Topic: Libertarian my ass! - page 2. (Read 9528 times)

OK, look at it this way: Yes, it's moral to fight against someone trying to impose their will upon you by force. But by voting, you inherently agree to the rules of the contest - rules set by the agressor. I think you can see why that might be a bad idea. When you vote, you are accepting that the state has the authority to make this decision via this method, and are submitting to the will of the majority - no matter what the outcome.

If you voted, you can't complain.

Can't even make it that far. By "immoral apparatus," you mean voting, and thus we're back at the beginning, begging the question.

If you were to swap some words ("Using the apparatus of the immoral state legitimizes the state"), then we'd have a non-sequitur.

Using the immoral apparatus of the state... legitimizes that system.

Still can't make the jump from the above agreeable statement to "all voting is immoral." Someone please give me a nice, formal, logical if-then statement.

Perhaps Thoreau can explain it better:

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root."

Voting down bad laws = hacking at branches
Doing away with Gov't altogether = striking the root

And... you lost me.

You're right; the force stops.  However, because the system is still in place, marijuana can just as easily be abolished once again.  Laws are never permanent, they are always changed, and they are always at another's expense. 

Voting, even against a new law, or to repeal an old one, just makes me feel dirty. It's like you're asking them to "pretty please, stop putting people in a cage for having this plant?" when the proper response to such a law is "Piss off!"

But to each his own, and if it helps stop the violence, I'm for it.

This statement makes sense. However, the jump from there to "no voting whatsoever" strikes me as odd. If there is a system which incorporates violence, yet allows a nonviolent vote to stop the violence, how can that vote be immoral?
With less rhetoric (actually just more words):
Consider an area where marijuana is prohibited by force. If the majority of the citizens vote to legalize marijuana (unconditionally), then nothing happens except the force stops. In this case the vote is certainly not immoral, and it might even be moral (though it probably stops short of imperative).

This statement makes sense. However, the jump from there to "no voting whatsoever" strikes me as odd. If there is a system which incorporates violence, yet allows a nonviolent vote to stop the violence, how can that vote be immoral?
With less rhetoric (actually just more words):
Consider an area where marijuana is prohibited by force. If the majority of the citizens vote to legalize marijuana (unconditionally), then nothing happens except the force stops. In this case the vote is certainly not immoral, and it might even be moral (though it probably stops short of imperative).

Way I see it, attempting to strive for the peace using a violent system is fruitless.

Yeah, as long as it's not a "tax and regulate."

I prefer to simply ignore bad laws like that, myself.

Ah, shit. There goes my whole "vote for softer chains" idea. Although, it might still be moral to vote for a lack of force (e.g. legalizing marijuana)...?

force by proxy

Hello, I'm discovering this topic. Rampion, are you European ? (I am, so I understand what you mean but…)

Yes but… read Proudhon at the end of his life, he was clearly pro-free-market, and also said «Property is freedom». You can verify. Anarchist, he was fascinated by Jean-Baptiste Say and had a long exchange with Frédéric Bastiat in the journal La Voix du Peuple. He's been very hard with Marx and his collectivism in Philosophy of Misery, I think he never did his coming-out as a «liberal» (at the european sense, libertarian in the US).

Theory of Property, same author !

APPENDIX ZAIN: PROPERTY AND PRIVILEGE

Property is theft
—P. J. PROUDHON
Property is liberty.
—P. J. PROUDHON
Property is impossible.
—P. J. PROUDHON
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.
—RALPH WALDO EMERSON
 
Proudhon, by piling up his contradictions this way, was not merely being French; he was trying to
indicate that the abstraction "property" covers a variety of phenomena, some pernicious and some
beneficial. Let us borrow a device from the semanticists and examine his triad with subscripts
attached for maximum clarity.
"Property¹ is theft" means that property¹, created by the artificial laws of feudal, capitalist, and other
authoritarian societies, is based on armed robbery. Land titles, for instance, are clear examples of property¹; swords and shot were the original coins of transaction. 

"Property² is liberty" means that property², that which will be voluntarily honored in a voluntary (anarchist) society, is the foundation of the liberty in that society. The more people's interests are comingled and confused, as in collectivism, the more they will be stepping on each other's toes; only when the rules of the game declare clearly "This is mine and this is thine," and the game is voluntarily accepted as worthwhile by all parties to it, can true independence be achieved.

"Property³ is impossible" means that property³ (= property¹) creates so much conflict of interest that
society is in perpetual undeclared civil war and must eventually devour itself (and properties¹ and
³ as well). In short, Proudhon, in his own way, foresaw the Snafu Principle. He also foresaw that communism would only perpetuate and aggravate the conflicts, and that anarchy is the only viable alternative to this chaos. 

It is not averred, of course, that property³ will come into existence only in a totally voluntary society; many forms of it already exist. The error of most alleged libertarians— especially the followers (!) of the egregious Ayn Rand— is to assume that all property¹ is property². The distinction can be made by any IQ above 70 and is absurdly simple. The test is to ask, of any title of ownership you are asked to accept or which you ask others to accept, "Would this be honored in a free society of rationalists, or does it require the armed might of a State to force people to honor it?" If it be the former, it is property? and represents liberty; if it be the latter, it is property¹ and represents theft.

After that, it was used for the first time in a POLITICAL and ECONOMICAL way by Joseph Déjacque and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon as a synonym of ANARCHISM. And my friends, ANARCHISM is by definition AGAINST capitalist free market.

One can argue private property doesn't exist with the state; after all, if it is my property, why am I paying the government to exist on it? 

I assure you that anarcho-capitalists exist in Europe.
Well, I think that I exist, anyway. I think so I'am


Property can exist without a state - if you have land, fence and gun; then you certainly have private property.
Defense of private property is easier than offense (you can even mine your land), so private property will exist without a state.

Not that such extreme defenses would be needed in most cases.

Specifically, it's amazing how US folks call "libertarians"

Is not bad to work with the tools you are given - this is even more true with Bitcoin which is a powerful tool that empowers people, freeing them from the banker's slavery. Some anti-state libertarians would still vote in local elections to a candidate that could really improve what they believe fundamentals aspects of their immediate surroundings - corect?