Listen To Your Heart
I co-host Free Talk Live every Thursday night from 7pm to 10pm, a nationally syndicated talk radio show. Last Thursday, an anarchist called in to talk about how he attended a meeting about a local smoking ban to speak out against it. There was some discussion about whether such an act is part of working within their system and I’m known for not being a big fan of that game, to put it lightly. Mark is equating this act with voting based on the notion that you’re just voting by proxy, i.e. trying to persuade council members to vote a certain way. I’ve given some more thought to this and wanted to expound.
I wouldn’t go in there telling them to vote a certain way. I would simply use the platform of the meeting to talk about why they have no right to control the behavior or property of others. I wouldn’t give any moral support to the idea of the vote. I realize they are going to vote on it, but that’s their game. What it comes down to is I’m not going to go through the motions and essentially act out what is to me a big lie. It’s the same reason I don’t rise for a judge. They are hoping I’ll go through the motions and act publicly in accordance with their lies, reinforcing them, and in complete contradiction to my deeply held beliefs. It’s disgusting and offensive to me. On the other hand, simply taking the opportunity of the meeting and telling them they have no right to control others is as honest as I could be.
You have to understand that the vote is not the act of violence. The vote is a lie. The vote is an elaborate justification that makes them feel okay about it when they do violence. I feel strongly that we need to stop providing them that comfort while also doing what we can to sensitize them to the cognitive dissonance they should be feeling absent all the years of indoctrination that have put them at ease with their violence.
I do feel that politics follows culture overwhelmingly more so than the other way around. The only way to affect substantial change toward a peaceful culture is sensitizing individuals to the ramifications of their choices and actions. Collectivism is such a huge part of the problem and we can’t solve it with yet more collectivism. If the vote is swayed in a favorable direction, that’s just icing as far as I’m concerned. It would be a greater victory if a councilor became uneasy with their role in the game and decided to quit even if it meant a bad outcome of the vote. A politician constantly being challenged about the violent nature of his or her work, and who can’t present a reasonable defense to the contrary, can begin to feel that cognitive dissonance even before they have processed it and accepted it intellectually at a conscious level.
I can’t definitively argue that there is more harm done in the long run by playing their game than not. I can’t pour specific choices of action into a graduated cylinder and compare them. It’s not a mathematical equation that can be solved on paper. I’ve played their games for a while and I’ve watched a lot of politics and part of it is just my gut about what feels really wrong. That little voice of justification that says I’m alleviating some harm right now and what’s the big deal anyway is drowned out by the other voice that says playing their game is a lie that sticks in my soul and undermines my veracity and in the long run it’s just not worth it. I think we all have a sense of how some questionable action can get us a short-term gain but at a long-term price and that’s what this feels like to me.
That’s why I tell people to do what in their hearts feels right. It’s what I’m doing. Maybe some day, after they play the game a while, they’ll feel what I feel. There will occasionally be events that provide an opportunity for me to remind them to reconsider in light of new experiences and do some introspection as with the recent medical marijuana bill, but ultimately they’ll probably have to realize it themselves. I don’t think I can argue it into them.
really well said, i remeber in 2004 ireland (where im from) was the first country in europe to ban smoking in public buildings, i was against this mainly because it is an act of compulsion, health is on thel ine to though and i asked myelf, ”whats more imprtent, health or freedom” i picked freedom, decides before this ban i never had any porblems with a lot of smokers somewhere, never got bad asthma in say..a pub (and i do have very bad asthma) smokers never bothered me, if there were a lot sitting around me i simply move, if there everywhere in a pub i leave! im irish! we have more pubs then newsagents!
You don’t rise for the judge when you’re in court? Isn’t that dangerous? Won’t the judge jail you for contempt of court?
I’m not saying I disapprove. I’m just saying that in terms of risk/reward, that’s an inefficient tactic.
It’s a risk, though it doesn’t seem like a really large risk. I’ve remained seated many times and it hasn’t happened yet, though I’ve been prepared for the possibility of arrest many times. I suspect I’ll go to jail for it eventually.
Ya see, the problem is: in order for somone to experience cognitive dissonance, they’ll first have to experience cognition. That’s where ya unfortunately start to loose people.
I don’t stand for the judge either in Cheshire Co New Hampshire court, likewise with a lot of people here. When you have lots of people to back you up, all the judge can do about it is watch his own tears fall into his gin & tonic.
It is far from freedom’s paradise here in Keene, NH yet that is something I’d have not gotten away with by myself in S.W. Indiana, The judge would have eaten my lunch.
Dale, well put. (I’m the guy who went to the county council meeting and called in to the show.) Here is my account of what happened at the council meeting. http://howlittleheknows.blogspot.com/2009/08/st-louis-county-smoking-ban.html
My question is this: do you differentiate between voting for specific ballot initiatives AND voting for so-called representatives? I believe it’s wrong to vote for one bureaucrat over another, but would you call it “supporting the system” if one were to show up to the voting booth ONLY to vote no on a ballot initiative (in this case, the smoking ban)?
I guess you can always argue, and people do, that you aren’t supporting the system even while doing either. The latter seems pretty unambiguously aggressive while the former seems ambiguous and I cannot argue that it is assuming you’re voting in a clear direction. The questions, which I think will remain unanswered from an analytical perspective, is what good are you doing both in the short term and long term, vs. what harm is done both in the short term and the long term. Even more importantly, what is the price for you personally and is the reward worth it?
I have never begrudged anyone who stood for a judge in order to avoid the threat of jail. I know many people who don’t want to do it. Many people do things strictly out of fear. It’s something that has a high price for me and I understand why that’s hard for others to understand. There were times when I was not prepared to go to jail do to weighing personal issues that I needed to deal with in the immediate future and the risk seemed high, and so I left the court room once before the judge came in and I think there was one time I failed to go at all. In both cases, I missed the arraignments or trials because I was unwilling to stand for the judge and unprepared to go to jail. I didn’t go back until I was prepared for the possibility that I could go to jail. What it came down to is the personal price was higher for me than it is for many others.
I feel like every time I tell a lie, it undermines my veracity, and I do catch myself saying little lies now and then for one reason or another. I remember the other day nodding quietly just to avoid conflict when in fact I was in powerful disagreement with the other person. That has been bothering me. I wasn’t looking to preach my values to anyone that day but my opinions were being elicited and I was trying to stick to subjects which I figured we could largely agree on. I told myself that I was just nodding to indicate that I understand that this is how he feels, but I failed to make it clear that I wasn’t affirming what he was saying (justifying aggressive wars) and that has continued to bother me.
Consider it a personal problem of mine that I have these hang-ups.
Very well said, as usual, Dale. My version of what you said in paragraphs 4-5 is: by using the system of tyranny to obtain less coercion (or to obtain whatever), you’re trying to alleviate the symptoms, but you’re ignoring their cause, which is the system itself. So even if you succeed 100% of the time, the system still exists, and it will coerce again. Perhaps the coercive representative you voted against will run again and be voted in next time. Perhaps the ballot initiative that removed a coercive law passed, but that law will be proposed again. When the system is eliminated, its symptoms will be, too; not the other way around. Strike the root.