A Modest Proposal

Economics Political Theory
41

It seems like you’re trying to explain to me the evils of democracy. Believe me, I’m not a fan!

The left’s favorite excuse for trashing rights is that “the people agreed”, and you have to realize that I hate democracy with every ounce of my being.

That doesn’t mean that I’m not going to participate in it, though. We all agree that democracy is a tool used to transfer property and rights from one group of individuals to another group of individuals, regardless of whether the victims voted or not. That’s the problem. When you say things like:

You’re almost implying that by not voting, those people won’t be affected. Well, they will be, and that’s the entire reason that democracy is a sham. If they weren’t affected, then we’d have no right to oppose it! By voting for the lesser of two evils, you are minimizing the injustice.

Don’t say that all injustice is created equal! For an extreme example, the United States’ government is much, much less evil than the North Korean government; neither is legitimate, but one violates more rights.

No, it’s acknowledging the fact that their position of power will exist, regardless of whether I vote.

edit: some typos

42

Let me present a (rather realistic) hypothetical, Ego. Suppose the presidential election comes down to Obama vs. McCaine. You reason, being your anti-leftist self, that “the left” is always worse so therefore you are voting for McCaine in “self-defense” against Obama. Does voting for McCaine really seem like a strategy for bringing about the goals of libertarianism? Does voting for McCaine truly constitute “self-defense” when McCaine himself is an aggressor? McCaine would be an aggressor against you and everyone else.

At best, you could try to rationalize your vote for McCaine by proclaiming that he will increase the government a little bit less than Obama (which probably isn’t even true, but let’s assume it is for the sake of argument). But how is very slighty avoiding future increases in the power of the state, only in a comparative sense to boot, a strategy for actually eliminating the state? It isn’t even a strategy for reducing the state. And you’re not actually being “defended”. Your vote will not have lead to the liberation of anyone.

What would the actual result be of McCaine gaining power? To make an educated guess: The Iraq War would continue indefinitely, we might invade Iran, the police state and surveillance apparatus would either remain or expand, and if you’re lucky institutional pressure from conservatives will force McCaine to make a few measly tax cuts. The federal reserve would remain. The government would continue to borrow a bunch of money and monetize the debt. The state and its essential features would remain. No significant change in the status quo would take place. Not even an overall minimization of power. The libertarians would continue to cower their heads and be frustrated.

This “lesser of two evils” logic only leads to the perpetuation of evil. It is totally futile if one intends to actually uphold a principle. It is the disease of pragmatism.

43

What you fail to see is that by voting for the “lesser of two evils” (1) you are necessarily voting for evil per se and (2) you are perpetuating and enabling evil. It is not an actual solution to the problem of evil! I would think that libertarians would be above this “lesser of two evils” crap. Isn’t that precisely why people get disgusted with the two main parties in the first place?

Furthermore, are the evils presented to us really that different or lesser or greater than eachother? It’s a package deal! It’s two sides of the same coin! You get a great big dose of evil whichever way you slice it. Both parties and all canidates are all around statist. They all support the same fundamentals. They mostly only disagree on nuances and implementation. They’re pretty much all pro-war and pro-intervention. And they all want the same thing: a position of political power over everyone for themselves. So it’s absolutely futile to engage in such a process with the hope that it will actually lead to the elimination of the problem itself. You’re not striking at the root, and not even at the branches. You’re missing the target altogether.

It does not logically follow that you’re minimizing anything. In practise, the state (and hence the injustice) will most likely continue to actually grow. At best, you’re minimizing future increases in injustice. But that’s hardly a strategy for someone who wants to abolish injustices as an ultimate goal. It’s absolutely counterproductive. If you so clearly see democracy as a sham then that would be all the more reason to not participate in it. The objective evidence of what actually often happens when the democratic process occurs is entirely against you, regaurdless of who the canidates are. The problem is institutional, not a matter of personalities. You can’t defeat institutional problems with a mere regime change.

It does not logically follow that I should therefore have voted for George W. Bush because he is allegedly comparatively less evil than Kim Jong Ill or whatever his name is. It does not logically follow from the fact that some governments are worse than others that supporting the “less evil” government is a strategy for anarchism. Due to your pragmatism, you turn the debate into a ridiculous quantative one rather than a qualative one. We can waste our time all day making a comparative analysis of the quantity of injustice perpetuated by different governments and different rulers. It would do nothing to address the qualative problem of injustice itself. Actively participating in electing a more “benevolent” dictator is not a sensible strategy if one’s goal is actually eliminating dictators, no matter which way you cut it.

As usual, your reasons for voting are actually reasons against voting. If it’s true that even if you do vote, the institutional problem will remain no matter who you vote for, then if your goal is to actually eliminate the institutional problem, obviously voting is not going to get you anywhere! It logically follows that if voting is futile with respect to the goal of actually eliminating positions of power, in the place of voting one should try to find other ways to obtain the goal that aren’t futile (hence, the need for something like Agorism). Do I have to beat a dead horse? Sheesh. You keep making arguements based on the premise that the choice is between voting and doing nothing. I keep asserting that voting is futile, and you keep responding with the notion that therefore not voting is futile too. You’re ignoring the alternatives to voting. You argue as if there is a vacuum in the absence of voting, which is not the case. I don’t merely suggest that you don’t vote, I suggest that you engage in direct action instead of voting.

44

Obviously, no changes will ever be brought about by simply doing that; If that’s what you thought my position is, I assure you it’s not. We need to stop sitting on our hands and actually get involved in the political process! We need to begin to support electable libertarian candidates with moderate, palatable platforms (Ron Paul was still way too radical) for the major two parties. As people see the reforms working, I have faith that they will support more like-minded candidates. Out of principle and laziness, we’ve let the statists monopolize the process.

As for McCain? Delaying nationalized health care is reason enough to vote McCain into office over Obama. Leftist programs are nearly impossible to dismantle, as we’ve gone over before, due to the perpetual-and-ever-increasing dependents and votes they create.

You raise a valid point when you said that it’s not always clear-cut which candidate is less statist. I agree. You mentioned that McCain would be more hawkish than Obama; I actually disagree with that, I honestly think it would be the other way around! Still, I understand your point.

That doesn’t mean we have to be paralyzed, though; just because we will be ruled by one of two statists doesn’t mean we should sit on our hands and accept whichever ones the statists throw at us! We have to make value judgements and decide which candidate does the least long term damage, under which candidate would it be easier to practice agorism, etc.

I feel my last post made more sense than this one; I’m falling asleep. I’ll just say that while I absolutely support non-electoral strategies, especially education, we need to get involved in the political process. As long as the statists are able rewrite the laws at will, we’ll never win. 'Night!

45

Nationalized healthcare will be harder to dismantle than “100 years” of war?

46

Aside from the fact that McCain never said that, yes. Wars have come on and gone throughout history; nationalized healthcare has never gone away.

47

I don’t know what the link was for.

Left in the context of political usage always had a single definition. I don’t know why you continue to grasp at straws like this.

On voting, yes, you are supporting the state. You’re supporting the state as a “defender,” you’re a supporter of statists. I’m sorry that you don’t like that, but political action has no other purpose than political action - unlike actions such as using roads or buying groceries. In any case, I’m not really interested in debating about the morality of it, because quite frankly I no longer care about doing that. Whether supporting the state is moral or not, you’re still giving the state power while draining your own strength. It follows.

Besides, revolutions ( of all sorts) usually turn out better than reform; incrementalism hasn’t a thing to do with that though.

48

Of course it’s different! - though it excuses neither.

The former onlly has the purpose of promoting statists; the second has the purpose of living as a victim.

49

Ego, do us all a favor in the libertarian movement and stop calling yourself a libertarian. Please, just leave.

May the Lord bury you in the coals of the phlegethon for your support of a mass murdering, pagan priest.

Mortacci tua

50

Let’s say you were given two choices: you could be stabbed in your eyeball or you could be stabbed your lower thigh.

If you chose to be stabbed in your lower thigh, that doesn’t mean you are “supporting” it. Your misleading language and arrogance belong on the left. Wow.

51

I’d rather belong on the left than on the walls of the City of Dis.

I’m done with you, you’re a disgusting, iniquitous snake.

52

I personally have never voted because no one has been worth my vote. I share the agorists moral qualms about voting, and refuse to get blood on my hands in the name of choosing between evils. I don’t intend to vote until I can do so for a candidate I believe in, but none has yet appeared.

Now here is my line of thinking in regards to that situation. It bothers me that there are no good candidates to vote for. It dissatisfies me. Normally, when dissatisfied, I take action to improve the situation. Given that I can’t control other people, and given that the deck is strongly stacked such that the worst get on top and the best are disgusted by politics, there is only one remaining option… one I’ve resorted to many times in order to solve past problems – do it myself. Hence my current path of grooming myself as a candidate, trying to find others willing to groom themselves as candidates, and trying to craft a strategy that can acheive certain specific goals that I think are within reach and capable of striking mighty blows for freedom. Sure, I’m probably doomed to failure, but I’m the type that can forgive myself for losing to superior competition but not for standing by when the ship is sinking and me thinking I can do something about it.

My thinking is generally unchanged by agorism, which I don’t see as a viable option. IMO it just doesn’t appeal to enough personality types to ever reach critical mass (i.e. the ability to resist a government crackdown). But I respect agorists and their views… after all, history shows that the worst get on top, so why should they assume things will change in the future? A most reasonable view. To which I can only think to myself, I have to show them it can be done. So that’s part of the plan as well. In the meantime, I respect what they’re trying to do and will help out where I can (believe me, I’m down for tax-free transactions).

I do think it’s a waste of energy for agorists to get all bent out of shape about reformists. My view is that it’s better to focus on what you can control (i.e. yourself) instead of what you can’t (i.e. other people who disagree despite your arguments).

53

I always thought left and right were economic terms. Oh well, I think arguments pertaining to them are rediculous and I guess the meaning is subjective now since I’ve heard it used so many ways.

54

When I first came across your agressive, vitriolic talk of “purging” and such I thought it was a bit extreme. Then I thought back to some of my attempts to find common ground with anarchists of the communist, primitivist etc. variety and realized that my frustrations in getting through to them have a great deal to do with vulgar libertarianism. There are certainly a lot of dullards in the anarchist movement who seem to think everything but the market can be free in anarchy and all that garbage; but a great part of the difficulty in forming alliances with these sort of anarchists who have a lot of potential to be revolutionaries is that so many libertarians like to side with conservatism and thus appear (rightfully so) to be defenders of the status quo and counter-revolutionaries. It would be great if the far left brain dead anarcho-communists, marxists posising as anarchists (ie Chomsky), vulgar libertarians and conservative wanabee libertarians would cut it out, but alas, they seem to be stuck in these naivetes.

I haven’t made up my mind on the best strategy, but maybe some sort of separation (I prefer that to “purge”) is in order.

Have you seen the film “Anarchism in America?” Karl Hess tells the filmakers to go to the LP and they say “oh no, we Libertarians aren’t anarchists blah blah blah.” Hess thought (rightfully) that these young anarchists should get in contact with libertarians. Unfortunately, he sent them to the parlor revolutionaries who have to insist on being more moderate than they are to try and win (and end up losing) an election. Of course this sort of reformism does gradually truly take root and the parlor revolutionaries actually become what they were pretending to be for the sake of reform. I guess you can’t spend years trying to dance like a monkey without some genuinely simian characteristics taking root in your very essence. No wonder they think we’re “conservatives who smoke pot.”

55

Is the main gripe here just the general use of the word purge? Because, though a venomous word and a word used for that purpose, the word is still just a word. Substitute the word purge for, kindly and libertarianly extract reformist elements from revolutionary activities if it helps.

[:)]

56

Well, I think a stronger emphasis should be put on improving the libertarian left than separating it from the right. For example, sites like lewrockwell.com are much more attractive to newcomers than sites like all-left.net. So that should take priority over “purges.” If the libertarian left gets stronger, the right won’t be able to just dismiss us as a bunch of kooks (as they have been doing sometimes such as Dilorenzo’s dispute with the notreason people). More emphasis needs to be put into building the left into a force to be reckoned with. Once it is a force to be reckoned with actual debate will be a lot easier. The question “What are you defending, free markets or actually existing capitalism?” should be put to vulgarites more often. I think quite a few people could realize their errors… hopefully. I also don’t think you can so easily discount the good things that the right libertarians have achieved. I’m not referring specifically to Ron Paul or anything like that (although I think his campaign has had somewhat of a good educational effect); things like the Mises Institute (we are on their forum right now after all) contribute alot in terms of literature, media and other forms of “anti-intellectual intellectualism.” I don’t think an all out “war” is productive.

57

My immediate reply was that there is a use for reformists, but then I would think there is a difference true Reformists and “reformists.”

The Reformist wishes to maintain a minimalized government that is limited in its scope to a judiciary judging violations of (for lack of better words) fundamental laws - contract (if you signed it you signed it and you’re stuck with it, read the fine print next time), theft, burglary, trespassing, robbery, rape, and murder. I would remind you of the blood feuds that result in any system where there is no ability to seek honest, unbiased, objective, third party justice. I, personally, would prefer such a system with basic laws, agreed upon, set in stone, and immuteable - although also unable to be added to…those are the laws, and they are the only laws, any further laws are simply unnatural trappings. However, I think that even though those basic concepts go without saying with the ideal people suited to an Anarchist society, most people are not ideal. Most people will need the ability to call upon (groups of?) people to examine cases of such violations and to rule on them. Now, I could be wrong, but I would think that a system lacking at least this means would totally break down into blood feuds and then all your hard work and the blood shead for your revolution comes to nothing. Even then, though, I realize that such a skeletonized and limited system would be extremely radical, indeed, especially by today’s standards.

[Off-Topic Point] Which brings me to a point that has kept me on the “minarchist” side of things instead of moving more completely towards anarcho-capitalism or agorism: what would an anarchist system propose to do to prevent the blood feuds that have been common in societies in the past where there is no structure of at least judiciary to reign in such things and prevent them from continuing?

Conversely, the “reformist” seeks the narrow-minded view that he must not even minimilize government to mere fundamentals, but must maintain his (or her) own “governmental” system. A good example being those who want to “return the Constitution of the United States (vomit) to its former glory.” I must say that if this is the type of person you are speaking of, then I whole-heartedly agree. Nothing is becoming more annoying lately than people - obviously ignorant of what the Constitution of the US says or how its compromises have destroyed every ideal that the people who fought the British occupation bled and died for - who tout the document as the greatest thing since bread and butter and who seek “total returns” to it. Perhaps this is simply because I used to be one of them, but through the allowance made for the federal government to “regulate interstate traffic and trade”, it made itself essentially a document of infinite federal authority through the de facto bans of regulation.

That being neither here nor there, though, I would fully agree that such “reformists” that wish to operate only within the bounds of governments of such corruption and unlimited scope are quite useless.

However, I think the effort should be to teach them, to educate them so that they understand realities instead of just tossing them out on their rumps. Save that for the ones who genuinely cannot be changed.

58

I’m sorry, but how is that realistic? Ego does not have to vote for either of them. He can vote third party. He can write in Ron Paul.

Why assume that the election is a two party zero sum game? That’s part of the agenda for incremental change. To undermine that sort of mentality.

59

Great minds… [:)]

60

Rewrite laws, hold the best guns, control foreign relations, control the media, and own the infrastructure.