Rich333:The Roman Empire lasted almost two thousand years if you include the Byzantines
The borders of the "Roman Empire", and the size of its government, constantly changed throughout that time.
At most, I think only 5% of the adult population would need to stop cooperating to have real change.
mr_anonymous: 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.
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.
It would seem like 200+ years of trying to limit government through the use of voting would tell us that it doesn't work. You end up with what we have now. I don't think it matters what people think of anarchy. It is an individual transformation, not a national effort. I think a lot of people are confused on that. The minarchist wants to reduce the size of government, the anarchist wants to abstain from being governed. You can be a succesful anarchist inside of a huge state, but you can't be a succesful minarchist inside a huge state.
When the minarchists claim that we are working towards a common goal, I just can't agree. I used to think that you could spread the message through political means, but particularly in the last two years, I found that to just not be true. The political machine is set up to absorb any type of revolutionary thought. They (the government) haven't become this successful at doing what they do, which is limiting freedom and liberty, without learning how to deal with threats to their sovereignty. The government is already nothing but a tool of force and fraud. Why anyone believes that they won't use that force and fraud to retain their power is beyond me.
mr_anonymous:Would it not be more practical to reform the government before the total abolition of it?
The government cannot be reformed without the active cooperation of the government, so the answer to your question is no, it is in fact less practical to reform government than to oppose government.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Brainpolice:The Spooner quote doesn't deal with the actual question at hand, or rather, it does not counter the actual arguments put foreward by anti-voting libertarians. The question at hand isn't about the morality of voting. It's about wether or not it works as strategy in any meaningful or long-term sense. In other threads, I've already made arguments as to why it is not sensible as strategy until I was blue in the face. I never claimed that voting means that you implicitly consent to the state, so the Spooner quote is irrelevant. That's really a straw man, not what most anti-voting libertarians have argued. What I do claim is that voting, nonetheless, functions as a sanction of the state regaurdless of consent, specifically that the voting process itself is used as ideological justification for whatever transpires afterwards. And what I do claim is that voting, regaurdless of consent, functions to either reinforce or strengthen the institutional framework of democracy and the state. Furthermore, if Spooner's argument with respect to voting is viewed in full, he in fact makes a wonderful practical case against voting, because he rather clearly demonstrates its lack of practicality. So I find it rather amusing if not downright ironic that people quote Spooner as an arguement in favor of voting, when the man clearly was argueing against it. If anything, the Spoonerian arguments quoted above demonstrate that voting does not work. For voting only presents an illusion of control over matters. From the standpoint of the individual, vote totals really do not matter. The institutional framework remains. If the ultimate purpose is to get rid of the institutional framework itself, voting will not get you anywhere. However, if one's goal is to possibly have short-term gains for yourself while working with the system and still keeping it in place, vote away. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that it makes any sense at all as a long-term strategy for doing away with that system. Unfortunately most anarcho-capitalists are still functioning as classical liberals strategically and in terms of their mindset, and even more unfortunately Rothbard became less radical as he aged, falling quite nicely into the pattern of his own diagnosis with respect to what happened to people like Herbert Spencer in the 19th century (I.E. "conservafication").
The Spooner quote doesn't deal with the actual question at hand, or rather, it does not counter the actual arguments put foreward by anti-voting libertarians. The question at hand isn't about the morality of voting. It's about wether or not it works as strategy in any meaningful or long-term sense. In other threads, I've already made arguments as to why it is not sensible as strategy until I was blue in the face. I never claimed that voting means that you implicitly consent to the state, so the Spooner quote is irrelevant. That's really a straw man, not what most anti-voting libertarians have argued. What I do claim is that voting, nonetheless, functions as a sanction of the state regaurdless of consent, specifically that the voting process itself is used as ideological justification for whatever transpires afterwards. And what I do claim is that voting, regaurdless of consent, functions to either reinforce or strengthen the institutional framework of democracy and the state.
Furthermore, if Spooner's argument with respect to voting is viewed in full, he in fact makes a wonderful practical case against voting, because he rather clearly demonstrates its lack of practicality. So I find it rather amusing if not downright ironic that people quote Spooner as an arguement in favor of voting, when the man clearly was argueing against it. If anything, the Spoonerian arguments quoted above demonstrate that voting does not work. For voting only presents an illusion of control over matters. From the standpoint of the individual, vote totals really do not matter. The institutional framework remains. If the ultimate purpose is to get rid of the institutional framework itself, voting will not get you anywhere. However, if one's goal is to possibly have short-term gains for yourself while working with the system and still keeping it in place, vote away. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that it makes any sense at all as a long-term strategy for doing away with that system.
Unfortunately most anarcho-capitalists are still functioning as classical liberals strategically and in terms of their mindset, and even more unfortunately Rothbard became less radical as he aged, falling quite nicely into the pattern of his own diagnosis with respect to what happened to people like Herbert Spencer in the 19th century (I.E. "conservafication").
I'll have to disagree. I agree that voting, per se, is not necessarily advantageous to the long-term goals of the anarcho-capitalist. The crucial question is what the voting concerns in the first place. The assertion that voting is, forever and always, not good strategy is false for two reasons:
First, voting can actually advance freedom in the short term. Second, voting can undermine the state under certain circumstances in the long term. The two go hand in hand. For example, suppose that the government were to immediately allow every citizen to go into the voting booth and cast a "Yay" or "Nay" vote on whether or not the state should have the power to usurp land via the takings clause of the Constitution. In this case, voting "Nay" is not an affirmation of state authority, nor does it reinforce the institutional framework of the state. Rather, it is a condemnation of state authority in this particular instance and a rebuke of the institutional framework under which the state presently operates. So, clearly, voting is not necessarily and always violative of long-term goals for the attainment of full liberty, as represented in anarchy. It is, in contrast, an advancement of those goals when utilized in the proper context.
Voting all the time and every time is obviously a foolish belief from the market anarchist standpoint, because such a policy would, as you said previously, merely reinforce the states authority in the eyes of the public. This is, however, not an attack on the case-by-case approach that actually advances freedom in the short term as well as the long term. If voting is only utilized in those instances where state power and authority can be drawn into question or condemned outright, it can be a great tool, among many, in the armory of the market anarchist.
Hey IrishOutlaw! Hows it goin? (This is Box Proper )
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
ThorsMitersaw:Hey IrishOutlaw! Hows it goin? (This is Box Proper )
Good to see you on here brother.
Brainpolice:the voter is participating in or aquiescing to such immorality.
Forcing an individual to accept a system of voting is immoral and violates individual sovereignty. However, the very system that one is subjected to might on occasion be a mechanism for self-defense i.e. you could vote to weaken the state or pass laws that permit secession or vote to end voting or prohibit all but voluntary payment of taxes.
At the end of the day coersive voting systems would not be so great a menace if the individuals voting were self-educated and responsible. These individuals would ultimately vote themselves out of slavery.
No, reform is the last line of defense for the political class to hold onto their positions of power. Reform reinforces faith in the system. The "if only we get the 'right people' in government, it can work" syndrome. That the productive class adherents of state capitalism and state socialism both suffer from this same delusion serves as further proof that the two systems of statism have no substantive, only superficial, differences. Reforming the state can make it more tolerable, but it is intolerance to the state which must develop and become widespread among the productive class if there is to be any hope of removing the parasitic political class from their positions of power over us.
mr_anonymous: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?
Not to any significant degree, no. It is only by seeing the state as an enemy, by constantly having to avoid it and work outside it, and by dealing on a regular basis with peaceful counter-economic alternatives, that any significant portion of the productive class will come to see anarchy as desirable.
mr_anonymous: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.
You're still thinking politically. If we wanted people to vote for anarchy, we'd have to deal with that problem. Getting people to engage in counter-establishment economics, the peaceful alternative to the state that we offer, is relatively easy. The more the government involves itself in the legal "white" market, the more difficult it becomes for people to continue to pursue their own happiness through it, and so the more people turn to the alternative we offer. The path to liberty is not to reform the system, it is to replace it, to build the infrastructure of the new society in the here and now, to sap the strength of the political class by denying them ever greater amounts of tax revenue and corporate profits, and increasing their enforcement costs, until all that is left of the state is a hollow shell of its former self. Trying to convince people that something they cannot see or experience for themselves is better than what they have now is far more difficult than simply showing them a better way, by leading them to liberty through example and getting them to participate in their own liberation from the state.
Corporations are an extension of the state.
Spideynw:The borders of the "Roman Empire", and the size of its government, constantly changed throughout that time.
The borders and government of Rome both grew with time, both having started small. The larger it grew, the more ineffective it became at holding onto what it had acquired, until finally it collapsed.
Rich333:Reform reinforces faith in the system. The "if only we get the 'right people' in government, it can work" syndrome
Agreed. This mentality is counterproductive. People are flawed. Systems and ideas, however, stand the test of time. That is why I like what www.downsizedc.org is doing. They are trying to pass specific legislation that ties the hands of government, and does not depend on who gets elected. Their strategy depends on how much pressure is applied to already elected officials.
Rich333:it is intolerance to the state which must develop and become widespread among the productive class if there is to be any hope of removing the parasitic political class from their positions of power over us.
There exist a myriad of cases both historical and current that demonstrate the lethal inaccuracy of this statement. Research Guatemala, Cambodia, and Zimbabwe. The majority of the people in these nations fear and hate their government. You have a good chance of dying if you fight these governments. Force is the biggest problem here. Dictators come to power via an iron fist. All opposition must be crushed. Furthermore, dictators and unchecked governments are not stupid. They disarm their citizens/slaves first. The only way for your strategy to work is for the majority of people to be armed with information, virtue, and ammunition. This is why the American Revolution succeeded where others failed. A citizenry armed only with guns will create a military dictatorship worse than the original government. Ultimately, the idea driving the overthrow determines what happens after the bullets stop flying. What intrigues me further is that if the citizens of a republic are so educated about the corrupt nature of government, then why don't they change the system through less forceful means.
Suppose that you know a thief is breaking into your house through the window. It makes no sense to sit there and say, "I'm going to wait until the thief smashes the window and actually has my money and gun in his hand before I take action."
Rich333:Getting people to engage in counter-establishment economics, the peaceful alternative to the state that we offer, is relatively easy.
This statement strikes me as a bit Utopian. The states' response to peaceful alternatives to the state has always been coercion. If you are siphoning off profits and not paying your enslavement fee i.e. taxes, then the state will call you a terrorist or a mafioso. You will be attacked. Moreover, remember that their exist irresponsible people that are use to relying on the government for their basic needs. If you are denying the state resources, then they will claim that you are preventing the poor from being housed and fed. Everyone looking for a free lunch becomes your enemy.
This does not mean that individuals should not engage in counter-establishment economics. It just means that it is not relatively easy. Just ask a drug dealer. Some activities are more socially acceptable than others of course.
Many anarchist libertairians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action-the argument being that by participating in this way in state activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the state apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision and the state has placed individuals in society in an unfree enviorment, in a general matric of coercion. The State -unfortunately- exists, and people must necessarily begin with this matrix to try to remedy their condition. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an enviorment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent. Indeed, if the State allows us a periodic choice of rulers, limited though that choice may be, it surely cannot be considered immoral to make use of that limited choice to try to reduce or get rid of State power.
- Murray Rothbard The Ethics of Liberty ch 24. p. 186-87
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
Attackdonkey: Many anarchist libertairians claim it immoral to vote or to engage in political action-the argument being that by participating in this way in state activity, the libertarian places his moral imprimatur upon the state apparatus itself. But a moral decision must be a free decision and the state has placed individuals in society in an unfree enviorment, in a general matric of coercion. The State -unfortunately- exists, and people must necessarily begin with this matrix to try to remedy their condition. As Lysander Spooner pointed out, in an enviorment of State coercion, voting does not imply voluntary consent. Indeed, if the State allows us a periodic choice of rulers, limited though that choice may be, it surely cannot be considered immoral to make use of that limited choice to try to reduce or get rid of State power. - Murray Rothbard The Ethics of Liberty ch 24. p. 186-87
Great post, I agree 100%
...And nobody has ever taught you how to live out on the street, But now you're gonna have to get used to it...
I agree as well, as I noted in this(link) thread. The position is apparently wildly unpopular!
Don't allow leftists to play games with definitions! Some of the libertarian-leaning leftists at this forum will try to redefine "left-wing" back to its original defition (Third Estate, limited government, free-markets, laissez-faire reforms, etc.). Fine! We non-leftists can't stop them from using their own personal definitions; they can use whatever labels they want to describe any concept they want.However, they have the audacity to then use their personal definition of "left-wing" (remember, the original definition, which is no longer valid) to prove that modern leftists are more libertarian than modern rightists! They will say that libertarianism is "inherently leftist" (again, using the original, no longer valid definition), and use that to insist that we should prefer and side with modern leftists over modern rightists.
Question their motives.
After thinking about it for a while, I've come to the conclusion voting is an acceptable means in striving for an anarchist society (not as a sole means and it certainly is not the best one), but does not come without qualifications.
First off, there's the issue of voting for candidature. I dont see how it can ethically be defended. The fact that you vote for one thug over another with nothing but rhetoric and promise to back up such an action must imply trust in that person. Through that trust you entitle them with both power to lessen the role of government or worsen the situeation by expanding it. It is quite possible that a candidate go back on every single thing he promises once elected, In fact it happens over and over. Not universally, mind you, but the possibility of worsening you and your peer's situeation still exists. Blind faith is put in a man to mitigate the state. The man has no actual accountability for his actions except to the state (as far as the american political system is concerned). Certainly there is a probability that the actions promised will be carried out, however the risk that something more brutal will come about through their election is not nonexistant. As an anarchist I certainly believe everyone is entitled to risk their own freedom, the problem is, an elected official does not affect only that individual. An anarchist, therefore, should not be entitled to risk the freedom of his fellow anarchist and should not vote for a candidate.
The only time I see voting as a viable option to an anarchist is when ammending the social contract. The social contract, a document that the state is "supposed" to follow, is quite irrelevant. Voting to ammend it and protect "personal" right or negate an invasive ammendment is fully deffensive. The state does not nessesairily have to carry out the stipulations of that ammendment, however that doesn't leave an individual any worse off than when they would not have voted nor does it offer the possibility of a worse predicament than the one he already finds himself in.
Certainly this is not the most effective way of abolishing or destroying the state. Non-compliance, black marketeering, and agorism are all much more effective in attaining individual freedom, but I dont see how it can't be considered an alternative.
Ego: I agree as well, as I noted in this thread. The position is apparently wildly unpopular!
I agree as well, as I noted in this thread. The position is apparently wildly unpopular!
I know! haha
GoRonPaul: Rich333:it is intolerance to the state which must develop and become widespread among the productive class if there is to be any hope of removing the parasitic political class from their positions of power over us. There exist a myriad of cases both historical and current that demonstrate the lethal inaccuracy of this statement.
There exist a myriad of cases both historical and current that demonstrate the lethal inaccuracy of this statement.
So you're saying that history and current events demonstrate that tolerating the state makes it go away?
GoRonPaul:Research Guatemala, Cambodia, and Zimbabwe. The majority of the people in these nations fear and hate their government. You have a good chance of dying if you fight these governments. Force is the biggest problem here.
Zimbabwe's economy is currently almost entirely counter-economic. It's only a matter of time before the state there collapses. Cambodia and Guatemala don't, to my knowledge, have well developed counter-economies yet. Hate and fear of the government does not imply intolerance to it. The people of Zimbabwe have stopped tolerating their government, opting instead to conduct most of their business outside the state-controlled market, thus starving it of resources and forcing it to hyperinflate in a futile attempt to maintain its power. When hyperinflated central bank funny money can't put food on the table of Zimbabwe's police and military forces, the state's enforcement apparatus will collapse and with it the state itself. All they're missing is a consciously libertarian aspect to their counter-economy.
GoRonPaul:Dictators come to power via an iron fist. All opposition must be crushed. Furthermore, dictators and unchecked governments are not stupid. They disarm their citizens/slaves first.
They may attempt to do so, but it is possible to hide one's arms. The worst governments have ruled over those who were never really armed in the first place; forceful disarmament isn't an easy task to accomplish, especially when there's a large number of anti-statists working to undermine the effort, as there would be here. Just because a government passes a "law" doesn't mean you have to obey it.
GoRonPaul:The only way for your strategy to work is for the majority of people to be armed with information, virtue, and ammunition.
No, that's the only way your strategy can work. To achieve electoral victories you need to convince a majority of voters to support your ideas, and if that continues to fail (as it has for centuries), then the only option left to you is armed rebellion without anything even close to popular support. With your attempts to shrink the government, you actually make the situation worse as the state-controlled market becomes more productive while the free market, the counter-economy, becomes less attractive and is weakened by your efforts. My strategy, the agorist strategy, does not require any sort of mass conversion. We certainly need more converts than we currently have, yes, but our major requirement is mass sympathy, not mass conversion. Our requirements aren't as difficult to achieve and our methods for achieving them are likely to be far more effective than yours.
GoRonPaul:This is why the American Revolution succeeded where others failed.
The American Revolution failed.
GoRonPaul:A citizenry armed only with guns will create a military dictatorship worse than the original government. Ultimately, the idea driving the overthrow determines what happens after the bullets stop flying. What intrigues me further is that if the citizens of a republic are so educated about the corrupt nature of government, then why don't they change the system through less forceful means.
Agorists aren't the ones advocating forceful means.
GoRonPaul:Suppose that you know a thief is breaking into your house through the window. It makes no sense to sit there and say, "I'm going to wait until the thief smashes the window and actually has my money and gun in his hand before I take action."
I agree. Why you political types insist on doing precisely that is beyond my ability to comprehend; it's plainly absurd.
GoRonPaul: Rich333:Getting people to engage in counter-establishment economics, the peaceful alternative to the state that we offer, is relatively easy. This statement strikes me as a bit Utopian.
This statement strikes me as a bit Utopian.
I didn't say it would be easy, I said relatively easy, as in easier than the Utopian "we can vote the government out of power" fantasy to which you seem to cling.
GoRonPaul:The states' response to peaceful alternatives to the state has always been coercion.
So? Perhaps you should read the New Libertarian Manifesto. Konkin's already covered this. Our overall strategy is already far better developed than yours (which seems to be basically "tell the statists you don't like them and they'll go away"), but I'm not about to copy-paste the whole thing here.
GoRonPaul:If you are siphoning off profits and not paying your enslavement fee i.e. taxes, then the state will call you a terrorist or a mafioso. You will be attacked.
Phases 2 and 3, already covered by Konkin.
GoRonPaul:Moreover, remember that their exist irresponsible people that are use to relying on the government for their basic needs. If you are denying the state resources, then they will claim that you are preventing the poor from being housed and fed. Everyone looking for a free lunch becomes your enemy.
That's more a problem for your strategy than it is for mine. Sympathy for an "alternative lifestyle" is easier to obtain than conversion to a political ideology. Most people don't care about politics, never have, never will; they don't think about the same things we do nor should they ever be expected to do so. This is not a problem for my approach, but it's an intractable problem for yours.
GoRonPaul:This does not mean that individuals should not engage in counter-establishment economics. It just means that it is not relatively easy. Just ask a drug dealer. Some activities are more socially acceptable than others of course.
It is relatively easy when compared to your mass conversion political approach.
So then surely you've engaged in counter-economic activity?
twistedbydsign99: So then surely you've engaged in counter-economic activity?
I'm pretty sure everyone has at one point in their life, whether they know it or not.
There are a few principles I'd like to mention with respect to the ethical side of electoral voting.
The first is that you are not voting for a candidate per se. You are voting for a "Promised Action Package" (or PAP), which is what the candidate represents. All candidates offer to change (or maintain) the status quo, and it is that change (or maintenance, as the case may be) that is the lure to get the public to vote for them. All those who seek an office must act as part of their job responsibility, and it is their description of the various ways that they promise to act in that role that is their PAP. To make it clear that it is the PAP specifically that you're voting for--and not the candidate himself--try to imagine supporting a candidate for office who didn't have a PAP. How could you? The guy could turn out to be a Stalin; there's just no way to know. A candidate without a PAP is just a body with a name, nothing more. Yet you can imagine the converse: supporting a PAP without a candidate. People do it all the time when they support a party (which is essentially a collectively agreed upon PAP) for office without knowing exactly who it is that's going to be nominated for them. Nor do many of them care so long as the nominee fulfills the party's PAP as expected.
Now that we know that it's the various PAPs that get people agreeing or disagreeing, supporting or vehemently opposing, and not the candidates per se, we see next what exactly a vote is.
A vote is an appointment of the thing being voted for, chosen by the one granted authority (whether legal, "natural," or whatever) to cast said vote. It can be extrapolated that only those PAPs which are appointed (by majority, unanimity, or whatever) are those that are brought to fruition. Those PAPs which are not appointed are not brought to fruition, and, ex post improvisation aside, if no PAP is appointed, no PAP is brought to fruition. It must be understood that when one says, for example, "I'm voting for McCain" what he actually means (whether he knows it or not) is, "I'm appointing the PAP represented by the man named John McCain." The word "vote" does not, in my opinion, adequately express the authoritative implications of the appointment that is the purpose of the vote. Without the authoritative aspect of the vote, the appointment is lost, and the "vote" is reduced to nothing but a voiced opinion (like being 17 all over again!), and as such is no longer fit to be called a vote.
Next, we need to recognize that all those actions included in the PAP (a $1.40 cigarette tax, a $3.00 tariff on lug nuts, or whatever), are just that--actions. As Mises has pointed out, action, by definition, includes the inextricably-linked concepts of means and ends. We find, consequently, that in appointing a PAP we are appointing all the means and ends wrapped up in it. In fact, we are handcuffed to them. If Candidate X promises the ends of a $3.00 tariff on lug nuts, we must choose to go along with his means as well if we wish to see that tariff through.
This brings us to the principle of vicarious responsibility for the appointed PAP. I expect this might be the only major point of contention among us. Personally, I adhere to it. For those who don't know, vicarious responsibility holds that those who intentionally "bring about" an effect without actually being that effect's proximate cause, are, nevertheless, at least partially responsible for it. A cliched example might be, "Yes, the Nazi generals who appointed the deaths of so many millions of people are morally guilty. Perhaps not of murder per se, as they may not have taken anyone's life with their own hands, but in appointing others to murder on their behalf they were nevertheless in the wrong. They were patrons of genocide." The appointer, thus, is vicariously responsible (i.e., morally culpable), partially, for the action--or PAP--that was appointed (assuming accurate knowledge of the action's or PAP's contents).
Now we need to look at the contents of the various PAPs at our political buffet bar and see what we might wish to appoint. The principle that will be useful here (with respect to vicarious responsibility) is the distinction between the Categorical (what all the candidates have in common) and the Quantitative (what all the candidates seem to disagree on). What do virtually all candidates agree on? Taxes, at the very least. There must be taxes. The choice made in the conflict between "taxes!" and "no taxes!" is that categorical aspect which unites all our candidates. The issue of how much taxation, by contrast, is the quantitative issue, and very few candidates seem to agree here. Given that the application of ethical judgment is primarily directed at the categorical (i.e., "Should you steal his wallet or not?") and not the quantitative (i.e., "How many dollars should you steal?"), we see immediately that we can, in a very real sense, lump all of these candidates together--Obama and McCain, Nader and, yes, even Paul. The foundational difference between them is not a categorical one (their advocacy of the "limited privilege"--particularly for themselves--of the right to initiate force as a means to an end unites them), but rather a quantitative one (i.e., "How broad in scope should the force be?").
A common mistake regarding the understanding of various legislative proposals, such as the Libertarian favorite "lower taxes," should also be set straight. It is commonly thought that we are offered opportunities to appoint "lower taxes," "reduced regulation," or other such measures. Strictly speaking, this is mistaken. The promise of "lower cigarette taxes," for instance, cannot be a part of a PAP simply because "lower cigarette taxes" is a description of merely the effect of an action. It does not describe the action itself (or the action as such). (And it might be noted here that most successful politicians--Obama is a great example--use rhetorical flourishes to describe the glorious effects of their PAPs without so much as hinting at that PAP's actual contents, which, of course, would have the undesirable effect of subjecting their claims to criticism.) As effects of actions cannot be coherently appointed without also appointing the corresponding actions themselves (they are handcuffed), we can see that in our considerations of appointment we must be looking to the action which brings about the reduction of the cigarette tax if we're to have accurate ethical bearings on our PAP.
In keeping with our example of "lower cigarette taxes," we see that in appointing such a proposal we are not appointing "lower cigarette taxes" as such, but rather appointing a cigarette tax of, say, $1.40 instead of a cigarette tax of, say, $1.50. The collection of a $1.40 tax on the sale of a carton of cigarettes is the appointed action itself, while the notion that we now have "lower cigarette taxes" is a description of the appointed action's effect. To return to our distinction between the Categorical and the Quantitative, we see that we are appointing the category of taxation at the quantity of $1.40. More bluntly for our ethical considerations, we are appointing the category of taxation (whatever the quantity) as a means to our ends. If we consider taxation to be coercion (and few deny this), it isn't more than a step or two to see that, through the lens of vicarious responsibility, appointing others to coerce on our behalf has unequivocally made us patrons of coercion. And it is certainly "on our behalf"--if we deny that we can morally coerce people, we certainly cannot logically appoint others to do that very same thing. The fact that it is the tax collector doing the job and not you describes nothing but the current logistics of expediency.
I deny that this is acceptable. Those who disagree may imagine themselves at the familiar location of Crusoe's island, where the only other inhabitants unanimously appoint a death sentence for you because your hair didn't look that great this morning. In addition to your executioner, there are the twenty-four other individuals who appointed your murder.
If those twenty-four others are not as guilty as the executioner, well, please continue voting. (And please excuse the proverbial Nazi war generals.)
"Melody is a form of remembrance. It must have a quality of inevitability in our ears." - Gian Carlo Menotti
I'm in agreement with you, however on the case that you vote for a candidate's promised actions and platform and not him I think is wrong. It's been my understanding that the election of an official based on their promised action is simply the election of an official. Bush promised not to "rebuild countries", yet here we are. A level of trust in the candidate as an individual must be established before someone makes a vote. If I vote for a candidate who will abolish the income tax, but then he doesn't I am still responsible for that, and he is still not accountable under the state to carry out the stipulations by which I justified my vote. Unless i'm mistaken about the election process and the legal discourse of it whereby the candidates release a platform (or "PAP type" document) that must be followed word for word or face termination of office by the state. Under this circumstance trust must be put in the state, not the candidate, to adhere it's doctrine.
Dynamix: There are a few principles I'd like to mention with respect to the ethical side of electoral voting. The first is that you are not voting for a candidate per se. You are voting for a "Promised Action Package" (or PAP), which is what the candidate represents. All candidates offer to change (or maintain) the status quo, and it is that change (or maintenance, as the case may be) that is the lure to get the public to vote for them. All those who seek an office must act as part of their job responsibility, and it is their description of the various ways that they promise to act in that role that is their PAP. To make it clear that it is the PAP specifically that you're voting for--and not the candidate himself--try to imagine supporting a candidate for office who didn't have a PAP. How could you? The guy could turn out to be a Stalin; there's just no way to know. A candidate without a PAP is just a body with a name, nothing more. Yet you can imagine the converse: supporting a PAP without a candidate. People do it all the time when they support a party (which is essentially a collectively agreed upon PAP) for office without knowing exactly who it is that's going to be nominated for them. Nor do many of them care so long as the nominee fulfills the party's PAP as expected. Now that we know that it's the various PAPs that get people agreeing or disagreeing, supporting or vehemently opposing, and not the candidates per se, we see next what exactly a vote is. A vote is an appointment of the thing being voted for, chosen by the one granted authority (whether legal, "natural," or whatever) to cast said vote. It can be extrapolated that only those PAPs which are appointed (by majority, unanimity, or whatever) are those that are brought to fruition. Those PAPs which are not appointed are not brought to fruition, and, ex post improvisation aside, if no PAP is appointed, no PAP is brought to fruition. It must be understood that when one says, for example, "I'm voting for McCain" what he actually means (whether he knows it or not) is, "I'm appointing the PAP represented by the man named John McCain." The word "vote" does not, in my opinion, adequately express the authoritative implications of the appointment that is the purpose of the vote. Without the authoritative aspect of the vote, the appointment is lost, and the "vote" is reduced to nothing but a voiced opinion (like being 17 all over again!), and as such is no longer fit to be called a vote. Next, we need to recognize that all those actions included in the PAP (a $1.40 cigarette tax, a $3.00 tariff on lug nuts, or whatever), are just that--actions. As Mises has pointed out, action, by definition, includes the inextricably-linked concepts of means and ends. We find, consequently, that in appointing a PAP we are appointing all the means and ends wrapped up in it. In fact, we are handcuffed to them. If Candidate X promises the ends of a $3.00 tariff on lug nuts, we must choose to go along with his means as well if we wish to see that tariff through. This brings us to the principle of vicarious responsibility for the appointed PAP. I expect this might be the only major point of contention among us. Personally, I adhere to it. For those who don't know, vicarious responsibility holds that those who intentionally "bring about" an effect without actually being that effect's proximate cause, are, nevertheless, at least partially responsible for it. A cliched example might be, "Yes, the Nazi generals who appointed the deaths of so many millions of people are morally guilty. Perhaps not of murder per se, as they may not have taken anyone's life with their own hands, but in appointing others to murder on their behalf they were nevertheless in the wrong. They were patrons of genocide." The appointer, thus, is vicariously responsible (i.e., morally culpable), partially, for the action--or PAP--that was appointed (assuming accurate knowledge of the action's or PAP's contents). Now we need to look at the contents of the various PAPs at our political buffet bar and see what we might wish to appoint. The principle that will be useful here (with respect to vicarious responsibility) is the distinction between the Categorical (what all the candidates have in common) and the Quantitative (what all the candidates seem to disagree on). What do virtually all candidates agree on? Taxes, at the very least. There must be taxes. The choice made in the conflict between "taxes!" and "no taxes!" is that categorical aspect which unites all our candidates. The issue of how much taxation, by contrast, is the quantitative issue, and very few candidates seem to agree here. Given that the application of ethical judgment is primarily directed at the categorical (i.e., "Should you steal his wallet or not?") and not the quantitative (i.e., "How many dollars should you steal?"), we see immediately that we can, in a very real sense, lump all of these candidates together--Obama and McCain, Nader and, yes, even Paul. The foundational difference between them is not a categorical one (their advocacy of the "limited privilege"--particularly for themselves--of the right to initiate force as a means to an end unites them), but rather a quantitative one (i.e., "How broad in scope should the force be?"). A common mistake regarding the understanding of various legislative proposals, such as the Libertarian favorite "lower taxes," should also be set straight. It is commonly thought that we are offered opportunities to appoint "lower taxes," "reduced regulation," or other such measures. Strictly speaking, this is mistaken. The promise of "lower cigarette taxes," for instance, cannot be a part of a PAP simply because "lower cigarette taxes" is a description of merely the effect of an action. It does not describe the action itself (or the action as such). (And it might be noted here that most successful politicians--Obama is a great example--use rhetorical flourishes to describe the glorious effects of their PAPs without so much as hinting at that PAP's actual contents, which, of course, would have the undesirable effect of subjecting their claims to criticism.) As effects of actions cannot be coherently appointed without also appointing the corresponding actions themselves (they are handcuffed), we can see that in our considerations of appointment we must be looking to the action which brings about the reduction of the cigarette tax if we're to have accurate ethical bearings on our PAP. In keeping with our example of "lower cigarette taxes," we see that in appointing such a proposal we are not appointing "lower cigarette taxes" as such, but rather appointing a cigarette tax of, say, $1.40 instead of a cigarette tax of, say, $1.50. The collection of a $1.40 tax on the sale of a carton of cigarettes is the appointed action itself, while the notion that we now have "lower cigarette taxes" is a description of the appointed action's effect. To return to our distinction between the Categorical and the Quantitative, we see that we are appointing the category of taxation at the quantity of $1.40. More bluntly for our ethical considerations, we are appointing the category of taxation (whatever the quantity) as a means to our ends. If we consider taxation to be coercion (and few deny this), it isn't more than a step or two to see that, through the lens of vicarious responsibility, appointing others to coerce on our behalf has unequivocally made us patrons of coercion. And it is certainly "on our behalf"--if we deny that we can morally coerce people, we certainly cannot logically appoint others to do that very same thing. The fact that it is the tax collector doing the job and not you describes nothing but the current logistics of expediency. I deny that this is acceptable. Those who disagree may imagine themselves at the familiar location of Crusoe's island, where the only other inhabitants unanimously appoint a death sentence for you because your hair didn't look that great this morning. In addition to your executioner, there are the twenty-four other individuals who appointed your murder. If those twenty-four others are not as guilty as the executioner, well, please continue voting. (And please excuse the proverbial Nazi war generals.)
Interesting take. I largely agree with you and I like your separation between the categorical or qualative and quantative. It seems to me that the political process does not allow for what you call the categorical to be seriously dealt with. For the process in and of it itself requires the application of the categorical/qualative means that the libertarian is supposed to be opposed to in the first place. Political libertarianism is still approaching the matter from the standpoint of state policy. Consequentially, one is inherently accepting and supporting the qualative means of state policy itself to begin with. And one is placing trust in state agents to bring about liberty through state policy and be generally representative of their alleged constituents. To me, this basically concedes the whole ball game to the state.
Anyone have any more pictures of this wonderfull individual?
LeFevre believed voting itself was an act of aggression and opposed participation in electoral politics~source wikipedia
I agree, if the actor participating has a foul motive. Is a Mother Teresa that votes commiting an act of aggression though?
Again, I vote because I want to work at whatever possible avenue in order to effect a peacefull change. I vote economicly true. I like to tell folks, 'if y'all voted like I, than you wouldn't gripe about the tyranny.'
Then again I'm not an anarchist anymore. I am now an autarchist.
Sweet I was looking to buy
thanks!
please pretty please can I get a link or a download to his radio goo? gobble slurp hmmm.
Individualism Rocks
And Hoppe has some good ideas as to how this may be accomplished (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/hermann-hoppe2.html). He argues that since the number of parasites must be small in proportion to the rest of the population, and given the intuitive appeal of the following idea, it can be argued that letting net tax-recipients have the right to vote is adding insult to injury. By stripping them of the right to vote support of many state programs would vanish. And of course he adds in that there's no reason one group couldn't vote to succeed.
In that case, his position is blatantly hypocritical, for he advocates voting in the name of stopping other people from voting.
Brainpolice: In that case, his position is blatantly hypocritical, for he advocates voting in the name of stopping other people from voting.
I don't think so. He is not advocating using voting to get rid of voting. He is advocating one group of people voting to prevent another group of people from voting. This is as hypocritical as men voting to allow women to vote. Or landowners allowing all citizens to vote, whites allowing blacks...just in reverse. As such it may seem violent and hegemonic, as voting is now regarded as a right. But I think it's a less violent and hegemonic means of preserving the right of self-ownership than kidnapping, harassing, and killing net tax recipients to prevent them from enabling the state to violate the right of self-ownership.
And if libertarians had a clear 10% - 20% of the vote, we probably wouldn't be having this argument, because we'd all vote, because it'd actually result in a more restrained government, even if by forcing the major parties to cede some power to woo us. With 1-10%, they don't care.
The whole 'don't vote' argument is silly to me. I can understand refraining from campaigning, etc. as that takes significant money and time, but voting takes less than 20 minutes. The whole movement to not vote I believe is either being directed by statists or by those who have given in to complete despair. Maybe they are violent revolutionaries, who do not seek peace in our struggle.
I don't think voting is the complete solution. But I do think voting at least has some effect upon the state which advances our struggle.
Check my blog, if you're a loser
I disagree. Your position is similar to that of pacifist libertarians on the use of defensive violence. They claim that the non-aggression applies to everyone and that there is no qualitative difference between aggressive and defensive violence.
The same thing goes for voting. There is a difference between a defensive use of the vote and an aggressive one. Voting yourself the property of others is aggressive, disenfranchising those who vote themselves the property of others is defensive.
And I think it's a brilliant idea. He's advocating turning democracy against itself to reduce theft by vote, and to increase political decentralization.
I'm not a pacifist. But I do see the blatant hypocrisy in people with an agenda of stopping other people from voting then turning around and voting in the name of achieving the agenda.
I've been through this before. Voting is not an efficient means of defense.
He's advocating turning democracy against itself to reduce theft by vote, and to increase political decentralization.
Democracy doesn't turn against itself. Hoppe's other arguments make a brilliant case against democracy, showing why it doesn't work and why it has bad incentives. It makes no sense whatsoever for him to then conclude from his rather anti-democracy analysis that democracy can be used for good and makes sense as a strategy.
I don't think so. He is not advocating using voting to get rid of voting. He is advocating one group of people voting to prevent another group of people from voting.
Right, which is hypocritical or inconsistant. Either people can vote or they cannot. It is inconsistant to assert that group X has an alleged "right to vote" yet group Y does not.
I find this assumed premise that what amounts to a minority of libertarians voting can actually meaningfully restrain the government ridiculous. I've been through why ad nauseum. Just because libertarians vote for something doesn't gaurantee or necessarily mean that the government follows through with libertarian goals. That's simply not how representative democracy works.
I reject the premise that non-voters are apathetic per se or that the only alternative to voting is violent revolution. In fact, I see the libertarian voters as being the ones driven by despair, as they seem desperate to find a short-term solution and take the edge off of current ills facing society.
In the United States, the general democratictendency to crowd competent and self-respectingmen out of the public service is exaggerated bya curious constitutional rule, unknown in anyother country. This is the rule, embodied inArticle I, Sections 2 and 3, of the Constitutionand carried over into most of the State constitutions,that a legislator must be an actualresident of the district he represents. Its obviousaim is to preserve for every electoral unita direct and continuous voice in the government;its actual effect is to fill all the legislative bodiesof the land with puerile local politicians, manyof them so stupid that they are quite unable tograsp the problems with which government hasto deal.~Notes on Democracy
I wish there weren't laws prohibiting free speech at the voting booth. I bring a book, but still feel urged to talk smack. The virtual keyboard on the damned to hell machine, was nice.
I think it's vital that we change more minds into understanding that governments are opposed to freedom. The best system of rule, is self rule.
I hear all the time the whole 'ignorance is no excuse' deal. Which is alright for the common law, the law everybody understands. For positive law this can only be a subjugators aproach. Legislative bodies love making rules, especially ones that don't apply to them.
I know write in's can work. They can at least jab at the status quo.
Brainpolice:I'm not a pacifist.
I never said, implied, nor do I think you are one. I was using an analogy to show that hypocrisy only arises when there is no qualitative difference between what one advocates and the actions one takes. The pacifist sees an aggressor use violence aggainst his vicitm, and sees the victim use violence to defend himself. He concludes that they are both acting unethically because for him there is no distinction between a defensive use and an aggressive use. This is the result of failing to recognize a qualitative difference.
But it is not the use of violence that is wrong. It is the initiation of it.
It's not the use of the vote that is unethical. It is the redistribution of property titles. There is no hypocracy in using the vote to prevent the redistribution of property titles, just as there is no hypocracy in using force to defend against another's aggression.
Brainpolice:I've been through this before. Voting is not an efficient means of defense.
Maybe not. But it is a means of defense, and there is no ethical reason why one should not use it.
Brainpolice:Democracy doesn't turn against itself. Hoppe's other arguments make a brilliant case against democracy, showing why it doesn't work and why it has bad incentives. It makes no sense whatsoever for him to then conclude from his rather anti-democracy analysis that democracy can be used for good and makes sense as a strategy.
Part of Hoppe's case is that the continually increasing franchise leads to greater redistribution. Disenfranchisement would reverse this trend.
Stephen Forde: I never said, implied, nor do I think you are one. I was using an analogy to show that hypocrisy only arises when there is no qualitative difference between what one advocates and the actions one takes. The pacifist sees an aggressor use violence aggainst his vicitm, and sees the victim use violence to defend himself. He concludes that they are both acting unethically because for him there is no distinction between a defensive use and an aggressive use. This is the result of failing to recognize a qualitative difference.
Is it acceptable to defend yourself against a theif using a cannon which will most likely not only damage the theif but those around the theif as well? To put it in context: the mere fact that an anarchist who is unwilling to vote exists means that any agression against those who vote voluntarily, by electing a candidate who supports a MORE PREFFERABLE SITUATION TO YOURSELF, must be an agressive act against the individual who will not vote.
banned:Is it acceptable to defend yourself against a theif using a cannon which will most likely not only damage the theif but those around the theif as well?
No, obviously this would be aggression against those standing around the theif.
banned:To put it in context: the mere fact that an anarchist who is unwilling to vote exists means that any agression against those who vote voluntarily, by electing a candidate who supports a MORE PREFFERABLE SITUATION TO YOURSELF, must be an agressive act against the individual who will not vote.
I'm not sure what you are trying to get at.
I believe what he's getting at is that your vote effects innocent bystanders or 3rd parties of people, defensive or not.
In voting for a politician, even in the name of defense, you are exercising some degree of decision-making with respect to not only who will be your ruler but who will be everyone else's ruler (including the non-voter). While you may not be an aggressor yourself in the scenario, you most certainly are participating in the process of selecting who will be the aggressor. I fail to see how asquiescing to a process of choosing among rulers is really defense even for your own sake, let alone for the sake of those who didn't choose that particular ruler or any ruler at all. From the perspective of the non-voter, you are nonetheless somewhat complicit in deciding who will rule over them.
But a ruler will be elected regardless of wether you vote or not.
Which, if anything, is a good reason for anarchists not to vote, since the entire point is to have "no rulers". The democratic process does nothing at all to lead to the end of "no rulers", so it makes no sense at all as an anarchist strategy.
scineram:But can lead to less rule, where no rule is an anarchist end.
The democratic process can only lead to a change in rulers or bureaucracies, not the elimination of the institutional problem itself. That's why it makes no sense from an anarchist perspective. Anarchists don't desire a more benevolent ruler, they desire the elimination of rulership. I've been through this ad nauseum. Begging your masters for some lenience or changing who is your master or becoming a master yourself is not a strategy for radical change or abolitionism.
scineram:Why is gradualism wrong when not conflicting with radical abolitionism?
When does it NOT conflict with it? And the issue isn't so much with gradualism but pragmatism and what amounts to counterproductivity with respect to the ultimate end.