning of the State, and even when I have a choice to vote for a mostly-anti-State candidate like Ron Paul, I still have a problem with lending any kind of support or endorsement to a person who, for all his pro-freedom policies, still supports random acts of statist aggression against innocent 3rd parties of his preference. I'm not down with that, so I shan't be votin' for 'im.

How do you reconcile those two statements?

Driving on roads is not hypocritical because "state property" is not legitimately owned. I think Wendy said something to that effect and I agree.

To be fair, Block does mention famous anarchists that vote, like Murray Rothbard. But he mentions their arguments as well, see here.

Block is not arguing that it is wrong to use state services, he is saying it is wrong to use state services according to non-voting principles.

Voting and using state services are both choices that entail cooperating with the state. Not voting and not using state services are both choices we could take to avoid this cooperation. Yes it would be a lot more difficult to live without using state services, but it is certainly possible. But it is not wrong to use state services because the state is the one doing the wrong by stealing the resources to provide these services, not me.

Voting for Ron Paul is merely registering a preference for less government over more government, not a preference for government over no government. And in the same way it is the state that plunders the populace, not me. I'm simply showing a preference for less plundering.

Look at it like this. You necessarily have to vote for a candidate who will plunder people if you want to vote against a candidate that will plunder more. But you necessarily have to support the government by taxation if you make money or buy things. Shouldn't we lay the blame for these injustices at the government's feet and not at our own, since they are the ones responsible for putting us into this mess?

Are y'all aware that one vote has zero effect? You're more likely to accidentally gouge your eye out while voting than to affect the outcome of a presidential election. And that's not even hyperbole

I don't see voting as any more immoral than using state services but I've never wasted my time doing it.

Hi LiMi dudes and dudettes,

A bit of a pile-on since I last was at the computer, so I'm going to try to respond to all that was respond-worthy since then and it's up to each and every one of you to read through this and figure out where I am addressing you if I don't explicitly say so myself. I'll do my best to be orderly and address points/posters in the order in which they came. Now, let us begin:

1. Barskey asks how I reconcile two of my positions, that you'd be foolish to not vote against Hitler if you ever had that power, and that I won't personally be voting any longer as I think it sanctions the State (and its violence).

Well, the difference I see in the two situations is that the first one, voting against Hitler as WME always describes it, is this completely unrealistic, binary event where the vote is not for Hitler or Einzigen or HerrDanke or Fritz, but is exclusively YAY/NAY concerning Hitler. I tried to make the point that this is not how THAT election was (so far as I understand, there was never a popular vote in Germany in which the issue on the ballot was "Hitler = Fuehrer, Yes or No?") and it's not how any election ever is when it's an election for individual candidates and officeholders, or even entire parties as is common in much of Western Europe. Unlike a referendum or a ballot initiative such as the Proposition system which is popular in California, on election day voters must pick either Hitler OR Einzigen or HerrDanke or Fritz, etc. etc. One might try to vote "against" Hitler by voting for another candidate, but that's the thing, they're still voting for someone in that instance. In a situation like that, where your vote nominally assists someone into a position of power within the Official Violence Monopoly, I think you're wrong to cast a vote. I don't care if your intent is good or if you're merely trying to defend yourself or you're voting for the least worst, the truth is that the machine is oiled by consent, of any kind, and cooperating in this regard is a form of assistance for the State in that regard.

I won't contribute to that, so long as I don't have to, ie have some choice in the matter because I do not have a gun held to my head if I refuse to do so. (I'll try to remember to explain later on how I think this differs from using roads and what not).

The reason my two positions reconcile with one another, as I see it, is because the situation in which I describe voting to be reasonable and rational and "right" is a situation which is faulty in theory and in reality and which would never, ever happen like that but which, if it somehow did, in theory or in practice, you'd want to take advantage of that situation and keep Hitler out, even if he's going to be replaced by some other dictator or lesser-socialist or assume power some other way later.

To be clear, in THAT situation, by voting against Hitler I am not contributing to the violation of anyone else's rights, because I am not casting a vote FOR another socialist AGAINST Hitler. But outside of that context, every other vote you make assists SOME socialist into power who will live parasitically off of and aggress against peaceful others, and I don't think anyone has the right to do something like that.

2. Laird, thanks, this was another topic I meant to cover in my earlier response but forgot to as I was trying to keep everything else going in my head.

To accept the proposition that driving on State-owned roads is somehow hypocritical while someone is maintaining a position against voting is further nonsense, besides the reasons I explained, because the roads are unowned, or rather, not legitimately owned. When I drive on the road, I am not "using the State's resources" because the State has no resources. As another poster explained, the State doesn't actually exist, just the individuals within it do, and none of them can rightfully lay claim to the roads as their sole or joint property as they came about them through theft, so I am not using their resources, or anyone's, by driving on them, more like I am walking through a wilderness that has not been homesteaded by anyone else yet.

Interestingly, however, this brings up something I thought a few months ago when walking by a post office, which I explored ever-so-briefly in Who Owns Public Property? I fear I am going to repeat that post a bit here now but essentially someone does make a claim to ownership of public property... ever tried "trespassing" on a military base or even a post office before?

3. Laird again. I am not sure it IS possible to live without utilizing the State's resources unless you're born in the Alaskan wilderness or somesuch with the help of an unregistered midwife. Otherwise, as I pointed out in my earlier post, your entire home is surrounded by the State's roads and you have no choice but to use them, even if it is in an attempt to get away from the State and go live in the wilderness so you don't have to use the State's services. So, for some it might be possible, but for most it is simply impossible.

I want to express some concern with your blanket-acceptance of the use of State services, simply because you didn't do the stealing yourself. This let's a lot of people off the hook, including welfare recipients, bureaucrats, even many politicians and legislators (after all, they don't steal the money and they don't execute the laws, they just write them, and the laws aren't harmful until acted upon...). I don't want to do all the thinking or arguing on this topic by myself, so maybe some other people can jump in here, or even you yourself, to figure out why I think what you've said is wrong, but I don't think welfare recipients can take welfare guilt free suddenly because we admit that they don't do the stealing themselves, nor any of the other parties I've mentioned (obviously firefighters, policemen, teachers, etc. are all included on the list).

4. Furthermore, I want to take issue with this idea that a vote for Ron Paul is merely a vote for less government and that there isn't anything dangerous in voting for people like Ron Paul.

It'd be fun to vote for Ron Paul as a "lesser" of two evils candidate because in theory he simply represents my preference for less, rather than more government. But in practice, "lesser government" candidates have won elections against more socialistic candidates, and government has grown and crimes have been committed and atrocities carried out despite this fact, grave injustice all around. I think people get so lost in the theory of how a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for less that they ignore the probabilities of reality, in which Ron Paul will turn out to be just like any other human in power, who will be corrupted, ignore/forget/deny/change his principles, be a regular old mean tyrant himself, etc. etc. The man is already engaged in this kind of behavior already (for all the flabbergasting about what a straight-shooter he is, he's flim-flammed quite a bit now already, this "racism" debacle and how he's handled it being simply the most recent example). As the stakes get higher and higher, with the ultimate highest stakes being getting into office, the temptation to behave corruptly only grows and grows.

Let's keep these very real possibilities of danger in mind when we hurrah for Mr. Paul.

Furthermore, I think there is something of great importance for this debate in the fact that we individuals still have a CHOICE to vote or not, whereas we do not have a choice about paying our taxes. It's not fair to compare a person who votes and a person who pays their taxes and accuse both of cooperating with the State so as to employ an argument that we can sweep away the guilt of both by simply recognizing the State is guilty in both situations, not the individual for the choices he willingly or unwillingly makes.

An interesting corollary to all this: would any of you make the same "I'll vote for the perceived lesser of the evils" argument for any of the candidates in an election race not involving someone like Ron Paul? If so, why? If not, why not?

I think it's because it's simply a lot clearer how wrong it is to vote for someone like Bush v. Kerry, or Clinton v. McCain (as the next election will likely be), vs. a situation where you have someone who is nominally a champion of liberty like Ron Paul despite sitting on a Congressional salary for the past 20 years, not being as fresh with the Constitution (as if it was worth anything anyway) as he often claims to be and all the while maintaining many overtly aggressive and violent policies as veritas such as his stance on enforcing the "borders" of the United States.

5. Moe brings up a great point, one which I intended to make but which I decided to wait on for a bit as I was trying my best to ground my arguments in principles/rights-based logic first, although I realize I haven't done a perfect job so far (it's tough!). The truth is that even if it were "okay" to vote for Ron Paul or any other candidate, why would you? It's a waste of time, because your vote doesn't count in the scheme of things. "Oh, but if everyone thought as you do, your vote WOULD count!" Right... but also wrong. It's kind of a game theory type of situation, but everyone has this same incentive (if no one else votes, my vote counts) and so it's all but guaranteed that if no one voted, at the very last second everyone who would've voted will make a mad dash to try to get their singular vote in to decide the election, meaning that you're right back to square one and your vote doesn't count again.

6. NonE, yes, correct. However, I think we can utilize the word "State" when convenient so long as we accurately and concisely define what the State is and isn't, or who it is and isn't, rather. I think this can be accomplished accurately enough to make the word useful in discussions so that people don't have to type it out every single time, unlike a word like "society" which is often cast about whimsically and in ways which include people who do not properly belong in the group or who are unwilling participants in the group.

Similarly, "the government" doesn't exist, only the individuals who compose the government do, but it's fairly obvious who is and isn't part of the government so I think the term is useful. I am willing to have someone contest all of this, however, and consider an alternative viewpoint in favor of spelling things out and always placing blame at an individual level.

Here's a good entry on the logical fallacy of Ambiguous Collective

7. Conrad asked in what sense I think LRC/LvMI people are hypocritical morons for the most part (making a generalization, obviously, as there are enough people there that I find worth reading that I still bother to come check it out now and then, as I mentioned). Well, I don't want to write another post of this length right now just cataloging the obsequiousness I've witnessed by those fellows, but to summarize briefly some of the crap that peeves me coming from them: focus on utilitarianism to defend positions, rather than focusing on justice-right/wrong, the fact that many/most of the people contributing (and this is especially true at LvMI) these days are professors at state universities which makes them co-conspirators in the Criminal Collective in my book, that many of the other contributors now are minarchist/conservative half-wit ninny children (re: Max Raskin and others) that twiddled in front of a keyboard in Auburn one summer and obviously shined the faculties shoes enough while they were there to get full posting privileges at which point these kiddies went off and started writing zany, logically and factually fallacious trollop on all subjects economic, political and otherwise, apparently with no adult supervision, that yes, there is a bit too much RP-cheerleading for my tastes (this is especially true of LRC), which would be tolerable if it was engendered by consistently applied principles, non-idolatrous worship of a man-as-god and an adherence to one set of rules/facts for all concerned, rather than constantly bending and spinning things so that RP is always in the right or in the lead, and so on.

8. Anthony Gregory never has and never will make my list of people who are sensible on political activism. That guy is an absolute tool and he fails on this particular subject as he recently made clear his allegiance to Block's view on this issue/argument.

Also, I try to avoid phrases like "distinguished thinkers" myself. You're welcome to use the phrase but I just have a hard time salivating when I think of any person and their accomplishments. I mean, looking at the phrase subjectively, what makes these thinkers "distinguished?" Because they wrote books, or got shiny prizes from other people who write books/have shiny prizes? I'd be quicker to label an idea distinguished, than the man who came up with it, but that's just me and like I said you're welcome to consider people as distinguished as you like.

9. Conrad revisited the anarcho-caps voting issue. Whatever flavor of anarchist you are, I just can't see how CHOOSING to vote is consistent with rejecting the government. I understand the strategic theory of how doing so should move you towards freedom/slow the roll towards outright totalitarianism, but that still doesn't connect in my mind someone who rejects the government as illegitimate engaging WILLINGLY in one of its venues (remember, the difference I am establishing between the voting and the paying of taxes, for instance, is that as of now, we still have a choice in voting, whereas we will be imprisoned or shot if we don't pay taxes).

10. The distillation of Block's point, the implicit, if the explicit is that he's just trying to point out "one hypocrite makes us all hypocrites" is that voting for RP would not be against libertarian principles, and that anyone who claims it is against libertarian principles is a hypocrite because they somehow drink at the trough by using the roads. That's what I got out of it, anyway, as it seems more than obvious Dubba-Dubba-DubbyaB can't wait to pull the lever for RonnieP.

11. I don't think any level of aggression is justified when it involves third parties.

12. I "agree" with Social Contract Theory in the sense that I believe voting is a form of consent-granting, whatever the reason given for doing so might be. Does that mean I agree with Social Contract Theory's normative conclusions (government is right because it represents the will of the People through the Social Contract)? Do I "agree" with Marxism's normative conclusions because I agree with Marx that some classes are exploited by others? The answer should be obvious, but no to both.

13. I don't think you have to let yourself die to maintain principle purity, just don't deny you've bungled your principles when you do so, whatever your reason. In other words, if I am getting chased by an axe-murderer and bash through someone's window to get away, I am going to accept that I am a trespasser and have violated the sanctity of the person's property whose window I broke through to get away afterward. I am not going to try to argue that I am guilt-free due to extenuating circumstances.

David Friedman posited a scenario in TMOF (pretty sure it was David) in which there is some psycho shooting up the pedestrians on the street, and the only gun within reach is on some misanthropic guy's porch and you know he wouldn't want you to take the rifle and blast the perp with it. Friedman wrestled with whether or not libertarians would be confining themselves to bad outcomes by being bound too tightly by their own rules. My view is the same as the earlier situation... I'll grab that rifle and pay the costs/deal with the consequences later, most likely. But I will NOT take the rifle, save the day and then be outraged when I am held to be a criminal/rights violator by my actions.

I believe trying to adhere to any other standard (some kind of utilitarian perspective where you try to weigh the lives saved versus the damage of stealing the rifle) is not only an impossible task if you believe in the subjective theory of value, but also is prone to that slippery slope, in which you go to bed making that argument and wake up the next morning justifying massive, pre-emptive crusades in foreign lands all in the name of national defense.

14. I'll give you a "practical," specific example, one of many, of why I wouldn't vote for Ron Paul on principled grounds (I think this is what you're asking about? you make a distinction between "principle" and "practical" and I am taking this to mean applying theoretical principles to real positions... not that you believe one can engage in pragmatic politics and make "practical compromises"?):

RP's position in immigration, which is to enforce existing laws (in conjunction with lessening the welfare benefits which attract some immigrants, yes, that's nice too). This means he is in support of executing and enforcing laws which establish a militarized condition on the border and forcibly prevent peaceable people from crossing the border to engage in voluntary transactions with "citizens" already living here, whether it be for jobs, real estate, goods and services, etc. (A note: I DO NOT support the "libertarian right" of free movement, that is, my desire to see open borders DOES NOT mean I think immigrants have the right to move across those borders by traversing private property on the border as trespassers). This is a violent intervention in the lives of both the immigrants and the "citizens" trying to transact with them. Furthermore, it requires all kinds of identification systems (passport system, etc.) which are further rights violations of "citizens" as well as temporary visitors to the country. On that count alone, no matter how free RP's positions might be otherwise, I could never willingly cast a vote in support of him or even for him against another candidate.

I'd rather just not vote for anyone and sleep in that morning.


I think I've said enough on voting for myself right now, though I'll continue to respond to any new points raised by anyone who cares to do so. In the meantime, you might enjoy this, can't remember if it will add to the discussion or if we've already covered all of it: Voting

Either way, I encourage people to read ALL of David King's "Guide to Objectivism" if you aren't familiar with it already. Lot's of great insights in there and his Handbook of Logical Fallacies is outstanding as well.

NonE,

I think the safest way to handle it is thus: explain to people how and why the State doesn't exist, that only individuals do exist (Fallacy of Ambiguous Collective). If you sense they grasp it, proceed to use collective terminology freely, albeit responsibly.

If they don't grasp it, ABANDON SHIP (the ship being SS Ambiguous Collective).

LOL, essentially I agree with you, my point is when you're amongst people who understand the terms and can use them responsibly, it sure beats typing/saying things out explicitly each time, though even people who understand shouldn't fall for the lazy trap as they might start sliding in their thinking as well.