Quote from: JoelKatz on March 28, 2013, 01:36:06 AM

Quote from: deeplink on March 28, 2013, 12:44:10 AM

That is the philosophical difference of opinion between statism and anarchy again. I haven't yet seen many occasions where either side considered to change their opinion.

I agree, and I reject all of your statist views.

Wikipedia: Statism is the belief that a government should control either economic or social policy, or both, to some degree.

Please explain in what way the views I expressed are statist. I like to think that I live by the non-aggression principle and believe this is irreconcilable with the state.

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 28, 2013, 01:36:06 AM

Quote

1) Vote and agree to support the outcome of the election. Even if you voted for someone else. Those are the rules which are known to all participants in advance. You have no right to complain because by voting you have legitimized to be governed by whoever wins.

Nonsense. If a criminal says "your money or your life", you can choose to give your money without losing your right to complain about that loss.

Absolutely. But this analogy does not fit the case of the voter and the state. The voter and the state are the same. By voting you become the criminal because you give permission to the rulers to say "your money or your life" to others.

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 28, 2013, 01:36:06 AM

Quote

2) Do not vote and choose to accept to support the outcome of the election.

Nonsense. If someone asks you whether they should kill your family by shooting them or by setting your house on fire, you can choose not to answer without losing your right to complain about the choice and outcome.

Yes but that would be case 3 below: You have moral objections. What I meant here was that you choose not to vote but also accept and support whichever outcome.

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 28, 2013, 01:36:06 AM

Quote

3) Do not vote due to moral objections. For example if you believe it is morally wrong to use force against people except in self-defense, you would act against your own ethics if you voted. Because by that act you legitimize that the government is allowed to use its monopoly on violence upon others that don't agree with your point of view.

Nonsense. If a mob is choosing whether to cut off both your legs or just one of them, you can use any methods available to you to get just one leg cut off without in any way legitimizing the mob or the range of choices.

Yes you can use any method to defend yourself. But not a method that would hurt others outside of the mob. Because than you would be no better than the mob.

Quote from: JoelKatz on March 28, 2013, 01:36:06 AM

I utterly reject all three of your statist views. An individual may defend himself from the State's threatened evils however he thinks best without thereby becoming responsible for those evils.

I disagree. My views are not statist and as an anarchist I am kind of offended by that.

An individual may defend himself, but by voting he becomes the criminal called the state. And the state uses force against others to get what it wants.