Ted Cruz is no libertarian

[Magnaniman]

There are many facets and degrees of control.  By voting, I can remove some of the ways in which I am being controlled and decrease the severity of some of the remaining controls over my life.  Granted, that really only manifests in local venues, but it's a step in the right direction and it can have measurable, positive effects upon my life.

I see the Libertarian Party as a party of transition towards freedom, not the goal in and of itself.

[MattATatTat]

I think we're on two totally different levels of thinking here and maybe it's getting lost in translation...

Let me ask you this...

"Can you delegate a right you don't have?"

[Magnaniman]

The fact of the matter is that there are armed thugs patrolling every square mile of this country.  Their job, immoral as it may be, is to prevent people from doing very many specific things, or punish them afterwards.  I agree with you that this is a bad thing and it is not morally justifiable.  Believing that, however, does not give me any sort of protection from those armed thugs.

Instead of doing nothing about it, or dying in a gunfight, I support anything that non-violently limits the amount or scope of the power being used against me.

I have a driver's license and have registered my vehicle with the BMV in my state.  I haven't done that because I agree with it, but because I don't want to be harassed or shot dead over it.  I view voting in the same way.  Is it ideal?  No.  Can I use it to move the world closer to my ideals?  Yes.

[AndrewG]

I just can't follow that. Not that I lack the mental facilities to do so, I just can't. There is not one single person I can name anywhere withing 50 miles of me who is currently holding or running for public office who in any way represents my interests. No one, when elected is going to relinquish any of their power of office. I'm glad you have that belief to hold onto though.

[Slow poke]

Well said

[Magnaniman]

As I said, I am in favor of exploring every non-violent option available to me.

That isn't an issue of faith; it's an issue of practicality and morality.  A violent revolution will not create peace.  It never has and it never will.  Violence begets more violence because the mere act of using violence to force your will upon others is a justification for others to do violence upon you.

Also, you realize that Adam's plan, the goal of this website, is to gain power in order to relinquish it?  That's also the platform and guiding ideology of the Libertarian Party.  I will grant that a large deal of the LP is not completely abolitionist, as I am, but, as I said earlier, it is a party of transition, not a permanent solution.

Abolishing all government overnight would be a very irresponsible thing to do, as well.  Currently, we have a lot of people that are highly dependent upon government programs who would face severe hardship and, probably, death if cut off completely.  We also have a lot of young people who are currently overseas in the military who would be stranded without the logistical coordination that put them there.  Creating an immediate power vacuum like that, without preparing people for it, would also be an open invitation for despots to form an army of all the starving, directionless people who think they need a ruler.

Complete freedom can only come about through non-violent means.  So, again, I am trying to explore as many of those ways as possible, which includes researching all of the candidates in my area and voting for the few that are truly working for less government interference in my life.

[MattATatTat]

I think we can all appreciate you're attempt to explore to change things inside the system, as I know I once felt that way. Hell, most of us likely felt that emotion when Ron Paul ran for president. It's just that some have accepted the this change can't come through "the system". Either because the system is rigged and or the system ITSELF is immoral.

I don't think many here are advocating for instant collapse of the US government. What I personally am advocating for is a change of mindset. Or at the very least get people to question the legitimacy of government authority through the eyes of Voluntaryism. This is how I think we're going to get people to change their mindset, through logical critical analysis and questioning when it comes to the MORALITY of government. If you can get people to understand that voting and the concept of "Democracy" is essentially mob rule...or if you can show all the ways government gains power is through VIOLENCE and Threats of violence, the more people can and will relate to the message. Because most people want to live FREE and have a moral structure that falls in direct line with Voluntaryism.

So is it not true that by voting and participating in the voting process, you're supporting a system which uses violence to carry out the wishes of the majority on the minority? Does an individual have a right to tell another individual how to live their lives?

This is why I have to question you're attempts to find a solution through government, yet contend that it is "peaceful" and "non-violent". Because government can't exist without violence.

I asked you before but you didn't answer...have you read "The Most Dangerous Superstition" by Larken Rose?

[Magnaniman]

No, I haven't read Larken's book.

I am, in no way, defending the actions of government.  At all.  You don't have to explain to me how bad government is.  I am in full agreement with you.  I am an abolitionist; that's why I'm here on this website talking to you.  Not only do I support the abolition of the federal government, but of state, county, and municipal governments, too, in turn.  I am not supporting statist ideals, nor am I advocating for a tyranny of the majority.

I am telling you that there are several mechanisms within this beast, put there by the people who cast off some of their rulers 240 years ago, that allow us to protect ourselves to some degree.  Voting is one of those mechanisms.  To say that it is, necessarily, support for the system is preposterous; it depends entirely upon who and what you vote for.

I'm certainly not saying that voting is the only way to improve our lives, but the potential for positive change does exist, so it is an avenue worth exploring.  If the very tiny amount of effort that it takes saves one person from being gunned down by the police or keeps one of my fellow humans out of prison, then it was worth every bit of that effort and more.

[MattATatTat]

Going to have to "agree to disagree" on this...

Voting (regardless what it is or represents) is an act in which I'm using government (as enforcer) to impose MY WILL on others. On a one on one situation, I don't have the right to tell someone how to live, therefore the act of voting (in my opinion) is immoral.

[Adam Kokesh]

Saying that voting makes you an accessory to a crime is a logical fallacy. It would be the same as if there is a robbery in progress and you yell, "Stop!" That doesn't make you an accessory to the robbery.

I wonder if people who are so rational except for this are just too frustrated to apply logic to this particular non-dilemma. Some of them are probably plants to keep voluntaryists from getting involved. It's even worse when they say that running for office is statist. So much fallacy. So much fail.

[MattATatTat]

Going to disagree Adam...

Your analogy would be more logical IMO if you considered the act of voting as being apart of taking in part of a robbery.  Because without people to vote, elections would be completely meaningless and pointless. Voting is like being the get away driver...

There are many schools of thought when it comes to anarchism / voluntaryism / libertarianism that it's inevitable disagreements take place. I personally see the act of taking part in the state (be it voting or running for office) as a hypocritical act...especially when you denounce statism.

The theory of "plants" inside the voluntaryist community COULD be likely, but again, so many different schools of thought inside this community leaves me to believe it's just difference of opinions.

[Grant Cole]

Yeah, Ted Cruz used to be pretty good in Congress until he started pandering to right-wing Christian conservatives.

[AndrewG]

Going to disagree Adam...

Your analogy would be more logical IMO if you considered the act of voting as being apart of taking in part of a robbery.  Because without people to vote, elections would be completely meaningless and pointless. Voting is like being the get away driver...

There are many schools of thought when it comes to anarchism / voluntaryism / libertarianism that it's inevitable disagreements take place. I personally see the act of taking part in the state (be it voting or running for office) as a hypocritical act...especially when you denounce statism.

The theory of "plants" inside the voluntaryist community COULD be likely, but again, so many different schools of thought inside this community leaves me to believe it's just difference of opinions.

I wish this post had been answered. Very spot on mister. Voting for anyone who does not follow the NAP is completely in opposition of my moral code and beliefs. And since none of them do....

[Magnaniman]

The belief that, by refusing to vote, the government will stop doing anything that it's doing is simply not true.

In another thread, I saw you advocate for accepting government money as it will force their hand and bring the system closer to collapse.  Why not apply that to voting?  Voting for candidates that will work against the military-industrial complex and reduce the scope of the police state will also work to force their hand by forcing them into situations where they have to increasingly use voter suppression and other tactics that delegitimize their perceived basis of authority.

Imagine the righteousness and hilarity of electing an anarchist to Congress.  Endless "Taxation is Theft" filibusters every time they try to do anything except repeal laws.  The obstructionism that one person in these positions of authority can engage in is mind-boggling.  If you want to tear down the system, voting is one possible way you can do it.

[MattATatTat]

You still fail to understand that many see voting as a violation of the Non-Aggression Principle. You (as a voter) are using your vote to impose your will upon others using government as the enforcer...It's that simple. And the notion that an "anarchist" would ever occupy a representative seat is quite enjoyable when thought about but realistically anarchists would balk at the idea of passing laws which impose their will upon others...even if it was for "the greater good".

Then again...there's always Larken's way...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xcd4edQD6s