Got it.

Some libertarians vote as an act of self-defense, i.e., not for the purpose of imposing their values on others, but as a small measure of defending their liberties. I'm sympathetic to that motivation for being engaged in the process, but considering the long view of history, I think it's futile.

But then again, so likely is blogging about politics.

Alright, then. Until the next dust up.

First of all, I feel silly once again having to explain the point I was making but I would never intend to vote for Brad Pitt because I think he's the dreamiest American in all the land (for one, I don't think that … for two, I don't vote like that) nor do I care more about PBS than anything else. In fact, I hardly ever watch PBS. I was exaggerating to make a point and that point is that people are free to vote however they please for whatever reasons they wish. I was under the impression from RN's comment from April 25, 2008 at 08:47 that he was saying that you should only vote according to your political persuasion, not according to some pet issue or issues. I agree with him in theory but I'd never presume to tell someone they are irresponsible for voting based on particular issues. That's not for me to say.

So, I think from what I just said above that you know that I do vote and, further, I do not agree with your premise that voting is an act of aggression. KB, I appreciate how you explained your thinking and I understand your point but I disagree. I do not think that this is the type of issue where I will change your mind or you will change mine. I will simply say that, to me, voting isn't aggression because each person has one vote. No one vote is more important than another (don't get me started on Super Delegates … that's a completely different and messed up situation).

If anyone thinks I'm fighting a losing battle by using fabric bags instead of plastic, you have to know that not voting out of principle is even more of a losing battle. I have a great deal of respect for you, though, for following your convictions and not participating in something you deem to be wrong. And at the same time, I resent the idea that people who vote should feel shame for being involved in the political process. By not casting your vote and by not standing up for your rights through voting and other means (such as writing your congressman, signing petitions and participating in protests), you are allowing politicians to pass laws that negatively effect you.

I hope that didn't sound like a lecture. I know you understand your decision and, again, I understand why you feel the way you do just as I hope you can understand and respect me for feeling the way I do.

Thanks again for this conversation. I will read any future comments and I may respond but, at this point, I feel like I have said enough on this for the time being.

All the best,
LT

I understood the context. I didn't include the whole thing because it was impertinent to my point, i.e., the reasons or motivations people have for voting is beside the point. It goes without saying that people vote in some semblance of consonance with their values and motivations be they opportunity or guilt driven.

But at root, its purpose is to accomplish, by force, that which is not being done voluntarily, or not in sufficient degree according to some. It's also often for the purpose of having those things done at the expense of others who aren't already voluntarily paying for it.

Then, you come along and talk about how people should or should not be voting? What is the difference here?

Self defense against the coercion described above.

I have no problem with you admonishing people to understand, applaud, or even adopt your values. I have a problem with advocating, agitating, and admonishing public policy (through voting, lobbying, activism, etc.) to force and compel people to act against their own will and values, and to pay for that which they wouldn't voluntarily pay for as a value to themselves.

If I want to vote for Brad Pitt because I think he's the dreamiest American in all the land, then I can.

For what purpose? If it's a popularity contest, good for you. I used to occasionally toss a vote for an American Idol. But if you're voting for Brad Pitt because he has power over other people to compel them to adopt or pay for your values they wouldn't do on their own, through persuasion or some form of trade or exchange, then I think you'd ought to be ashamed of yourself. I would never do that to you, or anyone else.

If I decide I care more about PBS then anything in the world then I can vote accordingly.

Again, for what purpose? Are you voting to have your voice counted amongst those who like PBS, or are you voting to have people compel me and other who don't care for it to pay for it because that's easier than you and all who like it getting together and footing the bill yourselves? In the former, fine, setting aside the fact that it is partially funded by force. In the latter, again, shame on you and anyone else who operates so savagely under the veil of "civilization."

I don't think that there is anything wrong with trying to change someone's mind, to have a discussion about differing beliefs or to even hold a protest for a cause you personally find worthy.

Oh, then you don't vote or generally advocate for public policy and politicians to force people to behave in consonance with your values, or pay for them?

You haven't gotten jumped on.

If I decide I care more about PBS then anything in the world then I can vote accordingly.

PBS is a crime. Voting for someone who will perpetuate it is an attempt to force your values on other people.

Rich and I pretty much agree that all voting (in the context of government offices) is an act of aggression, but that aside, certain positions can be evaluated as inherently rights-violating or not. Most environmental legislation is a violation of our rights. Not all, but most. Voting for "environmental friendly" politicians, without reference to specific positions, generally implies politicians who will violate our rights.

A vote is not an opinion, it is not a "voice", it is an action with specific consequences. We're arguing that your vote for "environmentally friendly politicians" could conflict with your statements that you are OK with people pursuing their own values. That might not be true, but more information is needed to determine that. What specific legislation do you support? Do you support legislation in this area at all?

Wow, you want to talk about context. That statement about voting for the seemingly environment friendly politicians was taken completely out of context and the difference here is that when I was being lectured about context, it was undercurrent context, context that you could not necessarily see without more conversation and getting to know a person's background. But you just took that out of context with all the evidence right there to show you the actual context. Let me back it up to explain the true context and why your argument doesn't hold water with me. KB said that people at environmental rallies will use guilt to gain power because they know the people there won't follow through on things like using fabric bags. By gain power, I read that to mean that these people believe they will rake up the votes from people who try to assuage their guilt by not doing "their part for the environment" so they'll make themselves feel better by voting for someone who will (notice I put "their part for the environment" in quotes … I'm not saying that each and everyone of us needs to do something for the environment. I'm saying that some people, like myself, feel compelled to take part and, as KB brought up, will sometimes feel guilty if they do not follow through). The point I was making with the portion of text you quoted (as well as text that you happened to leave out) was that if people would just get over their guilt of "gosh, if I get started doing this, what if I don't do it every time and I'll feel so guilty if I forget once in a while" and just do when they can then they will not need to feel compelled to assuage their guilt by voting for the seemingly environment friendly politican.

Furthermore, I find it very interesting that I get jumped all over for talking about what I feel to be worthwhile activities and how dare I think it is my business to decide what is and what is not worthwhile. Then, you come along and talk about how people should or should not be voting? What is the difference here? If I want to vote for Brad Pitt because I think he's the dreamiest American in all the land, then I can. And if I never want to vote a day in my life then that's for me to decide as well. If I decide I care more about PBS then anything in the world then I can vote accordingly. And if I decide it is of more value to vote for someone of the same political persuasion then that's the best decision for me. I guess the point that I'm trying to make here is that I'm talking about opinions, you're talking about opinions. If you're going to hold me to a standard in which I need to specify every time that I'm talking about my opinions, values and what I deem to be worthwhile, then shouldn't we all go by that standard? Are you going to be the one to say how a person should decide who they want to vote for?

Finally, I never once brought up anything about telling someone else that they are being destructive and must stop doing something, whether that's to stop cutting down forests or to stop using plastic bags. I've never made that any of my business. I have simply stated my own opinions. Yet you feel it is your business to tell me what I can and cannot voice and that I need to mind my own business. I don't think that there is anything wrong with trying to change someone's mind, to have a discussion about differing beliefs or to even hold a protest for a cause you personally find worthy. Isn't that part of what you do when you blog or comment on blogs? If we as society decided half a century ago that these methods are unacceptable then schools would still be segregated and people of color would still sit on the back of the bus.

OK, it sounds like we more or less agree, except of course on the specific questions of the value of cloth bags, etc., and on the value of Earth Day.

And I did misunderstand the apathy comment. I took it to mean the general populace, not the people who claim to hold the values of Earth Day but then don't act on them.

And I was careful to say that your "brightness" was not in question re libertarianism. It's an arcane area that few people are conversant in, but I'm glad you do know something about it.

You original question was why is Earth Day so bad, and I think you understand my view better now – that it's detrimenal to me because much of the event *is* about forcing those values on people, and I think it's even detrimental to *your* values as I understand them.

I'd be interested to hear your response to Rich's last.

But how does that square with this previous statement:

…voting for the seemingly environment friendly politicians.

Now, what is it you and everyone else is trying to accomplish by voting for the seemingly [insert pet value] friendly politicians? Are you not attempting to put people into office with the power to force your values upon people who don't find enough value in it (or find it a disvalue) to adopt the particular value that you've adopted willingly?

See, that's my big problem. If y'all (and everyone else with their pet issues) would simply stick to persuasion and voting with their dollars in a free marketplace, then it doesn't matter how smart, enlightened, or silly and dumb I find you or anyone else (and you and everyone else with me).

I have lots and lots of values that I think would be good for lots more people to see the wisdom of and adopt. But I'm not about to participate in a process that attempts to acquire the power to force, compel, fine, prosecute and jail people who don't tow the line. Force and coercion are proper only in defense against initiators of aggression and fraud. And one more thing: you don't get to make other people's business your business. Just because you think some act is an act of destructive aggression against some value (say cutting down a forrest) doesn't mean you and others get to put yourselves in the middle of it. You get to decide when your property or values have been transgressed, and that's when you have the moral authority to act and seek redress.

First of all, believe it or not, I am bright enough to pick up on grammatical nuances so no, what you said about being libertarian did not go over my head. I think for all the generalizations that go on around here (and everywhere) about different political ideologies, it's not completely absurd that I too would have preconceptions about you just like you had preconceptions about me, someone with liberal tendencies. I was just pointing out where I was mistaken and why that surprised me. But, like you, I'm ready to move on from that point.

I'm also ready to move on from that point about worthwhile, and right and wrong. I feel like you are lecturing me without hearing what I have to say … I have said in 3 separate posts that I agree with your point. This makes 4. I was not specific in my comments when I called things like using fabric bags "worth while activities." I have specified since then that I mean worthwhile to me. I suppose that since I was expressing my opinion that I didn't think it was any leap to realize that I was also talking about my own values. When I spoke about apathy, I was speaking about the people that you talked about, KB, who go to environmental rallies but do not follow through because "what difference does one person make," not all people. Since RN thought it ridiculous to feel good about yourself for using cloth bags, because "what difference does one person make," I answered that the thinking of what difference does one person make does not weigh into my decision process. If it is worthwhile it to me then I will do it regardless of whether or not others participate. Period. I understand what you are saying about context but I have also understood that from BB's comment and I've been of the same mind long before I started commenting here. I'm not sure how else to convey to you that I agree that each person has the right to make up their own minds and to decide for themselves what they deam to be worthwhile. I would say that it's time to agree to disagree but the thing is, on this point, we do agree.

From what I can tell, you guys don't like the over-the-top environmentalists who do more harm than good so it's seems a bit unfair to now belittle people who go about their daily lives as usual but who find ways to fit "green" into their day-to-day.

First, it's not about "more harm than good." "Good" to whom? By what means? At whose expense? See, I certainly have my own values that constitute the "good," but that doesn't mean I get to override your "good" just because I can get more people together than you can. Numbers (democracy) doesn't equal "good." Otherwise, slavery, when institutionalized, would have been "good" because a majority of people supported it.

By the same token, I can think it's as silly as the day is long to get excited about bags, or recycling, or what have you, but you know what? If we gradually get "greener" because that's what a free market believes it wants, pressures the companies it does business with to operate and offer things us that way, I've got no problem in the world with it.

It's the force, the compulsion, and that the all of it. Otherwise, knock yourselves out and we'll see how it comes out.

First, lets not worry about what Libertarians supposedly think. I'm not sure you understand all the subtleties of the terms, let alone the ideas involved (even those who self-describe themselves that way argue about it among themselves). That's nothing against you, or meant to call you stupid or anything, it's just an area I doubt you have much experience in. For instance, I am absolutely not a Libertarian, nor am I a libertarian, but I am libertarian. If that last sentence went over your head, don't worry about it, it's not important, and most people who are in one or more of those categories don't understand the distinction. I'm just pointing out that trying to reconcile what I'm saying with what you think are Libertarian beliefs will just lead to confusion.

Billy's post was about context. We're big on context here (if I can be allowed to speak for Rich et al for a moment). I find that most arguments or misunderstandings of this kind are about context, not about facts.

You've made statements to the effect that using cloth bags is "the right thing". You may not mean to say that everyone must think so, but saying it like that leaves out all context. Right thing for whom? Right when judged against what values? Right when judged against what costs? A contextless statement like that tends to imply that the intended context is the universal one.

Everyone has different values, and everyone will incur different costs for the same kind of activity, like using cloth bags. To say it's the right thing, you have to take those individual differences into account. And of course, you can't take into account everyone's weighing of those factors, nor can you even know them if you tried.

In the context of your own choices in the matter, I have no problem with any of it. I have no opinion, really, except that I give you credit for making a conscious effort to identify your values and acting on them.

The context of my statement that you are questioning was the context of the choices of a wide range of people in the aggregate. I was saying that guilt is not a cost of cloth bags, but a cost that some people try to impose on using plastic. I doubt that it changes anyone's mind in favor of using cloth.

In the context of my choices, I've never said that I have a problem with cloth bags, and certainly not one having anything to do with guilt (which I don't feel over the issue anyway). I said I prefer plastic, because it's cheaper. Yes, that has to do with convenience, but not because I value convenience, out of context, above all else. It's because inconvenience is always some cost, and in this case it is a higher cost than the benefit – to me. In some cases, like the inconvenience of having a job that takes 40 minutes to drive to every day, the benefit outweighs that cost, so I take the job. But I'd still rather have one closer to home, all else being equal.

I weigh the environmental damage from plastic bags extremely low, essentially zero. That doesn't mean I don't care about "the environment", because, again, saying it like that leaves out a lot of context.

The main context the question of the value of the environment leaves out is, again, value to whom? Value for what ends? Value of what aspect of the environment?

The environment is not in any way a value in and of itself. All questions of value must include a valuer, and a purpose. I value the environment first because I need to breathe, drink, and eat. But pristine, inaccessible land is of little value to me aside from it's part in the eco-system that allows me to eat, breath, and drink. On the other hand, rural areas that are accessible to me have that value, plus the value I put on being able to interact with them in some way, such as enjoying the scenery, smelling the smells, feeling less crowded, etc. Other people might put their values directly opposite.

What I'm saying is that to convince people to do what you want to do, you have to work within their values, not try to get them to adopt yours. I'm not talking about force, or imposing your values, I'm saying that you can never convince someone to change their values. The way to convince them to change their behavior is to provide them a means to achieve their values at a lower cost/higher benefit than they do now. That's the whole point of capitalism, and it's the way progress is made. There is simply no other way to get anyone to change. And if there is no way to get them to value the choices you are trying to encourage higher than the alternative, you will *not* get them to change. And that's not a failure of some kind on their part, it's the way it *should* be – it means your choice is by definition wrong for them.

You mentioned that you're OK with people pursuing their own values "right or wrong", and that's fine, but do you see how it implies, again, an out of context absolute? Beliefs may be factually incorrect, but that is a different issue. People's values just are, from your point of view. They are neither right nor wrong, because the context of right or wrong is dependent on those values, not the other way around. You said that people don't use cloth bags because of "apathy". What that fails to take into account is that not using cloth can be a rational, value based decision, and is in fact right *for them*, in their context.

I realize I'm in danger of sounding like a moral relativist here. Interpreting it that way would be a mistake. I'm trying to account for our different core premises without getting too bogged down, but it's difficult to be clear without this being ten times as long as it already is. Suffice it to say that cloth vs plastic is not a moral issue, though it looks to me like you might think it is.