Anarchists Oppose the State

JonBostwick — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:56:00 GMT

To make it perfectly clear: abstaining from voting is not a vote to abolish government. And if you wanted to pencil that in, you would still have to cast a ballot!

To anarchists that refuse to use the political system as a tool to oppose the State, I poses this:

If everyone person in America(besides the politicians) were to not show up to the poll booths on election day, would the State dissolve itself? Or would it continue on without democratic oversight?

If a direction election was held asking whether to abolish the State, would any claim that voting against the state would actually be a vote in support of the state? So why should voting against the state only be allowable in the aggregate? Suppose the vote was on whether to disband the EPA. Or to end the Iraq War. Are we to say that because this vote only opposes one part of the state, not the entire institution, that it would be not compatible with anarchy? Destroying the EPA would be a reduction in government aggression, brought about without the use of aggression. Clearly, a direct vote against the EPA is a moral action.

Now suppose it is not a direct election, but one for a political office. There are two candidates, both exactly the same, except politician will end the war. The situation is the same as earlier, a vote for the anti-war canidate would achieve a reduction in government aggression; a more moral outcome.

What is the alternative? Refuse to vote, choosing to not come between the State and its victims? How is that act anymore moral than a vote in favor of the war candidate?

Assume that anarchists can not be political. As the country grows less statist, the government will be less opposed and thus more powerful. That fact that such an outcome is counterintuitive ought to suggest the invalidity of the assumption.

Our ancestors killed and died to create these nonviolent anti-state tools, and yet some refuse to use them for their intended purpose!

Faith without works is dead. If you oppose the State, act.

Legitimate Violence?

JonBostwick — Thu, 27 Sep 2007 00:25:00 GMT

Classic liberals, today often called minarchists, often talk about the legitimate functions of governments. Being libertarians, these people understand the nature of government is violence and coercion. Their various versions boil down to claiming the only legitimate government role is defending us and our property from others. By this they mean the political method is only legitimate when used to distribute protection services. The economic method is trade, the political method is taking. Thus, the only appropriate tax is one spent towards the production of police, military, and legal services.

That the protection industry is the last to be viewed as a legitimate use of the political method is easy to understand. Politics and protection are a natural pairing, as both are built on violence. If violence is justified in the defense of property, then can not further violence be justified to ensure the creation of that defense? Once you have justified violence, you have justified the State. The State, once justified, faces the slippery slope towards totalitarianism that the American Political System is still on.

Brush Fires of Freedom : Anarchy

Anarchists Oppose the State

Legitimate Violence?