I don’t mean to speak for Natalie, but I imagine that was said in reference to a “peaceful” transition to a more libertarian society, via voting possibly. If enough people want a more libertarian society the theory can be formed that it would result in more libertarian minded candidates getting voted into office.
Of course I realize that many people don’t subscribe to that theory here, but then again it is just a theory (amongst the multitudes of other theories spoken of around here).
I guess my post came off as a little harsh. No harm intended. I just really dislike our current system, so when I talk about it, it shows.
Well it’s a tactic, based on a theory. Not voting is also a tactic, based on a theory.
The underlying theory being, liberty is not voting. If it takes voting to gain liberty, then liberty is subject to voting. Just as when people believe their rights are codified in the Constitution. The rights pre-exist the Constitution. The Constitution doesn’t grant rights, it seeks to make them explicit to agents of government.
I might vote one day, if it was to throw a wrench into the gears as a form of protest. But I would be a hypocrite to think I could bring change by democracy, when I reject the notion of mob rule.
Of course it’s an arbitrary number. I don’t know how many anarchists are there percentage wise, but I think it’s reasonable to assume that we’re a small minority. Most people are unhappy by at least some of the government’s policies or actions but they can’t imagine living with not government at all. Which means that for now any kind of revolution will only lead to another form of government thrust on everyone regardless of their wishes.
Agreed.