Tricky Question

Yes

No

[Lindsey]

Ha. 

[Taors]

Does politics really mean 'many bloodsuckers' or was that someone just making a yoke?

[mbd]

I don't blame anyone who chooses not to answer, but I just thought of a question that some of you might have trouble answering.

So, if someone you knew (maybe not a best friend, just someone who you trusted not to be lying) told you that he or she killed a politician / government bureaucrat  (not in self defense), would you turn them in?

Shit! You said you wouldn't tell!!!

[AncapAgency]

This may have gotten lost in the spewing of this thread, or I may have forgotten to ask it.  Either way I'm not going back to find out.  What about the Libertarian politicians?  Are they still evil? 

Well, let's say that they are, in an attempt to reduce the evil of the system, assisting the system in propping up the image it has (undeservedly) of legitimacy.  If you believe that good intentions excuse bad results, then even the non-Libertarian politicians can claim they only did what they did because they had good intentions.  If, on the other hand, you believe (as I think most who subscribe to the non-aggression principle do) that your intentions, while it may be all well and good to know what they were, are unimportant when it comes to assessing whether or not you are responsible for harm--no one has the right to intiate force against another for any reason..

Thus, the Libertarian politicians ARE guilty, if to perhaps a lesser degree than other politicians.  But they are guilty, nonetheless.  The idea of "working within the system" is seductive.  But you can't reform a death camp by cleaning up the records and repainting the barracks, and making the guards be polite as they herd the victims into the gas chamber.  Nor do you end the evil by reducing the number of victims killed by 70%.  It's still wrong.  Is it better than nothing?  Perhaps.  But it's still wrong.  The proper thing to do is to stop the killing altogether, and punish those who operated the death camp, as well as those who ordered its establishment in the first place.

One of the reasons a common thief, rapist, or murderer is morally superior to a politician (at least, a statist politician) is that at least they don't try to convince you that what they're doing to you is Right and Good (not to mention the fact that they usuaully don't keep coming back to do it to you over and over again).  The Libertarian politician is putting himself in the place of saying: "I don't WANT to rape you and steal your wallet every payday, but if I want to be in a position to reduce the theft to every third payday, and the rape to sexual assault and a drink, then I HAVE to rape you a little bit and take your wallet right now."

It was when I finally ran out of excuses and realized that, that I stopped voting and running for office.  I don't want to rape anyone, or steal from them, at all--not even one little bit.  And if it's necessary that I be uncomfortable, and have to work harder, and plan more carefully and think about things a lot more, so be it.

That being said, I don't claim that I am a perfect follower of the non-aggression principle.  I still make the odd slip now and then--but they are rare, they are small in scope, and I own up to them, take responsibility, and offer restitution--even to those who do not follow the non-aggression principle themselves.  It gets me looked at funny, and talked about, but it also allows me to shave with a mirror, rather than having to do it by touch and guess-work.

[mbd]

If they stick to their principles, libertarians would not be evil. In fact, many non-libertarians might escape as well. This is the philosophy behind term limits. But libertarians, IF they stick to principles, would theoretically be reducing their own power by their actions, instead of trying to increase it like most politicians do. That's the evil, I think.

[Mike Barskey]

You misunderstand--how can a POLITICIAN, who is, by definition, not only an agent of GOVERNMENT, but actually a DIRECTOR of Government, which is an entity BASED on initiatory force, be INNOCENT of the initiation of force?

While I know you (I'm assuming here) want to give credit to the rare exceptional sort of politician like Ron Paul, and while I personally wouldn't put someone like him up against the wall come the Revolution, I have to say that even he is not free of responsibility.  Even he compromises the principle, and subsists on stolen money, and props up the false aura of government legitimacy.

No, I understand that. But a pro-freedom politican in our current government is *possible.* What if someone refused to be paid, refused to accept any compensation or utilize anything tax-funded (he paid for his own office, supplies, employees, etc.), refused to pass any laws, only repealed current laws, held the traditional libertarian views, etc., and somehow got elected? They'd be the theoretical person I'm talking about. I'm just saying it is possible! I'm not saying this person exists or will ever exist, I'm just saying their existence is a theoretical possibility, and because of that possibility it is inappropriate to think that since we've never seen this person before they cannot exist.

But this has really become too strong a tangent. The point is: would you or I turn in our friend who informed us they had killed a politician. I think we've both commented on that.

- Mike

[Bill Brasky]

You misunderstand--how can a POLITICIAN, who is, by definition, not only an agent of GOVERNMENT, but actually a DIRECTOR of Government, which is an entity BASED on initiatory force, be INNOCENT of the initiation of force?

While I know you (I'm assuming here) want to give credit to the rare exceptional sort of politician like Ron Paul, and while I personally wouldn't put someone like him up against the wall come the Revolution, I have to say that even he is not free of responsibility.  Even he compromises the principle, and subsists on stolen money, and props up the false aura of government legitimacy.

No, I understand that. But a pro-freedom politican in our current government is *possible.* What if someone refused to be paid, refused to accept any compensation or utilize anything tax-funded (he paid for his own office, supplies, employees, etc.), refused to pass any laws, only repealed current laws, held the traditional libertarian views, etc., and somehow got elected? They'd be the theoretical person I'm talking about. I'm just saying it is possible! I'm not saying this person exists or will ever exist, I'm just saying their existence is a theoretical possibility, and because of that possibility it is inappropriate to think that since we've never seen this person before they cannot exist.

But this has really become too strong a tangent. The point is: would you or I turn in our friend who informed us they had killed a politician. I think we've both commented on that.

- Mike

If you add a few more theoreticals in there, Stephen Hawking's gonna come in here and blow angry little puffs of air into his talky box. 

[Mike Barskey]

If you add a few more theoreticals in there, Stephen Hawking's gonna come in here and blow angry little puffs of air into his talky box. 

That is theoretically possible, but statistically improbable. Besides, I think I can outrun him!

- Mike

[mbd]

That is theoretically possible, but statistically improbable. Besides, I think I can outrun him!

- Mike

If you stick to thinking, he's got you beat.

[Mike Barskey]

If you stick to thinking, he's got you beat.

Then I think I'll stick to running. Doh!

OK OK enough of this stupid tangent. back to the original question!

- Mike