What the hell is that?
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Niccolò: What the hell is that?
Perhaps this refers to CATO type libertarians. Their adress is 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. • Washington D.C. 20001-5403.
For those living outside the United States "The Beltway" used in political terms refers to the beltway that surounds Washington DC and the phrase "inside the Beltway." means inside the political culture of Wahington D.C.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Ah... So their location disproves them as credible sources of disagreement with the Paul cult!Clears it up, thank.
Also known as Cosmopolitans or Giuliani libertarians, they are people who have no ideological objection to political power whatsoever so long as their lifestyle is protected from the costs it would incur in a free society. They are lifestyle-protectionists.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
The ones that think we should be able to get permission from the state for certain things instead of those things being none of the states business at all. They are the ones that have convinced many of these right wing loons that they are Libertarians instead of Republicans. They are the ones that don't like to hear about principles and have a financial stake in spreading propoganda without any merit. They are the ones that say, "I am tired of hearing about Rothbard and Mises" everytime someone brings them up, even though they have never listened or read anything by them in the past. They are the Fibbertarians that are nothing but blight on the name.
I think, LOL.
Peace
libertarian: 9. Anti-Paul libertarians
Not all Anti-Paul libertarians are beltway boys. Surely that isn't what you meant to imply.
Stranger: Also known as Cosmopolitans or Giuliani libertarians, they are people who have no ideological objection to political power whatsoever so long as their lifestyle is protected from the costs it would incur in a free society. They are lifestyle-protectionists.
What I find strange is how this criticism is only leveled against cultural leftists when it applies just as much to many "paleolibertarians" who do the same thing with their cultural and/or social conservatism, who are also lifestyle-protectionists (in a quite literal sense, considering that protectionism is paleo-conservative policy #1) when it comes to their desire for cultural homogeniety. Because the lifestyle preferences of paleos would also incur some heavy costs in a free society. Odd that this criticism you bring up is precisely what I think of many Ron Paul supporters, I.E. they are supporting political power in the name of protecting their short-term and personal interests. They won't object to political power so long as its the "right person" wielding it for the "right reasons".
libertarian:Beltway libertarians are 1. market-bashing "Libertarian Democrats" (e.g. Denis Kucinich)2. Single-issued Libertarians who hates Ron Paul's personal pro-life stance and his other paleocon stances (immigration & strong national defence)3. Chicago School Libertarians4. Cato Libertarians5. Objectivists6. Pro-war "fiscal conservatives" (e.g. McCain, Romney)7. "Moderate conservatives" (e.g. Giuliani's pro-abortion and "tax cuts")8. liberal (the european definition)9. Anti-Paul libertarians10. Ronald Reagan
I've seen the sentiment expressed at LRC that opposition to Ron Paul only comes from neoconservative, liberal and neolibertarian types. It simply isn't true. It also comes from principled market anarchists who don't support the political process and believe that Ron Paul's political stance on those issues actually are at odds with the non-aggression principle. Such people most certainly have nothing to do with "the beltway". If Wendy McElroy, Brad Spangler and Stefan Molyneux (the most vocal libertarian opponents of Ron Paul) are part of "the beltway", then up is down and black is white.
Arguably, Paul is much more closely associated with "the beltway" then them, considering that he's a Washington politician. Furthermore, my disagreement with Ron Paul on nation defense, immigration and abortion doesn't mean I'm "single-issued", it means that I think he is wrong on those issues and that those issues are not necessarily marginal. And I don't believe that Ron Paul's immigration and abortion positions are entirely "personal", he has clearly made them political (and has not consistantly even upholded a state's rights position on abortion).
I think the sad fact of the matter is that LRC has mostly been transformed into a shilling parade for a politician. And that the libertarian-paleocon alliance is misguided and the paleo side is becoming much more prevailant then the libertarian side.
Brainpolice:I think the sad fact of the matter is that LRC has mostly been transformed into a shilling parade for a politician.
libertarian: Brainpolice:I think the sad fact of the matter is that LRC has mostly been transformed into a shilling parade for a politician. Why it's sad? Ron Paul can win and and is already 2nd place in Nevada. Those that do not like LRC's actions do not think he could win. I, too, disagree Ron Paul with his statist positions, but I support him because he is at least better than the other candidates. I don't know the reason of why anarchists would not prefer Ron Paul over the other candidates.
It's not a question of prefering Ron Paul over other canidates. He unquestionably is better then all of the rest. It's a question of wether or not it is sensible to support any canidate and actively involve oneself in the political process. I say nay. And it's about more then not thinking he could win. It's about not thinking that anyone should be enthusiastically placed in a position of political power to begin with, and that even if he did win he would only be able to marginally help the cause of liberty at best, and undermine it in other ways. I don't like LRC's actions because they have transformed their blog into idol-worshop of a politician, that's my problem. It has nothing to do with being part of "the beltway". Quite the opposite: I view the LRC crowd as becoming knee-deep in politics. I just find this political approach entirely counterproductive. The system doesn't work for liberty.
As McElroy has argued, a choice between Ron Paul and the other canidates is akin to a choice between being shot in the knee-cap or in the chest. You're still going to get shot. I'd prefer not to get shot. I'd prefer not to be ruled. To make another analogy, a choice between Ron Paul and the other canidates is akin to be presented with the following scenario: there are a bunch of missiles here. Each missile is capable of a different level of destruction. No matter what, a missile is going to be launched against innocent people. You are given the choice to choose which missile to launch against them. As a moral absolutist, I would refuse to make any choice. I'm not going to pick any missile because I don't support harming innocents. I simply refuse to engage in such a charade. I view the political process in similar terms. It's a charade that I don't want to participate in, even when I am presented with a choice that will benefit me in the short-term or inflict the least amount of damage. I simply refuse to sanction any amount of damage.
Inquisitor:Not all Objectivists are bad... just the Randroids.
I agree, but it doesn't help when Objectivism is defined by people such as Mr. Cropper, who call for war with Venezuela to "protect our oil" and accuse you of being a Kantian or post-modernist if you don't agree with Rand 100%.
Brainpolice:It's not a question of prefering Ron Paul over other canidates. He unquestionably is better then all of the rest. It's a question of wether or not it is sensible to support any canidate and actively involve oneself in the political process.
You are involved in the political process, more or less. You pay taxes and feel all the repercussions of the person that gets voted in. It isn't that wicked to fill out a form and try and get a "better than the rest" person into the oval office.
Philosophickle: Brainpolice:It's not a question of prefering Ron Paul over other canidates. He unquestionably is better then all of the rest. It's a question of wether or not it is sensible to support any canidate and actively involve oneself in the political process. You are involved in the political process, more or less. You pay taxes and feel all the repercussions of the person that gets voted in. It isn't that wicked to fill out a form and try and get a "better than the rest" person into the oval office.
The difference is that if I do not pay my taxes I am threatened with exile and kidnapped at gunpoint. That is not the case if I don't vote (unless you live in, say, Austrialia where voting in fact is compulsory). Why conflate the difference between that which is compulsory and that which is not? Furthermore, in filling out that form, you are empowering a 3rd party to rule over others. Strictly speaking, you are not an aggressor, but you most certainly are indirectly empowering aggression. Does it make the state consensual? Of course not. But it does effect other people and does nothing to strike at the root.
Brainpolice:The difference is that if I do not pay my taxes I am threatened with exile and kidnapped at gunpoint. That is not the case if I don't vote (unless you live in, say, Austrialia where voting in fact is compulsory). Why conflate the difference between that which is compulsory and that which is not?
At least in theory, the voter can change our taxation policy. Assuming that you and Paul are somewhat similar economically, why not throw him a vote and see what happens?
Philosophickle: Brainpolice:The difference is that if I do not pay my taxes I am threatened with exile and kidnapped at gunpoint. That is not the case if I don't vote (unless you live in, say, Austrialia where voting in fact is compulsory). Why conflate the difference between that which is compulsory and that which is not? At least in theory, the voter can change our taxation policy. Assuming that you and Paul are somewhat similar economically, why not throw him a vote and see what happens?
Because the political process and the internal nature of the state is simply inefficient as a means for reducing political power. Think the calculation problem and apply it to the political process itself. There's also an institutional problem of the fact that those who constitute the state have vested interests and they are not going to just give them up simply because someone becomes president who happens to try to oppose them. Congress isn't just going to stand aside and let Ron Paul dismantle the federal government, and lobbyists aren't just going to roll over and withdraw their advocacies. Those directly on the government payroll have a vested interest in keeping their jobs, and those who benefit through patronage with the state likewise have a vested interest in keeping the charade going.
Brainpolice:Because the political process and the internal nature of the state is simply inefficient as a means for reducing political power. Think the calculation problem and apply it to the political process itself. There's also an institutional problem of the fact that those who constitute the state have vested interests and they are not going to just give them up simply because someone becomes president who happens to try to oppose them. Congress isn't just going to stand aside and let Ron Paul dismantle the federal government, and lobbyists aren't just going to roll over and withdraw their advocacies.
Point taken. However, no one should expect Ron Paul to fix everything, if that is even possible. I have no illusion of Paul winning anything of great importance. But the idea of a grassroots movement swelling into something substantial, of which Paul is a great asset, is very possible. Paul winning the presidency (even though it won't happen) would be a step in the right direction, disagreements laid aside. In my little corner of Iowa, I have personally seen dozens of people turn from a decidedly keynesian stance to libertarian views, mostly because of Ron Paul's exposure. I think there are a lot of latent libertarians out there, and Paul is doing a great job of uniting them. But I am not going to disagree with you about the disgusting nature of the fed.
Philosophickle: Paul winning the presidency (even though it won't happen
Philosophickle:no one should expect Ron Paul to fix everything, if that is even possible.
Brainpolice:Furthermore, in filling out that form, you are empowering a 3rd party to rule over others.
In the general election, perhaps; certainly not in the primaries.
No, it's because the act of voting violates the NAP. By rendering legitimacy on the state, you become complicit in its crimes. As Molyneux repeatedly points out, no one cares that the libertarian positions on economics and government are largely correct. People dedicated to the promotion of evil aren't going to just give up because some do-gooder tells signs a magical piece of paper that says "Hey guys, stop being so evil!"
By giving up the moral high ground it looks like LRC and Reason/CATO are stuck in an Itchy and Scratchy show of endless wasteful bickering.
Itchy: You're a stupid gay pot-smoking corrupt moron!
Scratchy: You're a xenophobic old crazy racist!
Itchy: Cosmotarian!
Scratchy: Conspiracy-mongering redneck!
etc. etc. to infinity and beyond as they smack each other with rubber hammers while evil goes to work.
By giving up the moral high ground it looks like LRC and Reason/CATO are stuck in an Itchy and Scratchy show of endless wasteful bickering. Itchy: You're a stupid gay pot-smoking corrupt moron! Scratchy: You're a xenophobic old crazy racist! Itchy: Cosmotarian! Scratchy: Conspiracy-mongering redneck! etc. etc. to infinity and beyond as they smack each other with rubber hammers while evil goes to work.
Ha! You have something of a point there.
J.C. Hewitt:No, it's because the act of voting violates the NAP. By rendering legitimacy on the state, you become complicit in its crimes. As Molyneux repeatedly points out, no one cares that the libertarian positions on economics and government are largely correct. People dedicated to the promotion of evil aren't going to just give up because some do-gooder tells signs a magical piece of paper that says "Hey guys, stop being so evil!" By giving up the moral high ground it looks like LRC and Reason/CATO are stuck in an Itchy and Scratchy show of endless wasteful bickering. Itchy: You're a stupid gay pot-smoking corrupt moron!Scratchy: You're a xenophobic old crazy racist!Itchy: Cosmotarian!Scratchy: Conspiracy-mongering redneck! etc. etc. to infinity and beyond as they smack each other with rubber hammers while evil goes to work.
But certainly libertarians are realists? Yeah, we would be surrendering a sort of legitimacy to the fed (not that they change if we vote or not), but don't we do that anyway? We pay our taxes, which we are against. Most of us work for businesses that have various federal laws in the workplace that we disagree with. Pragmatically, we are all big govt, save for what goes on in our heads. We do those things to take one for the team, knowing that what we get in return is good/desirable (not going to prison on the tax issue, getting money from our jobs, etc...). Why not try and vote someone in that could start things going in the right direction? Am I so prideful that I demand the system be perfect before I try and change things? Nuh-uh. I see a candidate that could really change some things, and I am happy to support him, though not necessarily the whole shebang that would get him in. Necessary evils, I guess.
Once again, you're making an erroneous conflation. We are not complicit in supporting the state or being hypocrits for driving on the public roads or paying our taxes because we have no genuine option not to. If a guy puts a gun to my head and demands that I give him my wallet, and I give him my wallet, does this mean that I have somehow consented to this? No, I'm being extorted. The same is not true of voting. You do not have to vote. You do not have to contribute to anyone's political campaign. You do not have to rally behind a politician and promote them. "Vote or die", despite the slogan, is not quite how it works. You do not have to vote to get by in this world. You do have to have mobility and probably a job. There is a big difference between actively and enthusiastically involving oneself in the political process when one doesn't have to and trying to survive in the face of things that you have no choice to opt out on (such as paying taxes and driving on the roads).
Isn't the line of arguement you're making precisely the challenge that statists pose to libertarians, that we allegedly implicitly consent to the state by continueing to live within the territory and pay our taxes? But this is bullticky based on the most basic of logic.
It's the difference between gritting your teeth and taking the beating and yelling out "Excuse me Massa... OUCH! Massa, could you please, uh, if you feel like it, OUCH, uh, could you please, if you find the OUCH uh, time, might you OUCH, uh, whip me a little to the left, ARGH, I think I would prefer it, uh, OUCH, uh, I think, please Massa pu-leeez!"
Tell me, which slave is more debased?
libertarian:I think the major reason of why anarchists (and a vast majority of others) won't support Ron Paul is because they think he would not win.
I think you would be wrong at that, especially on the anarchists part. But even many libertarians that do vote have a difficult time with some of Pauls positions. If I were going to vote I would never vote for someone that was opposed to open borders, lots of libertarians that do vote feel that same way. I would never vote for someone that felt reproduction was ANYWHERE in the realm of the governments business, federal or state, lots of libertarians that do vote feel that same way. They would most likely vote for a libertarian candidate that shared those positions. Far from being "unimportant overall" as some have suggested, they are huge stumbling blocks to a lot of people, especially people that hold to a certain principled position on those issues.
Philosophickle:(not that they change if we vote or not)
They most certainly don't change from voting. We have the government that "the people" want. It is a hard pill for many to swallow, but it is the truth. If not, look at how the small government candidate is doing and point out how "the people" want him. Even if the moral reasons not to vote are hard to wrap your head around, look at the results of voting and point what what positive advances towards freedom have been made.
Philosophickle:We pay our taxes, which we are against
I knew I kept forgetting to do something, lol.
Philosophickle:Most of us work for businesses that have various federal laws in the workplace that we disagree with.
There are alternatives to this problem. But most people are not willing to TRULY give up anything to advance the cause of creating change. The easier softer way is to play along. I call them gameboy revolutionaries. They want to be free, but not if they have to put the gameboy down. See, during the American Revolution, people had to be away from their families for long stretches of time with little to nothing to eat, no money coming in, etc. But they were fighting for freedom and no sacrifices were too big. We don't have those kind of revolutionaries now. That is one of the reasons I find the "Ron Paul Revolution" kind of funny. There is nothing revolutionary about supporting a fringe candidate that wants to do away with big portions of the government, the LP has been doing it for over 30 years.
Brainpolice: I agree, but it doesn't help when Objectivism is defined by people such as Mr. Cropper, who call for war with Venezuela to "protect our oil" and accuse you of being a Kantian or post-modernist if you don't agree with Rand 100%.
I was once an Objectivist but it has been over 10 years since I paid any attention to the inner workings of the ARI. Who is Mr. Cropper? Is he the suceesor to Pope Peikoff?
Thanks
The left sectarian, on the other hand, scents "immoralityJ' and "betrayal of principle" in every use of strategic intelligence to pursue transitional demands on the path to liberty, even ones that uphold the ultimate goal and do not contradict it. The sectarian discovers "moral principle" and "libertarian principle" everywhere, even in purely strategic, tactical, or organizational concerns. Indeed, the sectarian is likely to attack as an abandonment of principle any attempt to go beyond mere reiteration of the ideal social goal, and to select and analyze more specifically political issues of the most urgent priority. In the Marxist movement, the Socialist Labor Party, which meets every political issue with only a reiteration of the view that "socialism and only socialism will solve the problem," is a classical example of ultra-sectarianism at work. Thus, the sectarian libertarian might decry a television speaker or a political candidate who, in the necessity to choose priority issues, stresses repeal of the income tax or abolition of the draft, while "neglecting" the goal of denationalizing lighthouses.
I am reminded of a quote from a book I own. Back in my conservative days I bought a book called the “Politically Correct Dictionary” This was back when Newt Gingrich was speaker and the phrase “Republican Revolution” did not yet sound so ironic. Anyway, the premise of the book was simple. It defined words and phrases often used by the left (usually the far left fringe) and translated those terms into understandable English used by most mainstream Americans. One of the terms was “Racist!” (yes, the exclamation point was included). “Racist!” was defined as “I disagree with you.” Perhaps if the same publisher put out a Ron Paul dictionary it would include the phrase “beltway libertarian” which would be defined as “Used to describe someone the speaker or writer disagrees with on at least one point.”
ryanpatgray: Brainpolice: I agree, but it doesn't help when Objectivism is defined by people such as Mr. Cropper, who call for war with Venezuela to "protect our oil" and accuse you of being a Kantian or post-modernist if you don't agree with Rand 100%. I was once an Objectivist but it has been over 10 years since I paid any attention to the inner workings of the ARI. Who is Mr. Cropper? Is he the suceesor to Pope Peikoff? Thanks
Noone too big. Mr. Cropper is an Objectivist fellow who posts videos on youtube with a bit of a "cult" following.
He does follow in Piekoff's footsteps to a tee.
equack:I don't see how anarcho-capitalists cannot support Ron Paul. In Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty Rothbard clearly lines out that one must seek to reduce statism when the opportunity is present. Its unrealistic to think that your going to move from statism to anarchism instantly, and there are many 'means' on the path to that 'end'. One of those such means is Ron Paul and I feel he is marginally useful towards that end. As Rothbard pointed out in Ethics of Liberty about the left sectarianist The left sectarian, on the other hand, scents "immoralityJ' and "betrayal of principle" in every use of strategic intelligence to pursue transitional demands on the path to liberty, even ones that uphold the ultimate goal and do not contradict it. The sectarian discovers "moral principle" and "libertarian principle" everywhere, even in purely strategic, tactical, or organizational concerns. Indeed, the sectarian is likely to attack as an abandonment of principle any attempt to go beyond mere reiteration of the ideal social goal, and to select and analyze more specifically political issues of the most urgent priority. In the Marxist movement, the Socialist Labor Party, which meets every political issue with only a reiteration of the view that "socialism and only socialism will solve the problem," is a classical example of ultra-sectarianism at work. Thus, the sectarian libertarian might decry a television speaker or a political candidate who, in the necessity to choose priority issues, stresses repeal of the income tax or abolition of the draft, while "neglecting" the goal of denationalizing lighthouses.
One of the few areas where Rothbard was dead wrong is in strategy. I don't see how any anarcho-capitalist, or anarcho-whatever, can support Ron Paul and expect to achieve much of anything meaningful for their purposes. Even the hint that it is a necessity to support a given politician strikes me as quite counter-intuitive to the very notion of anarchism. Noone is demanding that we instantly move to anarchism. What is unrealistic to think that you're ever going to reach any meaningful and long-term changes toward liberty at all by voting for a politician. The problem is that the means involved here do contradict the ultimate goal. The means of state power do contradict the goal of a lack of state power by definition. And the very nature of the political system is such that "reform" from within simply does not work in the long-run. There are vested interests within the state and allied with it that voting for a Ron Paul will do little to nothing to counteract. It is largely irrelevant who the president is. The internal nature of the state as an institution remains the same.
This is what I mean when I say that the majority of anarcho-capitalists are still functioning with a statist mindset. They still think that the system can be "reformed" and that if only the right person is put in charge we can have liberty. They still are functioning under the illusion that the democratic process can be a potentially efficient means toward a free society. This is nonsense. Ironically, it often comes from some of the very same people who argue constantly against democracy out of the other side of their mouths. If we take the Hoppean criticism of democracy seriously, then supporting a Ron Paul is simply foolish accordng to our own logic. The incentives (or the lack thereof, that is) within the democratic system make this an absurd endeavor. In the long-run a Ron Paul temporary stewardship is counterproductive, not marginally useful, to the end of a free society. It is the anarchist opponents of Ron Paul who are thinking long-term here, while the supporters can only see short-term benefits. What is seen are potential short-term benefits for liberty. What is unseen is the long-term set-back for liberty. I would prefer to forego such short-term benefits and work for the long-haul, which will not consist of any kind of magical transformation of the state from within.
Brainpolice:In the long-run
Stranger:In politics, as in war, you choose your enemies but not your friends.
libertarian: Brainpolice:In the long-run You said that anarchists would not support a freedom-loving candidate is because they want the state to collapse when the state grows. But I don't see the reason of why anarchists would not support totalitarian candidate so the state would collapse faster. The major reason of why anarchists would not support a candidate is because they think that their vote would not count. That is correct. But if you promote ron paul hard enough, you can easily make a difference. But anarchists unconsciously make blatant excuses for not supporting a candidate, when the only reason is that they think their vote would not count.We hate democracy, but it is at least better to support Ron Paul than no one. It is at least better to get rid of the Federal Reserve, the War on drugs, etc. The other reason anarchists don't support a candidate is because they are lazy and instead make excuses for not supporting.The "long run vs. short run" is just another excuse for these lazy anarchists for not supporting a candidate. When brainpolice say "short-run" he meant that when ron paul is elected presidency, brainpolice would actually enjoy the short-run freedom. This statement is contradictory to his previous "hate ron paul" statements. This contradiction means that this argument is just another excuse for not supporting him.When I visit many anarchist sites, they suggest we should not support a candidate is becase "voting does not count" and simutaneously "voting is legitimizing the state". That two previous quotes are contradictory. When you say "vote does not count", why does one vote "legitimize the state" when one vote does not count? This is just another excuse for these lazy anarchists.You're correct that one vote does not count. But you're not correct that one person convincing several thousand voters would not make a difference. The number of people attending the primaries and caucases are tens of thousands of people, so a few thousand more votes would make a difference.
The major reason is both because voting is not effective as a means towards liberty and because voting empowers the state. The two points go hand in hand. Voting is not an effective means towards liberty in part precisely because it empowers the state. When we argue that voting sanctions the state, we are not argueing that the state is voluntary. We are argueing that, even in opposition to the desires of voters, voting will only reinforce the institutional framework of the state. Voting is not a direct means of control. You are only empowering a 3rd party to directly control the state, and that 3rd party has to work within the framework of the state that is full of vested interests. In voting, you are not an aggressor. But in voting, you are empowering aggressors. In voting for Ron Paul, regaurdless of your intentions or his intentions, you are empowering an individual with the means of force. You are putting someone in a position of political power, and even if that power is used for benevolent intentions, it will require a violation of your own principles to be used.
No, it is not better to support Ron Paul then noone. It is better to declare your independance and grit your teethe then to beg for crumbs. In supporting Ron Paul, all you are doing is effectively begging your masters for a 1% reduction in liberty violations. And I find it incredibly niave to think that voting for Ron Paul will actually get rid of the federal reserve or war on drugs. Once again, the state does not work this way. One person inside of the state is not going to be able to snap their fingers and make meaningful reductions of political power in the face of bitter opposition from vested interests. It's like joining the KKK with the purpose of anti-racism. If the grand wizard suddenly decided to persue anti-racism, you bet there would a klansman riot and you bet that the only way for the grand wizard to get what they want would be to employ some kind of force.
No, when I say short-run, I am not saying that I would actually enjoy short-run freedom. It is doubtful that my freedom as an individual would increase at all upon Ron Paul becoming the president. My arguement was merely that even if Ron Paul could present some gains for freedom, they would only be marginal and short-term and to a narrow set of interests, while the state will then proceed to expand anyways. What is unseen by the political libertarians is that the general apparatus remains in place and may very well end up strengthened, that the long-term cause is set back and the inertia of the state keeps on going like the energizer bunny. Political power has its own intertia. Putting certain people in power, even if they manage to marginally roll some things back, is not going to stop that inertia. It will keep on ticking.
There is nothing "lazy" about my position. Quite the contrary, voters are the lazy ones. Voting is the easy way out. It's not effective, but it's easy. It just requires pressing a few buttons or punching a few holes in a piece of paper. The agorists and non-political anarchists, on the other hand, actually put their money and sweat where their mouth is by working to create external competition to the state and engaging in civil disobedience. If we want to talk about real direct action, try forming a marketplace to outcompete the state, try to avoid taxes, try breaking unjust laws, try forming secessionist movements. Just don't vote. It does nothing to increase your freedom and simply keeps the charade going.
The vast majority of the population has been conditioned to believe that the state is neccessary for continued civilized existence. Try persuading one of your statist family members that roads should be privately owned or that taxation is theft. You're going to run up against a sentimental brick wall. Now walk up to a random post office and start lecturing some of the workers that their job should be liquidated because the free market can provide the service more efficiently and without force. You're going to fail. These people are just not going to give up without a fight. If political libertarianism ever achieves any "victories" it will need to accomplish its goals through the mass application of violence, because by *definition* the state can only achieve its goals with the use of force. Are you prepared to spill blood by the gallon to bring "freedom" to America? It won't work. It's as much of a fantasy as the belief that you can liberate people with cluster bombs.
To the average person, a libertarian sounds like a goddamned space alien.
To the hammer of the state, every problem looks like a nail. It has one method of accomplishing its goals, and that's force.
I don't understand why people would think anarchists and minarchists have a shared goal in mind when we obviously don't. Working together in the poltical arena is NOT working together to meet a different goal, it is working together to implement a minimal state. I don't even support a minimal state. How can the steps I take towards that goal match the steps someone working towards a smaller government EVER be the same?
Like I have said before, even if you ignore the moral argument against voting, voting is is a step towards government, not towards my personal goal at all.