Obviously today no matter how you vote, you'll affect things very little. However, lets assume that sometimes in the future 50 million of people in the United States will become an-caps, don't you think that voting will make sense then? After all how else can we disband the state if not by privatizing all its assets using its democratic process?
You could say that simply stopping paying taxes will do the trick, but I'm not so sure that's a good solution. This might cause a lot of havoc initially since a lot of valuable property that was previously held by the state will have to privatized now, and this will require highly developed private agencies for conflict resolution and defense, and there won't be many of those before the state fully disappears.
So perhaps voting will be necessary some day to sell off state assets to the citizens?
Adam Kokesh makes this point here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKZTUDrPzqs
I'm not sure he is right though. I think it is possible to end government simply by refusing to pay taxes and use private agencies instead. This will obviously happen only after the vast majority of people will become anarchists.
Anyone?
Many and varied strategies exist that can advance libertarianism. Let each choose for themselves. Some want to work within the system by becoming a politician, some want to vote for libertarian politicians. Fine.
But let them be wise and always push for a reduction in the size of government. Let them never make a compromise like eliminating tax A in exchange for new tax B, the libertarian must always be for fewer and lesser taxes and taxation, and for lower deficits and lower spending.
If you choose to vote, vote in the way you think will best accomplish that.
As for me, I live in California. My vote is meaningless in a national context, even a local one. I may as well vote for the libertarian candidate.
Btw, the vice presidential candidate on the libertarian ticket visited Libertopia over the weekend and took part in a panel on whether libertarians should vote. It was quite animated and interesting, but I did not like his arguments at all.
His points came down to two things:
1. You're always going to have a government, so we should keep voting.
2. If 5% of people vote libertarian, the libertarian party can get public funding and get on all ballots automatically.
Point 1 is simply not correct--I don't think he understands ad hoc law production; he seemed a minarchist in this respect.
As for 2, there's pluses and minuses in participating in the political process, either as a voter or as a politician. There have been so many that went into politics and lost their fervor and became corrupted.
Rothbard in For a New Liberty talks about the two divisions in any movement, between right-wing opportunism and left wing sectarianism.
Right win opportunism is trying to get any small marginal movement towards your goal, such as Veep candidate, who saw only the good of the libertarian party gaining in stature and influence--but he'd forgotten the overall goal of less government spending by thinking of the glory of the libertarian party being government funded. The libertarian party! That's exactly contrary to our goal of smaller government and less spending, unto zero.
Secondly, the problem of left-wing sectarianism within a movement, which rejects incremental change and howls at any proposal that is anything less than absolute and immediate achievement of the hoped-for goal.
So, we should watch out for those two extremes, both in our own thinking and in others in the movement. If we can advocate and pull off a reduction in government, great, go for it. At the same time, do not forgot or compromise the long-term goal of pure freedom.
As for me, if I had a button before me that would dissolve the US government, end all taxation, and intitute libertarian principles in the minds of all humanity if pressed, I would smash my fist down on it immediately.
I think it is useful to pursue various strategies as each person is capable. Some will focus on education. Some on working to convert politicians and politics. Some on seasteading and founding libertarian havens inside (FSP) and outside (TSI) existing state jurisdictions.
Some will advance the theory of libertarianism (Rothbard, Hoppe, etc.), and some will consume that theory for their own knowledge and eventual application.
So, is voting necessary? I wouldn't say it is. There's only a few ways states dissolve: failure in war, or by conquest of another state, or internal fiscal or political crisis.
The focus of the libertarian is to advocate for libertarianism and get ready to move to implement our vision when the prevailing political illusions fade in the mind of the public. When the left and right are out of options and ideas, and the public is ready to turn aside, we are the logical choice. We can pick up the reigns and make the tough choices in the face of crisis, because we know what will work and continue to work without leading to new crises caused by internal contradictions.
Very good post, thanks.
To be more specific, do you believe we will be able to use the democratic process to have the state sell of its assets in an orderly fashion? Or do you believe we should meanwhile prepare the ground for alternative conflict resolution methods so that when the state becomes less relevant or irrelevant we will be able to properly resolve conflicts as to state property (such as roads or public libraries)?
Adam Kokesh makes the point that we need the democratic process to privatize everything, but isn't that a contradiction? If we think the state is illegitimate how can we participate in its machinations while holding "public office" and thus receiving wages in stolen property?
Eugene: Very good post, thanks. To be more specific, do you believe we will be able to use the democratic process to have the state sell of its assets in an orderly fashion?
To be more specific, do you believe we will be able to use the democratic process to have the state sell of its assets in an orderly fashion?
Np.
I don't think we'll ever get people to agree to that, barring a crisis of confidence in government first so severe as to cause people to question the currently unquestionable. I'm talking something like a devaluation or default of the dollar or total defeat in war, something which delegitimizes the current ruling parties, and will be of their own making.
Political momentum is so far in their direction that they're going to have to crash into things before we get a shot at directing policy.
The only possible way I could see this happening is if libertarians ultimately convert the entire republican party and take it over and begin producing awesome results.
But the fact that social security is considered politically untouchable should give us major pause. The country would have to begin by repudiating the idea that those who receive government money still get to vote. As long as they get to vote, they're a built in constituency for furthered wealth transfers to themselves. 47 million Americans are on food stamps right now.
When your entire life depends on wealth transfers to you, imagine what kind of life's change it would be to vote against that. It's unthinkable. This is Bismarckian political methodology perfected. We won't beat that with every argument under the sun.
No, what we need is to build our own thing and to let the statists crash. I think if we can build a libertarian nation that we'll brain drain and finance drain the rest of the world, and that will cause the swords of Damocles they've been erected to finally fall on their heads, guillotine style.
Eugene: Or do you believe we should meanwhile prepare the ground for alternative conflict resolution methods so that when the state becomes less relevant or irrelevant we will be able to properly resolve conflicts as to state property (such as roads or public libraries)?
Or do you believe we should meanwhile prepare the ground for alternative conflict resolution methods so that when the state becomes less relevant or irrelevant we will be able to properly resolve conflicts as to state property (such as roads or public libraries)?
If we can get a libertarian jurisdiction up and running and begin building experience in these domains, then they will exist ready to be exported as other nations begin falling apart. We've got to first get them up and running and work out the kinks.
Eugene:Adam Kokesh makes the point that we need the democratic process to privatize everything, but isn't that a contradiction?
It really is. One thing I've come to realize is that democracy itself is predicated on communalism. It is a communalist approach to political action. So, we should expect that something predicated on communalism will, over time, tend towards more communalism.
In terms of the political parties you have the leftists pulling ever left, and the right that basically argues for maintaining the status quo. In such a struggle, the country can only be pulled more towards communalistic policies. Just look at healthcare. And five decades after the resurgence of freedom philosophy, the country is still pulling towards communalism, and is doing so largely around the world.
Where communalism tendencies end is where they butt up against reality, especially in the economic spheres. And thus, socialist countries around the world have come to realize that more socialism won't improve anyone's lives. But they have not abandoned communalism in other areas, such as ethics and justice, where their vision of social justice justifies in their mind gross aggressions against the wealthy and land owners of any sort.
If we had a free society, predicated on individualism, then I think it would naturally tend towards greater and great individualism, and that's what I want to build and help build.
Eugene:If we think the state is illegitimate how can we participate in its machinations while holding "public office" and thus receiving wages in stolen property?
Exactly, which is why a libertarian should think twice about such an occupation.
Think about it like this. Suppose we say, hey, there's a mafia in town aggressing against people, stealing their money by threats of violence. Let's infiltrate the mafia, pretend we're mafioso, rise upwards in the organization and then get to the very top and then stop the mafia from there.
Is that ever going to happen? Hell no. You'd be killed by your own men at the end if you even got that far, which you wouldn't because you'd have to do evil things just to get there and be more zealous about them than anyone else, and if you weren't you either be killed or languish at low levels.
No, the best way for a libertarian to accomplish libertarian ends is by acting out libertarian ideals. Actually living in a free society is the ultimate fulfillment of the libertarian ideal. I swear I'm going to live in such a place before I die.