Anarchists - Voting for a secessionist

This is a question for fellow anarchists. I lurk around here a lot and see that nearly all of you do not see voting as an effective means to achieve our goals. For the most part, I agree that voting is nothing but a waste of time and can relate to the anti-voting mentality.

However, I was wondering if there would ever be someone for whom you would vote. More specifically, would you vote for a candidate who supported the right to secede? I know that a common argument against voting is that it does little good to vote for a slavemaster who happens to be a little bit nicer than the other guys. But what about voting for a slavemaster who would let you leave should you so desire?

I have to say, I can't see any good reason to not vote for a candidate that supported secession. Granted, I would have to trust that this person actually meant what they said, and they could not be a complete tyrant in other areas of their platform.

What are your thoughts on this? Would this be the one time where working through the government would be an effective way of destroying it? I realize that nowhere in the foreseeable future is it likely that a candidate that openly supported secession step forward, but what if? I apologize if this has already been discussed. I found nothing with a search and the "on voting" thread is a monster to sift through at this point.

If there was a candidate that could openly support secession, and have a good chance of winning, then the libertarian revolution would be so close to completion that it would be mostly irrelevant.  Education, counter-economics, civil disobedience, and establishing free-market enclaves are all rather more important than electoral campaigns.  A government that is friendly towards the movement would be an advantage, but not a necessity.

Voting would still be, effectively, a recognition that those working in the State have the right to be doing whatever they may be doing, including "giving" you your freedom.  Who says it's theirs to give?  I do not accept, nor will I ever, that my life belongs to anyone other than myself and I will act as such as much as is possible.  I would not allow anyone the slightest fiction that I am theirs to set free.

I've wondered if this is a false conclusion.  If we maintain the right to make free choices, then the choice to vote is given freely and may be withdrawn freely.

Whoever cam up with this idea that it is an endorsement of statism to vote, seems to be missing the plot.  I'm not sure if anarchists are actually in touch with reality on this, but the state doesn't need our endorsement.  It's a flawed notion that the state exists only because people support it.  The state exists by way of violence.  And even when consent is withdrawn, the state will still exist as a violent extortionist until it is confronted and defanged.

I like the peaceful notions of agorism, but it seems to be a lot of pie in the sky to me.  When someone sticks a gun in your mouth, or to the temple of your small child, you'll pay taxes and produce your papers.

True, the State does not need our endorsement or exist by universal consent. However, the more people who do grant the State "legitimacy" by voting, the more entrenched that State becomes. The slave master will be a slave master whether or not his slaves sing his praise and affirm his ownership over them.  His position, though, is more precarious when they do not sing such praise and affirm such ownership.

Voting is an endorsement of statism because, by voting, we are expressing our opinion that someone OUGHT to occupy a political office. There is no place to vote to abolish the office itself; we can only express our opinion on who should be the holder of it. Shunning of the State, not participation in it, is the only path to the renewal of libertarian culture and society.

liberty student:

I've wondered if this is a false conclusion.  If we maintain the right to make free choices, then the choice to vote is given freely and may be withdrawn freely.

Whoever cam up with this idea that it is an endorsement of statism to vote, seems to be missing the plot.  I'm not sure if anarchists are actually in touch with reality on this, but the state doesn't need our endorsement.  It's a flawed notion that the state exists only because people support it.  The state exists by way of violence.  And even when consent is withdrawn, the state will still exist as a violent extortionist until it is confronted and defanged.

I like the peaceful notions of agorism, but it seems to be a lot of pie in the sky to me.  When someone sticks a gun in your mouth, or to the temple of your small child, you'll pay taxes and produce your papers.

By not voting, I'm not kidding myself into thinking that this somehow dents the ability of the State to sustain itself; it is mostly a symbolic act of civil disobedience & of my own ethics.

Take the metaphor of the slave vs. the master: the slave taking that inital step of saying 'no', disagreeing with the master, or unwillingly abiding by the master's coercive force until circumstances prove more viable to full on emancipation (which could be anywhere from running away or gathering more slaves to revolt, etc.)

To my knowledge, I've seen very little words here confirming that many believe such simplistic nonsense that as long as you vote, The State exists; hence, if you don't vote, The State somehow doesn't exist.

Perhaps this is true, psychologically, in the ex-voter, but the physical manifestations of The State continue to exist with very real consequences.     

Disobedience, even if symbolic, is the first step towards confronting the state; until the gun is taken away, you try your best to find some sort of compromise between living your ethics, and living at all.

I think it's a bit deceptive to depict agorism's peaceful notions as "pie in the sky", when you have no evidence to back up that everyone involved in agorism has such a lack of logic.

Such phrases as "Pie in the sky" should villianize the lack of logic, not how 'radical' one is.


Back on topic, I would consider voting for a sucessionist, but not if they were running under a party name (Wrtie-In, or an arbitrarilty created one-off party in name only for said election). 

However, if the various sucessionist movements did not already exist in various states, I would not even consider it.

Whoever cam up with this idea that it is an endorsement of statism to vote, seems to be missing the plot.

I think you're misinterpreting the point, at least in the way that I think of it. The point is that by voting for a politician, in empirical fact this reinforces the position of power itself. It doesn't actually make it legitimate, but it functions to enable the position of power in question. It should be blatantly obvious that in a modern democracy voting is a means of enabling the status quo. It never leads to meaningful changes and most certainly not abolition. And that "whoever came up with that" is pretty much every anarchist in the history of anarchism - and a bit of common sense quite frankly.

It's a flawed notion that the state exists only because people support it.  The state exists by way of violence.

Actually it's both. Read Eteinne La Boetie's "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude". It talks about how entire nations of peasants somehow never overthrow a single man who tyranizes over them. Why? Asqueiscance. The king technically doesn't need to apply any force at all to keep them obedient. So long as the people don't actually engage in civil disobedience themselves, the king's position is fairly secure. So while it's not true that the state exists because people support it (although this is partially true in terms of those who support it in terms of being its employees themselves), the point you're missing is that states are perpetuated because people don't really resist it either.

I like the peaceful notions of agorism, but it seems to be a lot of pie in the sky to me.

I can't think of anything more pie in and sky then the idea that voting for conservative Republicans or wishy-washy LP canidates who have about a 5% chance of making it into office anyways is a strategy for abolishing the state. But we've been through this ad nauseum already.

Brainpolice:

I think you're misinterpreting the point, at least in the way that I think of it. The point is that by voting for a politician, in empirical fact this reinforces the position of power itself. It doesn't actually make it legitimate, but it functions to enable the position of power in question. It should be blatantly obvious that in a modern democracy voting is a means of enabling the status quo. It never leads to meaningful changes and most certainly not abolition. And that "whoever came up with that" is pretty much every anarchist in the history of anarchism - and a bit of common sense quite frankly.

Hmmm.  So it looks like I will have to go head to head with "pretty much every anarchist"...

Btw, they sure have achieved a liberated state, haven't they?  Any meaningful change or abolition?

 

Don't try to use negative proof on me.  That's an argument your position cannot withstand.

Voting for a politician doesn't enable the state.  NOT voting enables the state.  NOT doing anything to stop, stem or confront the state, enables it.  I'm not saying people should vote, I'm just sick of Anarchists blaming voters for the state, when it is the Anarchists who are directionless, disorganized, and punchless.  I run across theorist after theorist, and it's no surprise, the people who are speaking out against the state, are the last ones to form a PDA, or to plan a liberty expedition, or to create an action group.  Pamphlets, blog posts and essays?  No shortage of those!  Maybe we can paper over the state so no one can see it!

Common sense.  If it was common, more people would be Anarchists!

Brainpolice:

Actually it's both. Read Eteinne La Boetie's "Discourse on Voluntary Servitude". It talks about how entire nations of peasants somehow never overthrow a single man who tyranizes over them. Why? Asqueiscance. The king technically doesn't need to apply any force at all to keep them obedient. So long as the people don't actually engage in civil disobedience themselves, the king's position is fairly secure. So while it's not true that the state exists because people support it (although this is partially true in terms of those who support it in terms of being its employees themselves), the point you're missing is that states are perpetuated because people don't really resist it either.

Do you resist the state?  Do you practice civil disobedience?

People recognize authority, particularly when it is in the form of violence.  We may not like it, but it is true.  We are emotional creatures, with primal instincts and desires.

I will read your recommendation.

Brainpolice:

I can't think of anything more pie in and sky then the idea that voting for conservative Republicans or wishy-washy LP canidates who have about a 5% chance of making it into office anyways is a strategy for abolishing the state. But we've been through this ad nauseum already.

That doesn't address the pie in the sky tomatoes for pot swap that is agorism.  Where are the agorists?  Where are the PDAs?  Where are the agorist arbitrators, contract lawyers, etc?  Where is the agorist colony?  Where is the agorist guide book (don't point me to the NLM, it's written for fanatics and ideologues, not the regular Joe)?

Agorism has had what, 30 years?  What has been tangibly gained besides a wiki and a bunch of blogs?

I can see it now.

Agorism.  Foiled when the government turned off the internets.

liberty student:

Do you resist the state?  Do you practice civil disobedience?

They don't declare their mom's allowance. :P

Last time I checked the most successful counter to the government is the underground economy, something Agorists support and hopefully take part in.