Political Theory

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

liberty student — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:43:48 GMT

majevska:
The danger in this Ron Paul republicanism strategy is that it waters down libertarianism.

Or maybe it waters down republicanism. Or maybe it exposes people to libertarianism. Or maybe it inspires people to activism.

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

majevska — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:49:23 GMT

meambobbo:

If there was an initiative on the ballot to raise taxes, would you vote against it?

Better yet, if there was an initiative on the ballot to assess belief in the illegitimacy of government and call for its dissolution upon a majority, would you vote for it? Or what about one government against another, such as a state seceeding from a federal union?

Wouldn't voting serve a better purpose here because it undermines the legitmacy of the state AND segregates anarchist non-voters from the apathetic, ignorant, and poor planners?

Yeah I'd probably vote in this case. Even voting for a RP type guy isn't too bad an idea. I should have been more specific. What I'm definitely against is a vote for McCain or Obama as a lesser of two evils (as some have suggested) because 1) it's too hard to make a prediction of which one actually will be more evil and 2) it's way too compliant and legitimizes the system.

I've actually had some good conversations with people along the lines of "who ya voting for?" "Nobody" that are definitely productive in terms of raising awareness of certain concepts. It's actually easier than you'd think to undermine people's faith in democracy as people's faith in government is pretty low these days.

I think RP's campaign has built a foundation that could potentially be a platform for a more direct action oriented movement-- if people don't fall into the trap of thinking we can take over the GOP or, even worse, running candidates more moderate than RP as has been suggested here.

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

majevska — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:36:35 GMT

meambobbo:

Majevska, I totally agree. HOWEVER. I have never had anyone communicate such things to me. I went from being 17 and ignorant to discovering the Libertarian Party, to becoming a Ron Paul Republican, then a real libertarian/anarchist. But I still don't mind voting. My process couldn't have occurred differently. I have never met anyone who tried to convince me to become an anarchist outright. Rather, it was a mindset I came to from my own thought processes, by being in the places I was. If I hadn't become a supporter of RP's, I wouldn't have started reading Austrian School literature and would have most definitely rejected any advertisement of anarchy.

I simply don't think many people would "get it" if you laid down anarchy for them. They'd hear you wanted to get rid of federal, state, and local government and label you and shut their ears.

Ron Paul, even as a major party candidate, makes serious promises for liberty. He rallies behind an America that once was, or at least was much more so. He rallies behind constitutional limitations on government, non-interventionist foreign policy, abolishment of the income tax, and (nearly) true capitalism. These are things that even those who have already philosophically rejected anarchy (without merit...but still) can rally behind. And they have. While many of them are ignorant and less libertarian than simply cheap, at least there was an outlet that got people to come together and work for something, and at least that something was less state.

What I'm saying is that Ron Paul draws more numbers and gets more done to advance liberty than preaching defiance on grounds of illegitimacy. Even if there are few political victories with his campaign, it has large-scale victories in challenging the intellectual status-quo regarding government.

So I think gradualism is a better strategy. It gets people to take deeper philosophical roots, as we get society to progress more and more towards liberty. If liberty can make us more prosperous, safe, and social, then it is silly to believe we need to acheive complete liberty in ways that don't show these gains. Complete state defiance poses risks and forces a more private lifestyle. Rather, if we could actually get a government that reduces the state's power, gains should be noticeable to the public, who are more inclined to then question how small government can get before things get bad. Many will come to the conclusion that I have and we probably share - it can become non-existant. Many would be more inclined to listen at such a point.

There is a different scenario that could play out - state bungles allowing the bottom to drop out. Here defiance runs rampant, probably in response to something like social security payments being stopped or economic meltdown. The ensuing anarchy is anything but libertarian; however, and many people will conclude that they are better with a government, but that they should restrain it...with a document. Sound familiar?

I came to be a libertarian in roughly the same way you just described and for this reason think Paul's campaign had an overall positive effect. I was actually fairly involved in it myself and went up to NH a few times. At the same time I think his failure to be elected should teach us a few lessons.

Ron Paul never really had a chance. I never thought he did but quite a few people seemed to. Thus, political campaigns should be used as educational tools, if at all-- kinda like how Karl Hess ran for governor of WV and said the first thing he would if elected is demand a recount. The direction that people seem to be taking, however, is "conquer the GOP." They think that the means to liberty is getting as many "Ron Paul Republicans," elected to Congress/senate. I'll be surprised if they get even one elected; and even if they (by some miracle) got five, would it make that big of a difference?

The danger in this Ron Paul republicanism strategy is that it waters down libertarianism. As you mentioned, trying to sell RP as a "real Republican," or "true conservative" isn't exactly a victory for libertarianism. Aside from that, it's something I don't have the stomach for. My experience was similar to yours; I felt like throwing up after watching some of the immigration ads and couldn't take one more minute of canvasing registered republicans and pretending I'm a conservative who loves Reagan and wants them illegals outa here pronto. Never again.

I've got respect for RP but I think if there isn't a force to counter the trend of libertarianism shifting to politics and more specifically "the right" it could mean the death of libertarianism as we know it.

I could be wrong but I'm starting to think that the real potential lies in direct action. With the means of

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

majevska — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 23:36:28 GMT

meambobbo:

Majevska, I totally agree. HOWEVER. I have never had anyone communicate such things to me. I went from being 17 and ignorant to discovering the Libertarian Party, to becoming a Ron Paul Republican, then a real libertarian/anarchist. But I still don't mind voting. My process couldn't have occurred differently. I have never met anyone who tried to convince me to become an anarchist outright. Rather, it was a mindset I came to from my own thought processes, by being in the places I was. If I hadn't become a supporter of RP's, I wouldn't have started reading Austrian School literature and would have most definitely rejected any advertisement of anarchy.

I simply don't think many people would "get it" if you laid down anarchy for them. They'd hear you wanted to get rid of federal, state, and local government and label you and shut their ears.

Ron Paul, even as a major party candidate, makes serious promises for liberty. He rallies behind an America that once was, or at least was much more so. He rallies behind constitutional limitations on government, non-interventionist foreign policy, abolishment of the income tax, and (nearly) true capitalism. These are things that even those who have already philosophically rejected anarchy (without merit...but still) can rally behind. And they have. While many of them are ignorant and less libertarian than simply cheap, at least there was an outlet that got people to come together and work for something, and at least that something was less state.

What I'm saying is that Ron Paul draws more numbers and gets more done to advance liberty than preaching defiance on grounds of illegitimacy. Even if there are few political victories with his campaign, it has large-scale victories in challenging the intellectual status-quo regarding government.

So I think gradualism is a better strategy. It gets people to take deeper philosophical roots, as we get society to progress more and more towards liberty. If liberty can make us more prosperous, safe, and social, then it is silly to believe we need to acheive complete liberty in ways that don't show these gains. Complete state defiance poses risks and forces a more private lifestyle. Rather, if we could actually get a government that reduces the state's power, gains should be noticeable to the public, who are more inclined to then question how small government can get before things get bad. Many will come to the conclusion that I have and we probably share - it can become non-existant. Many would be more inclined to listen at such a point.

There is a different scenario that could play out - state bungles allowing the bottom to drop out. Here defiance runs rampant, probably in response to something like social security payments being stopped or economic meltdown. The ensuing anarchy is anything but libertarian; however, and many people will conclude that they are better with a government, but that they should restrain it...with a document. Sound familiar?

I could be wrong but I'm starting to think that the real potential lies in direct action.

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

meambobbo — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:07:54 GMT

No, I have a new question. If you were accused of a crime and called to defend yourself in court, would you go?

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

meambobbo — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:54:12 GMT

If there was an initiative on the ballot to raise taxes, would you vote against it?

Better yet, if there was an initiative on the ballot to assess belief in the illegitimacy of government and call for its dissolution upon a majority, would you vote for it? Or what about one government against another, such as a state seceeding from a federal union?

Wouldn't voting serve a better purpose here because it undermines the legitmacy of the state AND segregates anarchist non-voters from the apathetic, ignorant, and poor planners?

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

Ego — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:23:02 GMT

majevska:

Democracy is like a cult. Think of all the absurdities: voting is considered a "sacred duty," a "birthright." It is supposedly "honorable" to exercise the so-called "right" to decide (based on an educated guess with no certainty the elected agent will act as promised) how and to what degree stolen property will be distributed, legitimate peaceful actions curtailed, additional wealth plundered from peaceful individuals and innocent individuals murdered.

Sadly, most Americans seem to have this cultlike view of democracy and consider non voting to be "irresponsible," "a sign of immaturity," and generally shameful; even immoral. As long as this cultlikeattitude remains, liberty will have a slim chance of truly taking root in America. A necessary prequisite to the abolition of the state is the abolition of this cultlike attitude.

That's why you shouldn't vote. To help destroy this democracy-cult.

You can go on telling people about the tyrannies democracy all while voting but you will look like a hypocrite.

If there was an initiative on the ballot to raise taxes, would you vote against it?

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

meambobbo — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:11:47 GMT

Majevska, I totally agree. HOWEVER. I have never had anyone communicate such things to me. I went from being 17 and ignorant to discovering the Libertarian Party, to becoming a Ron Paul Republican, then a real libertarian/anarchist. But I still don't mind voting. My process couldn't have occurred differently. I have never met anyone who tried to convince me to become an anarchist outright. Rather, it was a mindset I came to from my own thought processes, by being in the places I was. If I hadn't become a supporter of RP's, I wouldn't have started reading Austrian School literature and would have most definitely rejected any advertisement of anarchy.

I simply don't think many people would "get it" if you laid down anarchy for them. They'd hear you wanted to get rid of federal, state, and local government and label you and shut their ears.

Ron Paul, even as a major party candidate, makes serious promises for liberty. He rallies behind an America that once was, or at least was much more so. He rallies behind constitutional limitations on government, non-interventionist foreign policy, abolishment of the income tax, and (nearly) true capitalism. These are things that even those who have already philosophically rejected anarchy (without merit...but still) can rally behind. And they have. While many of them are ignorant and less libertarian than simply cheap, at least there was an outlet that got people to come together and work for something, and at least that something was less state.

What I'm saying is that Ron Paul draws more numbers and gets more done to advance liberty than preaching defiance on grounds of illegitimacy. Even if there are few political victories with his campaign, it has large-scale victories in challenging the intellectual status-quo regarding government.

So I think gradualism is a better strategy. It gets people to take deeper philosophical roots, as we get society to progress more and more towards liberty. If liberty can make us more prosperous, safe, and social, then it is silly to believe we need to acheive complete liberty in ways that don't show these gains. Complete state defiance poses risks and forces a more private lifestyle. Rather, if we could actually get a government that reduces the state's power, gains should be noticeable to the public, who are more inclined to then question how small government can get before things get bad. Many will come to the conclusion that I have and we probably share - it can become non-existant. Many would be more inclined to listen at such a point.

There is a different scenario that could play out - state bungles allowing the bottom to drop out. Here defiance runs rampant, probably in response to something like social security payments being stopped or economic meltdown. The ensuing anarchy is anything but libertarian; however, and many people will conclude that they are better with a government, but that they should restrain it...with a document. Sound familiar?

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

majevska — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:10:15 GMT

Democracy is like a cult. Think of all the absurdities: voting is considered a "sacred duty," a "birthright." It is supposedly "honorable" to exercise the so-called "right" to decide (based on an educated guess with no certainty the elected agent will act as promised) how and to what degree stolen property will be distributed, legitimate peaceful actions curtailed, additional wealth plundered from peaceful individuals and innocent individuals murdered.

Sadly, most Americans seem to have this cultlike view of democracy and consider non voting to be "irresponsible," "a sign of immaturity," and generally shameful; even immoral. As long as this cultlikeattitude remains, liberty will have a slim chance of truly taking root in America. A necessary prequisite to the abolition of the state is the abolition of this cultlike attitude.

That's why you shouldn't vote. To help destroy this democracy-cult.

You can go on telling people about the tyrannies democracy all while voting but you will look like a hypocrite.

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

meambobbo — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 08:16:17 GMT

ok, fine but let's not keep trying to square a circle. where's the compromise in strategy that unites libertarians, including Ron Paul minded Republicans?! Anarchists will say that any state is illegitimate, and its processes of power are illegitimate, and that participating is implying claim of legitimacy. Great. We understand the long-term goal. And showing that most people don't vote out of belief of illegitimacy is a tough sell, but non-voters definitely outnumber LP votes. But still there is faction in voting that leads to nothing. As a short-term compromise libertarians need to unify behind something. In voting, it definitely won't be McCain! And if it's not Ron Paul, maybe the LP will put up someone Republicans and some disgruntled Dems (god forbid i mention them here) will actually vote for.

Even not voting is factioned, not purely among the apathetic or poor planners, but those who believe the government is illegitimate purely because it has violated the constitution and those who believe all government is illegitimate. Ironically, would these groups not grow if voting were used to empower the state radically?

The point is this: do we want gradualism or a singularity. Do we want to try to force the state to grow too quickly, which could inspire greater dissent and counter-economic activity (or at least prevent the state from having the time to refine its methods and technology for its newest advances against liberty)? Or do we want to shrink the state until it does not exist, by reducing its power. It seems these things cannot be reconciled. Which group do you believe is larger? Which is more capable of reaching the desired ends?

Which do you believe is more peaceful? Ron has said for a while that the bottom has to fall out if we don't change, which will cause something close to instant anarchy, with all its non-libertarian activity. Can it be tamed into lasting?

The compromise between gradualists and revolutionaries would be to do nothing, and we both agree that is unacceptable.

So let's stop talking about it. Go out and compete for results.

There are some things we agree upon. Maybe not philisophical, but intellectual.

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

banned — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 07:24:57 GMT

CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL

meambobbo:

*snip*

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGEEEEEEEEEEE

The whole point of this discussion is meant to UNITE the movement. If one group is voting, another group is conducting counter economics, and the two actions are in friction what you HAVE are factions. Method is key to the cause, simply saying any method is valid is not healthy to a movement since I could justify almost anything as fitting for a movement under that situation. Principles and arguments for each form of action SHOULD be reviewed. Now I'm not completely against voting, as I posted earlier, but historically it has ammounted to nothing in the libertarian cause (this is certainly the case on the federal level). I wouldn't say that voting on a local or state level against measures that are explicitly defensive (i.e. voting against a program, voting for the protection of a right, or against a tax increase etc. but not voting for a smaller tax or voting to define tax use or how the state should use a the accumulation of wealth it accumulates) is a bad thing, but voting for a candidate is definately immoral since voting for them does nothing but give them the power of the state and does nothing to limit the state apparatus.

By the way, this is certainly not the "largest freedom movement in this country" (I assume you meant "country's history"?) I'll have you know that I have almost the same distaste for most Paul supporters that I do any other statist, their avid love for a document which must be legitimized coercively and has only come to power through conquest is appauling to say the least.

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

Stephen — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 05:31:22 GMT

Brainpolice:
Yet within this statement you basically aknowledge my point: that those who vote are selecting who will be other people's master. It is not "self-defense" from the standpoint of the 3rd parties of people.

If one votes he may choose who will be the master, but he does not impose that master on the non-voter or himself. The ruler is a given. If the voter selects a ruler less exploitative than there would be without his vote, what does the non-voter have to complain about?

Brainpolice:
And why do you repeatedly assume that voting for a politician is the ONLY way to "reduce your burden"? That's what I don't understand. You act as the lack of voting is a total void of possible action to bring about progress. That's simply not true.

I don't think voting is the only way to reduce one's burden. Counter-intellectual work is the only way to eliminate the government in the long run. Not voting and complaining about government, especially in a sophisticated and intelligent manner, can also destroy the governments legitimacy. Whether or not this is more effective than what Hoppe is suggesting is an entrepreneurial judgement. But what Hoppe is suggesting is certainly an effective way to produce political decentralization. Disenfranchising net tax-recipients (maybe this should include as well everyone who benefits from government cartelization such as professionals, union labourers, and employees of certain corporations) would reduce taxation. And a sucessful vote to suceed would also be a move in the direction of total abolition.

Brainpolice:
Actually the bulk of my arguement has been in the attempt to practically and empirically prove the premise that voting cannot bring about the ultimate end of no state or any significant or permanent reduction in the state. The only time I start getting into the moral aspect of it is when people try to make a self-defense argument for voting. The problem is that actions that affect innocent bystanders and 3rd parties of people cannot be said to be true "self-defense". My position is not that voting is immoral strictly speaking, but it does represent asquiescance to one's own plunder (which represents a certain lack of virtue) and the voter cannot be said to have zero complicity or responsibility in the matter.

What if the voter could be sure that the politician would not be an aggressor? Would this make the voter complicit?

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

Brainpolice — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:26:21 GMT

Stephen Forde:

Brainpolice:

One is in the same moral position if they vote as they are if they don't vote.

One is not in the same position in terms of virtue. While it is a common sentiment to proclaim that "you didn't vote, therefore you don't have a right to complain", I think that the opposite is closer to the truth. Those who didn't vote didn't actively participate in the process selecting from the package deal of thugs. Those who did vote did actively participate in the process and therefore are somewhat complicit in enabling the state of affairs that comes about from the process. The non-voter has more virtue on their side and more of a reason to complain because they did not asquiesce to the political process. Those who did vote have less virtue on their side because they did asquiesce.

This depends on what we consider to be virtuous. I'm not sure the extent to which virtue can be objectively defined or argued. But I think you are looking only at what one allows to occur by voting. What about what one prevents by voting? If voting brings about a reduction in the state, is this still unvirtuous? I don't know why you consider voting immoral. Can you explain it?

Actually the bulk of my arguement has been in the attempt to practically and empirically prove the premise that voting cannot bring about the ultimate end of no state or any significant or permanent reduction in the state. The only time I start getting into the moral aspect of it is when people try to make a self-defense argument for voting. The problem is that actions that affect innocent bystanders and 3rd parties of people cannot be said to be true "self-defense". My position is not that voting is immoral strictly speaking, but it does represent asquiescance to one's own plunder (which represents a certain lack of virtue) and the voter cannot be said to have zero complicity or responsibility in the matter.

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

Ego — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:25:31 GMT

Brainpolice, no one has ever stated that he/she opposes using other methods aside from voting.

Still, if there's an initiative on the ballot to raise taxes, it's nutty to miss the opportunity to vote in self-defense.

Re: Voting anarchist dilemma

Brainpolice — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 04:22:06 GMT

Stephen Forde:

Brainpolice:

The non-voter just chooses to let voters decide who his ruler will be.

Surely you recognize that the non-voter does not truly "choose" or "consent" to anything. They obviously do not consent to the authority of the ruler, nor do they consent to the decision of the voter to select their ruler for them.

Neither the voter nor the non-voter have the choice of government. Given that this choice is gone, one has the choice of voting to try to reduce his burden, or not voting and letting others decide who his next master will be.

Yet within this statement you basically aknowledge my point: that those who vote are selecting who will be other people's master. It is not "self-defense" from the standpoint of the 3rd parties of people. And why do you repeatedly assume that voting for a politician is the ONLY way to "reduce your burden"? That's what I don't understand. You act as the lack of voting is a total void of possible action to bring about progress. That's simply not true.