Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Anarchist Politicians

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 17 Replies | 6 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285
SkepticalMetal posted on Wed, Oct 31 2012 11:16 AM

This was a question I had coming from the thread about an AnCap being elected in New Hampshire.

Hashem said that he'd be okay with an anarchist running for office as long as he or she ran on anarcho-capitalist principles. Straightforward ones, not under the cover of "liberty is limited government."

My question is, how would this work? Would it not be fraud when the anarchist swears "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?"

And you know that an openly anarchist politician could be tore down by the media.

Plus, wouldn't the anarchist also be forcing this on the patriots, the ones who like the state?

It seems to me like the theoretical job of an AnCap politician would be paradoxical in one way or another.

  • | Post Points: 50

All Replies

Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745
Wheylous replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 11:32 AM

Plus, wouldn't the anarchist also be forcing this on the patriots, the ones who like the state?

By removing state structures that they don't own?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

It's true that they don't own those structures, but nevertheless, my question really amounted to how to deal with the nationalistic ones who obviously won't accept the non-aggresion principle in a million years.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
1,687 Posts
Points 22,990
Bogart replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 11:43 AM

How does this work?

Easy, run for office.  Fill out the correct paper work.  Find someone to vote for you.

Would it not be fraud when the anarchist swears "to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States?

Yes if they actually fail to comply with the oath then they committed an act of fraud.  There is a big BUT: Nearly all of what government at all levels does is not authorized in the US Constitution and most likely the State Constitutions as well.  So it is extremely difficult to make a case that a politician not doing something would violate the Constitution when doing something in almost every case does violate the Constitution.  Is it a violation of the Constitution to vote for the MDAA allowing for indefinite detention of everyone including US Citizens or not vote for the bill?

Plus, wouldn't the anarchist also be forcing this on the patriots, the ones who like the state?

Yes, if the politician promised or made some contract to commit an act of force PRIOR to the election, otherwise no.  Absent a promise/contract, those who want an act of force or aggression by a third party are not aggressed themselves if the act never takes place.

And this is the best part for the politician: EVEN IF the politician promises PRE-Voting to do something, Courts and legislatures allow politicians break promises after a vote takes place with a great deal of impunity.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

"Sure, but EVERYONE ASSOCIATED WITH GOVERNMENT DOES THIS.  Simple example: If the each member of the military took their oath truely seriously then EVERY President since Truman would have been arrested as all had conducted wars, some little and some not so little, without a formal declaration of war from Congress.  Something as minor as a sanction is an act of aggression."

Okay, but this ties in to the media part I was talking about. If the politician runs on an openly anarchist platform, and then swears to protect the constitution...the media can EASILY have whoever the politician is torn apart.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 75 Contributor
1,612 Posts
Points 29,515

I don't know why you think the Oath matters...

"The Fed does not make predictions. It makes forecasts..." - Mustang19
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
1,687 Posts
Points 22,990
Bogart replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 11:55 AM

Sorry, I hit the go button before I realized that an Anarchist/Voluntarist/Anybody could run for office and NOT lie.  I just had to think what I wrote through.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

@ Astrophanes

On a personal level, I don't. My concern arrises mainly out of the fact that the media is a libertarian hating machine, and an openly anarcho-capitalist individual running for a particular office is a year's worth of oil for the machine. The key to tearing him down is to announce to everyone that he or she violated the oath. Nationalists/jingoists don't give a shit about the oath when it's violated "for the safety and security of America," but when it's violated by an "ANARCHIST"...I doubt it will sit well and the media would know this too. The media, after all, is what gave "anarchists" their common name today, i.e. a bunch of emo goth hipster teenagers who love to hurt themselves. A label of "fraud" when the politician violates the oath is all they need.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
985 Posts
Points 21,180
Answered (Not Verified) hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 2:28 PM

I think what I said was that I'm opposed to libertarians running for office, becaues they're manipulative hypocrite liars. Their whole message is "liberty is limited government". What I'm not opposed to is real libertarians (read: anarchists) running on the principles A) government is immoral, B) government is impractical, and C) government is uneconomic.

I don't claim to think anyone WOULD be elected on this platform, but then again, I don't claim to think ANYONE should be elected, period. It's my view that attempting to dismantle the mafia from within is perfectly ridiculous.

You might say, "the establishment media would annihilate him." I, however, think it would be fatally arrogant and silly of statist media outlets to draw attention to vastly superior anarchist rationale. They would more likely ignore him (ref: Schiff for Senate).

Regarding fraud, again I said I'm not opposed to anarchists running with the stated intention to dismantle as much government as possible, with the qualification that reducing the size and scope of government is only a MEANS to the bigger end of abolishing it. I don't see how it should be fraudulent to run on a platform of reducing government and ammending the constitution to allow for abolition. But then, I don't see constitutional government as contractually valid anyway, and I don't claim to believe that anyone can "abolish the mafia from within".

The point wasn't that anyone SHOULD run on this platform, but rather that to run on any other platform while claiming to support liberty was sociopathic manipulation. I don't claim to support voting for such anarchist candidate, but I'm less opposed to voting for him than for his "libertarian" counterpart.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 50
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,493 Posts
Points 39,355
Their whole message is "liberty is limited government".
What if this wasnt their message? Would they have to explicitly state that "reducing the size and scope of government is only a MEANS to the bigger end of abolishing it" in order for you to approve? Is there anything else they would have to say or decline to say?
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
496 Posts
Points 8,945

hashem - if you dont mind me asking, how old are you and how long have you been an anarchist? and was it Austrian economics that made you an anarchist?

you obviously dont have to answer.  Im just wondering because ive read a lot of your posts and it seems that a lot of your views come from very different 'angles' than the majority of people.  Personally i enjoy reading it and learning different aspects of the 'why' 

Eat the apple, fuck the Corps. I don't work for you no more!
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
630 Posts
Points 9,425

I would rather look at it like an infiltration of the state than trying to change the mafia from within. I think that it would be awesome if an anarchists or at least someone who was against big government, played the electorate with rhetoric much like obama did. Only to get in office and start closing it all down and repealing bad laws and so on. This can more likely be done on the local level. But it would definitely take a lot of money and a lot time and not something that i would do or would recommend to anyone specifically. But if people want to go down that route then I will at least support them in conversation with others, but I am unsure if it would be enough to make me participate.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

@ hashem

Yes but I was going more towards what would an AnCap politician do if he got in. Even though this is a highly unlikely scenario, it is possible on local levels, like a place such as New Hampshire.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 100 Contributor
985 Posts
Points 21,180
hashem replied on Wed, Oct 31 2012 8:32 PM

@ Malachi,

What do you mean, "What if this wasn't their message?"

Regarding your second question, recall the principles I proposed for the platform: government is immoral, government is impractical, government is uneconomic. So I don't care how it's phrased, as long as supporters don't come away thinking limited government is preferable to no government, or that the goal is to limit government.

@ grant.w.underwood

I'm 25. Been an anarchist, almost a pacifist, my whole life—but you're right to notice I don't tend to take the mainstream stance on any of my positions. My favorite quote is from Mark Twain, and I'll make it my sig when I figure out how: "Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

However, I only recently began to learn about myself and how to think consistently. So I only recently "realized" I was an anarchist about 6 years ago. It started with 9/11 truth stuff.

EDIT: And if I was forced to choose only one banner to live under, it would be "rationalist". I guess I can't really be called an anarchist because I don't accept that it's an objective fact that anarchism should be enforced. Violent competition for resources has been a fundamental reality for homo sapiens and life on earth in general. We need to learn why, and then make informed rational decisions on whether mutually voluntary exchange is right for any one of us individually, instead of retreating to non-answers like god, or rights, or morals.

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect. —Mark Twain
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,493 Posts
Points 39,355
What do you mean, "What if this wasn't their message?"
I mean, what if I am a libertarian politician and my message is not "liberty is limited government" but something else entirely. How do you feel about me?
Regarding your second question, recall the principles I proposed for the platform: government is immoral, government is impractical, government is uneconomic. So I don't care how it's phrased,
so is it ok if I metonymy and synedoche in my message? Or do I have to say the whole govt, kit and caboodle each time?
as long as supporters don't come away thinking limited government is preferable to no government, or that the goal is to limit government.
How many supporters are required to adhere to strict ideological requirements, percentagewise? Whats the rule on a "supporter" versus a "potential convert"? Finally, do you think it would be a good idea to require someone to be a libertarian in order to be admitted to a major campaign event? Why or why not?
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 35
Page 1 of 2 (18 items) 1 2 Next > | RSS