Voting from an Anarchist Perspective

Economics Political Theory
1

I want to know how people (anarchist, specifically) feel about voting. I’m sure there are Ron Paul supporters on this forum, and if he’s running I plan on voting for him in 2012.

Yet, I feel like I contradict myself in doing so. As one tries to dissend from operating with the State it seems the action of voting is just that, taking part in one of their activities. It should be a given that everyone on this forum tries not to involve themselves in State run operations, departments, or anything of that matter, and try to work in the private sector and not the public. When some people talk about working towards liberty they talk about just that, working in the private, free-market to achieve these goals, and straying away from any government intervention since it’s counterproductive. How would you work towards goals without voting if the matter itself is political where a majority can vote to restrict liberty? How would this be countered?

An example would be a vote to fund the construction or repair of some roadways, and the vote would be to increase a tax by let’s say 1% on certain goods to fund this. You may have a majority who are for this, and you are against it, but if your position is to not vote, how would you counter this legislation?

An individual itself may be against the act of being involved in any government action, but it’s hard for me to grasp the idea of complete removal from the State if the State is creeping it’s way into the individual’s lives by voting.

Does the end justify the means? Ron Paul votes “no” on everything, so would it be justified to vote for him if you are against voting, but you know that he’s the one who will counter legislation from within the government.

I also have friends who are pessimistic about this, and him ever getting a chance (which I know he won’t be president, and if he does he’ll got assassinated, but I feel that’s an entire topic in itself). Last election I had friends who complained about Obama becoming president, but didn’t vote. I felt if you are going to complain you should have at least tried to counter it, instead of not voting then getting mad because he won.

Does anyone else feel the same way?

2

My position is if you vote against a bridge to be constructed and the majority vote for the bridge, you have no right to complain, you implicitly agreed the majority is right,

The Anarchists position is that government should have no such powers anyway, so such things as voting are illegitimate.

3

I would say vote. The state is in charge. It sucks, but it’s a fact. Openly resist it, they go Ruby Ridge all over your ass. Do nothing but gripe, they laugh all the way to the bank, while reading transcripts of your latest phone call. You must dismantle the apparatus from within.

It’s like saying double agents are hypocrites for participating in what they are against.

4

How is that?

5

Bert, I don’t think it matters if you vote or not, unless you are a mayor, governor, or president, your vote really does not count for much.

6

Uhh this aint gonna happen. Voting for any party, even libertarians, only feeds our fantasy of political leaders taking care of us. The whole state system is built upon that fantasy. It can only sustain itself through keeping it, so it will be impossible for libertarians to destroy the ideological foundation of statism through the use of its means. Agorism is the only real solution.

7

It’s more like sending x-wings in to blow up the death star. You will be utterly crushed if you attempt to face it head on, so you must infiltrate.

8

I think he’s saying that the act of voting itself implies that you will accept the decision of the majority.

9

There shall come a time, after this ugly state-thing is over and done with, when we’ll see that having sold our ideas just to get a 1% decrease on taxes, we have been left with nothing at all. Even if Ron Paul wins (if I where some Rothschild, I’d let him win to discredit Libertarians) he’s never going to cut taxes/expenditures more than 10% (of their current level, not in percentage points). The state is too much a leviathan for a single guy to counter it. It corrupts all. Let us anarchist be free in our minds at least.

10

If that’s the case then you wouldn’t vote at all and just accept the outcome of any vote/election. If you voted against the legislation, and the majority voted for it, you obviously don’t accept the outcome of the decision (you only put up with it because now it’s law).

11

You do not have any control over the outcome before or after the election. Whether you vote or not, the mainstream party puppet will ascend to the throne, and he/she will not be bound by accountability.

If anything, vote for the forum error lottery to be impeached.

12

If it helps you vote, if not don’t. If I owned a business and some tax or regulation came up to a vote, I would (and have) sent myself to the voting booth, without an ounze of bad conscience in me. Use the tools and options available to help yourself, they will be available in any insane system that sets itself up.

13

That would only be the case if not voting meant you did not have to comply with the law. So no, it does not imply that you accept the decision of the majority.

14

Ron Paul is like Bloomberg or Arnold. They are republican in name only. Ron Paul ran as a libertarian before.

If you are not involved in government action, you consent to their tyranny. As for voting. That is the only way to change things. But you can’t snap your fingers and the political system would change. You need to vote in the right people who will disband government. local, state and federal.

The US has state sovereignty. Utilize that along with secession. That is one of the only few ways to develop a truly free society.

15

If you remember that elections are a weapon and a tool of politics, then you can vote strategically.

That doesn’t mean that your strategy can be based entirely on voting.

16

I say you have it exactly backwards.

As liberty student use to say: If you vote, you shouldn’t complain. Otherwise you’re a sore loser.

It is the voting process that provides the illusion of legitimacy to the politicians. The more people participate, the greater the false sense of legitimacy for the politicians. The more sense of legitimacy, the more they are powerful and dangerous. This is why they always want a high turnout. Nobody wants to win with only a 10% turnout.

When you participate in any elections, you have already provided consent to who ever wins regardless of the outcome. You have essentially granted approval to the rules of the game. The person who wins claims a legitimate mandate based on all those who voted and not just those who had voted for him or her. The system wants you to vote regardless of who you vote for. This is because elections is really about support for the system and not for this candidate or that candidate. Haven’t you noticed that it almost makes no difference who wins?

Our problem is never that the man in charge is not the right person. Our problem is that there is a man in charge, period! The choice we need to vote for is none of the above. When you are voting for a candidate, you have voted for statism.

Consider that by withdrawing your support from the entire political process, you have actually become much more of a threat to the system.

17

DD5. I am enlightened. I hate how much sense anarchy makes. It disturbs me.

Should I feel bad for voting libertarian for governor this past November? My heart was in the right place. :frowning:

Edit:

Spidey, I just checked my email. I subscribed to instant notifications when people reply. So I did see the post you deleted. My theory for going forward was ultimately state secession with enough like minded people moving to a state. I don’t think that is possible without elected representatives who favor that option. Hence my opinion on voting. But reading what DD5 said, it just might have convinced me in non-participation. His method of responding was much more effective than what you had originally posted. But I have a lot of respect that you retracted the post. I am still learning.

18

Its fine to vote if you think its in your best interest. Time will bear out whether you were correct or not.

19

Agreed, I don’t think there is inherently unjust about voting. I think there is injustice in majority rule and forcing others to do something against their will but these aren’t necessarily implied with voting. I personally don’t think voting will do much but if someone else wants to vote then I’m not going to go out of my way to stop them.

20

it was hard enough to justify for myself not voting for the lesser of two evils. It was hard enough not voting republican and potentially giving Corzine another 4 years. I just have to rethink yet again my opinion on things. What DD5 said was very convincing, especially since I just read the last chapter of new liberty. I am man enough to admit that DD5 might be right. There are just so many topics to understand. Perhaps I’ll look into this more after I read up on other things. (Formulation of laws in a free society)