Complete Liberty Message Board › The voting meme and FTL clips

The voting meme and FTL clips

Wes
wbertrand2002
San Diego, CA
Post #: 60
Well, the "election results" are in, folks. Individuals lost and statism won, once again. Those who haven't fully embraced the principles of voluntaryism say that this process is a way to use "defensive force" against those who would harm us via unjust regulations and "laws," which is essentially hoping for velvet-lined iron shackles over the plain-old rusty ones. Yet there is no escaping the fact that voting is part and parcel of statist democracy (as I noted in CLP episodes 122, 123, 124) and it directly sanctions the nature of governmental coercion itself.

Nineteenth century individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker noted the real problem with Democracy: "Rule is evil, and it is none the better for being majority rule....What is the ballot? It is neither more nor less than a paper representative of the bayonet, the billy, and the bullet. It is a labor saving device for ascertaining on which side force lies and bowing to the inevitable. The voice of the majority saves bloodshed, but it is no less the arbitrament of force than is the decree of the most absolute of despots backed by the most powerful of armies."

Speaking of the pernicious voting meme, here are a couple clips from Free Talk Live from last week. The first is Erin­'s call wherein she questioned (in general agreement with the hosts' pragmatic position) the principled (voluntaryist) stance against voting and my stance against it specifically. And the second clip is my call the next night wherein I sought to clarify and rebut some things they discussed. (I invited Erin to call the show when I called in, so that we could discuss it, but she was unable to join us.)
http://www.logicallea...­ (9mins)
http://www.logicallea...­ (19 mins)

Fast forward to this week, the first week in November, and you'll find that the last two FTL shows reveal that the hosts (with the possible exception of Sam) still don't accept the implications of what Tucker noted above. A pragmatic approach unfortunately predominates over a principled approach in this matter.
http://traffic.libsyn...­
http://traffic.libsyn...­

So, here's a sort of rhetorical question: If no bureaucrats organized an election, would such liberty lovers (who don't believe in government as such) take it upon themselves to set one up, so that they could then vote? Does this not expose the contradictory actions they're presently advocating?

As I noted on CLP, I used to vote too, even as a market anarchist (the last time was in 2004). But then I looked at the process up close and personal and applied the principles of complete liberty to it and realized how it contributes to the mental (and physical) enslavement of persons in society.

Yet the point is made by anarchists who are ok with voting (or who "don't judge the actions of those who do vote") that if no one voted, government would still exist, like in a monarchy or dictatorship; therefore, voting doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, so why not do it. Well, I suppose that in the minds of the people living in very autocratic regimes, there is still a high degree of mental enslavement to unjust "authority." But the nature of the propaganda of democracy--by definition--entails having the "choice" to participate (or not) in who does the governing and how much they govern--but of course never the choice to abolish any and all governing by a coercive and unjust monopoly. Indeed, the conclusion of governing as such is assumed with the voting process, even by most liberty lovers (after all, "Some 'official' is going to be in a position of political power, so we might as well bow to the inevitable and choose one in favor of giving us velvet-lined shackles").

Democracies, based as they are on the premises of collectivism and self-sacrifice, are designed to convince individuals that they have "a say" in the nature of their political enslavement. They and the electoral process are not designed to help people realize the fact that they ought not be governed at all ("represented") and that a marketplace of property rights should instead be fully accepted and enabled.

Thus voting fosters the delusion of having "relative" freedom within the statist matrix of blind obedience to authority, which also works to keep the legitimacy of government intact. It's important to not trick ourselves into believing that when "officials" grant us permission to do things with our own property (via rescinding a certain law, for instance), it means that we have more liberty--because the ultimate crime so long as government exists is non-conformity to "law" itself. All laws reduce to one law: Obey this, or else you'll be punished. This is the nature of the domination culture in which we live (as Marshall Rosenberg notes).

Mass obedience to "law" is the main issue. Voting for different "laws" or trying to elect different "law-makers" into office not only doesn't change the nature of it; it also assures that such mass obedience and slavespeak­ continue. To believe that voting for anything within the confines of the governmental system can make us more free means that one still has some serious premises to check and, just as importantly, feelings to accept and resolve.

STR,
W

p.s., perhaps a picture is worth a thousand words... http://www.logicallea...­
patricia
monalisa5
San Diego, CA
Post #: 4
I just listened to the clips by both Erin and Wes and I am feeling confused because there is something that is bothering me a great deal concerning the interpretation that I heard regarding Stef's personal stand on ostracizing others.

I do not think that the sentiment behind Stefan's idea of ostracizing , shunning or defooing people out of your life includes all christians , statists and mystics. Just because people do not agree with our principles, are not curious about philosophy, morality and it's implications, or frankly because they are not ready to examine themselves in a deep level it does not mean we cut them out of our lives if they are otherwise amicable and socially cooperative and do not attempt violence against us. However there seem to be a lot of people who have taken it that way perhaps because they are defining as "violence" any behavior that does not support freedom. I feel I am qualified to talk a little about this subject as I had experienced firs hand shunning in the early stage of my life by a group of religious nuts that use" the shunning as a manipulation technique to make me want to get their approval to enjoy the "benefits" of their company and favors. Time is a precious resource and the turning away from others happens whether we intend or not because we tend to prefer the company of those matching our ideals. I also feel that if we choose to exclude someone from our life because this person is set on manipulating our emotions, even in that case is does have to be a permanent rejection of this person because people do change in time ( in many cases) when they are ready to do so.
Wes
wbertrand2002
San Diego, CA
Post #: 61
Thanks for your thoughts, Patricia. I'm a little unclear, however, as to where one draws the line in this process, and I don't think it's articulated in a clear fashion in RTR, nor perhaps should it be--because this is an individual evaluation process. As Stefan has noted multiple times, even if one doesn't commit overt acts of violence, supporting the violence of statism is like driving the getaway car for the gangsters. Now, the question becomes this: How do we get our desire fulfilled for the people in our life to see the folly in such support of a coercive institution? I don't believe that Stef's approach offers a win/win strategy if the other person shows major resistance to the truth in these matters. Nonviolent communication does, however.

Ultimately, we'll need to step out of the religious/domination paradigm of our culture that employs moralizing, blaming, shaming, diagnosing, and judging, if we are going to get our needs met with others who have been hostile toward us. Shunning won't achieve the end goal of a free society, even though it seems for many to be the only option. Those "religious nuts" you speak of have been disconnected from their own feelings and needs for so long that you coped by forming enemy images of them (and of course them of you). If we were to try to understand them in a compassionate way--that is, if we saw any value in that process--they would in turn come to terms with the costly strategies they've been using to fulfill their needs, oftentimes at the expense of your own needs.

One extremely key truth that NVC notes is that no one can "manipulate our emotions." We are 100% responsible for how we feel, based on the needs within us being met or not being met. The behavior of others may be a trigger for our emotional response, of course, but how we respond internally is based on how we are assessing ourselves, the situation, and the other, in terms of how it relates to our needs for, e.g., self-worth and efficacy, understanding, empathy, connection, etc. So, if we say that we feel "manipulated" by another person, we are not stating a feeling, but rather stating an evaluation, i.e., a judgment of that other person, which denies responsibility for our own emotions and grants the other person a power over us that we ought not grant.

And just for clarification, did you accidentally leave out a "not" in your last sentence (and an "it" in place of the "is"), as in "...even in that case iT does NOT have to be a permanent rejection of this person because people do change in time (in many cases) when they are ready to do so." Making those changes enables me to understand your point. :)

W
patricia
monalisa5
San Diego, CA
Post #: 5
Wes, thanks for sharing your views. Yes I accidentally let out the word not in my last sentence. My experience with people that that come in close contact with me often time do find other ways to meet their needs that serves them and others better as time passes by for diverse reasons. If I am choosing to stop dealing with let say family members that are actively trying to impose their view in a condescending and abusive matter, I do so because I am not getting anywhere even when presenting my views in a peaceful way and trying to empathize with their needs.

As far of NVC, after reading the Speak Peace in a World of conflict , I feel it does have a profound value in intimate relationships just as much as RTR does. NVC brings the the forefront that our speech reflects our thoughts and perceptions, defining the world in which we live to a point. It also addressed that when we speak with empathy as the driving force it can open peoples hearts, heal and ultimately affects our own degree of happiness as we derive joy in partnership like relationships where everyone needs are met in a healthy way.

I also think that working at eliminating angry, and judgmental way of communicating when exposing others in a one by one basis or in activist demonstrations to voluntarism or anarchy will make the message more effective as our demeanor change when the anger in us is resolved too.

Having said that, I do not believe NVC is the cure that will work in all cases to resolve all conflicts, particularly when dealing with the powerful gang that the government entity is.

I do see as a very valuable tool that I am implementing right away with my household members.
Wes
wbertrand2002
San Diego, CA
Post #: 62
I'm glad you find great vale in using NVC with those close to you, Patricia. This is how our lives are enriched (win/win). Just for clarification, you stated that you don't believe that connecting with feelings and needs (i.e., NVC) is "the cure that will work in all cases to resolve all conflicts," particularly when dealing with those working in government? Are you saying, then, that there is no such "cure"? I've yet to encounter another methodology besides NVC that doesn't entail blaming, shaming, guilt-tripping, anger and moralizing. And I've seen no evidence that connecting with feelings and needs through compassionate communication hinders dispute resolution in any way. After all, since NVC works with the most extreme cases of murderous violence and individuals in a near-catatonic state (a psychotherapy client of Marshall's), I'm wondering where your skepticism is coming from. Are you feeling worried that you might not be able to learn and use NVC as Rosenberg does, meeting your need for efficacy in this realm?

When you stated that family members "are actively trying to impose their view in a condescending and abusive matter," I couldn't help but notice all the enemy imagery and judgment in that statement. You've expressed frustration at "not getting anywhere even when presenting your views in a peaceful way and trying to empathize with their needs." I understand that NVC is not easy, but the language we've tended to adopt from our domination culture stands in the way of clarity and getting our needs met in these matters. NVC ensures that we have win/win interactions with others, not win/lose (or lose/lose, ultimately).

The most difficult thing to do, as Rosenberg notes, is to dissolve the enemy imagery, so we can see past the sacrificial strategies to try to meet needs and instead focus on the true-self in ourselves and others. Since family members have had such an intimate connection with us, they likely taught us various dialects of "jackal," so using NVC with them can be most challenging.

W
Powered by mvnForum

San Diego, CA

Founded Aug 19, 2009

About us…

Help support your Meetup

Chip in

Organizers:

Steve, DonnaO, Jesse Thomas
Contact

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy