That seems extremely naive. The state colludes with the media to paint those who resist it any way they want. Look at Waco, or Ruby Ridge. This might work if the people thought the cause was just, but it seems very unlikely they would come to that conclusion if the propoganda machine of the state got to them first.
If that were the case, you would be pretty hard pressed to find anyone who would pay taxes.
Nullification, and ignoring mandates would be sufficient to wither it to a mere vestige of it’s current control.
The end result is similar, but secession is a revolutionary, violent refusal of legitimacy. The grassroots nullification movement would be much less likely to end in tragedy, IMO.
When I posted this I was coming from a political (and perhaps economic) perspective. While I appreciate all the responses (I didn’t expect this to go to five pages), I’m actually rethinking what my original post should have based on, and now instead of basing it from an anarchist perspective I’m now leaning towards a more praxeological approach.
Let us consider some of the immediate implications of the action axiom. Action implies that the individual’s behavior is purposive, in short, that it is directed toward goals. Furthermore, the fact of his action implies that he has consciously chosen certain means to reach his goals. Since he wishes to attain these goals, they must be valuable to him; accordingly he must have values that govern his choices. That he employs means implies that he believes he has the technological knowledge that certain means will achieve his desired ends. Let us note that praxeology does not assume that a person’s choice of values or goals is wise or proper or that he has chosen the technologically correct method of reaching them. All that praxeology asserts is that the individual actor adopts goals and believes, whether erroneously or correctly, that he can arrive at them by the employment of certain means. - Praxeology: The Methodology of Austrian Economics
Instead of basing it on if I’m against the state, then I shouldn’t take part in their elections, I’m now basing on whether or not it’s the most efficient means to obtain a given goal.
Furthermore, that a man acts implies that he believes action will make a difference; in other words, that he will prefer the state of affairs resulting from action to that from no action. Action therefore implies that man does not have omniscient knowledge of the future; for if he had such knowledge, no action of his would make any difference. Hence, action implies that we live in a world of an uncertain, or not fully certain, future. Accordingly, we may amend our analysis of action to say that a man chooses to employ means according to a technological plan in the present because he expects to arrive at his goals at some future time.
If I apply this to voting in national elections, I could probably conclude that a candidate I may select may or may not become elected. I can take into considerations and information presented on the likely hood of the candidates win (ratings, etc). Let’s say, I feel that the candidate I select has no chance at all (all odd’s against my decision), then the action I take in voting may be useless, and my ends are not obtained. If I feel that there is enough support, and the information presented shows that a large percentage of voters are more directed towards the candidate I support, then voting may prove fruitful since the end I’m trying to obtained may work through these means. If I’m content with the course of history (in that present time, and whatever knowledge I may have of who could be elected, and who won’t be), then I might not waste my time to vote, but if I feel otherwise (and if it’s local and the odds are not completely against me) I may vote.
I would say look at the examples I gave to show how I think voting could be advantageous. While it may be futile 99% of the time, especially at a national level or voting for canidates, it can serve a practicle purpose. When people say “don’t vote” it is more of a rule of thumb than a rule of law. I think it may be most useful to analyze specific examples, as to when and how voting may be useful, as in I think this forum is in agreement that it is for the most part useless.
Suppose you are living in a country where there is a public speaker is openly promoting genocide against (insert ethnic or religious group here). Suppose that approximately half of the audience is swayed by his arguments.
Now, suppose the issue is going to be decided by a voice vote. Public deliberations have been decided in that fashion for centuries in this imaginary country. The pro-genocide people are getting loud and excited at the prospects of winning the debate.
In the midst of this turmoil, you either,
a) shout NO!!! as loud as you possibly can,
or,
b) simply mutter sophisms to yourself. “Why are all these people shouting? This really is dumb. I mean, shouting doesn’t really make anybody right. It just makes them loud. And dumb. I’m not going to shout. Smart people like me don’t shout. Shouting doesn’t do anything, anyway.”
For anybody who is not sorely deficient in the passion of conscience, A is the only choice. If you care about saving the lives in question, you will play the game; you will participate in the debate and try to persuade other people to see things your way.
The myth that voting is equivalent to coercion is simply that, a myth. There is no “coercion” involved in shouting in the above example; and there is no coercion involved in checking a box on a piece of paper. Voting is merely expressing an opinion, and non-voting is equivalent to not expressing your opinion, and then wondering why nobody is influenced by your opinion.
Which is why non-voting is stupid. And it really hampers those of us who do vote, that some of our ideological brethren sit on the sidelines out of “principle”.
Also, even if Ron Paul was to win and become president, the small gains for liberty would be temporary in nature. By voting you contribute to the long term expansion of the state, and give support to an institution that has murdered millions, enslaved millions, and refused to acknowledge that certain populations were even human beings through the use of state constructed legal orders. The best thing to do is to wash your hands of this institution entirely and to remember these words of H.L. Mencken:
“Democracy is the art and science of running the circus from the monkey cage.”
If your vote mattered, they wouldn’t let you do it.
This idea that voting is somehow an unspoken willful acceptance of the system, and that by voting you no longer have a right to complain, or if you do you’re merely a “sore loser” is rather absurd to me.
While it is true voting may be futile much of the time, how else does one propose to positively affect the system where the only way to weigh in on the system is to vote? The system is established, whether we like it or not, and for all the time we may devote to our books, our forums, our discussion groups or our blogs… none of these things alone is going to change anything. The least we can do is try to have an influence; try to let our voice be heard as best as we possibly can given the environment we’re confined to do such in.
How many people would still be ignorant to the ideas of liberty today if it weren’t for Ron Paul’s presidential campaign? Is he just a “sore loser” for participating in the system which is our only conduit toward change in the current state of things; or did he have a notable, measurable and profound affect on the liberty movement?
I agree with the person who pointed out voting is the mechanism that provides legitimacy. I see it similar to judges don’t have jurisdiction unless you voluntarily agree.
Geographically organize a majority to dismantle local government for economic advantage. Use elections or business to increase the cost to govern. Start an insurance against government intervention business or legal defense fund chipin network for people who might prefer to exercise natural property rights in commerce. Invest in media or media startups. Network with people who believe in liberty following the example of Jews, or independent film makers like George Lucas and friends.
I see the Ron Paul campaign argument frequently used and I consider it b.s. Ron Paul did not invent the liberty product there was already demand in the market for it. People support Ron Paul because he is credible which has enabled liberty moderates an opportunity to find a common ground with liberty extremists.
What do you mean voluntarily agree with a judge? We don’t have a choice in such matters, unless things like prison don’t bother us… it’s called coercion.
Can you name even one case where any of these suggestions is actually successful and working in the here and now?
Who said anything about RP inventing anything? Even he admits that he is just passing on what he’s learned from others. You cannot reasonably deny that RP’s presidential campaign brought in a lot of new support to libertarianism in general, as well as the Austrian school.
Just looking through this very site alone you’ll find many people who have admittedly arrived at this site in large part due to RP’s influence.
Voting doesn’t necessarily contribute to the long term expansion of the state. Furthermore, if there is gridlock in the federal government, that at least buys time to work towards other goals.
Also, abstaining from voting doesn’t necessarily take away anything from the state. It will continue to expand. It’s not so much that a lack of voting is good or whatever, but that spending less time campaigning for stuff you vote on means extra time you COULD be spending on coming up with ways to be free and possibly also safely undermine the state. If that’s what you’re proposing, then great, but JUST abstaining from voting doesn’t do any good in terms of moving towards goals.
Please cite one example in U.S. history where a court established personal, territorial, or subject matter jurisdiction using coercion.
If you are questioning a tactic because there are no working models that suit you it does not mean the strategy is unsound. I think your question is aimed at discrediting logical strategy without offering up any logical reasoning.
Geographically organize a majority. Local government sets property tax rates and they can also set a rate of 0.00%. Pick a state and we can look at how much local government can be legally dismantled using the states own rules of powers delegated to local government.
Increase the cost of governing. I am sure someone has written about this and have seen links before to articles on this topic in general. Insurance against government intervention or a legal defense fund clearly increases the cost of governing. How come people advocating voting do not hold their public servants accountable? Did they take an oath to uphold the law? If they do not uphold the law do the voters or citizens have just cause to place liens against them? Maybe liens are a way to make this kind of insurance a profitable business.
Results of networking with like minded piers is self evident.
I deny it. I don’t think the campaign brought a lot of new support to libertarianism in general. I think it just enabled a lot of already libertarian leaning people to get to know each other and learn from one another and broadly firm up their principles. I am sure Mises has had an influx of new people. I was not familiar with Mises before the Ron Paul campaign but let’s face it libertarian leaning people who have experienced government intervention are probably not searching for economic academics.
The essence of the state is coercion. Coercion is just about the only thing the state is very efficient at. Seeing as how the courts are extensions of the state… I figured this was common knowledge here. The state has a monopoly on law; the courts carry out and facilitate this. What about this isn’t coercion?
No, my questions is aimed at the fact that you are vaguely suggesting all these things without any sort of precedent.
Ok. How do you “geographically organize a majority” for this, exactly? Every attempt we make at integrating libertarian, or libertarian-leaning, representatives into office is subjugated by the very majority you would suggest we organize.
How exactly do you propose to insure against government intervention when the government has a monopoly on law, as I mentioned earlier?
You just admitted that you were not even familiar with Mises until RP’s campaign… which is exactly the point I was making which you seem set on attempting to refute, even as you corroborate it in the same breath.
If it is common knowledge citing a case should not be a problem. Goes back to a comment I made earlier. If it is extremely unlikely the state is going to disappear overnight it would be logical to plan incremental change. How can one suggest a specific change if the existing system is not fully understood?
I will use my state law as an example:
48.193 Acts subjecting person to jurisdiction of courts of state.–
(1) Any person, whether or not a citizen or resident of this state, who personally or through an agent does any of the acts enumerated in this subsection thereby submits himself or herself and, if he or she is a natural person, his or her personal representative to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state for any cause of action arising from the doing of any of the following acts:
(a) Operating, conducting, engaging in, or carrying on a business or business venture in this state or having an office or agency in this state.
(b) Committing a tortious act within this state.
(c) Owning, using, possessing, or holding a mortgage or other lien on any real property within this state.
(d) Contracting to insure any person, property, or risk located within this state at the time of contracting.
(e) With respect to a proceeding for alimony, child support, or division of property in connection with an action to dissolve a marriage or with respect to an independent action for support of dependents, maintaining a matrimonial domicile in this state at the time of the commencement of this action or, if the defendant resided in this state preceding the commencement of the action, whether cohabiting during that time or not. This paragraph does not change the residency requirement for filing an action for dissolution of marriage.
(f) Causing injury to persons or property within this state arising out of an act or omission by the defendant outside this state, if, at or about the time of the injury, either:
The defendant was engaged in solicitation or service activities within this state; or
Products, materials, or things processed, serviced, or manufactured by the defendant anywhere were used or consumed within this state in the ordinary course of commerce, trade, or use.
(g) Breaching a contract in this state by failing to perform acts required by the contract to be performed in this state.
(h) With respect to a proceeding for paternity, engaging in the act of sexual intercourse within this state with respect to which a child may have been conceived.
(2) A defendant who is engaged in substantial and not isolated activity within this state, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise, is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state, whether or not the claim arises from that activity.
(3) Service of process upon any person who is subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state as provided in this section may be made by personally serving the process upon the defendant outside this state, as provided in s. 48.194. The service shall have the same effect as if it had been personally served within this state.
(4) If a defendant in his or her pleadings demands affirmative relief on causes of action unrelated to the transaction forming the basis of the plaintiff’s claim, the defendant shall thereafter in that action be subject to the jurisdiction of the court for any cause of action, regardless of its basis, which the plaintiff may by amendment assert against the defendant.
(5) Nothing contained in this section limits or affects the right to serve any process in any other manner now or hereinafter provided by law.
How does a homeless person come under jurisdiction of a court for loitering?
Precedent: Israel.
A group of libertarians would need to physically relocate.