42 votes

I'm not voting anymore

I have been a libertarian for about two years now. I was introduced to libertarian thought by Ron Paul's 2012 campaign. After that whole debacle, I began to consider who I would vote for in 2016 when the time came. Since the 2012 elections, however, I have been doing a lot of thought about my philosophy. I have really delved into libertarian ideas such as the non-aggression principle, and my outlook on voting has completely changed. I will no longer be voting.

I believe there can be no moral justification for government. If we accept that people should never use violence except in cases of self-defense, then we can no longer justify government. Government requires violence to exist. Taxation is theft, etc. If the system you support does NOT require violence, then it is not government. Government is by definition violent.

Can we move past the idea that reforming our government could somehow work, or is even the morally right thing to do? It's a delusion.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This is the kind of progress

This is the kind of progress I like to see. Welcome aboard.

More like...

...naive reaction to first exposure to anarcho-capitalism.

Like a 14 year old who reads one of those pop atheist books and then goes around insulting Christians. That causes Voltaire to facepalm.

Likewise, this OP causes Rothbard to facepalm.

Make it a double..

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

This isn't a knee-jerk

This isn't a knee-jerk reaction to anarcho-capitalism. My acceptance of the philosophy came slow, because I was cautious to throw everything I've ever known out the window in favor of being philosophically consistent. However, I could not escape the glaring inconsistency of accepting NAP and continuing to vote.

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

I agree NAP can be taken to an extreme, where it contradicts...

...itself.

It is not a cult, though there are those who can take it too far.

At some point, you have the right to hurt an attacker BEFORE he hurts you...

PEOPLE OPPOSING TYRANNY - Real Grass Roots!
Are you a POT or a PET - Person Embracing Tyranny?

Those who follow the NAP

Those who follow the NAP belong to a cult? You willing to say that to all the Christians who follow the golden rule? (Although, a lot of Christians who say they follow the golden rule really don't)

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

No, what I mean is

That the idea that voting for someone like Ron, is somehow like assaulting someone, is crazy to me.

If anything, voting is self defense. The NAP is something that I think, is twisted around in ways that do not make sense.

A sort of Cop out.

I just find philosophically

I just find philosophically inconsistent to claim to be an advocate for liberty, yet support a system in which violence is used as a means to an end.

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

That is fine.

Until you guys find, and implement a better system (or lack thereof) than a Constitutional Republic as intended by the founders, I will be doing what I am doing.

I do not care what you find philosophically inconsistent about me, because I do support liberty. I do not support violence except in self defense.

My voting for liberty candidates will not hurt you, any more than me not voting would.

Voting is not a violation of the NAP

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

By voting you are electing

By voting you are electing rulers to use violence against other people in order to get your agenda accomplished. That is not justifiable in a NAP framework.

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

Before I take the time...

...to explain exactly why voting is not a violation of libertarian principles, I want to see what you already know and don't know. Let's do this like a Socratic dialogue. I'll start by asking you to define the non-aggression principle.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

it's the non-initiation of

it's the non-initiation of force.

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

What is the "initiation of force"?

.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

When an individual initiates

When an individual initiates physical violence or the threat of physical violence against another individual for any reason other than defense of the life, liberty, or property of themselves (and perhaps other defenseless individuals).

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

"anything that hurts him" is far too vague

You need to (a) explain what harm is, and (b) explain what makes a person responsible for harm which befalls another person. Hint: think in terms of property rights. All libertarian theory is really about property rights, the NAP is just shorthand.

Also, no libertarian considers hurt feelings to be a violation of the NAP.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I know, but look...

I have been following the NAP arguments for so long, that they crack me up. Every thing has been called violence, at some point in an NAP argument, I saw someone suggest that KEEPING someone on life support could violate the NAP.

I am not joking.

"I am not joking" -- I have no doubt

The majority of self-ascribed anarcho-capitalists out there have a very superficial understanding of the philosophy. But the philosophy itself is extremely logical and clear. I can give you the 10 second explanation of "violence" right now.

--To own something is to have the exclusive right to use it.

--To use something means to physically change it or its location.

--To use something which you don't own without the permission of the owner is a property rights violation, aka "violence."

Whatever it's called (violence, aggression, initiation of force, harm, tort), this is the "baddy," the "thou shalt not.." of libertarianism. The non-aggression principle could just as well be called the don't-violate-property-rights-principle...but that's not as catchy.

:-)

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

Not voting as a result of

Not voting as a result of something dumb like the nap is still better than voting.

I concur. lets dissolve the

I concur. lets dissolve the idea of government.

"I'm so enlightened I don't

"I'm so enlightened I don't even have to participate in meager human affairs, I am beyond that."

That is what I'm hearing from you. Meanwhile, the rest of us are actually making a difference.

Amen!

Doing things is so unlibertarian, lets just whine about stuff instead, OK?
:)

whoa, that's a stretch

meager human affairs = government???

Is that what I am hearing?

Of we never refuse to participate, how will we ever get rid of it?

If we continually vote for

If we continually vote for less and less government?

But that DOESN'T EVER WORK!

But that DOESN'T EVER WORK! Look at history.

"No physical quantity explains it's own existence, and no amount of time can consume an infinite series of events to bring you to the present, which means all of these somewhere have to be explained by one self-existent cause which is not physical."

Links about Medieval Iceland & Ireland in 3 .. 2 ... 1

(Those are the examples they always raise, but they're not good examples)

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."

I'll oblige you, here you go :)

Ireland:
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Iceland/Iceland.html

http://mises.org/daily/1121

Iceland:
http://mises.org/daily/6060/Private-Law-in-the-Emerald-Isle

Here is a more thorough list:
http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/history.htm

“With laws shall our land be built up, but with lawlessness laid waste.”
-Njal Thorgeirsson

While those weren't properly anarchic societies

...they were societies with very limited governments and fairly libertarian conceptions of property, so there's still something for libertarians to learn from reading about them. I don't want to discourage anyone from doing so.

"Alas! I believe in the virtue of birds. And it only takes a feather for me to die laughing."