Damn Politics

 I normally try to stay away from politics if at all possible I really consider myself fairly apolitical. I find philosophy to be more rewarding and more challenging. Furthermore political experts as they call them seem to be very intellectually impaired, independent thinkers in the world of politics seem to be about as common as cannibalistic elves. When you watch people debate politics it seems like they are just routing for a sports team rather than stating and defending a set of beliefs. However the intellectual bankruptcy of political debate is only a half of the reason why I despise politics.

Furthermore politics is about the obtainment of power through force and coercion. No matter how free you think your government is, no matter how benevolent you think they are, they have only one thing backing their authority and that is coercion. They attempt to protect you from yourself by illegalizing a plant called marijuana, if you refuse to obey this they will initiate force upon you. I reject the legitimacy of the state ergo I reject the political system by which it is run.

This is a rather short post as I do not have very much to say I could spread this out by using more example but that is not the purpose of this post. The purpose of this post is simple.

1. To state my disgust and absolute rejection of the coercive state.
2. To state my rejection of this state's coercive political system.
3. To explain why I am apolitical and why I will not discuss politics.

Libertarianism and Voting

A lot of Libertarians who speak out against voting are of the Anarchist persuasion. The reason they do not vote is not because of apathy but quite the contrary it is a principled stand against the current form of government. People in our society usually see not voting as a sign of indifference, it has gotten to the point where many say if you don't vote you do not have the right to speak out against the government.

However in the case of the anarchist the act of voting is seen as a implicit approval of the current form of government so by voting you are giving the system legitimacy. Anarchists believe rights are naturally occurring and not dependent on the approval or disapproval of others. Voting goes against a couple basic anarchist principles The Non-Aggression Axiom and the Principle of Self Ownership. Voting violates The Non-Aggression Axiom because you are asking others to coerce people into believing as you do. Say I would vote to illegalize drugs that is like me asking others to arrest coerce and use violence against those who use drugs. It also violates the Principle of Self Ownership in that by voting you are claiming a higher authority over others lives then they have. Staying with the example of drugs, by saying the are not allowed to use certain substances is to say you have a higher claim to their life and their body which is a kind of slavery.

Some people say it is your civic responsibility to vote, but I believe my moral responsibility to not harm others in anyway and my moral opposition to slavery far outweighs any sort of patriotic guilt trip you can think up.

Epicurean Riddle

I use Epicurus' riddle quite frequently in my thinking when it comes to religion and though I believe it has some basic flaws I believe he was fundamentally asking the right question. If there is indeed a God what kind of God would that entity be? Now let's take a look at the riddle.

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"
-Epicurus


If he is willing but not able then he certainly by definition is not omnipotent however this leave the door open to an omniscient God. If he is able but not willing God is implicitly doing evil but does that mean his motive is of malevolence? It could be apathy or another of other numerous motives. It is clear that their is not a God both able and willing to prevent evil as evil does exist. If God is neither able nor willing then it could be an omniscient apathetic God. Epicurus' riddle is very handy when you are speaking of a God who's properties are known but more or less useless for deistic Gods with unknown properties. In my post refuting the Judeo-Christian God I was only able to falsify the Judeo-Christian God because the properties were known. While it would be a fools errand to attempt to falsify a deity that is declared unknowable.


You cannot falsify something with unknown properties, it is known as an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In fact every time you are talking to someone who says their God transcends the rules of reason and logic I encourage you to immediately end the conversation. It is not worth your time to reason with an individual who believes that their beliefs are an exception to the rules of reason and logic.