There certianly were communes in the USA back before FDR ended economic freedom. How “classless” they were in practice I can not say, but I’m doubtful.
Oh, economic freedom ended in the USA long before FDR. Arguably, it never really existed here (considering the myriad of protectionism, political favoritism to industry, taxes, and the mere existance of chattel slavery in the 19th century).
As for “classlessness”, I guess that depends on what one means by “class”.
Since there is not an option to opt out of state services/controls, voting cannot be used to ideologically legitimize the state rationally. Anyone that thinks it does is simply illogical.
You’re not comprehending. The myth of democracy is that the state is voluntary because the people voted. This is certainly not true, but this is a commonly accepted ideological legitimization of the state put foreward by statist intellectuals. You’re right that the notion is illogical. I agree entirely. But that’s beside the point. The point is that in voting one merely allows this illusion of consent to continue, as the state’s members and associated intellectuals can continue to point the finger at “the people” and their votes as evidence of consent. If masses of people do not vote, on the other hand, the case for this illogical premise cannot as easily be made to the populace, since they rather clearly are abstaining from participation. This is what I mean when I say that voting contributes to the ideological legitimization of the state, with me knowing full well that this ideological legitimization is nonsensical and deceptive.
The statists ideologically legitimize the state, not by whether or not you vote, but because you can vote. So, even if you do not vote, they will still claim that the state is legitimized because you could have voted. As such, you not voting means you are simply letting less educated people vote in worse candidates, not that you are weakening the statists legitimization of the state.
This is the problem with the Libertarian party. It reduces the number of liberty minded individuals in both Democat and Republican parties, resulting in more statists in both parties. Liberty minded people have to vote, and they need to choose a party, either the Democrats or Republicans, and start voting for liberty minded candidates.
But I believe the 30s was a turning point for them.
They may still make the claim, but it holds much less weight when the bulk of the population does not vote. The lie of democracy becomes more blatantly obvious to the masses at large when only a minority of the people votes, because the illusion of representation is more disintegrated.
In either case, even if everyone voted, it would not necessarily make the state less powerful or more consensual at all. More people voting could very well help expand the state even more in practise.
I don’t see how working within a two-party system, one in which the two parties are collusive half the time anyways, is much of a strategy for liberty. The two party system is a problem in and of itself.
No disagreement here.
I’ll put my two cents in. Maybe in an anarchist society the people would’nt vote at a specified location at a specified time. But the people are still going to have to make decisions, so somehow there has to be an agreement, and some combination of fear and respect will produce that decision.
My question is: If an anarchist wishes to live in a stateless society, and refuses to vote because any vote would be a vote in favor of the establishment, then how do they expect to get to a stateless society? The population of the United States will not simply say, “You know those anarchists, they’re right!”, and refuse to vote. Lets face it, the chances of Ron Paul winning the nomination or the presidency are very slim, however, the chances of the majority of the U.S population changing their beliefs to that of the anarchists is just impossible. Therefore, why wouldnt the anarchists cast a vote for Ron Paul or some other true conservative, help him win the presidency, and THEN, worry about what little government that remains after Ron Paul’s administration? I do not wish to attack the anarchist position here, instead I want to understand their logic.
Well, I think a possible anarchist response is that the anarchist goal has nothing to do with limited or smaller government. Limited government is still government, and what’s more, it’s a government that people are more likely to accept. The question, just why is the anarchist supposed to be excited about making the government smaller? And why would anyone imagine that a smaller government is somehow a path to no government?
JAlanKatz, thank you for the insight. Especially:
This makes it more understandable. However, I still am a little lost. Would it not suit an anarchist to abolish the government in increments, by electing miniarchist candidates to do away with the majority of the government before abolishing it alltogether? I would think that if an anarchist would wish to live in a stateless society, they would have to somehow get rid of the state (obviously). This is where I am lost. If they would not vote for a miniarchist to get rid of the state over-time, what practical path would they want to take? (seeing as overthrowing the government or swaying the majority of the population’s beliefs is not practical.)
Cool to see another wrestler posting on the site, annonymous.
I want all to see this:
I am an anarchist. All anarchists, minarchists, and other radical libertarians should vote.
Your vote DOES count. The mentality that votes don’t count is ridiculous and hurts all libertarians. We need to band together, vote, and show that we are a force to be dealt with.
It doesn’t matter if the LP candidate isn’t a “true libertarian.” We need to vote for whoever out there with the most libertarian view that will naturally give more coverage to other kinds of more principled libertarians (like minarchists and anarchists).
Well, there’s a few agorists posting here, they can give you insight on their particular method. But regardless, if an anarchist thinks that eliminating the state piece-by-piece or bit-by-bit is impossible, then they won’t try it, no matter what you say about other methods. I happen to think that swaying the population’s beliefs is not only attainable, but is the only method that can actually work, long-term. However, I wouldn’t attempt to accomplish it tomorrow. I have no hopes for liberty in the short run - I would still have little hope for liberty in the short run if Ron Paul were elected President. But I think that influencing people’s beliefs is the only way we can win - we can only live free if people believe in freedom.
My idea is that I want to be free of the state. I do that by participating in the least amount of activities that involve the state that I can. I always look for the oppurtunity to conduct my everyday life without involving the state in anything. Somethings I just can’t opt out of because the state has a monopoly on so many things around me, like the roads. But if I can do anything outside the framework of the state, I do that. The idea of going out of my way to participate in a state activity is something that just seems like a foreign concept. I have no state identification, no bank accounts, no credit cards, no insurance (auto or health), I am self employed and file no taxes, no legal titles to property, raising children none the less. All of this in an attempt to minimize contact with the state, and then someone suggests that voting will keep me from having to deal with the state. When it doesn’t piss me off it amuses me.
This is an interesting argument. On one hand, we are talking about using the systems put in place by the state to weaken the state. On the other hand, upon encountering a weaker government individuals may be lulled into a local optima.
Wait a second. It seems that the objective is not to abolish government, but to abolish non-voluntary government. Governing bodies would still exist. The only difference would be that you could choose to subject or not subject yourself to them. The benefits of subjecting yourself to the jurisdiction of a governing body may outweigh the benefits of living on your own. Once you have a weaker/smaller government it seems like it would be easier to control. Why not convince that weak government to write a law that allows individuals and organizations to secede? The action would effectively legalize competition in the government sector.
Moses did not try to gradually transform pharaoh.
It is a much better strategy than abstaining. At least if you vote, the public will know that there is one more liberty minded individual out there and the parties will be more likely to adjust their platforms to cater to your vote.
An even better question is why would anyone imagine a larger government is somehow a path to no government?
However, in response to your question, because when people see that as government gets smaller, the world gets better, it would be much easier for them to envision a world without a government.
Politicians and parties adjust their rhetoric and platforms to cater to public demands all the time. This does not mean that they will actually fulfill such demands and there still is no institutional mechanism to ensure that they will. The Republican Party has catered to libertarian-ish sentiments for a long time. They haven’t followed through.