Voting anarchist dilemma

Rich333:

The Roman Empire lasted almost two thousand years if you include the Byzantines

The borders of the "Roman Empire", and the size of its government, constantly changed throughout that time.

mr_anonymous:

 Would it not be more practical to reform the government before the total abolition of it?  I understand that anarchists believe limited government is still government, however, would people would be more open-minded toward an anarchist society after seeing that very limited government does not induce chaos?  Another fact that we have to deal with is that when we mention the term "anarchism", people (most people living in the US) automatically cast it out as an impossiblity and far too radical.  I know they do this only because they do not understand it, but still, anarchism has a negative connotation that we have to deal with.  I feel as if anarchists would get out and vote and draw more attention to their ideas through candidates like Ron Paul, the public might not see their beliefs as radical.  However a seccesionist movement would not accomplish the goal of opening peoples minds to anarchist possibilites.  Instead it would have a negative effect and essentially re-enforce the beliefs of the public that anarchism is radical and chaos.   

It would seem like 200+ years of trying to limit government through the use of voting would tell us that it doesn't work. You end up with what we have now. I don't think it matters what people think of anarchy. It is an individual transformation, not a national effort. I think a lot of people are confused on that. The minarchist wants to reduce the size of government, the anarchist wants to abstain from being governed. You can be a succesful anarchist inside of a huge state, but you can't be a succesful minarchist inside a huge state.

When the minarchists claim that we are working towards a common goal, I just can't agree. I used to think that you could spread the message through political means, but particularly in the last two years, I found that to just not be true. The political machine is set up to absorb any type of revolutionary thought. They (the government) haven't become this successful at doing what they do, which is limiting freedom and liberty, without learning how to deal with threats to their sovereignty. The government is already nothing but a tool of force and fraud. Why anyone believes that they won't use that force and fraud to retain their power is beyond me.

mr_anonymous:

Would it not be more practical to reform the government before the total abolition of it? 

The government cannot be reformed without the active cooperation of the government, so the answer to your question is no, it is in fact less practical to reform government than to oppose government.

Brainpolice:

The Spooner quote doesn't deal with the actual question at hand, or rather, it does not counter the actual arguments put foreward by anti-voting libertarians. The question at hand isn't about the morality of voting. It's about wether or not it works as strategy in any meaningful or long-term sense. In other threads, I've already made arguments as to why it is not sensible as strategy until I was blue in the face. I never claimed that voting means that you implicitly consent to the state, so the Spooner quote is irrelevant. That's really a straw man, not what most anti-voting libertarians have argued. What I do claim is that voting, nonetheless, functions as a sanction of the state regaurdless of consent, specifically that the voting process itself is used as ideological justification for whatever transpires afterwards. And what I do claim is that voting, regaurdless of consent, functions to either reinforce or strengthen the institutional framework of democracy and the state.

Furthermore, if Spooner's argument with respect to voting is viewed in full, he in fact makes a wonderful practical case against voting, because he rather clearly demonstrates its lack of practicality. So I find it rather amusing if not downright ironic that people quote Spooner as an arguement in favor of voting, when the man clearly was argueing against it. If anything, the Spoonerian arguments quoted above demonstrate that voting does not work. For voting only presents an illusion of control over matters. From the standpoint of the individual, vote totals really do not matter. The institutional framework remains. If the ultimate purpose is to get rid of the institutional framework itself, voting will not get you anywhere. However, if one's goal is to possibly have short-term gains for yourself while working with the system and still keeping it in place, vote away. Just don't fool yourself into thinking that it makes any sense at all as a long-term strategy for doing away with that system.

Unfortunately most anarcho-capitalists are still functioning as classical liberals strategically and in terms of their mindset, and even more unfortunately Rothbard became less radical as he aged, falling quite nicely into the pattern of his own diagnosis with respect to what happened to people like Herbert Spencer in the 19th century (I.E. "conservafication").

I'll have to disagree. I agree that voting, per se, is not necessarily advantageous to the long-term goals of the anarcho-capitalist. The crucial question is what the voting concerns in the first place. The assertion that voting is, forever and always, not good strategy is false for two reasons:

First, voting can actually advance freedom in the short term. Second, voting can undermine the state under certain circumstances in the long term. The two go hand in hand. For example, suppose that the government were to immediately allow every citizen to go into the voting booth and cast a "Yay" or "Nay" vote on whether or not the state should have the power to usurp land via the takings clause of the Constitution. In this case, voting "Nay" is not an affirmation of state authority, nor does it reinforce the institutional framework of the state. Rather, it is a condemnation of state authority in this particular instance and a rebuke of the institutional framework under which the state presently operates. So, clearly, voting is not necessarily and always violative of long-term goals for the attainment of full liberty, as represented in anarchy. It is, in contrast, an advancement of those goals when utilized in the proper context.

Voting all the time and every time is obviously a foolish belief from the market anarchist standpoint, because such a policy would, as you said previously, merely reinforce the states authority in the eyes of the public. This is, however, not an attack on the case-by-case approach that actually advances freedom in the short term as well as the long term. If voting is only utilized in those instances where state power and authority can be drawn into question or condemned outright, it can be a great tool, among many, in the armory of the market anarchist.

Hey IrishOutlaw! Hows it goin? (This is Box Proper )

ThorsMitersaw:

Hey IrishOutlaw! Hows it goin? (This is Box Proper )

Good to see you on here brother.

Brainpolice:

the voter is participating in or aquiescing to such immorality.

Forcing an individual to accept a system of voting is immoral and violates individual sovereignty.  However, the very system that one is subjected to might on occasion be a mechanism for self-defense i.e. you could vote to weaken the state or pass laws that permit secession or vote to end voting or prohibit all but voluntary payment of taxes.

At the end of the day coersive voting systems would not be so great a menace if the individuals voting were self-educated and responsible.  These individuals would ultimately vote themselves out of slavery.

mr_anonymous:

Would it not be more practical to reform the government before the total abolition of it?

No, reform is the last line of defense for the political class to hold onto their positions of power. Reform reinforces faith in the system. The "if only we get the 'right people' in government, it can work" syndrome. That the productive class adherents of state capitalism and state socialism both suffer from this same delusion serves as further proof that the two systems of statism have no substantive, only superficial, differences. Reforming the state can make it more tolerable, but it is intolerance to the state which must develop and become widespread among the productive class if there is to be any hope of removing the parasitic political class from their positions of power over us.

mr_anonymous:

I understand that anarchists believe limited government is still government, however, would people would be more open-minded toward an anarchist society after seeing that very limited government does not induce chaos?

Not to any significant degree, no. It is only by seeing the state as an enemy, by constantly having to avoid it and work outside it, and by dealing on a regular basis with peaceful counter-economic alternatives, that any significant portion of the productive class will come to see anarchy as desirable.

mr_anonymous:

Another fact that we have to deal with is that when we mention the term "anarchism", people (most people living in the US) automatically cast it out as an impossiblity and far too radical.  I know they do this only because they do not understand it, but still, anarchism has a negative connotation that we have to deal with.  I feel as if anarchists would get out and vote and draw more attention to their ideas through candidates like Ron Paul, the public might not see their beliefs as radical.  However a seccesionist movement would not accomplish the goal of opening peoples minds to anarchist possibilites.  Instead it would have a negative effect and essentially re-enforce the beliefs of the public that anarchism is radical and chaos.

You're still thinking politically. If we wanted people to vote for anarchy, we'd have to deal with that problem. Getting people to engage in counter-establishment economics, the peaceful alternative to the state that we offer, is relatively easy. The more the government involves itself in the legal "white" market, the more difficult it becomes for people to continue to pursue their own happiness through it, and so the more people turn to the alternative we offer. The path to liberty is not to reform the system, it is to replace it, to build the infrastructure of the new society in the here and now, to sap the strength of the political class by denying them ever greater amounts of tax revenue and corporate profits, and increasing their enforcement costs, until all that is left of the state is a hollow shell of its former self. Trying to convince people that something they cannot see or experience for themselves is better than what they have now is far more difficult than simply showing them a better way, by leading them to liberty through example and getting them to participate in their own liberation from the state.

Spideynw:

The borders of the "Roman Empire", and the size of its government, constantly changed throughout that time.

The borders and government of Rome both grew with time, both having started small. The larger it grew, the more ineffective it became at holding onto what it had acquired, until finally it collapsed.

Rich333:

Reform reinforces faith in the system. The "if only we get the 'right people' in government, it can work" syndrome

Agreed.  This mentality is counterproductive.  People are flawed.  Systems and ideas, however, stand the test of time.  That is why I like what www.downsizedc.org is doing.  They are trying to pass specific legislation that ties the hands of government, and does not depend on who gets elected.  Their strategy depends on how much pressure is applied to already elected officials.

Rich333:

it is intolerance to the state which must develop and become widespread among the productive class if there is to be any hope of removing the parasitic political class from their positions of power over us.

There exist a myriad of cases both historical and current that demonstrate the lethal inaccuracy of this statement.  Research Guatemala, Cambodia, and Zimbabwe.  The majority of the people in these nations fear and hate their government.  You have a good chance of dying if you fight these governments.  Force is the biggest problem here.  Dictators come to power via an iron fist.  All opposition must be crushed.  Furthermore, dictators and unchecked governments are not stupid.  They disarm their citizens/slaves first.  The only way for your strategy to work is for the majority of people to be armed with information, virtue, and ammunition.  This is why the American Revolution succeeded where others failed.  A citizenry armed only with guns will create a military dictatorship worse than the original government.  Ultimately, the idea driving the overthrow determines what happens after the bullets stop flying.  What intrigues me further is that if the citizens of a republic are so educated about the corrupt nature of government, then why don't they change the system through less forceful means. 

Suppose that you know a thief is breaking into your house through the window.  It makes no sense to sit there and say, "I'm going to wait until the thief smashes the window and actually has my money and gun in his hand before I take action." 

Rich333:

Getting people to engage in counter-establishment economics, the peaceful alternative to the state that we offer, is relatively easy.

This statement strikes me as a bit Utopian.  The states' response to peaceful alternatives to the state has always been coercion.  If you are siphoning off profits and not paying your enslavement fee i.e. taxes, then the state will call you a terrorist or a mafioso.  You will be attacked.  Moreover, remember that their exist irresponsible people that are use to relying on the government for their basic needs.  If you are denying the state resources, then they will claim that you are preventing the poor from being housed and fed.  Everyone looking for a free lunch becomes your enemy.  

This does not mean that individuals should not engage in counter-establishment economics.  It just means that it is not relatively easy.  Just ask a drug dealer.  Some activities are more socially acceptable than others of course.

Many anarchist libertairians 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 enviorment, in a general matric 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 enviorment 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  The Ethics of Liberty ch 24. p. 186-87

Attackdonkey:

 

 

Many anarchist libertairians 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 enviorment, in a general matric 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 enviorment 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  The Ethics of Liberty ch 24. p. 186-87

 

 Great post, I agree 100%

I agree as well, as I noted in this(link) thread. The position is apparently wildly unpopular!

After thinking about it for a while, I've come to the conclusion voting is an acceptable means in striving for an anarchist society (not as a sole means and it certainly is not the best one), but does not come without qualifications.

First off, there's the issue of voting for candidature. I dont see how it can ethically be defended. The fact that you vote for one thug over another with nothing but rhetoric and promise to back up such an action must imply trust in that person. Through that trust you entitle them with both power to lessen the role of government or worsen the situeation by expanding it. It is quite possible that a candidate go back on every single thing he promises once elected, In fact it happens over and over. Not universally, mind you, but the possibility of worsening you and your peer's situeation still exists. Blind faith is put in a man to mitigate the state. The man has no actual accountability for his actions except to the state (as far as the american political system is concerned). Certainly there is a probability that the actions promised will be carried out, however the risk that something more brutal will come about through their election is not nonexistant. As an anarchist I certainly believe everyone is entitled to risk their own freedom, the problem is, an elected official does not affect only that individual. An anarchist, therefore, should not be entitled to risk the freedom of his fellow anarchist and should not vote for a candidate.

The only time I see voting as a viable option to an anarchist is when ammending the social contract. The social contract, a document that the state is "supposed" to follow, is quite irrelevant. Voting to ammend it and protect "personal" right or negate an invasive ammendment is fully deffensive. The state does not nessesairily have to carry out the stipulations of that ammendment, however that doesn't leave an individual any worse off than when they would not have voted nor does it offer the possibility of a worse predicament than the one he already finds himself in.

Certainly this is not the most effective way of abolishing or destroying the state. Non-compliance, black marketeering, and agorism are all much more effective in attaining individual freedom, but I dont see how it can't be considered an alternative.

Ego:

I agree as well, as I noted in this thread. The position is apparently wildly unpopular!

 I know! haha