<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://mises.org/Community/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Brush Fires of Freedom : voting</title><link>http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/tags/voting/default.aspx</link><description>Tags: voting</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008.5 SP2 (Build: 40407.4157)</generator><item><title>Anarchists Oppose the State</title><link>http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/2007/09/29/anarchists-oppose-the-state.aspx</link><pubDate>Sun, 30 Sep 2007 04:56:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:705</guid><dc:creator>JonBostwick</dc:creator><slash:comments>7</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=705</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/2007/09/29/anarchists-oppose-the-state.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;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!&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;To anarchists that refuse to use the political system as a tool to oppose the State, I poses this:&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p style="margin-left:40px;"&gt;&amp;nbsp;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?&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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? &lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Our ancestors killed and died to create these nonviolent anti-state tools, and yet some refuse to use them for their intended purpose!&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Faith without works is dead. If you oppose the State, act. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://mises.org/Community/aggbug.aspx?PostID=705" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/tags/Anarchy/default.aspx">Anarchy</category><category domain="http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/tags/politics/default.aspx">politics</category><category domain="http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/tags/Ron+Paul/default.aspx">Ron Paul</category><category domain="http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/tags/voting/default.aspx">voting</category></item><item><title>In Defense of Ron Paul</title><link>http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/2007/09/27/in-defense-of-ron-paul.aspx</link><pubDate>Thu, 27 Sep 2007 19:14:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">944abf2b-d1be-4bf2-990d-438cb0e377e9:459</guid><dc:creator>JonBostwick</dc:creator><slash:comments>7</slash:comments><wfw:commentRss xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/rsscomments.aspx?PostID=459</wfw:commentRss><comments>http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/2007/09/27/in-defense-of-ron-paul.aspx#comments</comments><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;Strike-The-Root blogger Robert Kaercher &lt;a href="http://www.strike-the-root.com/wp/archives/129" target="_blank"&gt;charged&lt;/a&gt; Ron Paul with &amp;quot;converting people to statism&amp;quot; in response to him attracting people to &lt;a href="http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/014270.html" target="_blank"&gt;political activision&lt;/a&gt; for the first time. His assertation lies on a several assumptions that I don&amp;#39;t believe are valid.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;ol&gt;&lt;li&gt;That people who ignore the political system are part of the solution. &lt;/li&gt;&lt;li&gt;That participating in politics means you approve of the system.&lt;/li&gt;&lt;/ol&gt;&lt;p&gt;Robert Kaercher&amp;#39;s actions are not inline with the first assumption, he does not ignore politics, he critiques it. Kaercher&amp;#39;s outlet for his views is the internet, Ron Paul&amp;#39;s is his campaign&amp;#39;s platform. Nonparticipants in the political process are not de facto anarchists. Complacency is what enables the establishment. They have gone from complacent subjects to vocal opponents of the status quo, powerful allies even if not &amp;quot;true believers.&amp;quot;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;Contrary to Democratic doctrine, casting a vote does mean you willingly surrender your rights should you lose the election. Clearly the system works so that you will lose your rights whether you vote or not.&amp;nbsp; To claim that this tyranny is more legitimate if we participate in the process, is to buy into the tyrants&amp;#39; own propaganda. If the whole country were to vote to abolish the federal government, would that process be inconsistent with our anarchist beliefs? It would not, because my vote is consistent with my opposition of the State. When it comes to electing a representative this is still true. As anarchists we believe that some governments and some rulers are worse than others.&amp;nbsp; A vote for Ron Paul, or other politician, can be consistent with our opposition to the State.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;As the ever &lt;a href="http://www.anthonyflood.com/rothbardkonkin.htm" target="_blank"&gt;quotable&lt;/a&gt; Murray Rothbard put it&lt;/p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;I didn&amp;#39;t ask for these institutions, dammit, and so don&amp;#39;t consider myself responsible if I am forced to use them. In the same way, if the State, for reasons of its own, allows us a periodic choice between two or more masters, I don&amp;#39;t believe we are aggressors if we participate in order to vote ourselves more kindly masters, or to vote in people who will abolish or repeal the oppression. In fact, I think we owe it to our own liberty to use such opportunities to advance the cause.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://mises.org/Community/aggbug.aspx?PostID=459" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description><category domain="http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/tags/politics/default.aspx">politics</category><category domain="http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/tags/Ron+Paul/default.aspx">Ron Paul</category><category domain="http://mises.org/Community/blogs/jonbostwick/archive/tags/voting/default.aspx">voting</category></item></channel></rss>