I've heard some anarcho capitalists say that they would never vote because voting is an endorsement for the system. By voting for the lesser of two evils you accepted the rule of the lesser. But isn't an anarchist still self interested? Can't he vote for the lesser merely because it betters his situation, but at the same time not wish to partake in the system in which he is enslaved? This post is in response to Steph and his view that Ron Paul was "pointless."
I'm kind of torn on this one myself. I can sympathize with Molyneux' argument, but at the moment I'm leaning towards voting. Molyneux thinks that government growth is inevitable, but I don't know if that's true. I think if we had a president who got rid of the federal reserve, which would help stave off recession cycles and inflation, people would be less likely to think gov intervention is necessary. So I think a libertarian candidate could be a big step forward. Also, not voting doesn't really do much to help. It puts more weight in the hands of people who do vote, and it's not like refusing to vote means you don't have to play by their rules so I just don't see the benefit.
" It is also contended that, in democratic governments, the act of voting makes the government and all its works and powers truly “voluntary.” Again, there are many fallacies with this popular argument. In the first place, even if the majority of the public specifically endorsed each and every particular act of the government, this would simply be majority tyranny rather than a voluntary act undergone by every person in the country. Murder is murder, theft is theft, whether undertaken by one man against another, or by a group, or even by the majority of people within a given territorial area. The fact that a majority might support or condone an act of theft does not diminish the criminal essence of the act or its grave injustice. Otherwise, we would have to say, for example, that any Jews murdered by the democratically elected Nazi government were not murdered, but only “voluntarily committed suicide”—surely, the grotesque but logical implication of the “democracy as voluntary” doctrine. Secondly, in a republic as contrasted to a direct democracy, people vote not for specific measures but for “representatives” in a package deal; the representatives then wreak their will for a fixed length of time. In no legal sense, of course, are they truly “representatives” since, in a free society, the principal hires his agent or representative individually and can fire him at will. As the great anarchist political theorist and constitutional lawyer, Lysander Spooner, wrote:
they [the elected government officials] are neither our servants, agents, attorneys, nor representatives . . . [for] we do not make ourselves responsible for their acts. If a man is my servant, agent, or attorney, I necessarily make myself responsible for all his acts done within the limits of the power I have intrusted to him. If I have intrusted him, as my agent, with either absolute power, or any power at all, over the persons or properties of other men than myself, I thereby necessarily make myself responsible to those other persons for any injuries he may do them, so long as he acts within the limits of the power I have granted him. But no individual who may be injured in his person or property, by acts of Congress, can come to the individual electors, and hold them responsible for these acts of their so-called agents or representatives. This fact proves that these pretended agents of the people, of everybody, are really the agents of nobody.3
Furthermore, even on its own terms, voting can hardly establish “majority” rule, much less of voluntary endorsement of government. In the United States, for example, less than 40 percent of eligible voters bother to vote at all; of these, 21 percent may vote for one candidate and 19 percent for another. 21 percent scarcely establishes even majority rule, much less the voluntary consent of all. (In one sense, and quite apart from democracy or voting, the “majority” always supports any existing government; this will be treated below.) And finally how is it that taxes are levied on one and all, regardless of whether they voted or not, or, more particularly, whether they voted for the winning candidate? How can either nonvoting or voting for the loser indicate any sort of endorsement of the actions of the elected government?
Neither does voting establish any sort of voluntary consent even by the voters themselves to the government. As Spooner trenchantly pointed out:
In truth, in the case of individuals their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent. . . . On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money renders service, and foregoes the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he uses the ballot, he may become a master, if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot—which is a mere substitute for a bullet—because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. . . . Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot would use it, if they could see any chance of meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented." Murray Rothbard. The Ethics of Liberty http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentytwo.asp " Many anarchist libertarians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action–the argument being that by participating in this way in State activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the State apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision, and the State has placed individuals in society in an unfree environment, in a general matrix of coercion. The State—unfortunately—exists, and people must necessarily begin with this matrix to try to remedy their condition. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent.3 Indeed, if the State allows us a periodic choice of rulers, limited though that choice may be, it surely cannot be considered immoral to make use of that limited choice to try to reduce or get rid of State power.4" Murray Rothbard. The Ethics of Liberty http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyfour.asp
In truth, in the case of individuals their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent. . . . On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money renders service, and foregoes the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he uses the ballot, he may become a master, if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing. Neither in contests with the ballot—which is a mere substitute for a bullet—because, as his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of numbers. . . .
Doubtless the most miserable of men, under the most oppressive government in the world, if allowed the ballot would use it, if they could see any chance of meliorating their condition. But it would not, therefore, be a legitimate inference that the government itself, that crushes them, was one which they had voluntarily set up, or even consented."
Murray Rothbard. The Ethics of Liberty http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentytwo.asp
" Many anarchist libertarians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action–the argument being that by participating in this way in State activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the State apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision, and the State has placed individuals in society in an unfree environment, in a general matrix of coercion. The State—unfortunately—exists, and people must necessarily begin with this matrix to try to remedy their condition. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an environment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent.3 Indeed, if the State allows us a periodic choice of rulers, limited though that choice may be, it surely cannot be considered immoral to make use of that limited choice to try to reduce or get rid of State power.4"
Murray Rothbard. The Ethics of Liberty http://www.mises.org/rothbard/ethics/twentyfour.asp
Thanks that exactly answered it. And straight from rothbard himself haha. Morality is detached from voting in a coercive system.
In some states, like California, I suppose there's nothing wrong with voting. At least there, you have a whole swath of candidates for president or governor or congressman. In such a state you may actually find a candidate that advocates positions which you find proper, just, right, or whatever. But out here in Indian Territory, there's no such thing. We have the most restrictive ballot access laws in the nation. Third parties have no substantial chance of even getting on the ballot. Therefore, here, we are stuck with the two headed tyrant (Democrats and Republicans.) Their views are not mine. I am becoming more and more radical, they are becoming more and more statist. I will not endorse any candidate who shares next to nothing of my own views.
Yet I will vote. However, it should be noted, that in the spirit of Caligula, I will write in "my horse."
Now, was Ron Paul pointless? In the scheme of political power in this cycle, absolutely. He lost, and lost big. I feel no regret about donating money to his campaign; it was money that would otherwise have been spent on any one of my many vices. And yet, he is of tremendous importance. Before Ron Paul (thanks, Sean Hannity,) I was an avid Bush supporter, Republican to the nth -- though socially liberal. Now, six months later, I'm wearing the Murray Rothbard "Enemy of the State" shirt, reading The Road to Serfdom and advocating the counter-economics of SEKIII. If Ron Paul only convinced a thousand people to forsake a tyrannical state, then he did a good thing.
To wax philosophical, if I -- a high scool dropout with speech problems -- can convince just a handful of people that a truly free market is the way to improve the lives of everyone, then I will be happy.
It so happens that we live in a society where vote totals matter. If Ron Paul had gotten 0.1% of the vote, he would have gotten less attention from the average person. When he beat Rudy and placed ahead of several others, people in the street started paying attention to what he was saying. To me, this is a justification for voting for him - a vote for Ron was a method of putting libertarian ideas out there in the public forum.
The Spooner quote doesn't deal with the actual question at hand, or rather, it does not counter the actual arguments put foreward by anti-voting libertarians. The question at hand isn't about the morality of voting. It's about wether or not it works as strategy in any meaningful or long-term sense. In other threads, I've already made arguments as to why it is not sensible as strategy until I was blue in the face. I never claimed that voting means that you implicitly consent to the state, so the Spooner quote is irrelevant. That's really a straw man, not what most anti-voting libertarians have argued. What I do claim is that voting, nonetheless, functions as a sanction of the state regaurdless of consent, specifically that the voting process itself is used as ideological justification for whatever transpires afterwards. And what I do claim is that voting, regaurdless of consent, functions to either reinforce or strengthen the institutional framework of democracy and the state.
Furthermore, if Spooner's argument with respect to voting is viewed in full, he in fact makes a wonderful practical case against voting, because he rather clearly demonstrates its lack of practicality. So I find it rather amusing if not downright ironic that people quote Spooner as an arguement in favor of voting, when the man clearly was argueing against it. If anything, the Spoonerian arguments quoted above demonstrate that voting does not work. For voting only presents an illusion of control over matters. From the standpoint of the individual, vote totals really do not matter. The institutional framework remains. If the ultimate purpose is to get rid of the institutional framework itself, voting will not get you anywhere. However, if one's goal is to possibly have short-term gains for yourself while working with the system and still keeping it in place, vote away. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that it makes any sense at all as a long-term strategy for doing away with that system.
Unfortunately most anarcho-capitalists are still functioning as classical liberals strategically and in terms of their mindset, and even more unfortunately Rothbard became less radical as he aged, falling quite nicely into the pattern of his own diagnosis with respect to what happened to people like Herbert Spencer in the 19th century (I.E. "conservafication").
Let me try to explain this in terms of institutional analysis and checks and balances. When working within the framework of a single institution, you cannot really have real checks and balances, even if you break that single institution up into different sections while still having these sections within the same institution. This is because real checks and balances requires external competition, that is, the existance of independant or separate institutions. So long as it's all within one institution, it is just a vein attempt to simulate competition. You can't break up a monopoly by creating more bereaucracies within it, correct? You break it up through competition from other institutions. The political process in a democracy is fake competition because it is all within the framework of one monopolistic institution. At best, one is only changing which bereaucracy within the monopoly has ultimate control over the monopoly. If one truly wants to outcompete the monopoly, one must exit its framework and work within the framework of other institutions outside of it.
For all the talk by libertarians of the efficiency and greatness of competition, I have to wonder why so many libertarians don't apply this logic to the state itself. If competition is the most efficient means, if the only true checks and balances is market competition, then outcompete the state for god's sakes! "Absorption of government by the economic organism" is the goal, quite literally.
Even though I believe that voting can be useful upon I agree with Brainpolice this should remain a purely strategic discussion; not moral. It is clear that voting does not imply consent. However, contrary to Brainpolice, I have come across many anarchists will argue that voting= consent till they're blue in the face- Mr Francois Trembley comes to mind.
The atoms tell the atoms so, for I never was or will but atoms forevermore be.
Yours sincerely,
Physiocrat
Physiocrat: Even though I believe that voting can be useful upon I agree with Brainpolice this should remain a purely strategic discussion; not moral. It is clear that voting does not imply consent. However, contrary to Brainpolice, I have come across many anarchists will argue that voting= consent till they're blue in the face- Mr Francois Trembley comes to mind.
Has Tremblay really argued that? I wasn't aware of that. One would think that the notion of "implicit consent" is a red flag to any anarchist, a self-contradictary or illogical notion used in the attempt to establish legitimacy. I have a personal dislike of Tremblay anyways, at least in terms of the attitude I've seen him display the few times I chatted in a room with him on Skype.
But as far as Molyneux goes, I don't recall Molyneux ever argueing that voting implies consent. From what I've gathered, his argument against voting is a strategic and practical one. I could have misread him though, but I've been watching his videos for a while and I've listened to many of his podcasts and I don't think he has made a clear moral argument against voting.
Brainpolice: Has Tremblay really argued that? I wasn't aware of that. One would think that the notion of "implicit consent" is a red flag to any anarchist, a self-contradictary or illogical notion used in the attempt to establish legitimacy. I have a personal dislike of Tremblay anyways, at least in terms of the attitude I've seen him display the few times I chatted in a room with him on Skype. But as far as Molyneux goes, I don't recall Molyneux ever argueing that voting implies consent. From what I've gathered, his argument against voting is a strategic and practical one. I could have misread him though, but I've been watching his videos for a while and I've listened to many of his podcasts and I don't think he has made a clear moral argument against voting.
Re Molyneux I have not listened to any of his stuff so can't comment. Tremblay argued that voting was pretty much immoal when I argued about it on the An-Cap group on Facebook. For a taster of his views see this article of his from Strike the Root.
So if I understand you correctly Brainpolice, voting is a poor strategy because it allows the state to shroud itself in a thin layer of legitimacy and also it would be impossible to vote for the suicide of the institution allowing you to vote? I guess the core of what I was getting at was the argument steph was making about the pointlessness of Ron Paul as president, not necessarily his campaign. I just thought that Steph was ignoring the fact that Ron Paul as president would have been a short term gain for us, as it would save american lives and tax dollars.
twistedbydsign99: So if I understand you correctly Brainpolice, voting is a poor strategy because it allows the state to shroud itself in a thin layer of legitimacy and also it would be impossible to vote for the suicide of the institution allowing you to vote? I guess the core of what I was getting at was the argument steph was making about the pointlessness of Ron Paul as president, not necessarily his campaign. I just thought that Steph was ignoring the fact that Ron Paul as president would have been a short term gain for us, as it would save american lives and tax dollars.
No doubt, a Ron Paul presidency would have potentially yielded some short-term gains. But then that begs the question of short-term vs. long-term strategy. One could obtain all the short-term gains in the world and the state could just grow back to where it was before and the machine stays intact in general. I'm willing to do without the short-term gains while persueing a long-term strategy. I also think it's important to consider the institutional framework that Ron Paul would have to be working within, that it involves vested interests and an institutional setup which would make it very hard for him to get very much done. He could concievably veto just about everything, but then that could just be overturned by another vote. He could concievably cause some stagnation or friction within the institution, but I don't see how it would do anything towards reaching the ultimate goal of eliminating the institution.
Brainpolice: Has Tremblay really argued that? I wasn't aware of that. One would think that the notion of "implicit consent" is a red flag to any anarchist, a self-contradictary or illogical notion used in the attempt to establish legitimacy. I have a personal dislike of Tremblay anyways, at least in terms of the attitude I've seen him display the few times I chatted in a room with him on Skype.
I've run into others who claim that voting implies legitimacy or consent. I don't see it, although I do see the unlikelihood of making any significant changes by voting.
BP: Hi, and your reasons for not playing with naughty kids makes sense.
Me, I vote. I encourage others not to. Say I, if you believe in the bipartisan falacy of voting(which is that if you don't vote for a major party than you are throwing a vote away), than truly by letting others tell you what you should do is the vote lost to tyranny. I vote because when my son ages to eighteen, I will likely be gettin' arrested. I will pull stunts. "Write-in, or Subject" signs, tend to rile up folks at the booth. I wish I could bonfire monopoly money in front of the news station, I can't let my son down so I must wait. Boy this tellin' folks about economic harmonies, is makin' me whatch my back more, and then again, so is life. So I vote because there isn't much I can do to rationally effect change in a responsable manner. I wish my yappin' wasn't so nerve rackin'. Society is in decay, if we could do something to win minds, I think a democratic-minarchy has a good potential, to practise negative/natural/common law. I too like the agoric deal, and want to find out how I can help, just tryin' to do what I can. I'm rappin bout monkey-wrenching at the park to children, and they seem to really get into nihilism, is that wrong of me? You'd be suprised how many rule lovers go around lovin' rules and even makin' them up as they go. Bring back the soapboxes!
I can still try to be a good producer and utility, I'm not goin' to let the Bend-Sinisters drive me down.
Individualism Rocks
Not playing with naughty kids, ey?
Voting is like playing with irrational children!
Just so happens I enjoy playing games, sometimes.
Brainpolice:No doubt, a Ron Paul presidency would have potentially yielded some short-term gains. But then that begs the question of short-term vs. long-term strategy. One could obtain all the short-term gains in the world and the state could just grow back to where it was before and the machine stays intact in general. I'm willing to do without the short-term gains while persueing a long-term strategy. I also think it's important to consider the institutional framework that Ron Paul would have to be working within, that it involves vested interests and an institutional setup which would make it very hard for him to get very much done. He could concievably veto just about everything, but then that could just be overturned by another vote. He could concievably cause some stagnation or friction within the institution, but I don't see how it would do anything towards reaching the ultimate goal of eliminating the institution.
How does not voting help the long-term strategy? Do you think that the only way anarcho-capitalism can come about is if the state grows so huge that the people finally snap and rebel?
CaptainMurphy: Brainpolice: No doubt, a Ron Paul presidency would have potentially yielded some short-term gains. But then that begs the question of short-term vs. long-term strategy. One could obtain all the short-term gains in the world and the state could just grow back to where it was before and the machine stays intact in general. I'm willing to do without the short-term gains while persueing a long-term strategy. I also think it's important to consider the institutional framework that Ron Paul would have to be working within, that it involves vested interests and an institutional setup which would make it very hard for him to get very much done. He could concievably veto just about everything, but then that could just be overturned by another vote. He could concievably cause some stagnation or friction within the institution, but I don't see how it would do anything towards reaching the ultimate goal of eliminating the institution. How does not voting help the long-term strategy? Do you think that the only way anarcho-capitalism can come about is if the state grows so huge that the people finally snap and rebel?
Brainpolice: No doubt, a Ron Paul presidency would have potentially yielded some short-term gains. But then that begs the question of short-term vs. long-term strategy. One could obtain all the short-term gains in the world and the state could just grow back to where it was before and the machine stays intact in general. I'm willing to do without the short-term gains while persueing a long-term strategy. I also think it's important to consider the institutional framework that Ron Paul would have to be working within, that it involves vested interests and an institutional setup which would make it very hard for him to get very much done. He could concievably veto just about everything, but then that could just be overturned by another vote. He could concievably cause some stagnation or friction within the institution, but I don't see how it would do anything towards reaching the ultimate goal of eliminating the institution.
Well your first question seems to assume that not voting represents a vacuum of action, a premise I don't buy.
And to answer your second question, no.
I wasn't implying that not voting is a non-action, I'm just asking how not voting is benifical toward the long term goal of a free society, or how voting libertarian impedes progress toward this aim.
CaptainMurphy: Well your first question seems to assume that not voting represents a vacuum of action, a premise I don't buy. I wasn't implying that not voting is a non-action, I'm just asking how not voting is benifical toward the long term goal of a free society, or how voting libertarian impedes progress toward this aim.
Quite simply, voting can never lead to a stateless society because it is within the institutional framework of a state. It does not and cannot lead to the destruction of that institutional framework. It's akin to joining the KKK with the purpose of anti-racism. The institutional framework of the KKK is for the purposes of racism, so voting for who will be grand wizard doesn't seem like a very logical thing for an anti-racist to do. Likewise, the institutional framework of the state is for the purposes of statism. Voting for who will control the state doesn't seem like a very logical thing to do from the standpoint of someone who wants noone to be in control of it and for the institution to cease to exist altogether. The vested interests within the institution want to keep it going and keep recieving their paychecks. Their very livelyhood depends on it.
Unless the state actually presented everyone with the option to "vote" to dissolve the state or at least opt out of it as an individual, which seems like an absurdity to me, I don't see how voting can be a strategy for eliminating the institution itself. Voting only gives one the option to play a game of musical chairs by switching who heads the bereaucracy or which bereaucracy dominates within the institution. It could concievably lead to moderate changes in the organizational structure of the institution, but It does not present any real option to do away with the institution itself. The purpose of anarchism is not to change the organizational structure of the state but to ultimately eliminate the state. A libertarian political party (which I exited almost as soon as I joined) merely presents the prospect of another group, perhaps a more benevolent one, controlling the state. The institutional framework remains.
As for the unspoken question of what to do in the absence of voting, I think a combination of Agorism, Stefan Molyneux's suggestions and Hoppe's "anti-intellectual intellectualism" are the proper strategies. And I happen to think that an important function of an "anti-intellectual intellectual" is to undermine faith in the political process itself as a means towards change and liberty for the masses. I consider encouragement of participation in the political process to be part of the ideological legitimization put forth by statist intellectuals that Hoppe talks about. I'm not sure if Hoppe himself would entirely agree. Nonetheless, it seems to me that an "anti-intellectual intellectual" must not only ideologically delegitimize the state but function as far outside of its institutional framework as possible in the process of doing so, which makes the notion potentially compatible with agorism.
I agree that voting will not help toward eliminating the state. I just don't see how it will hinder the effort either. On the other hand, voting can lead to a reduction in state power, even if only temporary. Which, while not as good as total elimination, is better than an increase in state power. I disagree that voting legitimizes the process, just as a slave accepting a meal from his master does not legitimize slavery.
I don't see how not voting brings us closer to the elimination of the state. The institution is going to be there regardless of whether or not you vote; it's not as though if 80% of the population decided not to vote they would then get to live without a president and without taxation. The 20% of statists would still claim the power to rule over the entire country's population.
Very god captain murphy, its nice to see a guy who can escape from being a moralist long enough to see how things work in the real world, and the slave meal analogy was stunning.
but I would give yet another point still; either you can charge the wall over and over again, or, you can use a trojan horse. play the political game, argue in such a way that socialists become conservatives, conservatives, become minarchists, and minarchists may join you. anarchy will not come about when so many depend either directly, or indirectly on the government and on its money, the people will have to be weaned off of it and it may be expensive! you must vote, if there is a candidate to vote for... obviously mcCain or Obama or Clinton will not matter, I wont vote for anyone but Ron Paul. but where you can find a man who will to any measurable degree advance the cause of Liberty, you must vote for him, nay, you must campaign for him. and it is in those campaigns that libertarians are born, Ron Pauls campaign as energized libertarians and open the eyes so others become libertarians. it is in the campaigns that ideas such as the postal service, or the FDA, the USDA, the DOT, are all absolutly wrong is accepted. it is where those who know its true stregthen sharpen and practice their debates.
and all these are steps toward a free society.
And if you are able, run yourself, campaign and argue and debate the cause for the limited gov't. TROJAN HORSE!
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
Attackdonkey:Very god captain murphy, its nice to see a guy who can escape from being a moralist long enough to see how things work in the real world, and the slave meal analogy was stunning.
Thanks, although I can't take full credit for it. I heard it from Molyneux in a slightly different context. Ironically enough, Molyneux actually argues against voting. He argues against the trojan horse strategy, claiming that it is not only impossible, but will backfire and set the ancap movement back decades. Of course I disagree with him on that, but here is his series on that if you're interested:
http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9B883EE065DC5B8C
Part 4, Infiltrating the Mafia, is the most relevant, although they are all worth a watch.
CaptainMurphy:Thanks, although I can't take full credit for it. I heard it from Molyneux in a slightly different context. Ironically enough, Molyneux actually argues against voting. He argues against the trojan horse strategy, claiming that it is not only impossible, but will backfire and set the ancap movement back decades. Of course I disagree with him on that, but here is his series on that if you're interested:http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9B883EE065DC5B8CPart 4, Infiltrating the Mafia, is the most relevant, although they are all worth a watch.
This is unrelated to ethical considerations for voting, but I believe Molyneux's views of institutions (such as governments) aren't quite correct: http://mises.com/forums/t/1787.aspx
CaptainMurphy:On the other hand, voting can lead to a reduction in state power, even if only temporary.
On the other hand, voting can lead to a reduction in state power, even if only temporary.
WooHoo. So isn't this along the lines of Marx's vision of the people rising up and taking over the government so they can make it smaller and eventually eliminate it? I think that has been tried.
CaptainMurphy:I don't see how not voting brings us closer to the elimination of the state. The institution is going to be there regardless of whether or not you vote;
I don't see how not voting brings us closer to the elimination of the state. The institution is going to be there regardless of whether or not you vote;
Every action you voluntarily take in regards to the state reinforces the idea that the state is a legitimate solution, IMO. The state may be there regardless, but it will definately be there (and be legitimate) if it appears they are run by the consent of the people.
Right. I think the analogy holds. Marxism proposes a takeover of the state in the name of creating a future anarchy. It's a very flawed theory. I think political libertarians are trying the same thing from a different angle. It will fail for the same reasons.
twistedbydsign99:But isn't an anarchist still self interested?
But isn't an anarchist still self interested?
Is it acceptable to rob someone if it's in your self interest, or you believe it to be?
Attackdonkey:but where you can find a man who will to any measurable degree advance the cause of Liberty, you must vote for him, nay, you must campaign for him. and it is in those campaigns that libertarians are born, Ron Pauls campaign as energized libertarians and open the eyes so others become libertarians. it is in the campaigns that ideas such as the postal service, or the FDA, the USDA, the DOT, are all absolutly wrong is accepted. it is where those who know its true stregthen sharpen and practice their debates.
While I tend to favor the arguments against taking part in the system, I find myself in agreement. It’s not easy for libertarians (which I use to describe all anti-state factions) to get a voice in the media, to reach the broadest segment of the population we can. For the mainstream crowd, we are kooks and radicals, or simply “disenfranchised college kids.”
We can not expect the state to kill itself, let alone realize that its death – or great diminishment – is for the sake of Liberty. Nor do I think it reasonable that the sheep, the people, will particularly enjoy our attempts to strike down the shepherd. We must create doubt, we should lead them to wonder if the state can really improve things or if it is simply hurting each person for the sake of all people. The occasional misadventure into the system does give the state a sense of legitimacy, but it can also give us legitimacy as well, and at the same time offer us a platform to demonstrate the failures of the system. At least it affords us the chance to shrug off the Remnant status.
But at the same time, I feel, it would be prudent to advance the cause on all other fronts, economic, philosophy, etc., perhaps even pushing elements of counter-economics. Control of the state gives them a lot of power and sway over the minds of men, but our willingness to operate outside state power and quietly convert the fence sitters gives us a sort of mobility that the state can't match.
IrishOutlaw: WooHoo. So isn't this along the lines of Marx's vision of the people rising up and taking over the government so they can make it smaller and eventually eliminate it? I think that has been tried.
I don't see this as being the same thing at all. Anarcho-communism is a flawed theory because you can't actually have communism without government. Marxism never actually wanted to get rid of government, it just wanted to put it in the hands of the people. Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, actually *does* aim to get rid of government.
CaptainMurphy:Every action you voluntarily take in regards to the state reinforces the idea that the state is a legitimate solution, IMO. The state may be there regardless, but it will definately be there (and be legitimate) if it appears they are run by the consent of the people.
Voting for a politician is only a free action if I also have the option to vote for no politician. I don't mean the option to not vote, but the option to vote for a stateless society. Since I was never given the option to vote for no one, then voting for someone, who is going to rule over me regardless of whether or not I vote, can hardly be considered legitimizing the process. Especially if I cast my vote for someone who wants to reduce state power.
Operating within the institution of the statism does not preclude us from pursuing anarchism in other ways. As a poster above me said, we should advance the cause of liberty on all fronts- state included.
Anarcho-communism is a flawed theory because you can't actually have communism without government.
I disagree. For the very definition of communism is a stateless classless society. If the purpose is "public ownership of the means of production", then state ownership of the means of production runs counter to this, since the state most certainly is not "the public" but merely an exclusive organization constituted by an oligarchy. This is why communists can get away with pointing to the USSR and saying "that's not really communism" (it was, afterall, a rigid heirarchy at the end of the day), for similar reasons why laissez-faire types can get away with pointing to current conditions in the west and say "that's not really capitalism". You most certainly can theoretically have socialism or communism without government if everyone involved voluntarily joins the community and voluntarily joins such organizational structures. But maybe that's just the anarchist without adjectives in me speaking.
Marxism never actually wanted to get rid of government, it just wanted to put it in the hands of the people.
Well one could replace the word "marxism" with "democracy" here and it would apply the same, since democracy is supposed to be "government by the people, for the people". In either case, not all forms of communism are in line with Marxism. Bakunin, for example, sharply critisized Marxism and the notion of a "dictatorship of the proletariet". Marxism made the strategic mistake of advocating a takeover of the government as a pretext to a future stateless classless society. Anarcho-communism, in my understanding, does not make that same error. Political libertarians, however, do appear to make the same fundamental mistake as Marxism in advocating what amounts to a takeover of the government as a pretext to a future market-oriented anarchy. The vision of what the anarchy will look like of course is different, but the strategy of a takeover of the government is the same and will not work for the same reasons as to why attempts at implementing Marxism have failed to produce the ultimate end of a stateless classless society.
I think what you're missing is that it's not being argued that this actually makes the state legitimate (if that were the arguement, we wouldn't be anarchists now would we, since we'd be conceding state legitimacy itself). What's being argued is that it ideologically legitimizes the state. That it is used by state intellectuals, as it always has been, as a rationale for the alleged legitimacy of the state. Furthermore, I think what is being argued is that by participating in such a political process you are reinforcing the institutional framework of that process, regaurdless of consent. Not that the process objectively does become legitimate, but that it nonetheless is reinforced by participation. And that state power must be employed and kept intact for this process to occur. That the process itself relies on the usage of state power and resource allocation away from the market.
I don't think the public store thingy works good.
TO me it may be ethically alrighty to give up your property (yourself) for the collective, I still would distaste this union. sign up cards and all. There is strength in numbers, I just don't think any contract or any rule can fully objectivly cover any senario.
I admit I feel so romantic to the principle of negative rights, my lamenated U.S.C. is at the ready in my backpack. I enjoy a voluntary contractual society of property. I feel that this will in no way lead to atomism. It is the authority that drives individuals into apathy, and solitudinarianism. Individuals through division of labour realise that non-hegomonic bonds are preferable and ideal. In this not so, but better than know utopia, I see many authoritarians thriving, but less at the consequence of others. I think folks realise working together for ends is more productive than working alone for ends. The battle lay in the utility of the proper means. Since potential exists in the system we have in ruins we must at least strive for this, or we fail subject to poor and undiciplened means. A flaw I see in agoristic technique, is it is conductive to violence. The ends of a contractual society yea, but to reach these ends through violence we also fail like the pinko's.
Their is a better path, some fellow needs to light the spark.
Brainpolice,
Maybe my definition of the state is wrong, but here's how I see it. If people voluntarily join an organizational structure that mandates sharing property, that is entirely consistent with with anarcho-capitalism; nothing about ancap prohibits voluntary association. The difference between ancom and ancap is illustrated when you get to the people who don't want to voluntarily join the communistic organizational structure. If you mandate resource allocation using force against those who don't voluntarily join, then that, to me, is the definition of statism. If you don't enforce this involuntary association, then you really just have anarcho-capitalism.
As to voting: I disagree, I don't think participating in a system I cannot voluntarily leave legitimizes it in any way. But putting aside ideological considerations, how is voting harmful to advancing liberty from a strictly consequential standpoint?
I think its a case by case problem. Does a vote for obama legitimize the system? yea, does a vote for ron paul legitimize the system? Hell no. He was gonna bring all our boys home, hardly an endorsement of the status quo.
JAlanKatz:It so happens that we live in a society where vote totals matter. If Ron Paul had gotten 0.1% of the vote, he would have gotten less attention from the average person. When he beat Rudy and placed ahead of several others, people in the street started paying attention to what he was saying. To me, this is a justification for voting for him - a vote for Ron was a method of putting libertarian ideas out there in the public forum.
I'm an Austrian because of Ron Paul.
Several months ago, I heard of him and thought his economic ideas were full of sh!t (as a syndicalist). I began reading some of the stuff he had there, and then here on mises.org, and it all began clicking.
So yes, even if you're an anarchist, you should vote. It just helps spread the message.
Political Atheists Blog
twistedbydsign99:I think its a case by case problem. Does a vote for obama legitimize the system? yea, does a vote for ron paul legitimize the system? Hell no. He was gonna bring all our boys home, hardly an endorsement of the status quo.
The issue here is whether or not anarchists should vote. Obviously, any endorsement of government is a no-no.
CaptainMurphy:The difference between ancom and ancap is illustrated when you get to the people who don't want to voluntarily join the communistic organizational structure.
To be fair to the philosophical ancoms, they, too, think that their society will be so wonderful that most every one would want to participate in it. And if there's no government, then how would they force the unwilling to participate?
CaptainMurphy: As to voting: I disagree, I don't think participating in a system I cannot voluntarily leave legitimizes it in any way. But putting aside ideological considerations, how is voting harmful to advancing liberty from a strictly consequential standpoint?
I don't think that voting legitimizes the system, either. Nor do I think it is especially harmful, unless you start getting the idea that your vote is going to dramatically change society.
Physiocrat:I have come across many anarchists will argue that voting= consent till they're blue in the face- Mr Francois Trembley comes to mind.
You apparently have never watched his YouTube video about why he decided to vote for Ron Paul.
Brainpolice:What I do claim is that voting, nonetheless, functions as a sanction of the state regaurdless of consent, specifically that the voting process itself is used as ideological justification for whatever transpires afterwards. And what I do claim is that voting, regaurdless of consent, functions to either reinforce or strengthen the institutional framework of democracy and the state.
This was already adressed in previous post. Just because someone attacks you, and you decide to defend yourself, this does not mean you are sanctioning the attack.
The attacker may use the fact that you defended yourself as justification for the attack, but that does not mean the reasoning was logical.
Lastly, just like defending against an attacker may weaken the attacker, voting for small government/anarchist candidates may weaken the institutional framework of the state.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Brainpolice:What I do claim is that voting, nonetheless, functions as a sanction of the state regaurdless of consent, specifically that the voting process itself is used as ideological justification for whatever transpires afterwards. And what I do claim is that voting, regaurdless of consent, functions to either reinforce or strengthen the institutional framework of democracy and the state. This was already adressed in previous post. Just because someone attacks you, and you decide to defend yourself, this does not mean you are sanctioning the attack. The attacker may use the fact that you defended yourself as justification for the attack, but that does not mean the reasoning was logical. Lastly, just like defending against an attacker may weaken the attacker, voting for small government/anarchist candidates may weaken the institutional framework of the state.
Except it cannot be argued that voting is purely an act of self-defense, since there are innocent bystanders or 3rd parties involved. In voting for a politician, you are not voting for individual representation, for defensive purposes or anything else. Whichever politician makes it into power makes decisions that effect everyone within the territory, not just the individuals who voted for them.
It cannot be said that the losing voters and the non-voters are represented, truly "consented" to anything or have an adequate means of defending themselves against such decision-making. Their votes (and non-votes) certainly is not an act of defense, or an effective one at least. And most often, neither are the "winning" voters actually effectively voting in "defense".
Voting is certainly not effective as a means of defense.
Some degree of initiation of force is necessary to work within the framework of the state no matter which person is put into power. This is simply an inevitable aspect of the nature of states as institutions. The means necessary for their very existance and the sustainance thereof inherently violates libertarian principles. I don't see any way around this.
Historically, "small government" canidates have either (1) been unable to truly reduce the state by working within its framework (2) actively expanded the state or (3) never really made it to high offices. And an "anarchist canidate" is simply a contradiction in terms. The idea of infiltrating the KKK and running for grand wizard to abolish it is frankly absurd. Not realistic.
Barry Goldwater ran as a "small government" canidate and didn't really get anywhere. Ronald "Ray Gun" ran as a "small government" canidate, made it into the presidency and he both was unable to resist internal institutional inertia against attempts to reduce the state and he actively expanded the state. Ron Paul is a "small government" politician who's been making endless no votes in congress for decades and it never actually changed anything. It makes him a maverick, but there's nothing effective about it. Clearly something is wrong with this strategy, and repeating the same failures over and over again is a sign of insanity.