How would you deduce that from social ostracism?
Ditto, bump or whatever you kids call it now adays!!
I agree, we must destroy the state using its own apparatus. In a much more ethical way than the marxists took it over of course.
As much as I respect Rockwell, this is one area where I think he is dead wrong. I wish the marxists et-al. would do what so many libs advocate and drop out. It would make it easier for us, now there is a dilemma for you
Because you’ve found a non-normative method of letting me know you don’t agree with what I’m doing.
The problem is, some people think this way, but keep the system running because if they keep power, they can prevent a free society from turning back to government. Pretty much electing people to do nothing.
I tend to lean towards what you think. Dismantle the state using the state. I don’t think you can just change society overnight. It would be no different than bringing democracy to Iraq. The people are not used to the concept, and some dont want it. But dismantling is so complex, because almost every law and regulation the government makes is to correct a mistake that they ultimately made. It’s extremely complicated and I am in confict over this,
The probability of your marginal vote changing the outcome of an election is at best equal to the probability of the difference between the two top candidates being 0 or 1. So, voting to change the outcome of an election is stupid. The only reason to vote or get votes is that big numbers make producers want to put you on TV. Once you have that the ball is in your court. Otherwise, there is no reason to play.
well, I guess I’m not really qualified to answer this question since I’m not an anarchist (Minarchist/Old Right/Constitutionalist), but there are only three well-known people who are rumored to run for president that I would vote for (The others would be Libertarian party members who aren’t really well known outside the LP). They are former Governor Jesse Ventura, former Governor Gary Johnson (R-NM), and Ron Paul. My suggestion to you is to vote for the people you find meet your views the most. Obviously there aren’t any anarchists that achieve ballot status, so I’d vote Libertarian. If you care to write in someone you like, that’s not a bad idea. Voting your principle is never throwing your vote away.
That happens post election though.
i don’t think any change can happen unless people want it. Voting in one liberty minded individual won’t do any good. There is only so much one person can do, especially the way checks and balances plays out. Only way voting would work is if the whole or majority of the system is voted out. Assembly, councilmen, and other aspects of local, state politics that I am unaware of. One person voted in will only make him a lump on a log, who would not be able to change anything. Need people in position to write/nullify the laws as well as someone who can sign it into law or veto/nullify.
If someone “alone” tries changing the status quo too fast, he/she may be impeached.
Call me naive, stupid, whatever- but I think history has proven that 1 person or a small group can and do make a big difference. A Governor of a state can change the whole political landscape ( early depression .vs after ‘33ish)
I am convinced that Ron Paul’s influence will bear fruit for a long time to come. If everyone thought like some here, he would have had 10 votes from his family and would never have had the chance to influence tens of thousands as a somewhat “legitimate” candidate.
Does 1 single vote matter, no. Can 1 person influence enough others to make a difference, yes!
Explain how social ostracism is non-normative. Ostracizing you is a way of saying I would deal with you positively until you behave how you ought to behave.
I’m a bit surprised that the resident Stirnerite is for voting. I don’t think you need to make a formal moral argument to reject voting. I mainly reject it on the grounds of prudence/pragmatism. The evidence seems to indicate that it is nearly impossible for such a method to efficiently realize my self-interest. Not only are the options extremely limited ahead of time, but by its very nature the whole process is alienated from you actually making a decision yourself. This goes back to the basic problem of “representation”. Ultimately, only you can represent yourself. I would think that “direct action” is much more consistent with your “own-ness” than indirect, representational methods.
Did you look at the example I gave? It all had to do with priorities and the way the world actually was and the tools available to meet my hierarchy of needs and values. The government is the nature of reality as I know it, not some ideal like the “anarchist revolution”. Neither of them are my ultimate goal #1(though I do have my preferences). Nor do I give much care to serving the revolution if it doesn’t serve me. I certainly don’t care about serving freedom if it doesn’t serve me. Since it is a govt that is in existence it will be the tool that I utilize, if I can, for my more immediate needs.
Even if there was an “anarchist society” there would still be things in the way of my ends I am sure. The point is learning how to assess reality, and knowing the the hierarchy of ones goals.
boinks the pragmatico-minarcho-stirnerites en ess
As an amoralist, there is no moral victory. Morality would become the shovel of some higher cause digging my grave
As a materialist, if I burn myself with an ideal, I simply did nothing more than turn that idea into the gasoline to burn myself with.
Even if the Ideal is some specter that is an idealized version of myself and my owness.
In the example I gave, I would have alienated myself from my enjoyment. The cost of voting was not much, the payout of organizing political action and voting was certainly worth it.
I think in order for a politician to make a difference, they need the support of the legislature so they can actually get the sponsors in their legislature to get change. You may be right too. I was just brainstorming.
I’m afraid I am a bit behind on my internet lingo. what is “*”, boinks, en, and ess?
Put 2 and 2 together. 
creams
You are quite an E Sphinx(ter) and I am the Oedipus today.
I do find it confusing though how you argued against voting off of consequentialist/pragmatic grounds, and then disagree with me for voting off, of what I can only assume are more idealistic reasons. That is after I showed in this thread how I thought voting did help my on occasion, which would go contrary to your statement.
To call me a minarchist is odd. I don’t “support” minarchy. I asses the world to the best of my abilities in the conditions in which I live in, place my values, and go from there. I only support “anarchy” (whatever the hell that is) so long as it is something that supports me. If “anarchy” was concerned about me it would have helped my affairs, but it didn’t (suprise!).
PS.To say I’m “for” voting is odd to. I just recognize it as something that some people respond to, the situations gets assesed from there. As I am not “for” religion, yet I still can observe its effects on people in my environment and adjust accordingly to serve my goals (whatever they may be).
I find it un-surprising that people are equating learning how to & accepting the necessity to survive state-society as the same as explicitly endorsing it. But the details can be very boring on a forum, I guess.
We all try to survive it & live accordingly to our ideology as best as we can, without jepordizing a standard of living, while doing some realistic part, on our selves, to contribute to the work being done to render the idea of the state inefficient, unpalatable, & inferior to alternatives, like say, anarchism.
Reality is reality, & neither denying the reality of state-society, nor the reality of the current & future market processes required to challenge & eventually out-compete it as a mode of organization, is going go get anyone anything but social points with their respective peers.
You don’t hold me to the same standard. I behave like a jackass, you walk away. You don’t say, " You are wrong for being a jerk. You should behave more like me"