Brainpolice: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.
There certianly were communes in the USA back before FDR ended economic freedom. How "classless" they were in practice I can not say, but I'm doubtful.
Peace
JonBostwick: Brainpolice: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. There certianly were communes in the USA back before FDR ended economic freedom. How "classless" they were in practice I can not say, but I'm doubtful.
Oh, economic freedom ended in the USA long before FDR. Arguably, it never really existed here (considering the myriad of protectionism, political favoritism to industry, taxes, and the mere existance of chattel slavery in the 19th century).
As for "classlessness", I guess that depends on what one means by "class".
Brainpolice:What's being argued is that it ideologically legitimizes the state.
Since there is not an option to opt out of state services/controls, voting cannot be used to ideologically legitimize the state rationally. Anyone that thinks it does is simply illogical.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
Spideynw: Brainpolice:What's being argued is that it ideologically legitimizes the state. Since there is not an option to opt out of state services/controls, it cannot ideologically legitimize the state. Anyone that thinks it does is simply illogical.
Since there is not an option to opt out of state services/controls, it cannot ideologically legitimize the state. Anyone that thinks it does is simply illogical.
You're not comprehending. The myth of democracy is that the state is voluntary because the people voted. This is certainly not true, but this is a commonly accepted ideological legitimization of the state put foreward by statist intellectuals. You're right that the notion is illogical. I agree entirely. But that's beside the point. The point is that in voting one merely allows this illusion of consent to continue, as the state's members and associated intellectuals can continue to point the finger at "the people" and their votes as evidence of consent. If masses of people do not vote, on the other hand, the case for this illogical premise cannot as easily be made to the populace, since they rather clearly are abstaining from participation. This is what I mean when I say that voting contributes to the ideological legitimization of the state, with me knowing full well that this ideological legitimization is nonsensical and deceptive.
Brainpolice:The point is that in voting one merely allows this illusion of consent to continue,
The statists ideologically legitimize the state, not by whether or not you vote, but because you can vote. So, even if you do not vote, they will still claim that the state is legitimized because you could have voted. As such, you not voting means you are simply letting less educated people vote in worse candidates, not that you are weakening the statists legitimization of the state.
This is the problem with the Libertarian party. It reduces the number of liberty minded individuals in both Democat and Republican parties, resulting in more statists in both parties. Liberty minded people have to vote, and they need to choose a party, either the Democrats or Republicans, and start voting for liberty minded candidates.
Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice: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. There certianly were communes in the USA back before FDR ended economic freedom. How "classless" they were in practice I can not say, but I'm doubtful. Oh, economic freedom ended in the USA long before FDR.
Oh, economic freedom ended in the USA long before FDR.
But I believe the 30s was a turning point for them.
Spideynw: Brainpolice:The point is that in voting one merely allows this illusion of consent to continue, The statists ideologically legitimize the state, not by whether or not you vote, but because you can vote. So, even if you do not vote, they will still claim that the state is legitimized because you could have voted. As such, you not voting means you are simply letting less educated people vote in worse candidates, not that you are weakening the statists legitimization of the state. This is the problem with the Libertarian party. It reduces the number of liberty minded individuals in both Democat and Republican parties, resulting in more statists in both parties. Liberty minded people have to vote, and they need to choose a party, either the Democrats or Republicans, and start voting for liberty minded candidates.
They may still make the claim, but it holds much less weight when the bulk of the population does not vote. The lie of democracy becomes more blatantly obvious to the masses at large when only a minority of the people votes, because the illusion of representation is more disintegrated.
In either case, even if everyone voted, it would not necessarily make the state less powerful or more consensual at all. More people voting could very well help expand the state even more in practise.
I don't see how working within a two-party system, one in which the two parties are collusive half the time anyways, is much of a strategy for liberty. The two party system is a problem in and of itself.
JonBostwick: Brainpolice: JonBostwick: Brainpolice: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. There certianly were communes in the USA back before FDR ended economic freedom. How "classless" they were in practice I can not say, but I'm doubtful. Oh, economic freedom ended in the USA long before FDR. But I believe the 30s was a turning point for them.
No disagreement here.
I'll put my two cents in. Maybe in an anarchist society the people would'nt vote at a specified location at a specified time. But the people are still going to have to make decisions, so somehow there has to be an agreement, and some combination of fear and respect will produce that decision.
My question is: If an anarchist wishes to live in a stateless society, and refuses to vote because any vote would be a vote in favor of the establishment, then how do they expect to get to a stateless society? The population of the United States will not simply say, "You know those anarchists, they're right!", and refuse to vote. Lets face it, the chances of Ron Paul winning the nomination or the presidency are very slim, however, the chances of the majority of the U.S population changing their beliefs to that of the anarchists is just impossible. Therefore, why wouldnt the anarchists cast a vote for Ron Paul or some other true conservative, help him win the presidency, and THEN, worry about what little government that remains after Ron Paul's administration? I do not wish to attack the anarchist position here, instead I want to understand their logic.
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
mr_anonymous:My question is: If an anarchist wishes to live in a stateless society, and refuses to vote because any vote would be a vote in favor of the establishment, then how do they expect to get to a stateless society? The population of the United States will not simply say, "You know those anarchists, they're right!", and refuse to vote. Lets face it, the chances of Ron Paul winning the nomination or the presidency are very slim, however, the chances of the majority of the U.S population changing their beliefs to that of the anarchists is just impossible. Therefore, why wouldnt the anarchists cast a vote for Ron Paul or some other true conservative, help him win the presidency, and THEN, worry about what little government that remains after Ron Paul's administration? I do not wish to attack the anarchist position here, instead I want to understand their logic.
Well, I think a possible anarchist response is that the anarchist goal has nothing to do with limited or smaller government. Limited government is still government, and what's more, it's a government that people are more likely to accept. The question, just why is the anarchist supposed to be excited about making the government smaller? And why would anyone imagine that a smaller government is somehow a path to no government?
JAlanKatz, thank you for the insight. Especially:
JAlanKatz:what's more, it's a government that people are more likely to accept
This makes it more understandable. However, I still am a little lost. Would it not suit an anarchist to abolish the government in increments, by electing miniarchist candidates to do away with the majority of the government before abolishing it alltogether? I would think that if an anarchist would wish to live in a stateless society, they would have to somehow get rid of the state (obviously). This is where I am lost. If they would not vote for a miniarchist to get rid of the state over-time, what practical path would they want to take? (seeing as overthrowing the government or swaying the majority of the population's beliefs is not practical.)
Cool to see another wrestler posting on the site, annonymous.
I want all to see this:
I am an anarchist. All anarchists, minarchists, and other radical libertarians should vote.
Your vote DOES count. The mentality that votes don't count is ridiculous and hurts all libertarians. We need to band together, vote, and show that we are a force to be dealt with.
It doesn't matter if the LP candidate isn't a "true libertarian." We need to vote for whoever out there with the most libertarian view that will naturally give more coverage to other kinds of more principled libertarians (like minarchists and anarchists).
Political Atheists Blog
mr_anonymous:This makes it more understandable. However, I still am a little lost. Would it not suit an anarchist to abolish the government in increments, by electing miniarchist candidates to do away with the majority of the government before abolishing it alltogether? I would think that if an anarchist would wish to live in a stateless society, they would have to somehow get rid of the state (obviously). This is where I am lost. If they would not vote for a miniarchist to get rid of the state over-time, what practical path would they want to take? (seeing as overthrowing the government or swaying the majority of the population's beliefs is not practical.)
Well, there's a few agorists posting here, they can give you insight on their particular method. But regardless, if an anarchist thinks that eliminating the state piece-by-piece or bit-by-bit is impossible, then they won't try it, no matter what you say about other methods. I happen to think that swaying the population's beliefs is not only attainable, but is the only method that can actually work, long-term. However, I wouldn't attempt to accomplish it tomorrow. I have no hopes for liberty in the short run - I would still have little hope for liberty in the short run if Ron Paul were elected President. But I think that influencing people's beliefs is the only way we can win - we can only live free if people believe in freedom.
mr_anonymous:JAlanKatz, thank you for the insight. Especially: JAlanKatz:what's more, it's a government that people are more likely to accept This makes it more understandable. However, I still am a little lost. Would it not suit an anarchist to abolish the government in increments, by electing miniarchist candidates to do away with the majority of the government before abolishing it alltogether? I would think that if an anarchist would wish to live in a stateless society, they would have to somehow get rid of the state (obviously). This is where I am lost. If they would not vote for a miniarchist to get rid of the state over-time, what practical path would they want to take? (seeing as overthrowing the government or swaying the majority of the population's beliefs is not practical.)
My idea is that I want to be free of the state. I do that by participating in the least amount of activities that involve the state that I can. I always look for the oppurtunity to conduct my everyday life without involving the state in anything. Somethings I just can't opt out of because the state has a monopoly on so many things around me, like the roads. But if I can do anything outside the framework of the state, I do that. The idea of going out of my way to participate in a state activity is something that just seems like a foreign concept. I have no state identification, no bank accounts, no credit cards, no insurance (auto or health), I am self employed and file no taxes, no legal titles to property, raising children none the less. All of this in an attempt to minimize contact with the state, and then someone suggests that voting will keep me from having to deal with the state. When it doesn't piss me off it amuses me.
JAlanKatz:what's more, it's a government that people are more likely to accept.
This is an interesting argument. On one hand, we are talking about using the systems put in place by the state to weaken the state. On the other hand, upon encountering a weaker government individuals may be lulled into a local optima.
Wait a second. It seems that the objective is not to abolish government, but to abolish non-voluntary government. Governing bodies would still exist. The only difference would be that you could choose to subject or not subject yourself to them. The benefits of subjecting yourself to the jurisdiction of a governing body may outweigh the benefits of living on your own. Once you have a weaker/smaller government it seems like it would be easier to control. Why not convince that weak government to write a law that allows individuals and organizations to secede? The action would effectively legalize competition in the government sector.
Moses did not try to gradually transform pharaoh.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Brainpolice: don't see how working within a two-party system, one in which the two parties are collusive half the time anyways, is much of a strategy for liberty. The two party system is a problem in and of itself.
It is a much better strategy than abstaining. At least if you vote, the public will know that there is one more liberty minded individual out there and the parties will be more likely to adjust their platforms to cater to your vote.
JAlanKatz:And why would anyone imagine that a smaller government is somehow a path to no government?
An even better question is why would anyone imagine a larger government is somehow a path to no government?
However, in response to your question, because when people see that as government gets smaller, the world gets better, it would be much easier for them to envision a world without a government.
Spideynw: Brainpolice: don't see how working within a two-party system, one in which the two parties are collusive half the time anyways, is much of a strategy for liberty. The two party system is a problem in and of itself. It is a much better strategy than abstaining. At least if you vote, the public will know that there is one more liberty minded individual out there and the parties will be more likely to adjust their platforms to cater to your vote.
Politicians and parties adjust their rhetoric and platforms to cater to public demands all the time. This does not mean that they will actually fulfill such demands and there still is no institutional mechanism to ensure that they will. The Republican Party has catered to libertarian-ish sentiments for a long time. They haven't followed through.
Spideynw: JAlanKatz:And why would anyone imagine that a smaller government is somehow a path to no government? An even better question is why would anyone imagine a larger government is somehow a path to no government? However, in response to your question, because when people see that as government gets smaller, the world gets better, it would be much easier for them to envision a world without a government.
I'd like to put foreward a different question: is a minarchist state even a possibility? Or is it just a floating abstraction? Is it not merely a matter of relativity, I.E. one state is "limited" only in comparison to another? Has there ever really been such thing as a state that limits itself to the provision of rights protection, security and arbitration? Or have all states in the history of mankind transcended this boundary from the get go?
krazy kaju:Cool to see another wrestler posting on the site, annonymous
Haha. Krazy Kaju, youre a wrestler too eh? That is pretty cool.
krazy kaju:We need to vote for whoever out there with the most libertarian view that will naturally give more coverage to other kinds of more principled libertarians (like minarchists and anarchists).
Indeed.
Brainpolice:Politicians and parties adjust their rhetoric and platforms to cater to public demands all the time. This does not mean that they will actually fulfill such demands and there still is no institutional mechanism to ensure that they will. The Republican Party has catered to libertarian-ish sentiments for a long time. They haven't followed through.
Part of the reason is probably that many libertarians vote for third parties and anarchists simply do not vote, reducing the influence of liberty minded people on the parties.
Brainpolice: I'd like to put foreward a different question: is a minarchist state even a possibility? Or is it just a floating abstraction?
I'd like to put foreward a different question: is a minarchist state even a possibility? Or is it just a floating abstraction?
Myself, I do not think it is a possibility.
Brainpolice:Is it not merely a matter of relativity, I.E. one state is "limited" only in comparison to another?
Not so much if "limited" means limited to protecting our rights.
Brainpolice:Has there ever really been such thing as a state that limits itself to the provision of rights protection, security and arbitration? Or have all states in the history of mankind transcended this boundary from the get go?
I do not know of any that had that boundary from the get go.
I can't think of any nation founded on or solely concerned with the idea of protecting rights.
But I would like to know of any government that, short of rebellion or invasion, gave power back to the people voluntarily.
Seems to me that each power government gains facilitates the next grab.
Yes a voluntary government with the right to leave at any time could meet the minarchist definition.
If you have a "voluntary government" where people can withdraw anytime without having to forfeit their private property, it's not a government at all; it's market anarchism.
It would be compatible with market anarchism, but it would still be a form of governance right? Just not coercive.
I'll give up voting, when I can give up my citizenship. They get more benifits anyway, non-citizens.
Can minarchy work, or is it a way to describe the size of government. I am still willed, that the law of the land that I live in provides me some protection.
Under self rule, a person could be able to not worry about voting, or vote because they are uneasy. I feel very uneasy when I think of governments.
Individualism Rocks
Brainpolice:The myth of democracy is that the state is voluntary because the people voted. This is certainly not true, but this is a commonly accepted ideological legitimization of the state put foreward by statist intellectuals. You're right that the notion is illogical. I agree entirely. But that's beside the point. The point is that in voting one merely allows this illusion of consent to continue, as the state's members and associated intellectuals can continue to point the finger at "the people" and their votes as evidence of consent. If masses of people do not vote, on the other hand, the case for this illogical premise cannot as easily be made to the populace, since they rather clearly are abstaining from participation. This is what I mean when I say that voting contributes to the ideological legitimization of the state, with me knowing full well that this ideological legitimization is nonsensical and deceptive.
The only people that worry about non-voters are the occasional political pundits, not the politicians or bureaucrats. Non-voting isn't considered a threat by anyone.
Furthermore, only half of those eligible to register actually register, and of those registered, only half of those people actually vote, and that's for a good turnout! So already you have less than 25% of the eligible population actually voting in elections. How low does the votre turnout have to be before they admit to the illegitimacy of voting? 10%? 2%? They will never admit to the illegitimacy of voting based on mere voter turnout.
While I've been quite entertained by his trolling of the GOP and the federal government, a Ron Paul victory is the absolute worst thing that could happen. Not only would his victory increase and reinforce confidence in the system, he would likely reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Small governments tend to last longer than large governments. A smaller government is a government less involved in the market. Lesser government involvement in the market allows for greater economic growth in the legal "white" market, which is the government's primary source of revenue by way of taxation. Lesser government involvement in the market also reduces the incentives for people to engage in counter-economic activities. Though a larger government comes with greater risks, initially at least, for those engaging in counter-economic activities, the appeal and potential profits are also much greater, making it more likely that people will engage in such activities. The Soviet Union had a counter-economy. Nazi Germany had a counter-economy. The United States has had one at least since the Whiskey Rebellion.
Where there is government involvement in the economy, there will always be people working outside it, and the more pervasive that involvement becomes, the larger the counter-economy will grow. The more the counter-economy grows, the more oppressive the state must become to suppress it, and it must of course spend more to do so, while being denied ever greater amounts of income. Eventually, the state collapses from financial insolvency, is replaced by another existing state via conquest, or is forcibly suppressed by forces of the counter-economy itself. Unfortunately, historically, those within the counter-economy have not been consciously libertarian to a degree significant enough to suppress the replacement of the old state with a new one; in the case of the American Revolutionary War, the state was suppressed by counter-economic defense forces (aided by foreign states) who in turn formed a new state, so here we are again, with an even worse King George than the last one. If you want to better your situation, deny the state as much revenue as possible, and do everything you can (or at least all that you're willing to risk) to increase its enforcement costs.
Oh, and another thing. I've heard a lot of talk of "revolution" related to Ron Paul. I certainly don't mind seeing liberty-minded individuals getting active, but they aren't revolutionaries. If you want to know what real revolutionaries look like, look up Lauren Canario, Kat and Dave Kanning, and the others who are opting out and engaging in civil disobedience up in New Hampshire.
Corporations are an extension of the state.
Rich333: While I've been quite entertained by his trolling of the GOP and the federal government, a Ron Paul victory is the absolute worst thing that could happen. Not only would his victory increase and reinforce confidence in the system, he would likely reduce the size and scope of the federal government. Small governments tend to last longer than large governments. A smaller government is a government less involved in the market. Lesser government involvement in the market allows for greater economic growth in the legal "white" market, which is the government's primary source of revenue by way of taxation. Lesser government involvement in the market also reduces the incentives for people to engage in counter-economic activities. Though a larger government comes with greater risks, initially at least, for those engaging in counter-economic activities, the appeal and potential profits are also much greater, making it more likely that people will engage in such activities. The Soviet Union had a counter-economy. Nazi Germany had a counter-economy. The United States has had one at least since the Whiskey Rebellion. Where there is government involvement in the economy, there will always be people working outside it, and the more pervasive that involvement becomes, the larger the counter-economy will grow. The more the counter-economy grows, the more oppressive the state must become to suppress it, and it must of course spend more to do so, while being denied ever greater amounts of income. Eventually, the state collapses from financial insolvency, is replaced by another existing state via conquest, or is forcibly suppressed by forces of the counter-economy itself. Unfortunately, historically, those within the counter-economy have not been consciously libertarian to a degree significant enough to suppress the replacement of the old state with a new one; in the case of the American Revolutionary War, the state was suppressed by counter-economic defense forces (aided by foreign states) who in turn formed a new state, so here we are again, with an even worse King George than the last one. If you want to better your situation, deny the state as much revenue as possible, and do everything you can (or at least all that you're willing to risk) to increase its enforcement costs. Oh, and another thing. I've heard a lot of talk of "revolution" related to Ron Paul. I certainly don't mind seeing liberty-minded individuals getting active, but they aren't revolutionaries. If you want to know what real revolutionaries look like, look up Lauren Canario, Kat and Dave Kanning, and the others who are opting out and engaging in civil disobedience up in New Hampshire.
This makes a lot of sense in that countries with semi-free economies have more prosperity to draw from in order for the state to sustain itself and grow more in the future. There is something to be said about the fact that the most free economies also usually are the same places with the biggest warfare states. Allowing some limited degree of liberality in the economy could be seen as a strategy by which the rulers ensure that, as parasites, they don't destroy their host. They depend on the productivity of their host/subjects. If they hamper such productivity too much, they will siphon off the source of their supply, so to speak.
So it could be said that successful rulership depends on best being able to determine exactly where the cut-off point is, the balance between keeping the citezenry productive while still being able to extract as much as possible from them without destroying the host. And putting forth bread and circuses to keep the populace in a general state of passive compliance or aquiescance. Etienne La Boetie's "Mystery of Voluntary Servitude" is very revealing and insightful when it comes to this, as it reveals that states maintain themselves on the basis of ideology, baiting and aquiescance.
Civil disobedience, which the counter-economy is obviously an essential part of, is a way to break this down. It makes it harder for the state to control matters because passive resignation is decreased while self-reliance is increased. It denies the state access to resources/revenue and makes central planning harder and less successful. It could potentially hasten the inevitable fall of states by bleeding them dry of oppurtunities and making their forceful nature more obvious to the masses. The emperor obviously has no clothes to the masses when it absolutely must resort to naked force in order to sustain itself. Otherwise, it could just rely on passive resignation or aquiescance and the ballgame keeps going.
Rich333:Small governments tend to last longer than large governments.
Yeah, the government of Fidel Castro did not last long at all did it. Oh wait, no, it lasted his whole life!
That's not actually a long time at all when it comes to states. The Roman Empire lasted almost two thousand years if you include the Byzantines, and for most of its existence its involvement in the economy was quite small relative to much of the world both then and now. Both halves of the empire were brought down separately and at different times, by a combination of financial insolvency and foreign invasions.
Edit to my earlier post: It's Russell, not Dave, Kanning. I must've mixed his name up with Dave Krouse, another NH civil disobedience activist.
Putting all of the previous practical and political considerations aside, I would actually like to put foreward something that might actually approach being a "moral" case against voting. I believe that I've seen Wendy McElroy make an argument along these lines before. In my understanding, as a sovereign individual you are perfectly within your rights to delegate authority to another person or another body of men in order to voluntarily choose a leader or leaders. Sign away your rights as you please, just don't sign away mine!
However, this is not how the voting process works. Aside from the quite obvious fact that the politician may very well go on to make decisions that the individual voter did not explicitly consent to that effects them (which doesn't quite make it analagous to a voluntary contract, since they would be enforcing terms you didn't really agree to), in voting for a particular politician, you are delegating such authority to a person or body of men to rule over others. Innocent bystanders or 3rd parties of people. While you are perfectly free to choose leaders for yourself, you have no legitimate authority to choose leaders for others.
While the immorality is ultimately still on the state's shoulders, since it is ultimately the state that excerises this authority over others, the voter could easily be seen as an accomplice or enabler in this scenario. This arguement should not be construed to say that voting implies consent necessarily, but it does imply aquiescance much in the way that Etienne La Boetie described in his old writting on the mystery of "voluntary servitude". As a consequence of this aquiesceance, other "non-aquiescers" are effected (I.E. non-voters and those who did not vote for the particular individual in question). The voter is essentially an enabler of the institutional rulership, albiet a relatively passive one.
To make an analogy, in voting you are aquiescing to a game of russian roulette. However, it is not just you who has to play the game. Everyone else in the territory must play the game of roulette too regaurdless of wether or not they voted. So by the very least, as far as voluntaryism is concerned, the institution or process of voting itself is immoral and the voter is participating in or aquiescing to such immorality. While the voter's control in the situation is very slim, it nonetheless seems to stand to reason that they cannot be said to have no moral responsibility at all in the situation. In either case, even if the voter themselves are morally fine in the situation, it is quite clear that the institution or process itself is immoral, so I see no reason why an anarchist should pay any heed to such a system.
If you don't vote, you are otherwise doing what? Watching TV in your underwear? The point is that voting may be tied into a corrupt system, but it is a better means of reaching smaller government than watching TV.
Furthermore, not voting does not confer any information to the state. They do not see the non-votes and assume that low voter turnout is due to individual laziness, rather than personal principle. When you at least vote for a 3rd party or independent, you tell the state and the public that you are not so lazy as to not vote, but you will not vote for the obvious main choices of statists.
Lastly, if all of these "principled" people were to unify, they could probably become a major block of swing voters. By being willing to support either major party vocally, they force the parties to cater to them in some manner. When neither do, at least this block can punish the party who had the most opportunity to cater to or used to cater to these people by simply voting for the other one, even if their platform is less agreeable.
Honestly, I think all the Ron Paul people should put a dagger in the Republican Party and vote for the Democrat nominee. That would really put heat on the party to return to their non-interventionist and constitutional ways of the past.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
I'm sorry, it does not logically follow that inaction is the only alternative to voting. I despise this attitude. Indeed, the time spent looking up canidates and voting could have been spent with direct action. It could have been used to engage in market activity, it could have been used for philanthropy, it could have been used to build private institutions competiting with the state, it could have been spent with your family and friends, it could have been spent directly spreading information, it could have been used for civil disobedience. Not to mention that all of the funds used in campaign contributions are allocations away from the market itself. All of the time spent paying attention to the political process has an oppurtunity cost.
Furthermore, not voting does not confer any information to the state.
And this is a bad thing? Why do you want to confer information to the state? I would think we would want to bleed it dry of information as to make calculation harder and hence planning even more of a failure. The less access the state has to the public's information and to their resources, the easier it is to defy the state.
They do not see the non-votes and assume that low voter turnout is due to individual laziness, rather than personal principle.
Yet this is precisely what you seem to have proposed yourself in your first few sentences. That non-voters are lazy or apathetic, just sitting watching television in their underwear.
How can you ever hope to change anything in this corrupt system if you refuse to take the only action currently available? If anarchists want to change the system then I dont understand why they dont try to by any means neccesary (including voting for someone who will). Right now, in our current state, the only way to have a rapid change in government is to vote for a candidate that would provide it. I am not saying that this is good, believe me it isnt. However that is the way it is, so that is the way we have to beat it.
How can you ever hope to change anything in this corrupt system if you refuse to take the only action currently available?
I believe you err in assuming that voting and electoral politics in general is the only action currently available. There is no reason why you cannot engage in civil disobedience, spread information, form alternative and private institutions, engage in private philanthropic efforts, form secessionist movements, and so on.
If anarchists want to change the system then I dont understand why they dont try to by any means neccesary (including voting for someone who will).
Anarchists don't want to "change the system", they want to eliminate it as their ultimate long-term goal. Anarchism is abolitionist, not reformist. So it seems that we're working with different premises here.
Right now, in our current state, the only way to have a rapid change in government is to vote for a candidate that would provide it.
I don't recall ever hearing about a scenario where voting lead to a significant change in the status quo, let alone one radically in the direction of less political power.
Would it not be more practical to reform the government before the total abolition of it? I understand that anarchists believe limited government is still government, however, would people would be more open-minded toward an anarchist society after seeing that very limited government does not induce chaos? Another fact that we have to deal with is that when we mention the term "anarchism", people (most people living in the US) automatically cast it out as an impossiblity and far too radical. I know they do this only because they do not understand it, but still, anarchism has a negative connotation that we have to deal with. I feel as if anarchists would get out and vote and draw more attention to their ideas through candidates like Ron Paul, the public might not see their beliefs as radical. However a seccesionist movement would not accomplish the goal of opening peoples minds to anarchist possibilites. Instead it would have a negative effect and essentially re-enforce the beliefs of the public that anarchism is radical and chaos.