When you vote you legitimize the authority of the office of President, not the person who takes up that office. When the person who takes up the office starts abusing the authority of that office, you have the right to complain because that person is abusing the authority of the position you legitimated by voting. By your logic, if you hire a person to do a job and if they turn out to be barely qualified and can't do the job competently, then you have no right to complain because by participating in the process of hiring you legitimize their authority to have that job.
If you voted for Clinton, you have no right to complain about Trump.
- Thread starter Philosophizer
- Start date
- 90
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- Age 31
- Seen Jun 23, 2018
By challenging him "within the system", you are legitimizing him by believing that he actually has power or is relevant at all. He is just one human being. By himself he can't do anything. However, when millions of people view him as "authority" and believe his orders and laws he signs have to be carried out, he obviously becomes a threat.
Not really, nothing changes without changing minds first.
This isn't the only place I can, and will, chastise them in, because they, along with everyone else who voted for a candidate, is responsible for giving Trump power.
What a naive view you have of Voluntaryism. The main reason why Voluntaryists believe in the principles they believe in is because they are moral, not to keep everything they earn for themselves. Voluntaryists believe any force outside of defensive purposes is wrong for a reason: because it is. If you use force to control a person who isn't harming anyone, you are controlling their life, which is akin to slavery.
By the way, it is completely within their rights to keep everything they earn, because it is theirs. If you believe you have the right to take someone's earned wealth because you feel it will go to a better cause, it's still unjustified theft. The money isn't yours, and you have no claim to it, even if you call it "taxation". It's still theft. If you want to donate to some charity, great. Use your own money you earned.
This is just your shortsighted view and bias which doesn't resemble reality. Problems will always exist and people will always have a desire to solve them, whether or not they are forced to do so. People efficiently organize outside of "government" and "authority" all the time, so I always have a hard time understanding why some believe no one would do anything if it wasn't for "government". In fact, more people would organize to solve problems once the belief in "government" is gone, because they know that that institution doesn't have a monopoly on decision-making anymore.
In other words, people can more freely and efficiently organize to solve problems without "government" because "government" won't get in the way with all it's pointless bureaucracy.
This sounds as if you're implying that the office of the president is it's own entity that can act without anyone executing it's function, which as you know, is obviously not true. Someone has to fill that position, and by voting, you legitimize how that position is filled, which is why whoever fills that position is also legitimized.
When I say "people who voted have no right to complain about Trump", I mean when he is "legally" carrying out his duties, not when he is abusing his authority. I never mentioned scenarios about when he abuses his authority, but I agree that if he does, anyone has the right to complain.
The process of hiring someone inherently allows you to fire that person as long as you didn't sign some contract or make an agreement that you can't for some period of time, which would be pointlessly risky.
The process of choosing someone to hold public office is different, because the political process gives that person the right to carry out his or her duties as he or she sees fit, as long as they are within the authority granted to that person, even if you personally don't like what that politician is doing. For example, if you don't like some laws your "elected representatives" pass, you can't just say "you're fired". According to the political process, they have the right to pass that law as long as it doesn't break some other law, and the best option you have is possibly replacing them come next election, which isn't a guarantee either.
In short, your analogy of not being able to fire someone because you participated in the process aligns more with the political process, not privately hiring someone.
- 22,952
- Posts
- 19
- Years
- Age 33
- 'cause it get cold like Minnesota
- Seen Apr 19, 2024
The problem, Philosophizer, is that you're assuming that the majority of humans aren't seeking some semblance of order and social structure. Most people are seeking order (and need it), for reasons I go into in my next paragraph here:
People tend to be really shitty to other people if there are no rules of engagement for day to day interactions, and social structures were constructed to essentially counter this. Can't have people murdering anyone they want with no repercussions, after all, because what if it's YOU who's getting murdered? Also, you've worked hard to have the things you have, so you want some rules to protect what is yours. If you try to protect your stuff or yourself on your own, no one who wants your property or wants you dead is going to feel intimidated by you. Unfortunately, despite what I'd like to hope would be the case, in order to follow even the most basic rules of human decency (like don't kill, steal, or rape), most people would need there to be an authority out there with enough power to enforce those rules, because the typical person's impulse control isn't as great as we'd like to think.
People tend to be really shitty to other people if there are no rules of engagement for day to day interactions, and social structures were constructed to essentially counter this. Can't have people murdering anyone they want with no repercussions, after all, because what if it's YOU who's getting murdered? Also, you've worked hard to have the things you have, so you want some rules to protect what is yours. If you try to protect your stuff or yourself on your own, no one who wants your property or wants you dead is going to feel intimidated by you. Unfortunately, despite what I'd like to hope would be the case, in order to follow even the most basic rules of human decency (like don't kill, steal, or rape), most people would need there to be an authority out there with enough power to enforce those rules, because the typical person's impulse control isn't as great as we'd like to think.
Sir Codin
Guest
- 0
- Posts
This is ultimately the biggest make or break aspect of anarchism and voluntaryism. There's a classic saying: "if you believe anarchism leads to chaos, you won't become an anarchist."
Well, in short, I'm not an anarchist.
Sure, but going back to the analogy even if the person you hired isn't "abusing their authority of their job" but isn't doing it to your expectation, do you still not have a right to complain? Like your logic is such that so and so isn't being very cooperative with their colleagues, but you hired them and thus legitimated their authority in their job, therefore you can't complain.
But my response and this thread isn't about removing/firing anybody, it's about whether or not you have the "right to complain" - specifically, and correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but whether you waive the right to complain when you participate in the process of bringing them on because you legitimize their authority.
My analogy wasn't about being able or not able to fire/remove someone from a job/office, it was directly pointed to your claim of not having the right to complain. I literally did not make any mention of firing people in my analogy, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here unless you have misunderstood what I wrote.
Anti
return of the king
- 10,818
- Posts
- 16
- Years
- Kobe's Reality
- Seen Mar 6, 2022
weird bait thread, this is like saying people who obey speed limits can't complain about police brutality because they legitimize the authority of local gov/law enforcement. it's...a stretch.
yeah, authority is arbitrary, the same way the value of paper currency is arbitrary. we give it authority by choice because of the order it provides society, even if it can facilitate oppression. that doesn't mean you "can't complain" about those negatives. it's a very black-or-white worldview that i frankly do not trust at all. the world is too complex not to have contradictions in worldview--everyone makes compromises. and when the entire point of a worldview seems to be to look down on people for making those compromises or to say "no, stop, if we all just detach from our material reality [in the case of this thread: not voting clinton to hurt trump's chances] to totally upend this system...!" then i think it is little wonder that they are not mainstream.
yeah, authority is arbitrary, the same way the value of paper currency is arbitrary. we give it authority by choice because of the order it provides society, even if it can facilitate oppression. that doesn't mean you "can't complain" about those negatives. it's a very black-or-white worldview that i frankly do not trust at all. the world is too complex not to have contradictions in worldview--everyone makes compromises. and when the entire point of a worldview seems to be to look down on people for making those compromises or to say "no, stop, if we all just detach from our material reality [in the case of this thread: not voting clinton to hurt trump's chances] to totally upend this system...!" then i think it is little wonder that they are not mainstream.
- 10,769
- Posts
- 14
- Years
- California
- Seen Jun 30, 2018
My not being able to fire someone is a necessary condition of a well-functioning democracy. Since no single person elected a candidate to a position, no single person should be able to fire that person. There are mechanisms in place to remove a person from a position however. We can impeach a president, for instance. If there's any criticism to be made it might be that such a power resides with representatives instead of with voters, making the power to impeach a step removed from their own desires since it is mitigated by other people they've voted for and may no longer want representing them.
I'm not saying I'd necessarily prefer a system where a majority vote could remove an elected official (how often would we get a vote on this, for instance?), but I am in favor of removing many of the forces which unduly influence representatives who do hold this power, such as campaign money. Despite all the problems of rogue representatives and the influence of money, I still believe that the basic idea of representative democracy is good and can work and is not likely to have a better alternative as a way of organizing a society.
Somewhere_
i don't know where
- 4,494
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Age 24
- somewhere (duh)
- Seen Jun 5, 2019
Anarchism fails to recognize that freedom is an impossibility without order, and as a result, freedom should only be correlated with government.
- 90
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- Age 31
- Seen Jun 23, 2018
What is necessary for order is people agreeing to interact and behave in ways that don't create disorder, such as not being disruptive and violent. If the only thing that could allow us to be orderly was "government", then we would never achieve order, as a few hundred politicians and their enforcers can not control the majority of society that vastly outnumbers them.
In fact, "government" creates disorder by creating an incentive to fight over power internally and abroad, as nations will always strive to exert their influence over others and attempt to justify their military aggression.
Firstly, if you think you will ever get an entire city of people - let alone a whole country - to agree upon and follow any sort of code for "non-disruptive behaviour" you're fooling yourself. Even ignoring how completely inefficient that system is - that's still a form of government called a direct democracy. It's not anarchy. So you've already inadvertently created a government in your anarchist "utopia". What more proof do you need?
How about the part where the vast majority of the people in a country do follow the law? Because it makes sense to.
People will always find reasons to fight. If you take away a governing body, there's going to be a lot of disputes over things like ownership and economics and no proper way of determining who is correct in those instances.
Now can we please go back to the original topic presented which was "If you participate in a democracy, do you have any right to complain if your preferred candidate loses?"
- 90
- Posts
- 9
- Years
- Age 31
- Seen Jun 23, 2018
Actually, the majority of people already agree on such a code, because it's common sense: don't attack anyone and don't interfere in their business if they aren't harming anyone. Also, Voluntaryists can make the same argument:
"You expect people to agree on how a government should be structured, how many seats Parliament should have, whether to have a Prime Minister or President, how many chambers or houses the government will have, the roles of the different levels of courts, the line of succession, how long each term for each office will be, etc.?"
It's illogical to assume that people can agree upon a system of government but not how to interact peacefully. It takes a lot more effort to reach an agreement regarding the system of a particular government than it does to just realize that it's in everyone's self interest not to act like violent, disruptive morons.
Even if some people are disruptive and violent in society, you don't need the permission of "government" or "the law" to have the right to protect yourself and others.
There is a difference between society establishing acceptable behaviors and the politicians in "government" passing arbitrary laws that people believe have to be followed just because they are called "laws".
Yes, it made total sense for people to follow the laws of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, China, the laws enforcing slavery and racism in the United States, etc.
I'm going to keep pointing out that "the law" is nothing more than words on paper and doesn't always determine morality or how people should behave, because apparently, this concept is extremely difficult to understand for some reason.
In other words, the law doesn't have to be obeyed just because some politicians say it has to be obeyed. Morality is above "the law", making "the law" irrelevant.
Yes, I'm not disputing this.
There already are plenty of disputes regarding these issues. Why do you think power changes between parties in many countries? Why do you think "the law" in every country is always changing as well?
Something being called "law" won't make people agree it is the right decision and won't always get people to cooperate, and they shouldn't. For example, "laws" are always being challenged in the courts. Again, "the law" are just words on paper and don't always guarantee solutions to society's problems.
Sure.
Somewhere_
i don't know where
- 4,494
- Posts
- 8
- Years
- Age 24
- somewhere (duh)
- Seen Jun 5, 2019
False equivalency:
Everyone agreeing on morality depends on culture, which shifts and evolves over time. If you want to retain culture, you need a powerful government to regulate social lives. We also know that pressing economic conditions force people to drop their value systems. The Great Depression ended the rugged individual mindset that had ruled the US since its conception.
People accept governments because it is the best alternative. The Constitution was accepted by literally everyone because a government was necessary to solve the economic woes and foreign policy problems plaguing the nation. The UK's parliamentary system was established following the Glorious Revolution after a civil war. Germany's democracy was established after WWII its destruction. I can go on.
Accepting a government is totally different from accepting morality.
You just proved our point.
Hitler gained power illegally, but retained it illegally. He literally destroyed the Reichstag building! Stalin's Russia was non-consensual because Lenin's revolutionaries murdered counterrevolutionaries and Stalin massacred the kulaks. China also ruled with an iron fist following a civil war. Explain the last point more.
The law must be obeyed because citizens consent by being born within the country's territory. They can break the law when the government begins to break its own laws.
Political science 101. Political parties allow people to peacefully institute their ideas without fighting. Political parties (more so with a 2-party system) help achieve moderation and compromises in politics.
Laws dont always solve society's problems. Sometimes they can make them worse. But they provide us the opportunity to peacefully solve problems, unlike most of human history. Democracies are a tiny portion of human history and yet in a hundred years they have greatly reduced violence and war. Partly because people dont like being forced into war and will vote against it, but also because disputes can be settled through the rule of law.
This is equal parts odd and ludicrous if I'm being honest. For one, I'm all for tearing down the system and replacing it with a better one. If you're condemning democracy as a whole, I'll remind you that the foundation of democratic government is both sound and just. The problem we face is far worse: the entanglement between money and politics that took shape a few centuries ago when this godforsaken country was founded on principals of privilege and wealth. The politico-economic system is something Marx warned about a long time ago, and sadly it is a one way road.
Secondly, at this point voting is no longer a choice of legitimizing the system. Like you say, we were born into this and given no choice. Change is necessary, that I won't argue, but of all the plausible solutions I can think of, not voting seems quite counterproductive.
We all have ourselves a good ol' time joking about how dumb old, rich, white, male politicians are, but in reality they are ruthless, brilliant, and cunning. Social politics is used to distract us from what's really been going on for hundreds of years. You think billionaire corporate juggernauts give two shakes of a rat's ass about whether a same-sex couple can marry? Frankly, consistently building walls and obstacles in the face of social change is a brilliant way to appease traditionalists while distracting progressives. Everyone is kept far too busy to realize (much less do anything about) the fact that politics is as much a business as any corporation out there. No one has managed to threaten the elite's power without a repercussion of far greater political consequence. So no, "not voting" gets you exactly nothing. You might as well shoot yourself in the foot.
People like Donald Trump don't want you to vote. They want people who still think immigration is a problem to vote. That's how they gain power. Ignoring them only makes them stronger, because again, no one will be abandoning anything simply by ignoring it any time soon.
Secondly, at this point voting is no longer a choice of legitimizing the system. Like you say, we were born into this and given no choice. Change is necessary, that I won't argue, but of all the plausible solutions I can think of, not voting seems quite counterproductive.
Agreed.
Not voting sounds more like a step towards handing fascists all the power they could ever want. You're basing your argument on the assumption that people can/will simply "abandon" democracy. I'd say you're foolishly ignoring the past: capitalistic government has long since negated such a possibility. Tearing down or abandoning anything from a bottom-up approach is so improbable it may as well be impossible. There simple isn't enough time or money in the world to dedicate towards such a feat.
We all have ourselves a good ol' time joking about how dumb old, rich, white, male politicians are, but in reality they are ruthless, brilliant, and cunning. Social politics is used to distract us from what's really been going on for hundreds of years. You think billionaire corporate juggernauts give two shakes of a rat's ass about whether a same-sex couple can marry? Frankly, consistently building walls and obstacles in the face of social change is a brilliant way to appease traditionalists while distracting progressives. Everyone is kept far too busy to realize (much less do anything about) the fact that politics is as much a business as any corporation out there. No one has managed to threaten the elite's power without a repercussion of far greater political consequence. So no, "not voting" gets you exactly nothing. You might as well shoot yourself in the foot.
Eh. There's only so much you can do outside of government. You can do even less in the scenario you've created, where you refuse to vote, giving the types of people who make feeding the homeless a crime more power to shape public policy. I don't see what you think you're accomplishing by organizing outside of the government. They won't let ya do much...
People like Donald Trump don't want you to vote. They want people who still think immigration is a problem to vote. That's how they gain power. Ignoring them only makes them stronger, because again, no one will be abandoning anything simply by ignoring it any time soon.