Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of theodorelogan
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - theodorelogan

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10
The Polling Pit / Re: The Principle Behind Minarchy
« on: May 08, 2007, 03:15:52 PM »
(Fill in the blank type of government) is based on the idea that (fill in the blank with something you want) is so precious that we must use the tyranny of the State to enshrine and protect it from a populace that is too foolish and immoral to appreciate it.

Sounds like something I might hear from any socialist.

General / Re: Free Thought Association Game
« on: May 08, 2007, 02:57:21 PM »

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting
« on: April 14, 2007, 12:51:54 AM »
Nope.  The voting isn't going to stop.  If I don't get in there and "dilute" the power that the other "votes" have, then I'm acquiescing more and more power into the hands of a smaller and smaller group of people, who will continue to us it and likely use that power to "legally" continue to grow the state, and provide that State with more and more power to increasingly punish those who "drop out."

I don't think you are seeing what I am saying.

1) You keep using words to lessen what a vote is.  A vote is not "diluted" unless your candidate wins.  If your candidate wins then he/she will commit aggression....thanks in part to your vote.

2) Voting has not made government saller.  Even now in NH with FSP members moving people are still voting for bigger government (on the whole).  Yes, I understand that only a few are there now.  I doubt that even with 20,000 people that will change.  Why?  Because 20,000 is still a very small percentage...and with voting you need 50% to make a change.  Look at the percentage of people intimately involved with the government.  You will never get 50%.  Changes in NH will come NOT from voting, but from civil disobedience, tax resistance, and monkey wrenching.  One monkey wrencher can do to a state what it would take thousands of voters to do.  Too many people have (or beieve they have) a vested interest in the state to ever change things via voting.

3) I am not providing the state with power,  Why?  Because I don't have to wait until

I'm sorry but I don't see this discussion going anywhere.  What can I say once you admit that your attempts to put someone in charge of me is wrong, and yet still do it unrepentantly? 

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting
« on: April 13, 2007, 06:12:57 PM »
Same thing.

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting
« on: April 13, 2007, 02:18:40 PM »
Guess you didn't read. I'm in japan.  I dont have to pay taxes, legally.  How is evasion an option for me again?

Moving to Japan allowed you to do this legally.  I congratulate you on your choice which led to further disempowering the state.

Also, you completey dodged my point on your "counter-economics."  Why aren't you purchasing or providing forged documents that will allow yourself and other to circumvent the illegitamate state?  Why are you buying products from business who knowingly and willingly continue to pay licenses and taxes to the State because it's still a profitable venture for them?

As I said before, I don't hold it against people who choose not to go out in a blaze of glory.  When the government robs you, who am I to say that, "You should have fought back harder!"  It isn't my life to risk.  I avoid the state to the level that I am comfortable with....and to the extent that it still is able to agress against me, I deal with it like everyone else.
You've already conceded that voting in some respects is not "immoral" or "unprincipled" or whatever word you choose to use. So:

Initiating force against people is immoral.  Some votes do this...some votes don't.  The ones that do are immoral...the ones that don't aren't.  It's a pretty clear distinction.

1. If people are going to vote anyway, and believe in the system.

I don't understand.  It is not a universal certainty that people have to vote.

2. Voting for a Libertarian candidate or someone who doesn't get elected isn't "murder"

Not, it isn't.  Only if that politician gets elected and commits aggressive acts against people (like drawing a salary for example) is it a problem.

3. Issue Voting "kinda-sorta-maybe-might-be-not-too-sure-because-maybe-I'm-more-of-a-realist-than-I'd-like-to-admit" isn't agression.

Living according to principles IS realism.  Living according to ad hoc positions is ignoring reality.

It's that I don't see the aggression in issue voting.  If you can see it, please point it out.  If you can show it to me aI would be glad to repudiate it.

....then why the hell are you not telling people, "Hey, if you're gonna vote, why not vote for 'this guy' or 'just vote on the issues'?"

Voting for a guy who isn't going to win is a waste of time.  As far as the issues, as I said, I don't know.  My opinion is that my voice is louder by joining the majority of people who don't vote.  But I don't hold it against referendum voters.  I can actually see the self-defense in THAT.  I just personally think it is a waste of time to participate, period.  But is being open minded about it really that horrible?

You would never be able to know that unless I told you.  Try again.

You did tell me.  We wouldn't be having this discussion if you didn't.  BUt just to be clear, that was a hypothetical, since you did tell me that no candidate you ever voted for has ever won.

Maybe, or maybe I'm once again illustrating the point about how your presentation of the your message is tuning a potential ally to your cause out.  I've already pointed out that I'm sure with enough questions, I could find something where you didn't live up to your "principled"..... principles.

Well, if I have convinced you that liberty is not a worthwhile goal, then you didn't ever really believe it anyway.

As I said before, I don't speak this way to recent or potential converts.  Only to people who believe they are principled.

Are you going to stop amping now because I made you upset?  No?  Then I didn't turn you off to liberty, so no harm done.

I welcome you to keep asking questions to try and find a place where I don't live up to my principled principles.  I know I am not perfect or all knowing and I would be happy for you to find an area that I am not living in alignment with my principles.  That's part of the journey right?

BTW I am sure you probably could.  The difference is that when I see something I am doing that is unprincipled...I stop doing it.  I don't rationalize it.  I don't say, "Well, it's impossible to live a totally principled life, so why bother trying.  Let's just be unprincipled" or "That guy is unprincipled, so who is he to tell me that I am too" or "Nobody lives according to principles so why should I?"

I'm all for promoting liberty, I'm just not interested in helping you.  I'll be more than happy to help other people with their anarchist pet project, I just plain don't fucking like you.  Maybe you can get one of your friends to call me and I'll still show up.

Sorry to see your your emotions get in the way of your so called quest for liberty.  As I said before, if my pointing out the violence in voting has made you that upset you must not be that interested in liberty anyway.  As I said, I would be more than happy to join you in an y pro-freedom activities you might plan, regardless of how you feel about me.  Because freedom is important to me.  More important to me than hurt feelings on a bbs.

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting
« on: April 13, 2007, 01:18:07 PM »
....and I can vote NO on state referndums from California (my state of residence for the purpose of voting) to hopefully try and stem the tide of government spending/growth where I can.

BTW as I said I don't have a specific moral problem with refferendum voting (meaning I am open to the subject).  I won't do it because the most important vote to me is NOT voting.  But I don't think people who try to vote against spending refferendums,, for example, are doing anything bad since your vote will NEVER lead to the initation of force.  Voting for a politician NECESSARILY does.  I am certainly open to arguments that refferendum voting is or is not violence.  But it is pretty clear that voting for a politician is.  It is the attempt of the voter to foist a leader of his choice onto me.

Tax evasion is not an option

It always is.  For some, it is a tougher decision.  And as I said I don't hold it against people who are too scared to.

can encourage people, particularly those of the "if you don't vote, I don't care what you think" mindset to at least steer the voting in the direction of shrinking/dismantling the state by getting them started in the right direction.... maybe over time they might become more and more liberty-minded, but to call them a "socialist" and a "muderer" immediate short-circuits these efforts.

I don't call people who are new to the liberty movement any of these things.  But I think the people on this board are people who pride themselves on their rationality and who are already well on their way down that path.  I would hope that you could look critically at your actions and see that voting for politicians is an act of violence.  If that makes you angry, then you should probably ask yourself WHY.  Why do you think socialists get so angry when we tell them that their actions HURT the poor?  Or especially when we say that they aren't acting out of altruism but out of self-interest?

....and you're calling me and everyone else who does this a, "different degree of socialist" and for intents and purposes an accomplice to Murder for doing one of the few things as my disposal to actually try and make a difference.

1) You aren't making a difference, you are making things worse by voting
2) You have many things at your disposal you can do.  you don't want to pay the price of doing them (which is perfectly understandable mind you...I certainly don't hold that against you) so you vote and tell yourself that is doing something.  Sorry, I'm not here to make you feel better about yourself by telling you (You voted!  Great job Mr. Celestrian!  Way to work for liberty!).  This isn't a support group.  I am going to look at what you did and say, "Hey the guy you voted for came to office...and now he is taxing me.  Why are trying to install your leader over me by force?  Isn't this exactly what you are trying to prevent?"  When your actions lead to my oppression, I'm not going to sugar coat it for you.

Nice going.  Hope you're real proud of yourself, and if there is anything that you can take away from this is that I hope you realize that your methods for communicating your "principled-not-gonna-happen-in-reality" position, including the labeling, is only going to be counter-productive to your goals.

Instead of worrying about how bad my words make you feel, maybe you should concern yourself with whether I am right or not.  Because this post was the most crybaby BS I have read in a long time.  I'm sorry you feel sad.  It's your responsibility to align your actions with your alleged principles so you don't feel that way.

...and when you need activists for whatever anarchist pet project of yours that you may or may not have in the future, be sure you call someone else....after all I'm just a socialist.

More proof you aren't really interested in liberty...your feelings get hurt and so now you won't help promote liberty to "show me".  I guess it isn't that important to you in the first place.  I would be glad to participate in any pro-freedom activities or protests you might have (or course, since voting is antithetical to liberty I won't participate in anything promoting voting).  But tax protests?  I'm in.  protests against the war?  You can count me in too.  It would be nice to have more than just me holding a sign at library walk at UCSD.

You really need to grow a sack dude.  I had to go through this myself, but instead of crying about how hurt my feelings were, I looked critically at my actions and the outcomes and realized that voting is wrong.

How does it feel to defend democracy from freedom?

You can find my response to your ridiculous argument here.  It's only one line, but then again, that's how weak your post is.


General / Re: The Alliance of the Libertarian Left
« on: April 13, 2007, 12:54:59 PM »
Go ahead.  The next time you get stopped by a cop, announce that you're an anarchist, and that you're against the war on drugs.  Enjoy the search.

Words have implications.  Whether or not those implications are properly understood, the commonly accepted connotation will generally be applied.

Well, when you know the "commonly acceptd" definition doesn't apply, then don't apply it.

Simply huh?

BTW, for the longest time I used to have a gut level revulsion toward the left that I didn't have toward the right.  Even in 2004 (the last election I voted in) I voted for Badnarik, I was still pulling for Bush over Kerry at a gut level.  Why?  I dunno...left over revulsion toward the left I guess.

I'm not saying that that is where you guys are coming from, but that's where I came from.  The website was really the first time I've sort of been able to get over it.  Maybe they could be smarter about naming themselves, but on my side I can recognize them for who they are and put the labels aside.

General / Re: The Alliance of the Libertarian Left
« on: April 13, 2007, 12:53:28 PM »
I have no clue.

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting
« on: April 13, 2007, 11:20:08 AM »
You still voluntarily and knowingly put yourself in a positon where you would allow the government to take your money.

I didn't "allow" them to do anything.  They did it, without my permission.  The act of voting IS the act of giving permission.  Major differences that you still don't get.

You don't sanction a rape by walking down a dark alley.

Comparison inapplicable. "Freedom from Hunger" is positive right. "Freedom from Slavery" is a negative right.

That isn't the point of the comparison.  The point is that "not acting" does not make you culpable for anything.

General / Re: The Alliance of the Libertarian Left
« on: April 12, 2007, 10:08:45 PM »
Attaching a word to something does not change the thing.  It just changes the word.  I could call a desk a gobderall.....guess what.  It didn't magically transform.  I could call myself a left libertarian.  Guess what?  I have the exact same beliefs as I had before I called myself that....so I am still principled.

We have too few allies right now to turn on people based on their NAME.  Their principles are the same regardless of the name.

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting
« on: April 12, 2007, 09:56:41 PM »
What has non-voting done for you so far?

i have sex with my wife every election day instead of voting....and yes I don't have sex with her ONLY on election day.  :)  I save time and energy on campaigns to make my business better, to spread the message of freedom and liberty.  I also don't promote government, and I don't risk being responsible for what a politician might do (I don't want to be an accessory to theft, murder, etc....)

but wait a minute,... isn't this what I was arguing about buying a car?  About using government services?  About going to college?  About paying rent?

I didn't give them the money....they took it.  They did not take your vote.  You gave it to them willingly and knowingly.  I don't see why a so-called libertarian doesn't understand the vital difference between a voluntary action and a coerced one

I don't hold paying taxes against people (though I would prefer they didn't).  I know that they wouldn't do it except they are threatened if they don't pay.  No one is threatening you with anything if you don't vote.  But when you vote, YOU are threatening ME with violence if I don't follow your person (should he or she win).w
Why don't you ask Ian, Mark and the FTL crew what their voting has done in New Hampshire... particularly when they stopped a school funding measure, and are working to prevent the state from centrallizing education.

Have they saved taxpayers 270 billion dollars a year yet (and thats just federal tax evasion)?

Let me know when voting slashes the government that much.

I joined the FSP, but it wasn't to vote.  I am hoping to show people how voting is antithetical to freedom (and libertarians know this....but do it anyway.  That's the really pathetic part....talking about how terrible it is to install leaders via voting....and then do the exact same thing.)

FTL is not about elections.  It is about spreading the message of freedom and liberty.  That's why I contribute $50 a month.  Unfortunately they do advocate voting...unfortunate but I have met few people that I agree with more than Ian.  Hopefully candidates he votes for never win....then he won't have blood on his hands, so to speak.  Then again, I don't think there is a big risk of that...if 50% of the people ever vote for a candidate that Ian believes in...then a large enough % of people will surely be principled enough to bring the government down wholesale (you won't need even close to 50%)

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting
« on: April 12, 2007, 09:16:55 PM »
You won't know until you try.  As I said, tax protesters have actually had a measurable effect on the government.  IF the voters change gears and focus on THAT, we will have even MORE of a measurable effect.

What has voting done for you so far?

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting
« on: April 12, 2007, 08:58:55 PM »
No, it isn't (although it definitely is one).

The other is agorism.

The Polling Pit / Re: Voting
« on: April 12, 2007, 08:49:11 PM »
Don't you guys see you are arguing from effect here?

"I think everyone should have an education.  Let's use the government to do it!"

"I think everyone should have health care.  Let's use the government to do it!"

How are these different from

"I think everyone should have freedom.  Let's use the government to do it!"

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 10

Page created in 0.02 seconds with 30 queries.