flynn23 wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] flynn23 wrote:
] ] ] Decius wrote:
] ] ]
] ] ] ] The fact is that there is no fault in using a tool that
] ] ] helps
] ] ] ] you achieve your goals.
] ] ]
] ] ] kinda like terrorism?
] ]
] ] If the deaths of innocent civilians are in line with your
] ] goals then you've lost perspective about what is important.
]
] I used that extreme of an example to make a point. There is
] fault in using a tool to achieve your goals if the tool being
] used falls beneath your values. Case in point with the
] Libertarians not taking Federal campain funds, or with
] Anarchists casting votes. Sometimes you can make a louder
] point and enact stronger change by sticking with your values.
] At least Ghandi had some luck with that.

Hrm. Ghandi was not opposed to violently overthrowing the British. He simply had the vision to realize that his goals could be achieved without bloodshed, and this was preferable to him because he has his priorities straight. It would never have worked if the threat wasn't there.

However, I understand your point. If you think that participating in democracy is unethical because your vote imposes your will upon others, then you shouldn't participate in democracy.

RE: Anarchists' Convention Debates Voting