Freedomain Radio

paz:

"Many anarchist libertarians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action–the argument being that by participating in this way in State activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the State apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision, and the State has placed individuals in society in an unfree environment, in a general matrix of coercion. The State—unfortunately—exists, and people must necessarily begin with this matrix to try to remedy their condition. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent. Indeed, if the State allows us a periodic choice of rulers, limited though that choice may be, it surely cannot be considered immoral to make use of that limited choice to try to reduce or get rid of State power." --Murray Rothbard

What do you think about what Rothbard is saying?  Do you agree with him? 

If there was an afterlife, and he saw how his advice had turned out, do you think he would encourage us to try something else?

Voting is not the cause or the cure of the state.

The family is the cause and the cure of the state.

Voting for Paul is a question of moral priorities, and the lesser of two evils (this is assuming that voting is morally wrong):

Would you rather perpetrate the evil of voting, but also support a chance to powerfully stagnate the positive rate of change of government for 4+ years?

 or

Can you, in good conscience, allow the State to attack your liberties and belongings while voluntarily forgoing your best chance to hinder its violence?  If you can support the bloating of the State in order to see its demise (as in "4: Loving the State..."), is that not at least as immoral as voting?  Can you allow the State to bloat, and the quality of life of everyone in the country to continue to deteriorate, when there is a standing option to halt this devolution?

It's a false dichotomy, as are all temptations.

Voting for Ron Paul will increase the size and power of the state, and reduce your personal liberty, whether he gets in or not.

Not because he's a bad guy; it's just an inevitable result of the nature of coercive systems.

I wasted four hours voting in 2004, and things have gotten worse in just 3 years.  No more.

And voting for Ron Paul isn't the issue... it's voting.  You can't do good by encouraging the state.

...chance to powerfully stagnate the positive rate of change of government...

I don't mean any offense, but I see this phrase as a good example of why Ron Paul supporters have such a hard time justifying their position.  It's so incongruous it doesn't even make sense.

 

Actually, voting for Hillary may be more productive in bringing about a free society... If you know what I mean.

In fact, I would say that starting an "Anarchists for Bigger Government" campaign may be a way to bring people to their senses once they figure out what the end goal of that is.

Stefan Molyneux:

And how much time did you waste following politics and figuring out who to vote for?

Ugh, I don't even want to think about how much time I wasted reading about politics and trying to craft arguments to justify my minarchism.  I didn't really think much about who to vote for.  I was a Libertarian, after all, so I MUST vote for Badnarik!

Now I don't follow it at all.  It's wonderful.

Stefan Molyneux:

If there was an afterlife, and he saw how his advice had turned out, do you think he would encourage us to try something else?

Voting is not the cause or the cure of the state.

The family is the cause and the cure of the state.

I know, I was trying to see if paz had any thoughts of his own on the matter rather than just throwing out a quote by good ol' Murray.   

I got a good laugh out of everyone jumping on it like a pack of wolves.  My thoughts?  I would say to take a few long hard looks at the situation before flat out denouncing what Rothbard had to say.  I'm inclined to agree with him, but I'm not exactly going to waste too much time defending my position against people wrapped up in their dogmatic beliefs on morality and living in their own little utopian fantasies.

 Not to say that any of you are that way, of course.

If you're looking to profit on the market, an economist would be the man you should talk to.

paz:

I got a good laugh out of everyone jumping on it like a pack of wolves.  My thoughts?  I would say to take a few long hard looks at the situation before flat out denouncing what Rothbard had to say.  I'm inclined to agree with him, but I'm not exactly going to waste too much time defending my position against people wrapped up in their dogmatic beliefs on morality and living in their own little utopian fantasies.

 Not to say that any of you are that way, of course.

 

If you're looking to profit on the market, an economist would be the man you should talk to.

Right because our conclusions aren't based on any philosophical rigor through an application of the scientific method or anything...  we're just a "pack of wolves".  Jeez, can you be anymore condescending? Do you really think that ad hominems are a valid debate tactic? 

Just to share, Ron Paul held a rally nearby where I live.  Just south in Nashville Tennessee, and it's all on Youtube.

It's amazing how "radical" he seems to some people.

My conversations with people generally end in me being called a greedy capitalist pig to the tune of something like, "OMGWTF NO MOAR WELFAREZ GTFO!!!" 

Capitalism is a four letter word in America, at least where I live.

The Rally was Entertaining, I think he's the only candidate who's made it a point to promise to cut his own pay in half, because he plans on doing so little (aside from doing everything he can to shut down the government).

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7.

While I enjoy naively pretending that this campaign could spark a wave of individualism becoming popularized and begin a trend that could eventually correct and eventually remedy all of the economic problems in America, I agree that the only way it's going to come about is through collapse.  Even then however, because of the mentality in America, no matter when we collapse... the stigma, the attitude toward capitalism is such that nothing short of another statist government will be established to take it's place.

Spaghettim0nst3r:

... he's the only candidate who's made it a point to promise to cut his own pay in half...

So now the thugs who shake me down for half of my income can remind me that they're taking just a wee bit less because Ronnie is graciously taking only half of the money by force that his predecessor took.  Man, that takes some stones to be so hypocritical.

He's campaigning as a limited government constitutionalist, on that platform there is no hypocrisy in taking a pay cut.

Can you explain yourself?