A crime?! Well it is certainly a farce which legitimizes the cartels actions. They think they have a mandate because we couldn’t handle the stench of one branch so we went with the other gobshyte “choice”
Probably my favorite part - "If voting merely selected policies, this essay would fail. But voting selects rulers."
My biggest grip about our government. We have the tech to have referendums on a good 60% of bills without breaking much of a sweat. Why can we not modernize our governments that seem to be stuck in the 1800s.
But damn that was a good argument. Will be sending this to people. Thanks for your effort!
These kinds of abstract topics are what gets my brain going the most.
Most people will not choose to look behind the emerald curtain of Oz. I think this is because their attention is always being 'taken' from them by the flashy screens, the 40+ hours a week, making it so they never have the time to just BE and let the mind wander on abstract topics. We are forced to DO all the time.
The argument about voting as the delegation of coercion is powerful, but I think it needs one important exception to avoid collapsing into a universal prohibition. Delegating aggression and delegating the reduction of aggression are not morally equivalent acts. If a voter supports a candidate whose explicit, credible intention is to dismantle coercive powers—repealing laws, shrinking agencies, reducing criminalization, or restoring individual liberty—then the vote is not an attempt to empower domination but an attempt to remove it. A useful counterexample is Javier Milei, a professed anarchist whose election was motivated by a platform of reducing state coercion rather than expanding it; universalizing the principle without exception would imply that even such a reformer could never be legitimately selected. The distinction between delegating coercion and delegating de-coercion seems necessary for the argument to remain internally consistent.
You make interesting point..one that I have thought about many times having transitioned from libertarian (statist) to anarchist. Your argument does not hold, but your point is not lost. No one has a valid right to rule over others, regardless of their motivation. To rule over others is a clear violation of universal natural law. Internal sovereignty is violated by external rule. tRUMP seems to get a pass from Q-tards and sycophants because they have this insane notion that he will save us from the tyrants...ignoring the fact that he himself is one of the tyrants...simply ruling over others is immoral. Like any ruler, he commits crimes against humanity at all times much like "law enforcement officers". Milei is a Trojan horse in my view, others have written about the anomolies regarding him better than I can. To your point though, I have often quipped that if I were president or "supreme leader" for a day, I would pwrmanently ban government then go home. 🤣🤣 This is ironic because banning government would require enforcement power to ban something, LOL. Regardless, assuming power as rular for a day technically is an immoral act which is unjustifyable under universal natural law. There is no exception given for trimming the hedges of government, though it is motivated by good intentions...it is still driving the bus on the road to hell. 🤓🤦
If someone uses temporary authority to reduce the scope of authority—repealing laws, shrinking agencies, eliminating criminalization—then the act is not an attempt to rule over others but an attempt to remove rule. This is why the distinction between delegating coercion and delegating de-coercion matters. If one objects to voting on the grounds that it delegates coercion, then one must recognize that dismantling state power is not the same kind of act as imposing it. Without that distinction, the theory implies that even reducing coercion is impermissible, because any temporary use of authority would count as “ruling.” One can still reject all authority on natural-law grounds, but the internal-consistency problem remains: treating the removal of domination as morally identical to the exercise of domination collapses the argument into forbidding even actions that lessen injustice.
Given that government agents exist, the practical question is how one removes them from power without violence. Persuading the entire population to reject political authority would be ideal, but it is unrealistic to expect government agents themselves to abstain from voting. If one rejects violent revolution, then the only peaceful mechanism available is piecemeal reduction of state power through the ballot box. Using temporary authority to dismantle authority is therefore not a contradiction but a necessary transitional strategy. If the theory treats both coercion and de-coercion as morally equivalent, it forbids even the steps required to eliminate coercion, which makes it self-defeating. That narrow point is all I was trying to make.
Okay, so I think you have the internal consistency argument inside-out. You cannot magically make temporary authority (that you never had) morally permissible just because the intention is to dismantle government. It's more like "taking one for the team" scenario like Ron Paul or Thomas Massey...they are still acting immorally by participating in government while simultaneously holding the goal of reducing the scope of the harm. But harm is still occuring. I totally get your point, not to worry, about it being unrealistic...because when has government ever stopped itself while it's inertia is still going? in terms of short term goal of dismantling the state, doing so from the inside appears to be the only peaceful solution but I would argue that it will collapse on it's own and subversion is a better, more moral use of efforts. Subversion being an act of self-defense, not violence. I am not against dismantling of the state obviously, but the problem of exercising authority one does not have in the name of progress..number one, never gets to the root cause of government (truly solving the problem) and number two, it is ends justifying the means. Government is a hydra that grows new heads practically every time you cut one off!! I appreciate the practical thoughts you are having on this and it is worth thinking through - because how do you stop Godzilla on a rampage..cut off one limb at a time or implode the whole monster at once? 😆
Thanks for the reply. I think we’ve reached the point where further back-and-forth won’t add clarity. Our frameworks differ, and that’s fine. I’m stepping out of the thread here, but I appreciate the exchange. Take care.
One does not try to end Santa clause but merely recognize it doesn't exist. La navidad system persists because of participants and the beliefs and daith around them. Unfortunately, many adults seem to still believe in "$anta Clause" as their savoir for the system that beholden them into illusionary chains.
A simple reply is not enough to explain all of what you are asking. Thank you for that. It's exactly what I was hoping to receive. I got much to work on now. Thank you for reading and reaching out!
You raise a good question, Doc. So my question to you how is town council, county and state government NOT the very same principle of coercion & violence? An individual does not possess the right to rule over another individual. So said individual cannot extend a right they do not have to any other individual OR GROUP. However, your point is not lost entirely because the question remains how do we get anything accomplished in an organized fashion in a group setting? In a voluntary, non coercive situation, voting is fine and very helpful for implementing the wishes of people. But if it involves coercion, as in the case of any type of involuntary government structure, voting is violence. Stated more generally, minority or majority rule is violence..which covers every type of public government model we currently have. To the best of my knowledge, I have not come across any exception.
“So my question to you how is town council, county and state government NOT the very same principle of coercion & violence?“
Town councils are deliberative bodies. City councils are legislative bodies.
I do not vote for candidates running for government offices. That means I do not vote for Supervisors, Judges, Legislaters, Executives, or any other coercion-based office-holder.
Deliberative office-holders do not have rule-making power, or enforcement options.
When I vote on issues or bonds, I generally vote no on issues, and always no on bonds. I vote yes on issues that repeal laws.
I must pushback a little on the part of “becoming more corrupt” because it implies that it has at one point not been currupt. I do not see it that way. They have always been corrupt and no amount of tinkering with the system will ever make it not corrupt because the very foundation of governments and their institutions, despite their well intentions, are based upon the rule by force principles.
Ancient Warrior, you are on point! I have taken the extreme position that government cannot be corrupt because it is violence by design, or some may prefer the phrase violence by default...to satisfy their need to excuse those who designed government at it's origin point as having good intentions. Government is peimary tool, a weapon in fact, in the spiritual war against himanity. And it has inflicted tremendous damage not only physically but on the psyche...warping it into slave mentality by invoking the greater good fallacy.
Including reputation with life, liberty, and property will get pushback.
I generally agree that reputation feels like it ought to be in there. Your person is your life, your body, and your unique identity. It definitely seems to me like your reputation is something you own.
But, it’s tough…
Respecting life, property, and liberty means not invading my life, property, and liberty. But if we add reputation to that, now we are saying not only what you cannot do to my life, property, and liberty, but what you cannot do with your own.
You can speak … but not if it damages my reputation. You can use your property however you wish, but not to put up billboards of me in a clown outfit.
I want to protect reputation, but I can also see how libertarians worry about including it.
Very well written. The only two things I would clarify:
The three Laws - I call them the Laws of Ethics - are ancient Laws, and are the foundation of Common Law (the Law of the land).
Everything in the legal system is a legalate, called a "law" to get Us to think We MUST obey. This is the "law of the sea," a pirate system that came on land through the sewer system (literally, through the sewers!). It is owned and operated by the highest pirates, the moneyed psychopaths in control on Our planet (by virtue of money), and They paint it with a veneer of "justice," but rarely is there any real justice, and when so, it is for show.
The Laws apply to Us all because NO ONE will say the things listed are okay to do do to Themselves. They are Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do. Breaking these Laws is what makes a criminal, whether through paying for the breakage, merely convincing anOther to do so, or doing it directly.
The unjustified damage to anOther's reputation is a theft of reputation. Social currency is stolen.
Voting is violence. It is a claim the majority has the authority to rule the minority, which directly contradicts the fact that only individuals have any authority over themselves, and claims the authority individuals alone have been created to wield. Worse, only a minority ever wins elections, because only about half the population can actually vote. Children, the non compos mentus, the disenfranchised, and dissenters do not, or cannot, actually vote, so what democratic elections actually create is a tyranny of a minority of the population.
Democracies, just like Monarchies and other tyrannies, are crimes against humanity because they are governments that usurp the personal sovereignty inherent to individuals by virtue of the sole power they inalienably possess that is an aspect of their person. So, yes, voting is a crime because it is an effort to enslave free people that cannot be stripped of their sole authority to rule themselves.
Excelente! Kudos to you!
A crime?! Well it is certainly a farce which legitimizes the cartels actions. They think they have a mandate because we couldn’t handle the stench of one branch so we went with the other gobshyte “choice”
💯
Thank you for reading!
https://substack.com/@yayogerardo/note/c-286530714?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=dbg14
Probably my favorite part - "If voting merely selected policies, this essay would fail. But voting selects rulers."
My biggest grip about our government. We have the tech to have referendums on a good 60% of bills without breaking much of a sweat. Why can we not modernize our governments that seem to be stuck in the 1800s.
But damn that was a good argument. Will be sending this to people. Thanks for your effort!
Thank you for sharing this! 🙏
I wrote a general comment about what's to come here:
https://substack.com/@yayogerardo/note/c-286530714?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=dbg14
These kinds of abstract topics are what gets my brain going the most.
Most people will not choose to look behind the emerald curtain of Oz. I think this is because their attention is always being 'taken' from them by the flashy screens, the 40+ hours a week, making it so they never have the time to just BE and let the mind wander on abstract topics. We are forced to DO all the time.
The argument about voting as the delegation of coercion is powerful, but I think it needs one important exception to avoid collapsing into a universal prohibition. Delegating aggression and delegating the reduction of aggression are not morally equivalent acts. If a voter supports a candidate whose explicit, credible intention is to dismantle coercive powers—repealing laws, shrinking agencies, reducing criminalization, or restoring individual liberty—then the vote is not an attempt to empower domination but an attempt to remove it. A useful counterexample is Javier Milei, a professed anarchist whose election was motivated by a platform of reducing state coercion rather than expanding it; universalizing the principle without exception would imply that even such a reformer could never be legitimately selected. The distinction between delegating coercion and delegating de-coercion seems necessary for the argument to remain internally consistent.
You make interesting point..one that I have thought about many times having transitioned from libertarian (statist) to anarchist. Your argument does not hold, but your point is not lost. No one has a valid right to rule over others, regardless of their motivation. To rule over others is a clear violation of universal natural law. Internal sovereignty is violated by external rule. tRUMP seems to get a pass from Q-tards and sycophants because they have this insane notion that he will save us from the tyrants...ignoring the fact that he himself is one of the tyrants...simply ruling over others is immoral. Like any ruler, he commits crimes against humanity at all times much like "law enforcement officers". Milei is a Trojan horse in my view, others have written about the anomolies regarding him better than I can. To your point though, I have often quipped that if I were president or "supreme leader" for a day, I would pwrmanently ban government then go home. 🤣🤣 This is ironic because banning government would require enforcement power to ban something, LOL. Regardless, assuming power as rular for a day technically is an immoral act which is unjustifyable under universal natural law. There is no exception given for trimming the hedges of government, though it is motivated by good intentions...it is still driving the bus on the road to hell. 🤓🤦
If someone uses temporary authority to reduce the scope of authority—repealing laws, shrinking agencies, eliminating criminalization—then the act is not an attempt to rule over others but an attempt to remove rule. This is why the distinction between delegating coercion and delegating de-coercion matters. If one objects to voting on the grounds that it delegates coercion, then one must recognize that dismantling state power is not the same kind of act as imposing it. Without that distinction, the theory implies that even reducing coercion is impermissible, because any temporary use of authority would count as “ruling.” One can still reject all authority on natural-law grounds, but the internal-consistency problem remains: treating the removal of domination as morally identical to the exercise of domination collapses the argument into forbidding even actions that lessen injustice.
Given that government agents exist, the practical question is how one removes them from power without violence. Persuading the entire population to reject political authority would be ideal, but it is unrealistic to expect government agents themselves to abstain from voting. If one rejects violent revolution, then the only peaceful mechanism available is piecemeal reduction of state power through the ballot box. Using temporary authority to dismantle authority is therefore not a contradiction but a necessary transitional strategy. If the theory treats both coercion and de-coercion as morally equivalent, it forbids even the steps required to eliminate coercion, which makes it self-defeating. That narrow point is all I was trying to make.
Okay, so I think you have the internal consistency argument inside-out. You cannot magically make temporary authority (that you never had) morally permissible just because the intention is to dismantle government. It's more like "taking one for the team" scenario like Ron Paul or Thomas Massey...they are still acting immorally by participating in government while simultaneously holding the goal of reducing the scope of the harm. But harm is still occuring. I totally get your point, not to worry, about it being unrealistic...because when has government ever stopped itself while it's inertia is still going? in terms of short term goal of dismantling the state, doing so from the inside appears to be the only peaceful solution but I would argue that it will collapse on it's own and subversion is a better, more moral use of efforts. Subversion being an act of self-defense, not violence. I am not against dismantling of the state obviously, but the problem of exercising authority one does not have in the name of progress..number one, never gets to the root cause of government (truly solving the problem) and number two, it is ends justifying the means. Government is a hydra that grows new heads practically every time you cut one off!! I appreciate the practical thoughts you are having on this and it is worth thinking through - because how do you stop Godzilla on a rampage..cut off one limb at a time or implode the whole monster at once? 😆
Thanks for the reply. I think we’ve reached the point where further back-and-forth won’t add clarity. Our frameworks differ, and that’s fine. I’m stepping out of the thread here, but I appreciate the exchange. Take care.
One does not try to end Santa clause but merely recognize it doesn't exist. La navidad system persists because of participants and the beliefs and daith around them. Unfortunately, many adults seem to still believe in "$anta Clause" as their savoir for the system that beholden them into illusionary chains.
Thank you.
A simple reply is not enough to explain all of what you are asking. Thank you for that. It's exactly what I was hoping to receive. I got much to work on now. Thank you for reading and reaching out!
https://substack.com/@yayogerardo/note/c-286530714?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=dbg14
@Ancient Warrior
Bogus
I noticed that this essay is all about selecting a ruler or overseer.
You seem to overlook other functions of voting in the US.
I vote within non-coercive environments such as Lions Club, or fraternity, or local town council, for candidates and issues.
I vote at county and state environments on issues and bonds....
I vote not at all at federal environments.....
You raise a good question, Doc. So my question to you how is town council, county and state government NOT the very same principle of coercion & violence? An individual does not possess the right to rule over another individual. So said individual cannot extend a right they do not have to any other individual OR GROUP. However, your point is not lost entirely because the question remains how do we get anything accomplished in an organized fashion in a group setting? In a voluntary, non coercive situation, voting is fine and very helpful for implementing the wishes of people. But if it involves coercion, as in the case of any type of involuntary government structure, voting is violence. Stated more generally, minority or majority rule is violence..which covers every type of public government model we currently have. To the best of my knowledge, I have not come across any exception.
@Natural Law Warrior
“So my question to you how is town council, county and state government NOT the very same principle of coercion & violence?“
Town councils are deliberative bodies. City councils are legislative bodies.
I do not vote for candidates running for government offices. That means I do not vote for Supervisors, Judges, Legislaters, Executives, or any other coercion-based office-holder.
Deliberative office-holders do not have rule-making power, or enforcement options.
When I vote on issues or bonds, I generally vote no on issues, and always no on bonds. I vote yes on issues that repeal laws.
I just posted something I wrote some time ago at https://docellis.substack.com/p/62-comments-about-town-council regarding town council members’ responsiblities to constituents.
Well said dude!
It's my pleasure to serve. More coming:
https://substack.com/@yayogerardo/note/c-286530714?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=dbg14
Thank you for reading my article!
Good stuff- this morning I wrote a little screed on how Elections are a Trojan Horse: https://dougyoungman.substack.com/p/070126?r=240b1n&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
Yes...it's a crime that no matter how you vote, the DC Cesspool becomes more and more foul and corrupt.
I must pushback a little on the part of “becoming more corrupt” because it implies that it has at one point not been currupt. I do not see it that way. They have always been corrupt and no amount of tinkering with the system will ever make it not corrupt because the very foundation of governments and their institutions, despite their well intentions, are based upon the rule by force principles.
Thank you for reading my article.
-Yayogerardo
Ancient Warrior, you are on point! I have taken the extreme position that government cannot be corrupt because it is violence by design, or some may prefer the phrase violence by default...to satisfy their need to excuse those who designed government at it's origin point as having good intentions. Government is peimary tool, a weapon in fact, in the spiritual war against himanity. And it has inflicted tremendous damage not only physically but on the psyche...warping it into slave mentality by invoking the greater good fallacy.
Including reputation with life, liberty, and property will get pushback.
I generally agree that reputation feels like it ought to be in there. Your person is your life, your body, and your unique identity. It definitely seems to me like your reputation is something you own.
But, it’s tough…
Respecting life, property, and liberty means not invading my life, property, and liberty. But if we add reputation to that, now we are saying not only what you cannot do to my life, property, and liberty, but what you cannot do with your own.
You can speak … but not if it damages my reputation. You can use your property however you wish, but not to put up billboards of me in a clown outfit.
I want to protect reputation, but I can also see how libertarians worry about including it.
How do you deal with such objections?
That's an interesting question. I will have to ponder and write on it sometime in the near future.
I look forward to that.
(Also, please see my message to you when you have a moment.)
“If voting merely selected policies, this essay would fail.”
—I am not sure that it would fail, even then. Even if it is only a policy, it still gets enforced on everyone, not only on the people who voted yes.
And, no one consented to the whole system within which this voting is taking place.
I think the essay—which is quite excellent!—succeeds. The only way that valid consent is satisfied is if
A) the individuals subject to the policy gave real, valid consent to participate in the polity enforcing the policy, or
B) the policy is only enforced upon those who voted for it.
Can't thank you enough for challenging my framework here also. You and among others here definitely sparked some points I definitely need to address.
https://substack.com/@yayogerardo/note/c-286530714?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=dbg14
Your article provoked the thought. These things need to be said, figured out, and said again and again.
Very well written. The only two things I would clarify:
The three Laws - I call them the Laws of Ethics - are ancient Laws, and are the foundation of Common Law (the Law of the land).
Everything in the legal system is a legalate, called a "law" to get Us to think We MUST obey. This is the "law of the sea," a pirate system that came on land through the sewer system (literally, through the sewers!). It is owned and operated by the highest pirates, the moneyed psychopaths in control on Our planet (by virtue of money), and They paint it with a veneer of "justice," but rarely is there any real justice, and when so, it is for show.
The Laws apply to Us all because NO ONE will say the things listed are okay to do do to Themselves. They are Natural Law expressed as the three things not to do. Breaking these Laws is what makes a criminal, whether through paying for the breakage, merely convincing anOther to do so, or doing it directly.
The unjustified damage to anOther's reputation is a theft of reputation. Social currency is stolen.
Calling a Legalate a Law (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/calling-a-legalate-a-law
Social Currency (article): https://amaterasusolar.substack.com/p/social-currency
I certainly need to clarify those points in future. Thanks for the input.
Most welcome! [hugs!]
🤗!
Voting is violence. It is a claim the majority has the authority to rule the minority, which directly contradicts the fact that only individuals have any authority over themselves, and claims the authority individuals alone have been created to wield. Worse, only a minority ever wins elections, because only about half the population can actually vote. Children, the non compos mentus, the disenfranchised, and dissenters do not, or cannot, actually vote, so what democratic elections actually create is a tyranny of a minority of the population.
Democracies, just like Monarchies and other tyrannies, are crimes against humanity because they are governments that usurp the personal sovereignty inherent to individuals by virtue of the sole power they inalienably possess that is an aspect of their person. So, yes, voting is a crime because it is an effort to enslave free people that cannot be stripped of their sole authority to rule themselves.
Thanks!
Right on.