Voting from an Anarchist Perspective

Economics Political Theory
61

I see what you’re saying, but the fact is that our freedoms are determined by someone else, like it or hate it. That’s what coercion is all about! You seem to think that all that is necessary for liberation is the mindset. That is far too romantic a notion to be of any value. You have to work within your means to attain your ends. You can preach all you want, but at the end of the day, you will still pay taxes, because you will be an imprisoned idealist, rather than a reasonable serf, if you don’t!

Now what if a candidate is pro secession, or promises to abolish all laws in his jurisdiction. Is that not the path to freedom? I would say it is more constructive than being a crank on matters of principle.

There are plenty of governments that lack majority popular support (the US, for one). This isn’t what makes them “seem” invincible, it’s their tanks, helicopters, and swat teams!

62

.Here were I vote, voting is formally mandated. In the last seven years I retained from elections based on the the idea that by participating you are supporting the whole Democratic State and its inner workings, like some have explained very well in previous posts. That is why politicians want to make the vote mandate, they know a 20% voting turnout is practically bagging to dismantle the State, it means 80% of people is “potencially” against taxing under current administration (they could be indiferent, as the State tries to justify it where voting is still voluntary).

But I can see some argument when somene posted about being connered into opression by some Democratic poll you feel you can influence. I havent given much tought on it though but will try.

63

As long as “freedom” is determined by someone else, call it what you want, but it isn’t freedom.

No, it’s more action then you can ever take against the State. The state’s power is wholly derived from support. What better action can you possibly take then to withdraw your support?

Think about it this way: The system can continue as long as there is support. When you vote, it is effectively a positive reinforcement to the system. When you don’t vote, you have effectively withdrawn your support. It is a negative reinforcement. in both cases its is just one single reinforcer out of many. I fail to see how reinforcing the system is more effective then not reinforcing it.

I would say that there isn’t anything more romantic then believing you can achieve freedom within the system. It will be to turn the laws of human action on their head. To define gravity. You want to achieve individual freedom by means of collectivism. Good luck with that.

If you can’t beat them, join them. That’s what you just said. There is nothing to argue if this is the attitude. I don’t want us to go in circles here. Are we talking about how to achieve freedom or if one is to accept his eternal enslavement? If it is the former, then your way is in my opinion misguided and counterproductive. I don’t care about the latter.

No! It is just more of the same; To try to use the political means to pay lower taxes and smoke on your property. But this is nonsense. A smaller State can be just as tyrannical as a big state. Look around. The US is actually more liberal then the rest of the world.

I am pro secession but I think the idea that it is easier to abolish a small state then a big state is unsupported by any evidence or sound theory. You can’t vote yourself out of the system, so why do you think that it will be easier to individually secede from NJ then from the US? It may be even harder.

All government are ruled by consent. If this wan’t the case, then they wouldn’t be so heavily invested in state propaganda. In fact, dictators appear to be less stable then democracies. Why is that? If consent wan’t necessary, a dictatorship could rule forever. It may be that consent is even more of a concern in a non-democracy. Life is counterintuitive.

64

This is superb! A superb example of how scared statists are from what I am saying. This is their life chord and they are ready to compel you at gun point so that you don’t exercise your right to withdraw your support from the system.

If this is not a wake-up call to how misguided the idea is of using the political process in order to achieve freedom, then I don’t what is.

65

Yes, but this also proves that we are all still thralls. If you wanted to “not vote” for Saddam Hussein, well tough titty! You still had to do it! I don’t think you are implying that all people living under any government are all equally restrained by said government. The fact that we are talking about this sort of treason is proof of that, I bet they won’t let you do this sort of stuff in North Korea, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia. Why not take advantage of your ability for redress, regardless of how patronizing it may be?

66

Because it is not the liberty I seek. I tried to convince you of that before, but I have apparently failed. Redressing within the confined walls of the system, is not and cannot be liberty. What remains is to figure out that the system cannot dissolve itself. You cannot vote to end the game, you just have to stop playing. You can work hard to reduce your taxes but at some point you will have to either settle for eternal enslavement or change your strategy and start to work towards abolishing the system. At that point, you will have to abandoned the political means. I can’t believe you don’t see this. You can’t halt the game if you don’t stop playing. And it is completely not clear to me why it will be easier later then now. It will be harder. When you pay less taxes, the pressure is back on for the State to expand.

Don’t fool yourself for even one minute with this fallacious idea that you have more control over your government then did the subjects under a dictator like Saddam. All of your “freedom” is historically accidental and is despite our system of government. The minute our system was put in place, our “freedom” started to erode. There is nothing in our political system that protects your freedom any better then the system under Saddam. We just had a different starting point. That is all!

Do you think we are talking about treason? I thought we were talking about freedom!

And somehow it is precisely those States that are less stable and the future of their regimes is more uncertain. How do you figure that? They are not fooled by the illusions of Democracy. It seems that they have more accountability over their government then we do. Again, you are confusing the wealth around you with freedom. The past freedom that allowed capital to accumulate and make you better off is an historical accident that you are taking for granted. The government has done nothing but to destroy this “freedom” the moment it was set in motion.

67

I never claimed it to be. But as a means to liberation, I think it’s pheasable.

But voting can work towards abolishing the system. If tomorrow, there was a candidate for mayor who promised to abolish all local ordinances, how is that not releiving some of the state’s control?

That wasn’t my idea. What I meant was that I have more control over myself than a citizen of pre “shock and awe” Iraq, not the government. We are all monkeys on leashes, but our leash is longer. If we can successfully make that leash longer and longer, it will eventually snap.

That was a facetious remark.

You damn economists see everything in terms of dollar signs. I could really give a shit about money. I hate money! the only reason I earn it is because the government makes me pay taxes. Otherwise I’d be a subsistence farmer bartering for supplies! This is not about money, this is about my ability to live life as I please, I don’t dislike the state because it’s wrong, I really dont care either way about morality, I dislike the state because if forces me to behave the way it wants me to, not the way I want to. So maybe that’s a fundamental difference in opinion that prevents us from coming to concensus on this issue, but if the state “allows me the privilege” to get rid of it, I’m taking it.

68

It’s a logical contradiction. It’s been suggested up thread by others. It cannot dissolve itself unless the rulers walk off their jobs and nobody is interested in replacing them. At that point, you won’t need to elect anybody anyway. There is nothing mystical about what holds this system together. It is you taking orders. that is all. It is silly to elect somebody just so he can declare freedom when you are already ready to not take orders from anybody who replaces him.

69

A) So basically to sum up the results of your point: If I open a business I wish to run don’t pay taxes on it, don’t vote against potentially back breaking taxes if I can, don’t try to relate to those that concern me on their terms (customers, family, etc), relay things to them on “ancap” terms, and always look at “the big picture” of econ/ ancap, as that is true freedom

B) If I see common political activism (campaigning for an issue to vote on, a “negative rights issue”, no less) as useful to me and those I like don’t do it. Even when explaining to the people I am involved with and showing them all the lit on ancap probably won’t interest them/help, but a small uncommitted action to voting does. It also would have the outside chance of winning, and even if it doesn’t it would show my customers I tried with a realistic action to help them (and myself out) in a way they could understand. In other words voting is something people can relate to in this circumstance, ancap lit and rhetoric is not.

but screw it bite the bullet anyway “for true liberty”

C) There is no appeal to emotions and everything worked out economically, for me. After all, I calculated the actions for myself with my resources in the very unique situation I was in. I had a plan, I calculated, and I even made a bigger profit than anticipated. I opened the business I wanted to, I paid as little taxes as I reasonably could, I followed as few laws as I could, and I stayed out of politics as much as I reasonably could, and I came out of the experience with an overall profit and good experience. In other words, to the best of my ability, I accomplished as much as I knew how. And that’s a slave? Somehow that is not enough, perhaps even “wrong”, and goes against “the good cause”?

And if there is any appeal to emotions, it is because I went into a business with an emotional value that needed serviced, and it was serviced well. So to sum up: It did work in economics, and while it may not “work here” it worked in the areas that I was working for.

D) I didn’t seek permission to smoke on my property: I just tried to keep people with more guns away from my property while keeping me and my family functioning by using all the possible reasonable tools available to me. Likewise, I showed customers on terms they could understand I was working for them and the bar; and after it was all said and done, we still smoked in the bar.

I assume you have a drivers license. Do you feel humiliated for owning one? Did you ask the state permission to drive? No, you grant yourself that permission. You just took a look at the costs and assessed the best way possible of driving with as little hassle to you as possible. Is it that license that says you can drive? No, your the judge of that. The license just makes things less of a hassle by your calculation.

70

That is actually the very definition of freedom, that other people leave you free. (Hence the idea of “negative” rights, things that other people aren’t allowed to do to you.)

71

Thugs with guns help, too.

Well, you’re right, the candidate would have to stay to prevent re-legislation from occuring. of course, he could refuse payment, and do something else for a living, since it’s pretty easy if you job is to literally do nothing. Titles without force are nothing, they are made up. If declared yourself King of Spain, and convinced a few spainards you were right, then by your logic, you would ipso facto be sovereign of Spain. But unless you acted with force to seize the government, nothing would happen! It’s force that keeps us slaves, not the “sense of legitimacy”

Hell, Ukraine’s PM just got elected, with a 5% of total voters! Should we expect Ukraine to become Anarchist utopia anytime soon, well, no unless the guys he’s paying to protect him, and scare the Ukrainian people, stop doing it.

72

For some reason the ultra-individualists do not seem to realize the power of a concentration of force.

73

It’s hard to concentrate force when you are alone, so they discount it.

74

The appeal to emotions was in reference to your attempt to justify your desire to eat the cake and have it at the same time.

You should stop trying to justify your action. You don’t need my approval. The reality is that you must face this dilemma. Enslavement or freedom. I have come to realize that the middle road is statism.

You can’t take the wins but reject the losses. It’s not very honest and I think that this strategy is futile.

This is now taking the typical statist argument of claiming that you are always given the choice. You can obey or leave. you can obey or get shot. The choice is yours. What is the point you are trying to make here? Are you trying to convince me that it is better to join them if you can’t beat them? I’ve responded to this before. That is all. You can do that if you want. It is your right. But don’t fool yourself for one minute in thinking that you are fighting the system. You’re not!

75

Conforming to one fixed idea to combat another, do you realize how ridiculous that sounds. This isn’t a war of ideas, it a struggle of me to liberate myself from my oppressors. I have no regard for external ideas.

“All things are nothing to me”

  • Max Stirner
76

I never understood the idea that if less people voted the state would lose its legitimacy. Let’s look at the numbers

From: http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0781453.html

In the chart below every midterm election since 1960 has had less than 50% of voting age people voting. Yet the US congress hasn’t lost it’s legitimacy. Similarly, voting in Presidential elections trended lower from 1960-1996. Was the Clinton administration viewed as less legitimate by most of the population? No. Everyone knows that in general less people vote for city, state and town governments than federal governments. Have these institutions been delegitimized either? Hell no.

So long as some people still vote the State will still use it to justify itself. And since only a small percentage of voting age people are radical anarchist libertarians we can count on some people still voting. Therefore, there can be nothing wrong with strategic voting since not voting seems to have had no impact thus far.

So is it wrong to do what you can to get a less strict slave driver who will make life better for the slaves? While it’s not as good as abolition it does not seem to be immoral especially considering that most people don’t vote.

Year Voting-age
population		 Voter
registration		 Voter turnout Turnout of voting-age
population (percent)
2008* 231,229,580 NA 132,618,580* 56.8%
2006 220,600,000 135,889,600 80,588,000 37.1%
2004 221,256,931 174,800,000 122,294,978 55.3
2002 215,473,000 150,990,598 79,830,119 37.0
2000 205,815,000 156,421,311 105,586,274 51.3
1998 200,929,000 141,850,558 73,117,022 36.4
1996 196,511,000 146,211,960 96,456,345 49.1
1994 193,650,000 130,292,822 75,105,860 38.8
1992 189,529,000 133,821,178 104,405,155 55.1
1990 185,812,000 121,105,630 67,859,189 36.5
1988 182,778,000 126,379,628 91,594,693 50.1
1986 178,566,000 118,399,984 64,991,128 36.4
1984 174,466,000 124,150,614 92,652,680 53.1
1982 169,938,000 110,671,225 67,615,576 39.8
1980 164,597,000 113,043,734 86,515,221 52.6
1978 158,373,000 103,291,265 58,917,938 37.2
1976 152,309,190 105,037,986 81,555,789 53.6
1974 146,336,000 96,199,0201 55,943,834 38.2
1972 140,776,000 97,328,541 77,718,554 55.2
1970 124,498,000 82,496,7472 58,014,338 46.6
1968 120,328,186 81,658,180 73,211,875 60.8
1966 116,132,000 76,288,2833 56,188,046 48.4
1964 114,090,000 73,715,818 70,644,592 61.9
1962 112,423,000 65,393,7514 53,141,227 47.3
1960 109,159,000 64,833,0965 68,838,204 63.1
77

What, you think by adding the adjective “strategic” you are by some way not participating in this process?

Strategic implies long term. I fail to see how you could accomplish anything, if at all, other then a few short term benefits. In the long run, you are bound to gain nothing. Why don’t you show some tables about how voting for freedom has accomplished absolutely nothing!

What don’t you understand? Democracy is based on the illusion of consent. 10% is less impressive then 80%.

Why do you suppose that dictators always stage an election? Event if they are the only ones on the ballot?

What in the world is your table suppose to prove? Next time I’d like for you to plot it so it looks more scientifically sound.

78

I am not trying to justisfy my actions to you. I am stating my actions, as individual action as that is is all anything is. Point being, in the end that is all one should go by. I am using it as a method of comunicating / debating / discussing / reasoning why I think voting may have it’s uses. I do not frame things along the lines of pro state/ anarchy, good / bad…only what I wish to accomplish. That’s the point. It is for my liberty, or more well put, my ability to achieve my ends, not the ends of freedom or the state.

I am not in the middle of the road for statism / liberty…I am the whole road of “dondooleeism”. Statism and anarchy are simply abstract things that exist in mind. There is no “revolution” for the ultimate good cause, there is only the individual “rebel”, who frees himself only by his will and permission, and with that freedom grants himself the power to achieve the ends that he can achieve.

If people respond to the mechanism / “spook” of voting at the time, so be it. I’ll use it if people respond, and it serves my end. It is a mechanical process that can work for my affairs, it is a process that can be reasonably calculated and predicted. Likewise if people “vote against me”, I don’t recognize the spook, I never did. I just recognize some people respond to it. I recognize material efforts people in my situation respond to, and use and assess them. The “ancap society” can not work for me at the moment. It is recognized by no one who serves my self enjoment at the moment. It is an abstract notion that exists only in one’s head.

If you could tell me the practicle reasons why I shouldn’t have voted in the example I listed, I am happily all ears! Anything that could add to my potential for future self enjoyment is always welcome. At the time however, I had no other useful knowledge known to me where not voting in that particular situation was not useful, so even if it wasn’t " idealy optimal" (AKA: BS) at the time, it was still “realisticaly optimal” as I used the best methods within me to carry out my ends.

79

Of course they can. They, just like everyone else, asses things one at a time. It all comes to usefulness to ones own end over the end of the collectivized “good cause”, however. They may make a “mistake” in the assesment, but it is most likely out of the limitations of ones knowledge rather than an attempt to diliberatly sabotage ones own self enjoyment.

80

I have no idea of what you are talking about.