CaptainMurphy: Well your first question seems to assume that not voting represents a vacuum of action, a premise I don't buy. I wasn't implying that not voting is a non-action, I'm just asking how not voting is benifical toward the long term goal of a free society, or how voting libertarian impedes progress toward this aim.
Well your first question seems to assume that not voting represents a vacuum of action, a premise I don't buy.
I wasn't implying that not voting is a non-action, I'm just asking how not voting is benifical toward the long term goal of a free society, or how voting libertarian impedes progress toward this aim.
Quite simply, voting can never lead to a stateless society because it is within the institutional framework of a state. It does not and cannot lead to the destruction of that institutional framework. It's akin to joining the KKK with the purpose of anti-racism. The institutional framework of the KKK is for the purposes of racism, so voting for who will be grand wizard doesn't seem like a very logical thing for an anti-racist to do. Likewise, the institutional framework of the state is for the purposes of statism. Voting for who will control the state doesn't seem like a very logical thing to do from the standpoint of someone who wants noone to be in control of it and for the institution to cease to exist altogether. The vested interests within the institution want to keep it going and keep recieving their paychecks. Their very livelyhood depends on it.
Unless the state actually presented everyone with the option to "vote" to dissolve the state or at least opt out of it as an individual, which seems like an absurdity to me, I don't see how voting can be a strategy for eliminating the institution itself. Voting only gives one the option to play a game of musical chairs by switching who heads the bereaucracy or which bereaucracy dominates within the institution. It could concievably lead to moderate changes in the organizational structure of the institution, but It does not present any real option to do away with the institution itself. The purpose of anarchism is not to change the organizational structure of the state but to ultimately eliminate the state. A libertarian political party (which I exited almost as soon as I joined) merely presents the prospect of another group, perhaps a more benevolent one, controlling the state. The institutional framework remains.
As for the unspoken question of what to do in the absence of voting, I think a combination of Agorism, Stefan Molyneux's suggestions and Hoppe's "anti-intellectual intellectualism" are the proper strategies. And I happen to think that an important function of an "anti-intellectual intellectual" is to undermine faith in the political process itself as a means towards change and liberty for the masses. I consider encouragement of participation in the political process to be part of the ideological legitimization put forth by statist intellectuals that Hoppe talks about. I'm not sure if Hoppe himself would entirely agree. Nonetheless, it seems to me that an "anti-intellectual intellectual" must not only ideologically delegitimize the state but function as far outside of its institutional framework as possible in the process of doing so, which makes the notion potentially compatible with agorism.
I agree that voting will not help toward eliminating the state. I just don't see how it will hinder the effort either. On the other hand, voting can lead to a reduction in state power, even if only temporary. Which, while not as good as total elimination, is better than an increase in state power. I disagree that voting legitimizes the process, just as a slave accepting a meal from his master does not legitimize slavery.
I don't see how not voting brings us closer to the elimination of the state. The institution is going to be there regardless of whether or not you vote; it's not as though if 80% of the population decided not to vote they would then get to live without a president and without taxation. The 20% of statists would still claim the power to rule over the entire country's population.
Very god captain murphy, its nice to see a guy who can escape from being a moralist long enough to see how things work in the real world, and the slave meal analogy was stunning.
but I would give yet another point still; either you can charge the wall over and over again, or, you can use a trojan horse. play the political game, argue in such a way that socialists become conservatives, conservatives, become minarchists, and minarchists may join you. anarchy will not come about when so many depend either directly, or indirectly on the government and on its money, the people will have to be weaned off of it and it may be expensive! you must vote, if there is a candidate to vote for... obviously mcCain or Obama or Clinton will not matter, I wont vote for anyone but Ron Paul. but where you can find a man who will to any measurable degree advance the cause of Liberty, you must vote for him, nay, you must campaign for him. and it is in those campaigns that libertarians are born, Ron Pauls campaign as energized libertarians and open the eyes so others become libertarians. it is in the campaigns that ideas such as the postal service, or the FDA, the USDA, the DOT, are all absolutly wrong is accepted. it is where those who know its true stregthen sharpen and practice their debates.
and all these are steps toward a free society.
And if you are able, run yourself, campaign and argue and debate the cause for the limited gov't. TROJAN HORSE!
I would prefer a government that barely escapes being no government at all. -H.L. Mencken
Attackdonkey:Very god captain murphy, its nice to see a guy who can escape from being a moralist long enough to see how things work in the real world, and the slave meal analogy was stunning.
Thanks, although I can't take full credit for it. I heard it from Molyneux in a slightly different context. Ironically enough, Molyneux actually argues against voting. He argues against the trojan horse strategy, claiming that it is not only impossible, but will backfire and set the ancap movement back decades. Of course I disagree with him on that, but here is his series on that if you're interested:
http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9B883EE065DC5B8C
Part 4, Infiltrating the Mafia, is the most relevant, although they are all worth a watch.
CaptainMurphy:Thanks, although I can't take full credit for it. I heard it from Molyneux in a slightly different context. Ironically enough, Molyneux actually argues against voting. He argues against the trojan horse strategy, claiming that it is not only impossible, but will backfire and set the ancap movement back decades. Of course I disagree with him on that, but here is his series on that if you're interested:http://youtube.com/view_play_list?p=9B883EE065DC5B8CPart 4, Infiltrating the Mafia, is the most relevant, although they are all worth a watch.
This is unrelated to ethical considerations for voting, but I believe Molyneux's views of institutions (such as governments) aren't quite correct: http://mises.com/forums/t/1787.aspx
CaptainMurphy:On the other hand, voting can lead to a reduction in state power, even if only temporary.
On the other hand, voting can lead to a reduction in state power, even if only temporary.
WooHoo. So isn't this along the lines of Marx's vision of the people rising up and taking over the government so they can make it smaller and eventually eliminate it? I think that has been tried.
CaptainMurphy:I don't see how not voting brings us closer to the elimination of the state. The institution is going to be there regardless of whether or not you vote;
I don't see how not voting brings us closer to the elimination of the state. The institution is going to be there regardless of whether or not you vote;
Every action you voluntarily take in regards to the state reinforces the idea that the state is a legitimate solution, IMO. The state may be there regardless, but it will definately be there (and be legitimate) if it appears they are run by the consent of the people.
Right. I think the analogy holds. Marxism proposes a takeover of the state in the name of creating a future anarchy. It's a very flawed theory. I think political libertarians are trying the same thing from a different angle. It will fail for the same reasons.
twistedbydsign99:But isn't an anarchist still self interested?
But isn't an anarchist still self interested?
Is it acceptable to rob someone if it's in your self interest, or you believe it to be?
Attackdonkey:but where you can find a man who will to any measurable degree advance the cause of Liberty, you must vote for him, nay, you must campaign for him. and it is in those campaigns that libertarians are born, Ron Pauls campaign as energized libertarians and open the eyes so others become libertarians. it is in the campaigns that ideas such as the postal service, or the FDA, the USDA, the DOT, are all absolutly wrong is accepted. it is where those who know its true stregthen sharpen and practice their debates.
While I tend to favor the arguments against taking part in the system, I find myself in agreement. It’s not easy for libertarians (which I use to describe all anti-state factions) to get a voice in the media, to reach the broadest segment of the population we can. For the mainstream crowd, we are kooks and radicals, or simply “disenfranchised college kids.”
We can not expect the state to kill itself, let alone realize that its death – or great diminishment – is for the sake of Liberty. Nor do I think it reasonable that the sheep, the people, will particularly enjoy our attempts to strike down the shepherd. We must create doubt, we should lead them to wonder if the state can really improve things or if it is simply hurting each person for the sake of all people. The occasional misadventure into the system does give the state a sense of legitimacy, but it can also give us legitimacy as well, and at the same time offer us a platform to demonstrate the failures of the system. At least it affords us the chance to shrug off the Remnant status.
But at the same time, I feel, it would be prudent to advance the cause on all other fronts, economic, philosophy, etc., perhaps even pushing elements of counter-economics. Control of the state gives them a lot of power and sway over the minds of men, but our willingness to operate outside state power and quietly convert the fence sitters gives us a sort of mobility that the state can't match.
IrishOutlaw: WooHoo. So isn't this along the lines of Marx's vision of the people rising up and taking over the government so they can make it smaller and eventually eliminate it? I think that has been tried.
I don't see this as being the same thing at all. Anarcho-communism is a flawed theory because you can't actually have communism without government. Marxism never actually wanted to get rid of government, it just wanted to put it in the hands of the people. Anarcho-capitalism, on the other hand, actually *does* aim to get rid of government.
CaptainMurphy:Every action you voluntarily take in regards to the state reinforces the idea that the state is a legitimate solution, IMO. The state may be there regardless, but it will definately be there (and be legitimate) if it appears they are run by the consent of the people.
Voting for a politician is only a free action if I also have the option to vote for no politician. I don't mean the option to not vote, but the option to vote for a stateless society. Since I was never given the option to vote for no one, then voting for someone, who is going to rule over me regardless of whether or not I vote, can hardly be considered legitimizing the process. Especially if I cast my vote for someone who wants to reduce state power.
Operating within the institution of the statism does not preclude us from pursuing anarchism in other ways. As a poster above me said, we should advance the cause of liberty on all fronts- state included.
Anarcho-communism is a flawed theory because you can't actually have communism without government.
I disagree. For the very definition of communism is a stateless classless society. If the purpose is "public ownership of the means of production", then state ownership of the means of production runs counter to this, since the state most certainly is not "the public" but merely an exclusive organization constituted by an oligarchy. This is why communists can get away with pointing to the USSR and saying "that's not really communism" (it was, afterall, a rigid heirarchy at the end of the day), for similar reasons why laissez-faire types can get away with pointing to current conditions in the west and say "that's not really capitalism". You most certainly can theoretically have socialism or communism without government if everyone involved voluntarily joins the community and voluntarily joins such organizational structures. But maybe that's just the anarchist without adjectives in me speaking.
Marxism never actually wanted to get rid of government, it just wanted to put it in the hands of the people.
Well one could replace the word "marxism" with "democracy" here and it would apply the same, since democracy is supposed to be "government by the people, for the people". In either case, not all forms of communism are in line with Marxism. Bakunin, for example, sharply critisized Marxism and the notion of a "dictatorship of the proletariet". Marxism made the strategic mistake of advocating a takeover of the government as a pretext to a future stateless classless society. Anarcho-communism, in my understanding, does not make that same error. Political libertarians, however, do appear to make the same fundamental mistake as Marxism in advocating what amounts to a takeover of the government as a pretext to a future market-oriented anarchy. The vision of what the anarchy will look like of course is different, but the strategy of a takeover of the government is the same and will not work for the same reasons as to why attempts at implementing Marxism have failed to produce the ultimate end of a stateless classless society.
I think what you're missing is that it's not being argued that this actually makes the state legitimate (if that were the arguement, we wouldn't be anarchists now would we, since we'd be conceding state legitimacy itself). What's being argued is that it ideologically legitimizes the state. That it is used by state intellectuals, as it always has been, as a rationale for the alleged legitimacy of the state. Furthermore, I think what is being argued is that by participating in such a political process you are reinforcing the institutional framework of that process, regaurdless of consent. Not that the process objectively does become legitimate, but that it nonetheless is reinforced by participation. And that state power must be employed and kept intact for this process to occur. That the process itself relies on the usage of state power and resource allocation away from the market.
I don't think the public store thingy works good.
TO me it may be ethically alrighty to give up your property (yourself) for the collective, I still would distaste this union. sign up cards and all. There is strength in numbers, I just don't think any contract or any rule can fully objectivly cover any senario.
I admit I feel so romantic to the principle of negative rights, my lamenated U.S.C. is at the ready in my backpack. I enjoy a voluntary contractual society of property. I feel that this will in no way lead to atomism. It is the authority that drives individuals into apathy, and solitudinarianism. Individuals through division of labour realise that non-hegomonic bonds are preferable and ideal. In this not so, but better than know utopia, I see many authoritarians thriving, but less at the consequence of others. I think folks realise working together for ends is more productive than working alone for ends. The battle lay in the utility of the proper means. Since potential exists in the system we have in ruins we must at least strive for this, or we fail subject to poor and undiciplened means. A flaw I see in agoristic technique, is it is conductive to violence. The ends of a contractual society yea, but to reach these ends through violence we also fail like the pinko's.
Their is a better path, some fellow needs to light the spark.
Individualism Rocks
Brainpolice,
Maybe my definition of the state is wrong, but here's how I see it. If people voluntarily join an organizational structure that mandates sharing property, that is entirely consistent with with anarcho-capitalism; nothing about ancap prohibits voluntary association. The difference between ancom and ancap is illustrated when you get to the people who don't want to voluntarily join the communistic organizational structure. If you mandate resource allocation using force against those who don't voluntarily join, then that, to me, is the definition of statism. If you don't enforce this involuntary association, then you really just have anarcho-capitalism.
As to voting: I disagree, I don't think participating in a system I cannot voluntarily leave legitimizes it in any way. But putting aside ideological considerations, how is voting harmful to advancing liberty from a strictly consequential standpoint?