Oddbean new post about login | logout Voting is immoral.
Based on what reasoning?
It is immoral to choose who gets to rule over your neighbors.
It's not immoral if the group voting has chosen to elect leadership in that manner.
Out of the multitude of ways people end up with rulers, voting seems harmless but it obstructs the question. Why do we need a ruler to begin with?
I don't disagree with any of your statements. But let's go back to where it started. "Voting is immoral". Like it or not, there will always be leaders in one form or another. Voting is one method for the group to decide that (allegedly). A group that has voluntarily decided to use that method is not acting immorally. (In that moment) Does it end well? Generally not. Does it lead to humans gaming the system and appointing psychopaths? <gestures to... Well... Everything> Are you making the argument that because voting is immoral because it can (predictably) lead to the state entities we see today?
No. I’m arguing that someone choosing the ruler for someone else is immoral. I don’t have the right to do that to you and you don’t have the right to do it to me. Your premise is that it’s ok because everyone in the system agreed to it, but that only really applies at the beginning. I didn’t choose the current system. I was born into it. I didn’t choose the current population of politicians. A small handful of people living in a few swing states did and the rest were gerrymandered in by carefully choosing their voters. I’m not trying to be pedantic. I fully agree that this form of government is a lot better than many other current systems in place around the world. But if I am going back to base principles my statement stands.
My hesitation on anarchy is that from history I observe humans living voluntarily, morally, minding their own business, eventually will get conquered and subjugated by immoral people perfectly willing to violate the non aggression principle who make themselves king. Do you see the opposite in history? Is the violence of subjugation always inherently in the system. https://media.tenor.com/SpgoyUJrX-IAAAAC/monty-python-holy-grail.gif
So your answer to my last question is "yes". Define morality. Or, if you prefer, immoral.
Philosophy, law, and religion have been grappling with that question for a long time but I’ll take a swing. For me personally, individual freedom is the highest good. Anything that increases it is moral and anything that decreases it or decreases it for others to increase your own is immoral.
"Morality" (from whatever direction it is studied/theorized from) Is behavior that promotes/provides cohesion for a group. Different groups/cultures arrive at differing concepts and systems. This is why pure ideologies that redefine morality in the context of a larger group tend to have a hard time.
I need to human to rule over me. Just my own self. If I do not expect others to force me to do things, then, I should not force others to do the same. Voting gives a legitimacy to a government, but, I posit that all earthly government is illegitimate. Therefore, no one should vote, no one should rule, no laws should be enforced but those that we are born with.
I don't disagree with that at all. However, a structure of control/power will emerge.
Why? I suppose that's nearly a look always the case, but... Why?
We seem to be a species that gravitates toward hierarchies. We always have.
Well, I think we are designed that way. But, that nature has been corrupted and is being put to nefarious uses through government. I would see us break the yoke of that corruption and seek our true nature.
Sadly, our true nature (for humanity as a whole, not small number of outliers) appears to be repeat bouts of willing servitude.
Yes, choice is crucial. Voluntarism
Finally the Monarchy Loyalists have arrived on Nostr. 😜 https://media.tenor.com/-Iv4P_T9fEIAAAAC/ernest-ernest-p-worrell.gif
