Anarchists Oppose the State

re: Anarchists Oppose the State

Neil Ball II — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 07:37:52 GMT

"Many anarchist libertarians 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 environment, in a general matrix 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 environment 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

re: Anarchists Oppose the State

Dante Bayona — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 06:25:32 GMT

As many libertarians understand, government's power rest in ideas -not in guns. Then, if we really want to get rid of the State, we have to change the ideas.

The only thing that can destroy the state is ideology, and after that the only thing that can keep anarchism alive is ideology -in the same way ideology keeps statism alive. Political parties are short-terms games.

Regular people do not know anything about anarchism and we need to work on that.

I have talked to many 'regular' people about anarchism and at the end all of them agree that a private police would be better than the actual system. And all of them told me they never thought of anarchism before -the idea was completely new to their minds. That's what we need to do.

We need new strategies. We don't need 'democratic' solutions, we need private solutions, we need to create private police companies, we need secessions, we need ideology.

We do not need republicans or sellouts.

re: Anarchists Oppose the State

JonBostwick — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:42:18 GMT

Worshiping voting?

Its encouraging that your objections were aimed at peripherals and not the main argument.

An armed minority that sacrifices itself to the State will harm the state not at all, it will only strength it.(Remember 9/11?)

But a nonviolent minority is able to limit the damage the State can do. Particularly when allied with like thinkers, whether they be socialists or Constitutionalists.

Never did I suggest that voting is the sole action that can be taken against the state. What I did say was it is foolish to willingly reject an action that has the potential to tremendously weaken the state.

I assume you would be in support of a mass demonstration to show that the people won't allow the Government to destroy habeas corpus? Well, what do you think an election is?

While I reject violence, the revolution was not a tragic sacrifice. They created the idea that government only exists so long as people agree to it. And now its up to us to prove that people shouldn't agree to it.

And thanks for commenting!

re: Anarchists Oppose the State

jdavidb — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:34:40 GMT

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?

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.

No, it suggests the invalidity of your line of reasoning. :)

The states's power is proportional to the approval it receives from the population, and thus as the country grows less statist the government's power shrinks. In the case where everyone skips voting, a state that attempted to continue would face a country full of well-educated, rabid libertarians wielding rifles and shouting "Get off of my land!" We should be so lucky. :) But in reality, such a collapse would happen long before the anarchist population reaches 100%.

Personally, I show up to vote against every direct measure and against every candidate by putting myself in as a write-in candidate. I long for the day when enough of the population does this that it becomes apparent the candidates do not have support, at which point the collapse will become greatly hastened. But I describe this as "not voting."

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

False dichotomy. Voting is not the only way to act, and you've been public schooled to think it's greatly effective, something everybody ought to do, and that not doing it means people "don't care" about the system, etc. There are lots of other acts besides voting, including participating in building a robust free market that is able to assume all of the functions currently inadequately serviced by the state, as well as educating others. There's also armed revolution, but I don't think you mean to encourage that.

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

Oh, spare me the ridiculous invalid logic! The neocons are busy telling us how our ancestors fought and died so that we should all feel obligated to go fight and die in Iraq. If my ancestors fought and died, then they shouldn't have. And meanwhile, people also died so that that people like the Amish could secede from society as much as possible and not vote.

If voting is all we got out of all those deaths, it was a pathetic payoff for such a tragic sacrifice. Quit worshipping voting.

Offtogria.Com » Anarchists Oppose the State

Offtogria.Com » Anarchists Oppose the State — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:18:34 GMT

Pingback from Offtogria.Com » Anarchists Oppose the State

Poemore.Com » Anarchists Oppose the State

Poemore.Com » Anarchists Oppose the State — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 07:12:51 GMT

Pingback from Poemore.Com » Anarchists Oppose the State