Election Day

[Ustauk]

Today is election day in Canada.  Whatever your political stripes, please take the time to vote.  If you can't find your voter card, all you need is two pieces of picture ID.

[Lazybones]

Also if you "Don't have Time" because of work thats not an excuse. As long as you have a valid reason for not being able to vote after work you employer MUST give you up up to 3 hrs to go vote.

[Shayne]

Well, after weighing all the issues, and reading all the platforms...m voting for the Green party.  If it wasnt for the damn seperatist aspect of the Bloc, i find i align well with their platform.



My vote for Green is because im never voting PC, Liberal have a rather fluffy platform, NDP is an instant bankruptcy sentance for Canada, and the Bloc are seperatists.  So when i eliminate all the otehrs im left with Green, and heck im sure they could benifit from my vote (still provide them with $1.25?)



I dont understand why anyone would vote PC.



Let the political flamewar begin!

[Darren Dirt]

Well, after weighing all the issues, and reading all the platforms...m voting for the Green party.  If it wasnt for the damn seperatist aspect of the Bloc, i find i align well with their platform.



My vote for Green is because im never voting PC, Liberal have a rather fluffy platform, NDP is an instant bankruptcy sentance for Canada, and the Bloc are seperatists.  So when i eliminate all the otehrs im left with Green, and heck im sure they could benifit from my vote (still provide them with $1.25?)



I dont understand why anyone would vote PC.



Let the political flamewar begin!

I read something in Sunday's Edmonton Sun. Since there is no danger in being flamed for offering up my "political" views in any form, I am gonna just paste in below the response I'm going to send in to the Sun later today.



Ignore at will...



- - -



Original "letter"...

"There are people in this country who have stated publicly that they wouldn't be voting in the federal election.

They have been given a right to a democratic election by our ancestors who fought and died to maintain their freedoms.

I can't understand why they feel that there is no one to vote for.

Those who chose not to participate have no right to speak out afterwards.

I urge everyone who hears complaining about the outcome of the election from people who have not voted to tell them to shut up."

-Ed Kozinski (letter to the editor of Edmonton Sun, 22Jan2006)





"(Get out and vote.)"

-Editor's mercifully brief but typically useless response





MY RESPONSE -- emailing it tomorrow morning, should appear in Tuesday or Wednesday if they have the b*lls to publish it



- - -



re. Ed Kozinski's Jan. 22 letter.



It is illogical to dismiss those who "have stated publicly that they wouldn't be voting" by concluding they therefore somehow "have no right to speak out afterwards". Many non-voters (myself included) choose to do so, not based on laziness or apathy or ignorance, but due to well-reasoned principles.



I believe Kozinski (and others of similar reasoning) would benefit from even a quick glance through the brief articles found at http://www.non-voters.org , or especially http://www.voluntaryist.com/nonvoting including the one entitled "Is Voting an Act of Violence?"



And for anyone interested, I would be willing to engage in further, serious discussion of this issue through email -- DarrenDirt[at]gmail[dot]com.

[Tonnica]

I already voted early - just as a warning to anyone voting: make sure your area number and other information is correct! When I went to the polling station it was a breadtangle of misdirected information and the first pair of volunteers didn't have the right area number for me (at all, they were guessing it was one of three numbers and all were wrong). Luckily the second pair of volunteers who were handing out the ballots had the proper number/name assosciations in the binder they had.



Even with your voting card in hand (which helps expidite things) there's still a chance that you could be sent to the wrong polling station. Stay aware, read carefully, double check, and make a clean, clear X!

[Thorin]

the one entitled "Is Voting an Act of Violence?"

I read this article front to back.  I would say it's a bad example, because it makes a grandiose sweeping statement

Voting is the most violent act someone can commit in his lifetime.

Now, I can think of all kinds of acts that would be considered more violent that a person can commit.  But later in the article, this important distinction is made

Let this question be answered by assuming that one is not a serial murderer or does not engage in any type of overt criminal activity. In other words, let us assume that most people who vote in electoral elections otherwise lead peaceful, innocent lives. Is voting the most violent act that they will commit in their lifetimes?

That's a *huge* assumption, and should have been listed right after the first grandiose statement.  Or perhaps the original statement should have been changed to "Voting indirectly links you to violent acts your representatives may commit", which is really what the article is saying.  But that has less shock factor, and it seems apparent to me that this article was written precisely for shock factor.



The question I always come back to when people suggest that we shouldn't have a government or appointed officials or armed forces that can commit violent acts upon us is how then do we protect ourselves from harm (given that there will always be people willing to do us harm to get our possessions)?.  How would you keep the world from becoming anarchic, if not for instituting *some* kind of structure?  If the world became anarchic, how would you protect yourself (true anarchy would require us to turn our children out on the street as soon as they're born; after all, we should all be responsible only for ourselves)?.



I believe that no matter what solution to keeping ourselves from harm is suggested, at some level there will be a requirement to work with another (whether your spouse, your neighbours, your children, people living a hundred kilometers away), and at that level there will need to be either a single decision-maker or a vote (the larger the group you have to work with to protect yourself from harm the more likely this vote would become a majority rather than unanimous agreement).



Now, our current government structure and its method for attempting to gain legitimacy can easily end up in a group of decision-makers that grossly misrepresents those people they're supposed to make decisions for.  And the corruption and scandal that has been rampant in Canadian politics since Confederation was first enacted in 1867 shows us that we should be doing our damnedest to limit the power our decision makers have.  I do not understand how abstaining from voting will cause this to change; abstention would only work if *no one* voted and *everyone* refused to obey agents of the state.  Given that there will continue to be people who think the government is legitimate, there will continue to be decision-makers and agents of the state, and the abstaining voter will have lost out on the opportunity to try and change this fact (after all, if you voted you could have tried to elect a decision-maker who would push for less or no government power instead of more).



The Canadian Charter of Human Rights guarantees us the right to speak out whenever we feel like, and on that point Ed Kozinski is wrong.  However, in the current structure of Canada's society voting does provide you with a means to change government structure to something you would prefer, and those who abstain have missed out on this opportunity.  I agree with Ed Kozinski's general sentiment that people who did not use their opportunity to change things should not complain that things are not changing.

[Darren Dirt]

Upfront: well-articulated post.

the one entitled "Is Voting an Act of Violence?"

I read this article front to back.  I would say it's a bad example, because it makes a grandiose sweeping statement

Voting is the most violent act someone can commit in his lifetime.

Now, I can think of all kinds of acts that would be considered more violent that a person can commit.  But later in the article, this important distinction is made

Let this question be answered by assuming that one is not a serial murderer or does not engage in any type of overt criminal activity. In other words, let us assume that most people who vote in electoral elections otherwise lead peaceful, innocent lives. Is voting the most violent act that they will commit in their lifetimes?

That's a *huge* assumption, and should have been listed right after the first grandiose statement.  Or perhaps the original statement should have been changed to "Voting indirectly links you to violent acts your representatives may commit", which is really what the article is saying.  But that has less shock factor, and it seems apparent to me that this article was written precisely for shock factor.

I'm not going to presume what was in the mind of the author of the aforementioned article, however I believe that the "violence" that is being discussed as a result of "voting" a "representative" is not just the obviously-extreme violent things like murder. It also includes any act of aggression (which is, by definition, the initiation of violence) that the "representative" does and will do. (Keep in mind that article says voting is endorsing "a system of governance which ultimately results in people being bullied or forced into obedience" -- and yes that includes being prevented from doing a peaceful action, to being forced to do an action that goes against your conscience... I'm sure many examples come to mind, although Canada is certainly better than more totalitarian societies, to the degree of how often and how irrational these instances of control are.)





Remember, a political representative will be acting upon those who did *and did not* vote for them. And usually they will be doing things that would be wrong if done by any of those individuals who did indeed vote for them.



So by voting you are declaring you are okay, morally, with your "representative" controlling or damaging or taking away the property, liberty, or even life of peaceful individuals (those who have not aggressed against you) -- people who are not interested in having that person "represent" them. Put labels on it all you want, but by voting you are imposing your values and beliefs on other people through your (alleged, see below) "agent", aggression that you would not partake in on your own, if you were face to face with the recipients of these actions.





"None Of The Above" would be a choice on every ballot in a truly "free" society; and in that free society, those who wanted their name associated with that "NOTA" selection -- who wanted to be publicly known as "not interested, sorry", who didn't want to hide behind the "secret ballot" -- would thus be left alone to govern themselves (barring any of their actions causing objective and direct physical or economic harm upon another).





That is the root point, the core tenet of democracy, "elected representatives".



Look what the Elections Act (I glanced at it yesterday) :

http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=faq&document=faqvoting&lang=e&textonly=false#voting3

Why should I vote?

Your vote is the way you choose someone to represent you in Canada's Parliament. By expressing your choice, you are exercising a democratic right that is key to the democratic process of government that generations of Canadians have fought to build. For more information, see A History of the Vote in Canada.

It says you are "[choosing] someone to represent you" but what if you do not desire anyone to represent you? The word "representative" means "one that serves as a delegate or agent for another", i.e. to "stand in the place of", and by definition that must mean that the "agent" is exercising delegated powers, powers that were in possession of the giver at the time they were given to the recipient. But what if no giving actually took place (or no evidence exists proving it took place)? What if the recipient claims to possess powers that the original giver never had in the first place?





Remember, due to the secret ballot, the political "agents" can not prove who, exactly, they represent (unlike, for example, a real estate agent). But do you think anything would happen to them if you objected to their claim to be your "representative" -- if you asked for factual evidence proving their claim? Wouldn't a real estate "agent" be committing fraud if they acting "in place of" you without proof of your consent?



In pretty much any legal reference book, you'll see an "agent-principal" relationship means that it's as if the principal is doing the actions of the agent, and is actually responsible for the agent's actions. Is that the case with a political "representative agent"?



PS: I have found that by posing the kind of questions above, I will often receive personal attacks, or people bringing up those who have died in wars, etc. By posing these types of questions, I mean no disrespect to those who are "exercising their right to vote", nor to those who have fought in wars to defend those type of rights. I am merely questioning the premises upon which those actions are taken, and asking if they are factually valid, logically consistent... Or have most of us been conditioned to do our "civic duty" without realizing what we were actually doing.





---update---

PS: You offered some objections along the lines of "what is the alternative" and I am sorry that I did not respond in detail to those questions. I presume what you are saying is basically "no man is an island, so how do we relate to other men and women?" If you search for the words "voluntary society" or "voluntaryism" "mutual consent/agreement" on Google you'll find there are many solutions being offered that do not involve coercive violence. One example is a free online book called "Healing Our World".



But remember, just because one identifies an action, or a system of actions, as something dangerous that should be stopped, does not mean they will have (or even should have) all the answers as to what to do "instead". As an analogy, consider that when an "anti-abortion" advocate challenges a "pro-abortion" advocate, often they will hear a response along the lines of "then what about the unwanted babies, would you adopt them?" -- completely overlooking the possibility that abortion is the murder of an unborn human being and thus should be stopped, period. In other words, to proclaim something as wrong does not obligate the proclaimer to offer an alternative to replace it. In some cases nothing *should* replace it.



- - -



*steps down from soapbox*  :-|

[Shayne]

Having spent a great many minutes discussing politics in the office, im basically to the point that i might vote for whoever is gonna get the second most votes in my riding.   Is that so wrong?



Majority is a nice way of saying "bully"

[Thorin]

Upfront: well-articulated post.

Thanks  We clearly see things in a different light, you and me, so I tried as best I could to make my point without denigrating your point.

Remember, a political representative will be acting upon those who did *and did not* vote for them. And usually they will be doing things that would be wrong if done by any of those individuals who did indeed vote for them.

I agree that the way we currently pick representatives causes the majority of citizens to be misrepresented - that is, it's not the person they voted for or desired.

So by voting you are declaring you are okay, morally, with your "representative" controlling or damaging or taking away the property, liberty, or even life of peaceful individuals (those who have not aggressed against you)

Lets say a man kills another man.  The first man is guilty of murder under our present system.  For murder, he is punished by losing his liberty for twenty five years.  I am okay with this even though he did not aggress directly against me, because it lessens the chance that I or others I hold dear will be murdered.  I am okay with my representative passing laws that can be struck down if found to be too strongly worded to help enforce the punishment of loss of liberty for killing another person.

At the same time, lets say a representative uses his position of power to order the pepper spraying of peaceful demonstrators.  I am not okay with this even though he did not aggress directly against me, because it increases the chance that I or others that I hold dear will be hurt using pepper spray.  I am not okay with my representative passing laws that can be struck down if found to be too strongly worded to help the representative gain power.

Basically, I am okay with handing some control of my life, liberty, and property to someone else who represents me, so long as they hold my and my dear ones' best interests at heart.  Of course, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so I say that one of the values I hold dear in the representative I choose is to pass laws that limit the representatives' power as much as possible.

"None Of The Above" would be a choice on every ballot in a truly "free" society; and in that free society, those who wanted their name associated with that "NOTA" selection -- who wanted to be publicly known as "not interested, sorry", who didn't want to hide behind the "secret ballot" -- would thus be left alone to govern themselves (barring any of their actions causing objective and direct physical or economic harm upon another).

Governing oneself is a great concept, but it would be very hard to put into practice.  What if someone transgresses against you?  Well, you have to deal with it yourself.  And if they murder you and steal your property?  Well, you're governing yourself, so why would I help you?  You don't want to be part of my group when no one's trying to hurt you, why should I risk my life, liberty, or property for you?  ("You" referring to the generic NOTA person, not you Darren Dirt)

Remember, due to the secret ballot, the political "agents" can not prove who, exactly, they represent (unlike, for example, a real estate agent).

This is a balance between public knowledge and individual safety.  If I knew everyone who was going to vote against me, why wouldn't I just intimidate them until they don't vote?  Maybe get a few machine-gunned, get a few others thrown in jail or deported.  I know this doesn't occur in Canada today, but it did occur in Germany decades ago, and it was occurring in Afghanistan and Iraq during their elections.

PS: I have found that by posing the kind of questions above, I will often receive personal attacks

Hopefully you don't receive my questioning of your views as a personal attack.  I find this kind of discourse much more useful than, for example, Ed Kozinski's letter.  It allows for point and counter-point, and there's certainly the possibility that I learn something new from it.

PS: You offered some objections along the lines of "what is the alternative" and I am sorry that I did not respond in detail to those questions. I presume what you are saying is basically "no man is an island, so how do we relate to other men and women?" If you search for the words "voluntary society" or "voluntaryism" "mutual consent/agreement" on Google you'll find there are many solutions being offered that do not involve coercive violence. One example is a free online book called "Healing Our World".



But remember, just because one identifies an action, or a system of actions, as something dangerous that should be stopped, does not mean they will have (or even should have) all the answers as to what to do "instead". As an analogy, consider that when an "anti-abortion" advocate challenges a "pro-abortion" advocate, often they will hear a response along the lines of "then what about the unwanted babies, would you adopt them?" -- completely overlooking the possibility that abortion is the murder of an unborn human being and thus should be stopped, period. In other words, to proclaim something as wrong does not obligate the proclaimer to offer an alternative to replace it. In some cases nothing *should* replace it.

If nothing *should* replace it, then the proclaimer should suggest that as the solution.  I don't like people who state lofty ideals but then don't want to consider or discuss how those would be implemented.  After all, it's the details of the implementation that usually take lofty ideals and break them into little pieces.  Note I say "discuss", though, and not "have all the answers".  If you have a lofty ideal you might not know all the answers to how to get it implemented.  I might be able to figure out some of those answers.  As long as we discuss it, those answers can come out.

[Cova]

The guy that wrote that "Is Voting an Act of Violence?" article is an idiot.  I'll refrain from taking any kind of political advice from random bloggers that can't even get their grammar correct.



But ignoring the fact that said author doesn't know how how to put his idea into proper english - lets address it real quick - that voting somehow causes violence, and therefore not voting is bad.  A quick example is to look down south at Bush.  I think we all knew he was going to do something dumb if he won his last election, and we all had a pretty good idea that he was going to win.  To do the least amount of violence in that situation, you would have to vote against him - to not vote at all would be to say "I don't care what he does", while voting for him would be to agree with what he does.



Whether you like it or not, Canada is a democracy - by definition all members of society have the right to put in their vote to who leads the country, makes laws, etc.  If you disagree with one of the parties views (eg. believe they will inflict violence upon .. whatever), then you should vote for a different party.  If you don't like any of the parties, start your own.  If you think the system itself sucks, move to a non-democratic country.

[Brendan]

So. Its going to be a conservative minority. Rant it up now

[Shayne]

Well, in all honesty, im glad with the results.  Its a very minor minority, and any party can really push the envelope.  I like what i see.  A++

[Thorin]

Darren, this extremely long article does an excellent job describing the reasons and mindset behind abstaining from voting.  Having read it all the way through, I certainly understand the point the author is trying to make; basically, stop wasting one's time voting as it will not change one's livelihood.  I found this to be a well-written and well-reasoned article.  However, I disagree with the author's assertion that humans have a natural tendency to help one another; on the contrary, I believe that humans have a natural tendency to try and rule one another through force.



Thanks for posting the link, though, it was a very interesting read.

[Thorin]

Interesting.  According to www.elections.ca, in the Toronto area the following happened:



Conservatives gained 23.6% of the popular vote, equalling 0 seats out of 23.

Liberals gained 51% of the popular vote, equalling 20 seats out of 23.

The NDP gained 20.6% of the popular vote, equalling 3 seats out of 23.



51% of the popular vote, but 87% of the representation.  Something's not right in our system.



Even worse off is the Halifax region:



Conservatives gained 30.3% of the popular vote, equalling 3 seats out of 7.

Liberals gained 31.9% of the popular vote, equalling 2 seats out of 7.

The NDP gained 34.4% of the popular vote, equalling 2 seats out of 7.



So of the three, the party with the least support got the most seats.

[Shayne]

Other 5.6%, 0 seats.  If it was done through proportional it would be 17 seats.

[Darren Dirt]

I'll try to respond only to what Cova and Thorin said most recently. The rest of you are probably ignoring me anyway. And up front, thanks for your patience and willingness to think and discuss, anyone who isn't ignoring me



Also up front: there is a misunderstanding about "self-governance", which is not the same as "total isolation". See towards the end, when I mention what I believe is the "natural" state of being for men and women -- and thus we choose to interact with each other, when we desire (this includes both when we want to "gain pleasure" and when we want to "avoid pain" -- including the pain of being harmed by another individual.)

The guy that wrote that "Is Voting an Act of Violence?" article ...his idea - lets address it real quick - that voting somehow causes violence, and therefore not voting is bad.

** The idea is not that it "causes" violence, as in it "leads" to violent acts by representatives. It is that, by definition, an "elected representative" will be imposing the views of one or more individuals upon other individuals who do not hold those views, by the threat or use of force. This is observable fact, once you remove all the political spin and legalese from the description of what an "elected representative" actually does in objective reality. **



...Canada is a democracy ... all members of society have the right to put in their vote to who leads the country, makes laws, etc.

** Notice you said that each member can choose someone *else* to "make laws", and therefore those laws will be imposed upon everyone whether or not they agree to be bound by those laws. Let's just pretend 100% of the people vote, that still means that anywhere from 1% to 49% of those people will have no say in those laws, they will be "ruled" against their will and without their consent. **



...If you disagree with one of the parties views then you should vote for a different party. ...If you don't like any of the parties, start your own.

** See above, what the actual act of "voting" means -- imposing your own views, or the views of "your" elected "representative", upon other people who do not necessarily hold those views. **



If you think the system itself sucks, move to a non-democratic country.

** If a Wal-Mart moved into my neighborhood, and had armed troops come to the doorstep of me and my neighbours, and demanded that I pay its operating costs -- whether or not I ever was interested in partaking in the products and services they claim to offer -- would a rational alternative be "move somewhere else"?



-- What if I wanted to shop somewhere else, but the Wal-Mart enforcement officers still expected me to pay for WM's operating costs? I thought a "democracy" is a "free" country; according to the dictionary "freedom" means simply "the absence of restraint or coercion". Like I said above, if elections allowed for "None Of The Above", i.e. "I will rule myself and act peacefully towards others", and that "vote" was respected, then I suppose that could qualify as a "free" country. Otherwise it's just forced servitude, but you get to choose the ones holding the guns. **

Darren, this extremely long article does an excellent job describing the reasons and mindset behind abstaining from voting.

** I'll have to read that in detail, it caught my eye yesterday as well (it's 9 sections, and at a quick glance I noticed that it seems to offer some voluntary alternatives to exchanging products/services/ideas instead of through coercive violence). **



Having read it all the way through, I certainly understand the point the author is trying to make; basically, stop wasting one's time voting as it will not change one's livelihood.  I found this to be a well-written and well-reasoned article.

** Impressive, and impressive words you have shared -- I am not sure if that's really "all" the point the author is trying to make, but I'll have my own understanding after I read it in detail later this week. **



However, I disagree with the author's assertion that humans have a natural tendency to help one another; on the contrary, I believe that humans have a natural tendency to try and rule one another through force.



** Simple question, my friend: Do *you*, *personally* have a natural tendency to try and rule others through force?



-- Do you grab your neighbour's couch just because you "need" one, or because your neighbour has 2 of them and can't use both at the same time? Would you hire someone else to take your neighbour's couch against their will and without their consent? Would you ask other people to help you take your neighbour's couch, or better yet, use "force" to make other people help you? I believe the answer "yes" to any/all of those questions would revealed a definitive "sociopath" or even "psychotic" personality.



-- Some claim that without public services, such as "protection" (i.e. police, statutory laws, etc.) then we'd have chaos, and everybody would be running around stealing, raping, and killing everybody else -- but I wonder if those claiming this would be among those savages, wildly doing these anti-social activities until another savage murders them? Isn't that the argument-ad-absurdium way of looking at that belief? Gosh, I wonder how I could get behind the wheel of a car, or even agree to join a MMO game's team mission, if I believed that everyone had a natural tendency to rule me by force, to control my life, even if it means bringing harm to me...



-- Actually, I can imagine where your belief may come from: the media, the education system all tell us that "scary bad guys" are locked in cages to protect us from their "evil-doing". But did you know that more than half of prisoners in the United States, and I'm guessing similar in Canada etc., were convicted of a "crime" that was non-violent? i.e. They are not being punished for causing *harm* to another individual man or woman, they are being punished for failing to "obey" the statutory law of their homeland (in the last few decades, the vast majority of those crimes were "drug" related, as well). And what is a statutory law? A statutory law (i.e. "man-made law" as opposed to a "law of nature") is simply the opinion of a man or woman (a "legislator") that they presented to their fellow legislators, of which 51% or more agreed to and thus it is now imposed upon every man woman and child in a geographic region, directly or indirectly at *gunpoint*. That Wal-Mart analogy may have seemed out of line when you first read it, but take away the labels and uniforms of politicians and their enforcement officers... does it now seem a pretty fair illustration? **

There are really 2 kinds of people in the world: those who want to be left alone, and those who won't leave them alone.





In pop culture, iconic characters like Neo, William Wallace, Winston Smith, and recently Malcolm Reynolds, take action to confront a collective mindset. We were born into this collective system (remember what Morpheus said to Neo when he was first "unplugged"?), what most call "socialism" (or "democratic socialism", or "socialistic democracy").



But "socialism" had been synonymous with "communism" until the 1940s or 1950s; if you read materials written before and just after WW2, you'll see Russia and other nations were called "socialist" countries. That's because at its core both communism and socialism are anti-individualism -- "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".



Any system based on collectivism, no matter how extreme (democracy vs. dictatorship) will always be centred on armed forces getting in the way of individual men and women just trying to live a free, unmolested existence, doing what they choose and interacting with whom they choose, through consent and voluntary agreement. I think that's why these pop culture characters are so memorable, because they portray a timeless struggle of the human spirit, not of "us vs. them" but truly "me vs. them".





Today I was reading the Wikipedia entry for "Social Contract Theories"



Ignoring the details of the different theories, at its core EVERY "social contract" theory really does boil down to being EITHER:



collectivism (e.g. Thomas Hobbes, Jean-Jacques Rousseau -- based on *forced* altruism, focused on "positive" liberty i.e. "freedom TO...")



OR:



individualism (e.g. John Locke, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon -- based on *voluntary* altruism, focused on "negative" liberty i.e. "freedom FROM...")





At one time in my past, I may have believed that altruism had to be *forced*, that the natural greed of people would mean that those who "need" would never be given anything by those who "have" unless force was used. But that is the core tenet of the Communist Manifesto, isn't it? "Those who have must give to those who need", something like that. And the word "must" implies *force*, not wishful thinking, not polite telephone calls asking for donations. Different countries just have different areas which are, at least presently, free of this "force".



There's a reason that societies based on communism/socialism have crumbled: because those systems are 180 degrees contrary to human nature. We are individualistic by nature (try convincing a child to eat their least favorite vegetables because it will make the neighbour's child happy, do you think it will work?), we are selfish by nature, we are motivated by self-interest (and for most of us, *peaceful* self-interest). Self-interest is not an innately bad thing, it's why we drink water and eat food and breathe air and go to sleep when we're tired. It's only bad when we act on that kind of natural greed in a way that is destructive to another's enjoyment of that same nature, of their right to life, liberty, and property.



And if you don't have a right to those things, to self-governance, which comes from self-ownership, then that must mean that others have a *higher* claim to your life. How do you determine who has a higher claim to your life than *you*? And do you therefore have a higher claim on the lives of others than they have on their own lives?



I prefer to believe that freedom is the natural condition of man, not slavery.

[Thorin]

Clearly we have an entirely different vision of how humans act when given the opportunity to act any way they want to.  I look to the past and find many, many examples of the strong butchering or enslaving the weak.  History shows me that there will always be at least one bad apple who *would* attempt to take my couch by force if doing so did not unduly endanger them.



- Alexander the Great

- Genghis Khan

- The warlords of Somalia

- The Hutus of Rwanda

- The Spanish conquistadors who came to South America

- The English middle-class of the 1800s (they made children work the mines)

- The Southern American white folk after the American Revolution (which the article I linked above considered as the golden age for individualistic self-governance, yet these same people had no problem enslaving others)



It's easy to claim that we would all be able to govern ourselves properly and therefore get along when we live in a country with no direct bordering enemies, where threat is nearly non-existent and the people have been inundated for decades with the ideal that they must not harm one another.  To suggest this in a place such as South Korea, with 900,000 North Koreans ready to storm the breech at a moment's notice, would be much harder.  For there is a clear and immediate threat, which could not be countenanced with words; indeed, what keeps North Korea from ending the ceasefire is the large arsenal pointed back at it.



I also think that people on the whole are selfish, and therefore are not likely to help those in need.  Yet I think that people, when forced to work as a group to help those in need, cause humanity as a whole to advance.  Case in point, we are all forced to pay for car insurance.  The car insurance cost is generally balanced between all drivers, although the current system leans towards making drivers who have a higher inclination to incur a cost pay higher premiums.  Now we are forced to pay insurance, as there exists the threat of incarceration if we do not.  However, this insurance has helped victims of traffic accidents pay for bills incurred due to injury, in turn allowing them to become healthy and contribute to humanity once again.  And I expect at least one of these traffic victims may have the cure for cancer/Alzheimer's/speed-of-light-limitations/etc.  In this case, I agree to be forced to pay because I can see a correlation between that payment and the improvement of health and well-being for traffic accident victims.  If there was not an institution that forced me to pay, believe you me I would selfishly keep all my money and spend it on ale n' whores!  Or a bigger TV.  Or goalie equipment for my kids.  Or something.  Don't tell me you would gladly give it away by choice to some insurance corp, I won't believe you.



Now I have a different question, and this should really highlight the issue I have with the self-governance you promote.  Who determines what is and is not considered harmful to others?  And how do we codify this so that we both understand?  And if I disagree with you about something being harmful (you say it is and I say it isn't), how do we settle the dispute besides by force?  Remember, libertarianism promotes that one's set of values should only govern oneself.  This leaves the door wide open for others' values to clash with one's own, most probably causing one harm.



A monopolistic, hegemonic organization has the ability to codify what is and is not considered harmful to others.  At the core of it, this is what our government is expected to do.  Now, our government has expanded and added more tasks to its tasklist, and this I oppose; I believe the government should be as small as possible.  Of course some tasks I consider essential, and some you consider essential, and some you consider essential I don't consider essential, and vice versa.



(edit)

By the way, many of the values we hold dear today, such as liberty for all, peaceful assembly, etc, come from documents codified by the very monopolistic, hegemonic organization that is the government.  This thinking would not have come about if there had not been intelligent, thoughtful elected representatives forcing laws down our throat in years past.  For instance, if the status quo had been maintained after the American Revolution, if the government of the North had not chosen to impose its values on the South, there would still be slavery today on the continent of North America.  If there had been no government of the North telling men they must go fight a war, telling men they must pay taxes to support this war, then the liberty which you seem to think everyone would automatically get would not be had by over half the population of North America.

(/edit)



But in the end, as in the beginning, I say that we clearly have a different vision of how humans act.  I've heard the stories of living in Holland during Nazi occupation.  I've heard how the Jews were found and delivered to the Nazis by their neighbours, simply because those same neighbours were attempting to save themselves from imprisonment and death.  I've heard what post-WW2 was like in Austria, how Russian soldiers would drag people away to interrogate them, only to have them resurface weeks later beaten to a bloody pulp.  I've heard these stories from my parents, and I've realized that there will always be a group of people willing to bully others and take their stuff, and I've realized that people who act in self-interest only *by definition* will not ensure you are not harmed.



A parting thought: If you truly disbelieve in the state and think it should go away, why not advertise on the front of your house that you will not call the police if someone was to rob you?  It may take some time for the bullies to believe it, but once they realize that you do not have the force of a state protecting you, they'll happily take all that you own and kill you if you get in the way.  By way of example, look at what happened to the people of Wales when England decided to take their land.  Or Scotland (along with your example of William Wallace).  Or any of thousands of examples in recorded history both near and far.



(edit)

I believe the natural state of man is to serve one's own self-interest, to propagate the DNA into the future.  We then work as a group because it increases the chance our DNA will propagate; it is not through strength that Man defeats the Beasts, but rather through teamwork (some would argue it's the tools, but I would argue the tools would not exist without teamwork).  If circumstances allows us to increase the chance of our DNA propagating by taking power over others, we will undoubtedly do so.  For instance, as parents we are still allowed to tell our kids when to sleep, to decide for them how they are educated, to decide for them what foods to make available; this clearly is a position of power over others.  We do this because we want them to survive, and we want them to survive because they carry our DNA.



Of course, much of this is done subconsciously, and when we apply conscious thought to it we question ourselves because many such actions seem objectionable to the morals instilled upon us by those who lorded over us when we were young.  And yet, why do they instill us with these morals?  Why are we taught to respect our elders and take care of them?  So that they may live longer and have greater success at propagating their DNA.  Why are we taught to take care of our children rather than release them to the wild like so many Beasts do?  Why indeed are we taught these lessons as we age; do we not already possess this desire?  I say no.  And I say no based on my experiences with young children who know nothing about sharing or working together, who simply demand from us without thought to working out a well-reasoned exchange of goods.

(/edit)

[Thorin]

Sorry for the length, by the way.  Judging by the fact that we have a different vision of how humans act when left to their own devices, we may be close to simply having to agree that we disagree.  Thanks for the links, though, they did help me see a viewpoint alternate to my own.

[Darren Dirt]

Sorry for the length, by the way.  Judging by the fact that we have a different vision of how humans act when left to their own devices, we may be close to simply having to agree that we disagree.  Thanks for the links, though, they did help me see a viewpoint alternate to my own.

Glad you have found this discussion beneficial, as I have also. It's always good to exchange ideas freely, with an open mind, and with emotional attachments put aside (as much as is possible for us non-Vulcans, anyway )





So bear with me, I'm going to try paraphrasing what you are saying and stay away from the "what if" details. I'll try using my own words, so hopefully I'll capture the core essence of what you are really saying, so I can respond to what I understand to be your actual objections.





#1. You say history shows there's also a "bad apple" spoliling the bunch, and you prove it by listing a bunch of examples of governments of some kind invading governments of some kind.

** I personally believe that the system itself requires "bad apples" because it is contrary to human nature to control other individuals against their will and without their consent, which is by definition what any form of government is doing ("govern-ment" means "control-ment", since to govern is to control -- restrain, coerce, regulate). **





#2. You use #1 as proof that expecting everyone to govern themselves "properly" all the time is basically idealistic folly.

** I did not mean to claim I expect everyone to always govern themselves "properly", and I do not know what you mean by "properly". I have acknowledged that there are times that individuals will aggress upon others in a way that results in physical or economic harm, and how to deal with this scenario is an area of serious study that I won't attempt to summarize here. But it's certainly a reality I acknowledge. **





#3. You use #1 and #2 to justify collectivism, i.e. forced altruism, but yet also say that you agree people are on the whole selfish.

** Keep in mind, I have tried to explain natural selfishness is rational self-interest, and it is not the same as "take as much from your neighbours by force". To harm others in order to gain what you think you need or want is irrational, since even though that may (short term) appear to be self-interest, in the end you would lose the ability to enjoy further personal gain from products and services and ideas of those others you have aggressed against. So it limits your future choices, it goes against your own enjoyment of future days. **





#4. You include car insurance as an example of a "necessary evil", saying nobody would pay if there wasn't the threat of incarceration for not paying.

** But you didn't really identify the purpose of any kind insurance, which is just a way of paying for the cost of something that would otherwise be expected to be paid by the individual. It's a way of pooling resources, whether voluntary (e.g. "life" insurance) or forced (e.g. "car" insurance in Alberta). Yes, you did say "this insurance has helped victims of traffic accidents pay for bills incurred due to injury" but you seemed to imply that insurance would be something that individuals would not pay in advance of undergoing activities unless they were forced at gunpoint. **



** That seems to me to be overlooking the options of either not doing the activity, or relying on your own or others' resources to pay if the need arises. Kinda like "Extended Warranty Plans" on electronics. You said "Don't tell me you would gladly give it away by choice to some insurance corp, I won't believe you." but I hope you now do believe me -- because in my interpretation I wouldn't be "giving" anything away, I'm paying for a service, that of being "insured". **





#5. You ask about harm, saying it can only be defined subjectively.

** I thought I already mentioned the basis for determining what is objective harm: we have a universal right to self-ownership (unless you believe others own you) and this requires by definition the reality of us being alive, and having the liberty to enjoy that life, and enjoying the fruits of our labour. So harm is the loss or damage or removal of any of these things (as the Declaration of 1776 said "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [other writings at the time explained this pursuit as required private property).

This harm is only as a direct result of another individual's actions (not speculations, "what if..." scenarios, etc.) and that is what needs to be resolved, but only this -- anything else (i.e. offending another person's emotional, mental, or spiritual sensibilities -- which are by definition subjective) may be a sad result of a great thing (the diversity of the human race) but good luck in having any kind of conversation without causing "offense" in those subjective ways! Physical or economic harm is provable, with factual evidence, as a direct result of actions, and if the harm and the directness are not proven then the "accused" is presumed innocent of the charges. That's actually the basis for "Common Law" -- to make the victim whole, not to punish those who violate a codified list of moral rules -- and it has been slowly replaced only in the last 2 centuries by "Statutory Law", i.e. man-made laws. **





#6. You bring up documents codifying certain rights.

** I noticed you said "codifying" rights, so by this you are not claiming those rights actually originate from those documents, are you? The American Declaration of Independence didn't say "this document gives the people rights they would otherwise not have", it says "we declare the rights exist, period". The purpose of those documents was to record the beliefs of the ones who wrote them. But do the documents themselves have any actual power, to "give" people anything, or even to "stop" people or government from doing anything? It was recently reported that Bush Jr. said in private company "Stop bringing up the constitution to me, it's just a go--amn piece of paper!" Whether he in fact said this or not, that is really all it is in objective reality (ignoring how people interpret its significance, and how they act as a result). In fact just look at the USA during the reign of Bush Jr. -- codifying limits of government has not stopped those people claiming to do the government's work from ignoring those limits. **



** Oh, and PS: The American Civil War was about slavery, certainly, but it's not slavery of the black race -- sadly, that is the "popular" version of history. It was about enslaving all people, including those who wanted to be free, because it was about denying "state rights". In the original uniting of the colonies into a confederacy (as a result of the Revolution) each of the British colonies declared themselves independent states (i.e. like modern "countries" of today). For example, you'll notice the writings in the 18th century said "united states" or "united States" not "United States", the "united" was an adjective, not part of a name of a new nation. And they were confederated for mutual protection from further British molestation, because the British rulers didn't like their slaves saying "I don't want you to rule me anymore". But the Civil War was the North's response to some of the Southern states from trying to get out of the confederacy, to secede, because they wanted to do their own thing -- which is ironic since the the Revolution was a declaration of secession from Britain. Yes, folks, a union of states that formed based on voluntarily seceeding refused to allow its voluntary members from seceeding from that same union. **



** So the Civil War was about one group of "states" forcing another group of "states" to remain slaves to the collective, against their will. It is modern myth to say the Civil War was fought because Lincoln wanted to free the black slaves -- even "popular" history shows that the North had great economic reliance on the slave trade for decades after the Civil War, and that the "victory" of the North resulted only in imposing the views of the "United States" upon a minority of states. Of coruse, I may personally agree that slavery is morally wrong, but that includes both individual/racial slavery, and one larger group enslaving another smaller or less powerful group. **





#7. You say we have a different vision of how humans act.

** I am not ready to "agree to disagree", not quite yet. I agree that we have a different vision, but that vision is about the "theoretical" human, the generic man, the guy "out there". We can speculate about that all we want, but what about what history has taught us, about different societies and forms of government, and what happened over time? (See the book mentioned below.)



** Also, you never did answer my question, about whether *you* personally would violate another individual's right to property, liberty, or even life, if it served your self-interest. Is that a natural way for you to fulfill your own needs or wants? In general, does any kind of productive business stay in operation very long if it murders its customers or its suppliers? Because every time an individual interacts with another, we are engaging in commerce of some kind -- we exchange products, services, or ideas. And if we do so in an agressive way, i.e. initiating violence upon the other person (not in self-defense) we are effectively hurting ourselves, going against our own rational self-interest -- because we are discouraging that supplier/customer from interacting with us in the future, and others as an indirect result. It is observable fact that we have to deal with other people all the time in order to fully enjoy life, or nowadays just to get the food and water we need to survive. But we can do it voluntarily or by force. If an individual gives up his freedom to peacefully enjoy his right to life, liberty, and property, just because a larger or stronger group of individuals (with the same rights) violently imposes their wishes on you, that's collectivism in a nutshell. **





- - -





It seems there might be a misunderstanding: To voluntarily join a group of other individuals, with an agreed upon basis for conducting commercial exchange, that's not collectivism, that's just smart application of rational self-interest. Often people see those two scenarios as the same. I would highly recommend reading the following book, if only for the "Individualism" chapter. I could lend it to you if you'd like, because it gives countless examples of voluntary services that used to be provided during the 1400s thru the 1800s but which are now legislated as government monopolies (for example, bulk snailmail, education, and fire protection services). But it also has some excellent ways of describing the philosophical underpinnings behind all these different political belief systems -- and why they have or have not worked.





---sample quote:

"...how is it, in spite of an unbroken string of socialist failures around the world, that these people continue to exercsise so much influence? ... Why have the babblings of these people been taken so seriously for so many years and decades?



The answer is that there is no explicit 'philosophy of capitalism' against which to measure their proposals. Paul Johnson touched upon this problem: 'For capitalism merely occurs, if no one does anything to stop it. It is socialism that has to be constructed.'



Unlike socialism, capitalism is simply what happens in the absence of central planning."

-R. W. Grant, "(Tom Smith and) The Incredible Bread Machine - A Study Of Capitalism, Freedom, And The State", chapter 7 "Why Principles Matter".





In the "Individualism" chapter I was just reading, it very clearly defines individualism in contrast with collectivism, giving some excellent examples (Japan's culture and how they view baseball is a real eye-opener)... and there's a vivid illustrations re. 2 children drowning that might help reveal to some how they are not as "altruistic" as they may think. We are, by nature, motivated by rational self-interest, but the socialist societies each of us have been born into are based on a rejection of that nature, and they use armed forces to make us go against that nature. As a result the progress of humanity, and the fulfillment of individuals, is held back in ways we can't even imagine. If one justifies a rejection of the peaceful individual's priority because of the potential benefit to the collective, one is somehow claiming the individuals making up a group will benefit by some of them going against what benefits them. After all, the "group" is made up of the "individual" members, isn't it? "Which has priority, the individual or the group?" That's the core question.





- - -



PS: Your "parting thought"

re. using the services of the "police" at all is me the same kind of thing as using the local bus transit service, or even the roads themselves. At the present time, because of government monopolies, most of us do not have the choice about where and from who we will receive certain services. All government does is provide services (or tries to). Those services are being provided by men and women, through coercive violence.



If there really is a demand for these services, they could be provided through voluntary means. And many of us are attempting to find ways to offer economic solutions that will help bring about a truly voluntary society -- in fact all over North America there are individuals and groups who are trying to offer those same services to interested customers, even though they know they might be fined and/or thrown in a cage by the government because it threatens the monopoly (see the "Snail Mail" chapter in the "Bread Machine" book for dozens of examples, wow!)



When it comes to the very real need for a service of "protection", the government monopoly is not even legally obligated to provide it -- you can't sue the police for failing to protect you or your property (Google "Dial 911 and Die", for example). Interesting fact: in recent years there have been a bunch of towns and counties in the USA that have passed *laws* that required citizens or business owners to be armed -- and very soon after the crime rates went down dramatically, in spite of the criticisms of their local media, or the political leaders of neighbouring towns or counties. You see, Aggression is the initiating of violence, and it is not the same as returning force-for-force, i.e. self-defense. So maybe I could instead have a sign up that says "Attention trespassers or potential robbers: I will dial 911 *after* using firearms and other forms of self defense to repel your attack. You have been warned."



In general, I am personally doing my best to not utilize as few government services as possible, but I admit it is difficult at this point in history. But I think it is really all about having an attitude initially, an inner mindset, that says "I own my life". The rest is a natural result of that core belief, for example as wonderfully explained in the Shockwave video "The Philosophy of Liberty".

[Thorin]

it is contrary to human nature to control other individuals against their will and without their consent

This we will continue to disagree on.  I say it is contrary to human nature to relinquish any power given them.  Power increases the chance of propagating DNA.  It is only through conscious thought and effort that we overcome human nature and concede our power over others.  I use the example of children again: I'd say parents who love their children have a burning desire to relinquish power over them.  The parents realize that continuing to control the children all through their lives will undermine the parents' desire for the children to grow up free and strong.  And yet, if parents do not spend conscious effort detaching themselves and relinquishing power over their children, the parents will end up trying to control where they go, who they go with, etc.  This is certainly done without the children's consent.

To harm others in order to gain what you think you need or want is irrational, since even though that may (short term) appear to be self-interest, in the end you would lose the ability to enjoy further personal gain from products and services and ideas of those others you have aggressed against. So it limits your future choices, it goes against your own enjoyment of future days.

This is concerning, as it is clear that there are many irrational people in the world.  And if these same irrational people are also good at taking things by force, they may very well be able to enjoy future days long past where they have planned to.  If they have planned out their future at all.  I cannot assume that all the other people on Earth will simply "see the light" and follow the rules of libertarianism, nor even a majority of them, especially given my view of human nature.  Of course, people can band together and form protective groups that will enforce the rules of libertarianism, thus increasing the chances you and/or your property will be unmolested.

You ask about harm, saying it can only be defined subjectively.

** I thought I already mentioned the basis for determining what is objective harm: we have a universal right to self-ownership (unless you believe others own you) and this requires by definition the reality of us being alive, and having the liberty to enjoy that life, and enjoying the fruits of our labour. So harm is the loss or damage or removal of any of these things (as the Declaration of 1776 said "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness [other writings at the time explained this pursuit as required private property).

My exact words were "Who determines what is and is not considered harmful to others?".  It seems to me at this point you have decided what is and is not considered harmful.  I might not agree with your decision.  I might think that we all have a universal right to be alive, but not to enjoy the fruits of our labour.  But to operate in the society you propose, where people supposedly are allowed to choose to do as they wish, I must conform to what you consider harmful rather than apply my own interpretation of it.  If I do not, I can expect that you will protect yourself and your property using force, thus using force to get me to follow your rules.  If I happen to overcome your force, I can expect that those you have paid to protect you will use force to protect you and your property, again using force to get me to follow your rules.



This is an important point for me, because it showcases the fact that libertarianism is not about letting people do whatever they think is right or whatever they want to do, it's about getting people to follow a new set of rules that benefits the libertarians.  Now I have not researched the demographics well enough to be able to say this with certainty, but I'm willing to hazard a guess that libertarianism is generally interesting to those who have something taken away by the state (typically money in the form of taxes), and generally not interesting to those who are given something by the state (typically hand-outs to help pay for life's necessities such as AISH, OAS, CPP, CTB, NCBS, Income Support, EI).  At which point I find myself asking what set of rules are less distasteful to me?



Note: again, I find myself using "I" and "me" and "you" and "your" when discussing the two trains of thought being discussed here.  None of these postings are meant as personal attack; hopefully you never construe them as such.



I also feel that we're probably at the core of our debate now; I probably only have one useful post left before I start simply repeating the things I've said before.  That's why I said earlier we're getting closer to a point where we will have to agree to disagree.

[Darren Dirt]

How about I offer this suggestion: I lend you the book "The Incredible Bread Machine", which promotes free-market capitalism and individualism. Then you lend me a book of your choosing that either promotes socialism/collectivism, or that attempts to disprove the claims made in "The Incredible Bread Machine" (i.e. as you read it, jot down notes about things you personally disagree with, dont' understand, or think are downright untrue -- such as the historical cases of private enterprise making available ordinary services that are in modern times only provided by government monopolies thanks to legislation.)



How does that sound? Right now we seem to keep describing the other person's perspective in a non-quite accurate way. For example, what you said about whate "libertarianism" is about, when to be honest I avoid that label and instead use individualist anarcho-capitalism, or simply "voluntaryism", since libertarians differentiate themselves by saying they are okay with using the "political process" to remove unnecessary government agencies/services (i.e. nearly everything).



I am happy to say that, as far as I can tell, we have both succeeding in trying to express our personal understandings in a civil, honest, and for the most part logical way (as much as we can) and have stayed away from personal attacks and "you just don't understand, you're an idiot, forget it..." type of despair. The many proverbs, saying how futile it is to have a discussion with a fool who rejects rational principles, do not seem to apply here, fortunately.





So instead of us continuing further speculation about "what about the rare case where XYZ does ABC?"" or "I personally believe the underlying motivator for human behaviour is [rational self-interest i.e. doing your best to enjoy the present life / DNA propagation i.e. doing your best to ensure the life of a (potential) future generation ] and therefore my subjective opinion about what that means is XYZ..." -- maybe it would be better to have a look at what the experts/scholars from the "other side" have said, especially about what has happened in the past and how it applies to our current situation.





Sound like a plan?





( PS: "We either own ours Selves, or we don't. If we don't own our Selves, then someone else must.  It's that simple." -- from a discussion that a friend just linked to, thought it might be interesting stuff for some of us here. It's called "Own Your Own Self". )

[Thorin]

The Criticism section of the Non Aggression Principle entry in Wikipedia covers pretty much all the points of our debate thus far.  It provides good point/counter-point and doesn't even attempt to suggest which side is right.



No, I'm not interested in exchanging books.

[Darren Dirt]

The Criticism section of the Non Aggression Principle entry in Wikipedia covers pretty much all the points of our debate thus far.  It provides good point/counter-point and doesn't even attempt to suggest which side is right.



No, I'm not interested in exchanging books.

Yeah, I see that. That section also has a link to "rule utilitarianism", which gives a great example of the danger of saying "damage the few in order to benefit the many" -- by posing a scenario with a bunch of patients needing organs donated, and a healthy and unaware man being a potential "candidate".



Also speaking of criticism... <-- That link discusses (and scrutinizes) "altruism" and helps show it is more than just helping others, it's in fact an ethical belief that says that helping others is more virtuous than acting in longterm rational self-interest. So the "criticism" section is definitely applicable to this discussion of individualism vs. collectivism, etc.