Voting from an Anarchist Perspective

[MatthewF]

Interesting thread.

I vote extremely rarely; there are few candidates/measures that I feel are worth a vote.

However, the day that I overhear a casual conversation between normal (statist) people where one of them is saying “gee, not very many citizens are voting. I’m starting to rethink this whole state thing,” is the day that i will no longer vote.

[Dondoolee]

In your previous statement:

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

I took it to mean something along the lines of: “we need to ban” together", and used as a refutation on Jackson’s comment. Is that correct?

[Laughing_Man]

@Jackson LaRose

The fact that I have the ability to color outside of those lines is proof that I need not be constrained. So why limit yourself?

I value sanity over insanity.

[apehead]

@Laughing Man

I value sanity over insanity.

Fair enough. As long you aren’t trying to get me to go along, more power to ya!

[Laughing_Man]

@Jackson LaRose

Fair enough. As long you aren’t trying to get me to go along, more power to ya!

Oh no, I would never force you to be sane. I would just use social ostracism.

[In_Restraint_of_Stat]

@Jackson LaRose

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.

x2, Voting for things that SHRINK the state are not against anarchist principles, IMO.

Some people say “we should beg our masters to take action X?” and I say sure, if it works. It comes down to putting your time where you think it’ll have the most desirable effect. Sometimes that may mean voting, other times it may mean other stuff (like some folks that are fans of counter-economics).

[apehead]

@Laughing Man

Oh no, I would never force you to be sane. I would just use social ostracism.

Now here’s a man who understands why objective rights are an unecessary construct slowing the progress toward anarchism!

[JoakimF]

Bert, just walk away. Show some pride, walk away. First read this a couple of times (Étienne de La Boétie http://mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf):

The tyrant, indeed, has nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?

La Boétie concludes his exhortation by assuring the masses that to overthrow the tyrant they need not act, nor shed their blood. They can do so “merely by willing to be free.” In short:

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

Then listen to The Truth About Voting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM

[apehead]

What about all the systems of government in which there is no voting? They stood for a good long while without toppling.

[In_Restraint_of_Stat]

@JoakimF

Bert, just walk away. Show some pride, walk away. First read this a couple of times (Étienne de La Boétie http://mises.org/rothbard/boetie.pdf):

The tyrant, indeed, has nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?

La Boétie concludes his exhortation by assuring the masses that to overthrow the tyrant they need not act, nor shed their blood. They can do so “merely by willing to be free.” In short:

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.

Then listen to The Truth About Voting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igbBItLemsM

So you mean if we simply choose not to support these folks, that we won’t get thrown in jail? Nice one. As long as there are SOME people, specifically the ones that directly use force on behalf of government (police and military), it means that people that choose to just withdraw support from the system(not paying taxes and not following laws you disagree with) are likely to get thrown in jail.

[DD5]

@Jackson LaRose

What about all the systems of government in which there is no voting? They stood for a good long while without toppling.

Consent is always required no matter what system of government. If this wan’t true, then dictatorships could rule forever. In fact they can be much less stable then Democracies. We talked about this before. Notice that nearly all dictators stage phony elections.

[apehead]

@DD5

Consent is always required no matter what system of government.

That makes sense.

@DD5

If this wan’t true, then dictatorships could rule forever

Define forever. Like eternity? There are some dictatorships that ruled for centuries.

@DD5

In fact they can be much less stable then Democracies.

There are also plenty of unstable democracies. I don’t really put much value in that statement.

@DD5

Notice that nearly all dictators stage phony elections.

In the age of liberalism, this is to placate the plebs. Even if no non-government employee actually voted in elections, the government officials could still claim victory by voting themselves in.

I’m not saying that voting can’t be used to lull people into the illusion of representation. But governments are taking a gamble by doing this, because they then must uphold the poll results to maintain this illusion of legitimacy by popular mandate. By voting against policies (or in our extreme cases the government altogether), you force the government into the position of upholding, or becoming completely illegitimized.

[DD5]

@Jackson LaRose

Define forever. Like eternity? There are some dictatorships that ruled for centuries.

Give me some examples. And don’t confuse monarchies with dictatorships.

[apehead]

@DD5

And don’t confuse monarchies with dictatorships.

what do you consider the distinction?

[JoakimF]

The question was about voting, which I addressed in my reply. I believe it’s generally a very bad idea to break existing laws but at least where I live it’s not illegal to not vote. But as you say if you break existing laws you probably get thrown in jail. But whenever possible I think you should withdraw your consent and not support the tyrant.

Professor Jesus Huerta de Soto formulated this really well in an article:

Moreover, let us remember that political revolutions need not be bloody. This is especially true when they result from the necessary process of social education and development, as well as from popular clamor and the widespread desire to stop the deception, lies, and coercion that prevent people from fulfilling their aims. For example, the fall of the Berlin Wall and the Velvet Revolution, which brought an end to socialism in Eastern Europe, were both basically bloodless. Along the path to this important final result, we must use all of the peaceful[13] and legal[14] means that current political systems permit

The two footnotes that follows this text is really good as well:

[13] We must never forget the prescriptions of the Spanish scholastics of the Golden Age regarding the strict conditions an act of violence must satisfy to be “just”:

1. all possible peaceful means and procedures must first have been exhausted;
2. the act must be defensive (a response to concrete acts of violence) and never aggressive;
3. the means used must be proportional (e.g., the ideal of independence is not worth the life or liberty of even one human being);
4. every attempt must be made to avoid claiming innocent victims;
5. there must be a reasonable chance of success (if not, it would be unjustifiable suicide).

These are wise principles, to which I would add that participation and financing must be entirely voluntary. Any act of violence which goes against one of these principles is automatically delegitimized and becomes the worst enemy of the professed objective. Finally, Father Juan de Mariana’s whole theory of tyrannicide is also relevant here. Juan de Mariana, De Rege et Regis Institutione (Toledo: Pedro Rodríguez, 1599).

[14] As Rothbard indicated, it is not advisable to violate current laws (basically administrative commands), because in the vast majority of cases, the costs outweigh the benefits.

Since I had the opportunity to visit Salamanca and listen to Professor Jesus live the prescriptions of the Spanish scholastics of Salamanca affected me personally a lot.

[DD5]

@Jackson LaRose

@DD5

And don’t confuse monarchies with dictatorships.

what do you consider the distinction?

Yes, very much so!

The case can be made that between a Monarchy and a Democracy, Monarchy is the less of the two evils:

http://mises.org/daily/4068

While dictatorship has actually more in common with Democracy:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe17.html

[Wibee]

“freeing” a slave was considered illegal at one point in time. To say breaking laws is generally a bad thing I think is short sighted. Break the law as long as you accept the consequences.

[JoakimF]

@Wibee

“freeing” a slave was considered illegal at one point in time. To say breaking laws is generally a bad thing I think is short sighted. Break the law as long as you accept the consequences.

Ok so what do you mean by short sighted? I believe that breaking the current laws will get you in a lot of trouble with very few benefits, but if you feel that the costs outweigh the benefits, go ahead. And as you say as long as you accept the consequences, but I think will be more productive to help to educate and spread ideas. Look at Socialism, they have made a pretty good job to spread those ideas over the entire globe.

[Wibee]

That’s true. I wouldn’t necessarily advocate breaking laws. Like, I would not tell people not to wear seatbelts. Most laws and regulations do keep people safe. I am referring along the lines of how the civil rights movement handled the law.

But then you have laws like this, http://www.infowars.com/think-government-is-corrupt-you-may-face-10-years-in-jail/

[JoakimF]

Yes and there’s a difference in not breaking existing laws and believe that current laws are morally justified. Since the state is a criminal organization that builds their power on threat and violence most of the current laws are morally unjustified and wrong. Crazy article in the link by the way, I hope you don’t live in South Carolina.