Is Voting Consistent With The An-Cap Philosophy? (with poll, sorry)

[TortoiseDream]

Poll thread. Be sure to detail your reason for your option.

I ask because I'm very confused about my opinion. I do believe in an-cap/self-government/voluntarism, but practically I think I am for limited Constitutional government as an intermediary. That is, we can't just wake up everyone and say "down with the state"! That would be completely fruitless in our society. What is a better goal, I think, is to work towards the smallest government possible and then raise the question, "Hey, we're doing great. Do we even need the state at all?" But the question arises, do I vote? To me, voting seems to be a declaration of the consent to be governed, where I do not offer that consent to anyone based on the idea that the state's existence is immoral. However practically my vote would go towards restoring a limited government (as I'd be voting for liberty candidates). For example if Paul ran in 2012, would I not vote for him? Yet voting would violate my core principles.

[tremendoustie]

Poll thread. Be sure to detail your reason for your option.

I ask because I'm very confused about my opinion. I do believe in an-cap/self-government/voluntarism, but practically I think I am for limited Constitutional government as an intermediary. That is, we can't just wake up everyone and say "down with the state"! That would be completely fruitless in our society. What is a better goal, I think, is to work towards the smallest government possible and then raise the question, "Hey, we're doing great. Do we even need the state at all?" But the question arises, do I vote? To me, voting seems to be a declaration of the consent to be governed, where I do not offer that consent to anyone based on the idea that the state's existence is immoral. However practically my vote would go towards restoring a limited government (as I'd be voting for liberty candidates). For example if Paul ran in 2012, would I not vote for him? Yet voting would violate my core principles.

I certainly believe we should vote, and don't believe voting means you consent to be governed.

I know this analogy is a little strange, but bear with me for a moment: Imagine that there is a violent gang that has taken over your street. From time to time, they hold people at gunpoint, demanding cash. Now, imagine that they promise to leave if someone beats their leader in an arm wrestling match.

Do you believe winning arm wrestling matches would give them the right to keep stealing from people? Of course not. Would you beef up, and take your best shot? Absolutely.

Voting is the game they're playing -- and if we win, people are more free. As an added bonus, "beefing up" in this case involves educating and convincing people -- something we need to do anyway.

[newbitech]

I voted yes. I believe voting is an expression of freedom of speech, and regardless of the outcome of anyone's words, exercising a right whether granted by God (or gods or nothing) or by man can never be inconsistent.

[Met Income]

How would voting completely get rid of the State? You're essentially giving the State power to get rid of itself.

[UnReconstructed]

How would voting completely get rid of the State? You're essentially giving the State power to get rid of itself.

If voting changed anything __________________________________.
(----------------fill in the blank-----------------------------)

[tremendoustie]

How would voting completely get rid of the State? You're essentially giving the State power to get rid of itself.

It would shrink the state, which is a worthy intermediate goal. What's more, if society is ever to be based on voluntary interaction, it will require a great deal of education. Men like Ron Paul accomplish a great deal towards this end -- and the more votes they receive, the louder their voice becomes.

A voluntary society will require the commitment of a large portion of the populace. Such a large portion could have a marked impact on electoral politics, shrinking the state to the point where it can be eliminated without major disruption.

[South Park Fan]

I think it is consistent if applied to self-defense, but a poor strategy. Clearly voting had not worked to get rid of the state. A better strategy is mass civil disobedience.

[Met Income]

It would shrink the state, which is a worthy intermediate goal. What's more, if society is ever to be based on voluntary interaction, it will require a great deal of education. Men like Ron Paul accomplish a great deal towards this end -- and the more votes they receive, the louder their voice becomes.

A voluntary society will require the commitment of a large portion of the populace. Such a large portion could have a marked impact on electoral politics, shrinking the state to the point where it can be eliminated without major disruption.

I hear what you're saying in terms of shrinking the state. Here are my issues -- empirically, we know that voting doesn't reduce the State - it only grows. Politicians know that the more people you get hooked/invested on the State's teat, the less likely you will be to vote for against it.

When you vote for a candidate - you're giving him a mandate on all of his issues since he doesn't know that your vote only supports certain but not all of his stances. If he wins, he just knows that you support him and thereby give him and the State legitimacy. The State uses this legitimacy as moral capital to feed to the masses to make them believe it is right and necessary.

I would support using referendums to establish more freedom.

[heavenlyboy34]

If the voting system actually worked as advertised, it would be consistent with An-Cap Philosophy. Using elections to educate is okay for the time being.

[tremendoustie]

I think it is consistent if applied to self-defense, but a poor strategy. Clearly voting had not worked to get rid of the state. A better strategy is mass civil disobedience.

I agree that mass civil disobedience is more effective -- but it hasn't yet gotten rid of the state either.

These approaches are not mutually exclusive. We can all vote, do civil disobedience, participate in agorism, and educate. We should work on all fronts, in whichever ways we find we can be most effective -- and these efforts strengthen each other.

[Met Income]

I agree that mass civil disobedience is more effective -- but it hasn't yet gotten rid of the state either.

These approaches are not mutually exclusive. We can all vote, do civil disobedience, participate in agorism, and educate. We should work on all fronts, in whichever ways we find we can be most effective -- and these efforts strengthen each other.

Ok, if an An-Cap ran for office, I'd vote for him. Everyone else advocates the use of violence to achieve a political goal, and my vote legitimizes that.

[tremendoustie]

I hear what you're saying in terms of shrinking the state. Here are my issues -- empirically, we know that voting doesn't reduce the State - it only grows.


Empirically, nothing significantly reduces the state. It's been growing almost nonstop for 200+ years. I think these approaches, however, can best be used in conjunction. It has often been the case (in the civil rights movement, for example), that civil disobedience provides the impetus to accomplish something politically. Agorism and jury nullification provided the impetus for the repeal of prohibition, which was a political act.

For any successful effort, a critical mass of people is needed. Building that critical mass should be our first concern -- and politics can be a great way to do it.



Politicians know that the more people you get hooked/invested on the State's teat, the less likely you will be to vote for against it.

True -- which is why we should vote against new teats.



When you vote for a candidate - you're giving him a mandate on all of his issues since he doesn't know that your vote only supports certain but not all of his stances. If he wins, he just knows that you support him


I agree, which is why it's important to support principled candidates who will roll back government in most or all areas, not just one or two. I wouldn't vote for a pro drug legalization warmonger, for example, or an anti-war socialist.

I don't support the "lesser of two evils" rationale, for exactly the reason you describe. There are occasions, however, where casting a vote for a particular candidate sends a clear signal that you want more liberty.



and thereby give him and the State legitimacy. The State uses this legitimacy as moral capital to feed to the masses to make them believe it is right and necessary.


I don't agree that it gives the state legitimacy. In fact, I would say voting for a candidate like Ron Paul sends a clear signal that you don't support the current activities of the state.



I would support using referendums to establish more freedom.

That's a good method too -- it has been used to good effect here in CA, sometimes (although also for ill).

[tremendoustie]

Ok, if an An-Cap ran for office, I'd vote for him. Everyone else advocates the use of violence to achieve a political goal, and my vote legitimizes that.

If they stand for more liberty, that is what they will speak about. They will be on the liberty side of the tug of war. If you're in Kansas, trying to get to Boston, and your bus is holding a vote to decide whether to head to NY, or to LA, which destination do you support?

When you vote for NY, you send a clear message that you want to go east. If you don't vote, you just look like another bum in the back who doesn't care where he goes.

Your vote to go to NY does not say, "I want NY to be my final destination" -- it just says that you prefer it to LA.

[RedStripe]

It might not be "consistent" with An-Cap philosophy if that philosophy is the variant that is completely consumed by moral absolutes. As for utilitarian An-Caps, I'm sure it's perfectly consistent with their beliefs so long as they get some enjoyment out of it.

[mport1]

While I think voting is pointless, I do not think it is inconsistent with anarcho-capitalist philosophy. I agree with the argument that it can be seen as self defense. I still haven't been convinced by the opposing side on this. I do not agree that voting necessarily provides legitimacy for the state.

[axiomata]

I'd vote no, but I can't. ;)

[CCTelander]

Here's some food for thought:

http://indomitus.net/madnessofvoting.html

http://www.voluntaryist.com/nonvoting/

http://www.strike-the-root.com/search/node/vote

[TortoiseDream]

I've arrived at my decision. Voting to enslave yourself is consistent with the philosophy because it is done on free choice, even if it's temporary or a transition to no government.

[CCTelander]

I've arrived at my decision. Voting to enslave yourself is consistent with the philosophy because it is done on free choice, even if it's temporary or a transition to no government.

And what of the others whom your vote helps to enslave?

[tremendoustie]

I've arrived at my decision. Voting to enslave yourself is consistent with the philosophy because it is done on free choice, even if it's temporary or a transition to no government.

I disagree with your characterization. We are enslaved (so to speak), whether we vote or not. Less than half of people vote in most elections now, and the politicians still happily take office, and impose their will on us. Voting for a liberty minded individual, on the other hand, may make us less enslaved.

Voting does not equal consent. I don't know who came up with this notion, but I frankly think it's silly. It's like saying that if you draw your gun on a robber, it means you agree that a gunfight is the right way to morally determine ownership of your TV.

The fact that you pull a gun does not mean that you think gunfights are the moral way to determine property ownership, and the fact that you vote doesn't mean you think elections are. It's just one of few options that have been left open to you to defend yourself.

[TortoiseDream]

I disagree with your characterization. We are enslaved (so to speak), whether we vote or not. Less than half of people vote in most elections now, and the politicians still happily take office, and impose their will on us. Voting for a liberty minded individual, on the other hand, may make us less enslaved.

Voting does not equal consent. I don't know who came up with this notion, but I frankly think it's silly. It's like saying that if you draw your gun on a robber, it means you agree that a gunfight is the right way to morally determine ownership of your TV.

The fact that you pull a gun does not mean that you think gunfights are the moral way to determine property ownership, and the fact that you vote doesn't mean you think elections are. It's just one of few options that have been left open to you to defend yourself.

I withdraw my comment, but for a different reason, namely to switch opinions (probably temporarily, we'll see).

I do think we are enslaved, but only to the notion that change must come about through political means. I think non-resistance and non-violence are far superior in their ability, but it has to start with the individual. Be the change you wish to see in the world.

I dunno, I think participating in the political process at all is just too inconsistent with advocating no government. Please convince me otherwise, though, because I'd like to vote for Ron Paul in 2012 lol.

[tremendoustie]

I withdraw my comment, but for a different reason, namely to switch opinions (probably temporarily, we'll see).

I do think we are enslaved, but only to the notion that change must come about through political means. I think non-resistance and non-violence are far superior in their ability, but it has to start with the individual. Be the change you wish to see in the world.


I agree that civil disobedience is far more powerful. I would also disagree with someone who thinks change must only come by political means -- but it's equally untrue that change must come only through civil disobedience. Civil disobedience, agorism, jury nullification, voting, education, etc, are not mutually exclusive.

The political process educates many people -- I would not likely be a voluntaryist at all if it were not for the efforts of RP. In addition, elections are viewed by the public and the media as a referendum on government behavior. Not voting sends no message at all - but voting for a liberty candidate sends the message that you want more liberty, and it effects the public debate.



I dunno, I think participating in the political process at all is just too inconsistent with advocating no government. Please convince me otherwise, though, because I'd like to vote for Ron Paul in 2012 lol.

Why do you believe it is inconsistent?

There is nothing inherently wrong with voting. Chess clubs also elect presidents, as I say. The problem comes when people believe voting gives certain people the right to behave in what would otherwise be immoral ways.

Voting to eliminate these behaviors defends liberty. In fact, it's possible that the government as an organization could continue on in a voluntaryist society, with elected leaders. It must simply eschew all aggressive violence. Voting is not the enemy -- aggressive violence is.

[priest_of_syrinx]

Yes.

[TortoiseDream]

Why do you believe it is inconsistent?

I apologize that I cannot really get my thoughts into clear words or expressions, but the idea of voting for total liberty just makes me think of total contradiction. I don't want to depend on the state to be free, nor do I want to depend on the votes of others, and my convincing them, to be free. The choices we make all have profound consequences. It is true from a scientific standpoint, from a social standpoint, from an economic standpoint, etc. Voting is a choice to participate in the system of the state and I believe I reject that. I don't believe it is morally consistent with my principles to force liberty upon people, which would be the means that the state employs to achieve liberty if it can; legalizing liberty is an oxymoron and a contradiction to me, in the sense of law.

If we want to abolish the state, why affirm that it is a working system with your vote? It's a very tempting thing, but I think it ultimately fails. I think I must simply stand on the principles of non-violence and civil disobedience, that is what it means for me to be a truly free individual, not waiting for the government to let me be free. If we rely on force and coercion to free us from force and coercion I don't think it will work.

Think of the numbers as well how many government bureaucrats are there in all of government? Would that number exceed a 10 million? 20 million? Compared against the American population of 280 million? I think it is clear that the government has not enslaved us, but we have enslaved ourselves to them. I think it's a personal choice but I simply don't understand using government to get rid of it. Maybe this means I am not a strict anarcho-capitalist, I'll let you decide since you know more about it than I do.

[tremendoustie]

I apologize that I cannot really get my thoughts into clear words or expressions, but the idea of voting for total liberty just makes me think of total contradiction. I don't want to depend on the state to be free,


Right -- voting for liberty would be trying to stop the state. It doesn't mean you are depending upon the state -- it just means you are exercising one of the few avenues available to try to restrain it.



nor do I want to depend on the votes of others, and my convincing them, to be free.


Ah, but you have to -- whether you vote or not. You're simply not going to be free if 95% of the country wants you enslaved, democracy or no. We're going to have to convince people to support freedom anyway -- that's true no matter what our methods are. In fact, the main point of civil disobedience, for example, is to raise awareness.



The choices we make all have profound consequences. It is true from a scientific standpoint, from a social standpoint, from an economic standpoint, etc.


Yes, let's examine the results of our actions:

1. You, and all other voluntaryists vote for liberty. Liberty is recognized in the culture as more of a mainstream idea, with significant support. Liberty candidates get more and greater platforms to promote liberty ideas, and educate greater numbers of people. Other candidates are forced to address these ideas, rather than just push them aside. People with latent libertarian beliefs are encouraged to speak out, as they see they are not alone.

2. You, and all other voluntaryists do not vote. You are assumed to be among the millions of people who don't care enough to vote, and are pretty much ok with the status quo. Liberty candidates get a tiny fraction of the vote. Liberty is viewed as a fringe idea. Liberty candidates do not get significant speaking time at debates, or on news programs. Fewer people hear the liberty message, and those with latent libertarian beliefs are more likely to remain quiet, for fear of being viewed as some sort of a nut.



Voting is a choice to participate in the system of the state and I believe I reject that.

You're already going to be forced to participate whether you want to or not. I'd happily exchange my vote for the nanny state leaving me alone, but that's not an option. Voting is simply using one small method available to you help stop them. As I say, it does not constitute an endorsement of the government, any more than pulling a gun on a robber constitutes an endorsement of "might makes right". It's simply one of few means of defense available to you.



I don't believe it is morally consistent with my principles to force liberty upon people,


What exactly would "forcing liberty" on someone mean? Stopping the state is defending yourself and other innocents. If some people want to choose someone to rule over them, they can -- they don't even need a government. They can just send a letter to Palin, or whoever, informing her that she will have power of attorney over all their finances, and will be able to make rules about how they live.



which would be the means that the state employs to achieve liberty if it can; legalizing liberty is an oxymoron and a contradiction to me, in the sense of law.


Why? What if there were a constitutional amendment passed stating that the government could not violate the NAP, and they returned all stolen property. That would be a legal way for them to return to moral decency, and respect liberty, would it not?



If we want to abolish the state, why affirm that it is a working system with your vote?


Voting does not affirm that at all. Consider my example with the arm wrestling. It's simply one method available to us to help reduce violence.



It's a very tempting thing, but I think it ultimately fails.


Why? If you vote for liberty, people will understand that's what you want. If you don't vote at all, people will simply assume you don't particularly care about the government's behavior.

As we have seen, it does a great deal to help educate people -- which is the main thing we have to do anyway. Why should we not take advantage of such a platform, and such an opportunity? I am sure the tyrants in Washington would be very happy if we would just shut up, not vote, and they could continue to characterize us as a fringe movement.

They HAVE to allow voting in order to maintain their illusion of legitimacy. It's a weakness for them, though, because it provides the people an opportunity to speak, independent of the politicians, the media, and the spin. They would much prefer to just not let us vote. Why should we willingly discard such a weapon?



I think I must simply stand on the principles of non-violence and civil disobedience, that is what it means for me to be a truly free individual, not waiting for the government to let me be free.


Civil disobedience is great too -- person for person, it's far more effective than political involvement. Neither of us support violence.



If we rely on force and coercion to free us from force and coercion I don't think it will work.


Voting for liberty is not force and coercion. It's the opposite. How on earth do you think voting for a liberty candidate over a socialist represents force or coercion?



Think of the numbers as well how many government bureaucrats are there in all of government? Would that number exceed a 10 million? 20 million? Compared against the American population of 280 million? I think it is clear that the government has not enslaved us, but we have enslaved ourselves to them.


You have been enslaved by others. You can't enslave yourself, it's an oxymoron -- you're using collectivist-speak, there is no monolithic "we".

Voting can greatly facilitate the movement towards liberty. Suppose 200 million people of the 300 million want to be free. If only the 100 million statists vote, a lot of people are going to have to lose their liberty, or even their lives doing civil disobedience. There might even be widespread violence, if the liberty lovers start to defend themselves.

If the 200 million liberty lovers also vote, they could dictate the occupants of every public office, disband most if not all federal agencies, modify the constitution to prohibit violence, and transition local services to run on a voluntary basis. I am sure there would be pockets of bureacrats unwilling to give up power -- but it would be a peaceful means of getting most of the way there.

Again, remember: Our enemy is not voting, it is violence. Voting only seems like the enemy, because people are using it to support violence. If people used the result of arm wrestling competitions to decide who gets to be dictator for a year, the problem would be making a person dictator, not the act of arm wrestling. If people had kite flying contests to decide who gets to steal their neighbor's property, the problem would be the theft, not the kite flying. I think you're getting tangled up in the trappings, not the actual problem.



I think it's a personal choice but I simply don't understand using government to get rid of it.

It's a vulnerability we should exploit.

Tyrannical governments which do not allow voting benefit by removing from the people one method for them to effect change. They quickly lose, however, the illusion of legitimacy. Everyone knows they're tyrants, and so there is more underground resistance, black markets, etc. The USSR fit this model.

Tyrannical governments which do allow voting benefit by being more able to maintain the illusion of legitimacy -- the idea that they "serve the people". It's a vulnerability, however, because the people may demand liberty using the ballot box. If they do, and the government ignores them, they not only lose the illusion of legitimacy, but they must deal with a resistance who knows its strength. Also, the military and policy is going to be indoctrinated into the idea that majority rules -- which can be a double edged sword.

Liberty lovers not voting effectively allows the government to have the best of both worlds. They get to keep the illusion of legitimacy, because they have offered people the chance to vote -- and they get to avoid the problem of public, widespread opposition, which their own rules dictate they cannot crush.



Maybe this means I am not a strict anarcho-capitalist, I'll let you decide since you know more about it than I do.

You can certainly be an anarcho-capitalist, or voluntaryist, and not vote, or support political efforts (many do take this stance) -- just as you can be a bear hunter who uses bows and arrows, and traps, but refuses to use high powered rifles. I think the hunter who is willing to use all available methods is more likely to get the bear, however, and if we restrict ourselves from political activity, our chances of significantly increasing liberty in this country go way down.

[TortoiseDream]

Right -- voting for liberty would be trying to stop the state. It doesn't mean you are depending upon the state -- it just means you are exercising one of the few avenues available to try to restrain it.



Ah, but you have to -- whether you vote or not. You're simply not going to be free if 95% of the country wants you enslaved, democracy or no. We're going to have to convince people to support freedom anyway -- that's true no matter what our methods are. In fact, the main point of civil disobedience, for example, is to raise awareness.



Yes, let's examine the results of our actions:

1. You, and all other voluntaryists vote for liberty. Liberty is recognized in the culture as more of a mainstream idea, with significant support. Liberty candidates get more and greater platforms to promote liberty ideas, and educate greater numbers of people. Other candidates are forced to address these ideas, rather than just push them aside. People with latent libertarian beliefs are encouraged to speak out, as they see they are not alone.

2. You, and all other voluntaryists do not vote. You are assumed to be among the millions of people who don't care enough to vote, and are pretty much ok with the status quo. Liberty candidates get a tiny fraction of the vote. Liberty is viewed as a fringe idea. Liberty candidates do not get significant speaking time at debates, or on news programs. Fewer people hear the liberty message, and those with latent libertarian beliefs are more likely to remain quiet, for fear of being viewed as some sort of a nut.



You're already going to be forced to participate whether you want to or not. I'd happily exchange my vote for the nanny state leaving me alone, but that's not an option. Voting is simply using one small method available to you help stop them. As I say, it does not constitute an endorsement of the government, any more than pulling a gun on a robber constitutes an endorsement of "might makes right". It's simply one of few means of defense available to you.



What exactly would "forcing liberty" on someone mean? Stopping the state is defending yourself and other innocents. If some people want to choose someone to rule over them, they can -- they don't even need a government. They can just send a letter to Palin, or whoever, informing her that she will have power of attorney over all their finances, and will be able to make rules about how they live.



Why? What if there were a constitutional amendment passed stating that the government could not violate the NAP, and they returned all stolen property. That would be a legal way for them to return to moral decency, and respect liberty, would it not?



Voting does not affirm that at all. Consider my example with the arm wrestling. It's simply one method available to us to help reduce violence.



Why? If you vote for liberty, people will understand that's what you want. If you don't vote at all, people will simply assume you don't particularly care about the government's behavior.

As we have seen, it does a great deal to help educate people -- which is the main thing we have to do anyway. Why should we not take advantage of such a platform, and such an opportunity? I am sure the tyrants in Washington would be very happy if we would just shut up, not vote, and they could continue to characterize us as a fringe movement.

They HAVE to allow voting in order to maintain their illusion of legitimacy. It's a weakness for them, though, because it provides the people an opportunity to speak, independent of the politicians, the media, and the spin. They would much prefer to just not let us vote. Why should we willingly discard such a weapon?



Civil disobedience is great too -- person for person, it's far more effective than political involvement. Neither of us support violence.



Voting for liberty is not force and coercion. It's the opposite. How on earth do you think voting for a liberty candidate over a socialist represents force or coercion?



You have been enslaved by others. You can't enslave yourself, it's an oxymoron -- you're using collectivist-speak, there is no monolithic "we".

Voting can greatly facilitate the movement towards liberty. Suppose 200 million people of the 300 million want to be free. If only the 100 million statists vote, a lot of people are going to have to lose their liberty, or even their lives doing civil disobedience. There might even be widespread violence, if the liberty lovers start to defend themselves.

If the 200 million liberty lovers also vote, they could dictate the occupants of every public office, disband most if not all federal agencies, modify the constitution to prohibit violence, and transition local services to run on a voluntary basis. I am sure there would be pockets of bureacrats unwilling to give up power -- but it would be a peaceful means of getting most of the way there.

Again, remember: Our enemy is not voting, it is violence. Voting only seems like the enemy, because people are using it to support violence. If people used the result of arm wrestling competitions to decide who gets to be dictator for a year, the problem would be making a person dictator, not the act of arm wrestling. If people had kite flying contests to decide who gets to steal their neighbor's property, the problem would be the theft, not the kite flying. I think you're getting tangled up in the trappings, not the actual problem.



It's a vulnerability we should exploit.

Tyrannical governments which do not allow voting benefit by removing from the people one method for them to effect change. They quickly lose, however, the illusion of legitimacy. Everyone knows they're tyrants, and so there is more underground resistance, black markets, etc. The USSR fit this model.

Tyrannical governments which do allow voting benefit by being more able to maintain the illusion of legitimacy -- the idea that they "serve the people". It's a vulnerability, however, because the people may demand liberty using the ballot box. If they do, and the government ignores them, they not only lose the illusion of legitimacy, but they must deal with a resistance who knows its strength. Also, the military and policy is going to be indoctrinated into the idea that majority rules -- which can be a double edged sword.

Liberty lovers not voting effectively allows the government to have the best of both worlds. They get to keep the illusion of legitimacy, because they have offered people the chance to vote -- and they get to avoid the problem of public, widespread opposition, which their own rules dictate they cannot crush.




You can certainly be an anarcho-capitalist, or voluntaryist, and not vote, or support political efforts (many do take this stance) -- just as you can be a bear hunter who uses bows and arrows, and traps, but refuses to use high powered rifles. I think the hunter who is willing to use all available methods is more likely to get the bear, however, and if we restrict ourselves from political activity, our chances of significantly increasing liberty in this country go way down.

I understand what you're saying, but I'm thinking of this issue more abstractly and more generally. I simple do not see the connection between my principles and voting.

[MPLW]

How would voting completely get rid of the State? You're essentially giving the State power to get rid of itself.

this!

[inibo]

No, it's not. In the absence of a state for what would you be voting?

[tremendoustie]

No, it's not. In the absence of a state for what would you be voting?

In the absence of the state what would you be doing civil disobedience against?

Voting is a tactic that can be used to reduce and eliminate coercion, same as any other tactic.

[tremendoustie]

this!

Voting does not give the state power. They will exert power no matter whether 50%, 30%, or 10% vote. The state, however, has set the rule for itself that it will respect elections, at least for now. Logically, we should use that rule to advance those who will reduce and eliminate the state.

10-20% of the populace voting for strong liberty candidates would send a strong message, and lead to a myriad of advantages I've mentioned above. 10-20% smaller turnout will mean jack squat. If you don't turn out people assume you approve.

[inibo]

In the absence of the state what would you be doing civil disobedience against?

Voting is a tactic that can be used to reduce and eliminate coercion, same as any other tactic.

I misunderstood the question. I thought it was asking if we lived in Ancapistan would voting be consistent with it.

Voting now? Still no. By voting you are playing their game by their rules. How can playing baseball eliminate the game of baseball?

[South Park Fan]

In the absence of the state what would you be doing civil disobedience against?

Voting is a tactic that can be used to reduce and eliminate coercion, same as any other tactic.

Isn't civil disobedience just the political version of boycotts, which are common in the marketplace?

[tremendoustie]

I misunderstood the question. I thought it was asking if we lived in Ancapistan would voting be consistent with it.


There could still be organizations who elect leaders. Chess clubs hold votes for president, for example.

It's violence that's the problem -- not voting.



Voting now? Still no. By voting you are playing their game by their rules. How can playing baseball eliminate the game of baseball?

We're not trying to eliminate organizations that hold votes for leadership. We are trying to eliminate organizations that use aggressive violence. Voting can reduce, and eliminate the violence of the state -- although other approaches are as vital, if not more so.

[tremendoustie]

Isn't civil disobedience just the political version of boycotts, which are common in the marketplace?

I think civil disobedience is intentional non-compliance with immoral governmental laws. A boycott is market disassociation -- I'd say it's a bit different.

In any case, I think this misunderstanding between myself and inibo was cleared up -- he was thinking the question regarded whether voting as we know it would occur in a free society.

[inibo]

There could still be organizations who elect leaders. Chess clubs hold votes for president, for example.

It's violence that's the problem -- not voting.



We're not trying to eliminate organizations that hold votes for leadership. We are trying to eliminate organizations that use aggressive violence. Voting can reduce, and eliminate the violence of the state -- although other approaches are as vital, if not more so.

Again, I misunderstood the question. I thought it was about voting for political office. You are correct, of course, that violent coercion is the problem, but if you eliminated the initiation of violence you will eliminate the state since the state by definition is the organization of the political means (http://voluntaryboundaries.blogsome.com/2009/08/09/our-enemy-the-state-part-2#iv) and the political means is the appropriation of wealth from those who produce it.

[tremendoustie]

Again, I misunderstood the question. I thought it was about voting for political office. You are correct, of course, that violent coercion is the problem, but if you eliminated the initiation of violence you will eliminate the state since the state by definition is the organization of the political means (http://voluntaryboundaries.blogsome.com/2009/08/09/our-enemy-the-state-part-2#iv) and the political means is the appropriation of wealth from those who produce it.

Given the presence of a coercive organization which uses elections to select leadership, I believe we should participate in those elections, in order to reduce and eliminate the violence of that organization.

This is where it may be that we differ.

[mediahasyou]

If you believe starting coercion against another human being is moral, then you should vote.

Through voting you coerce a man, the same way a man hiring an assassin coerces a man. Even if you only hire your assassin to only cut off two of my legs and not kill me, it is still coercion.

[disorderlyvision]

Are you only talking about voting for candidates?

I only rarely vote for a candidate. I voted for RP in the primary, for example. And if there is a worthy liberty candidate in my area I will probably vote for them.

However I do vote on Local issues, concerning taxes and what not. MO may be getting medical marijuana on the ballot, and I will certainly vote for that to. I dont like having a government, but at this time, we do. So I will continue to vote against local issues such as taxes, and vote for issues such as medical marijuana. It doesnt mean I consent to be governed, it is a way to lessen the control of the government in the mean time

[nayjevin]

Are you only talking about voting for candidates?

I only rarely vote for a candidate. I voted for RP in the primary, for example. And if there is a worthy liberty candidate in my area I will probably vote for them.

However I do vote on Local issues, concerning taxes and what not. MO may be getting medical marijuana on the ballot, and I will certainly vote for that to. I dont like having a government, but at this time, we do. So I will continue to vote against local issues such as taxes, and vote for issues such as medical marijuana. It doesnt mean I consent to be governed, it is a way to lessen the control of the government in the mean time

That's about where I'm at. Rare is the politician worth voting for: Harry Browne, RP, Debra Medina, Kokesh, all people who are damn near perfect philosophically and trustworthy stewards of an office that should not exist. I will not vote for less - or lesser of evils. But even understanding that it is indeed a degree of coercion would not stop me from voting for them. It's that my standards for candidates are so high, that I have no problem sacrificing, to a miniscule degree, my philosophical stance on voting.

[nayjevin]

I actually think that the best argument against voting is that, even if the candidate is the best man (or woman) in the world for the job, they are mistaken that politics is the place for them. If they are good people, they should get the hell out of politics and give speeches, write books instead. Power could only corrupt an already wonderful person.

[LibertyEagle]

Maybe, nayjevin (and congratulations to the new Daddy :)), but look at the number of people whom Ron Paul and Debra Medina have reached with their message BECAUSE they engaged in politics. :) People who likely never would have given another thought to the Federal Reserve, nullification, or imagined the possibility of living without property taxes, etc.

[WaltM]

I actually think that the best argument against voting is that, even if the candidate is the best man (or woman) in the world for the job, they are mistaken that politics is the place for them. If they are good people, they should get the hell out of politics and give speeches, write books instead. Power could only corrupt an already wonderful person.

who's an example of that?

Lew Rockwell? Noam Chomsky? Howard Zinn?

[nayjevin]

Maybe, nayjevin (and congratulations to the new Daddy :)), but look at the number of people whom Ron Paul and Debra Medina have reached with their message BECAUSE they engaged in politics. :) People who likely never would have given another thought to the Federal Reserve, nullification, or imagined the possibility of living without property taxes, etc.

Oh yes, I agree with that. A person running for office is doing what they perceive to be in the best interest - and if I believe in that person, I'll support that decision. I don't agree with the 'best' argument I put forward.

And thanks for the congrats :)


who's an example of that?

Lew Rockwell? Noam Chomsky? Howard Zinn?

I suppose there are many. Kurt Vonnegut? Heinlein?

[WaltM]

I suppose there are many. Kurt Vonnegut? Heinlein?

exactly,. I've not heard of them.

[disorderlyvision]

exactly,. I've not heard of them.

that doesnt suprise me

[reardenstone]

I am for a much smaller state in the form of local voluntary groups where in order for group decisions or self group governance to work voting and sometimes meetings may be necessary. No group ever existed without some form of group consensus or agreement. Even self-governed groups still must solve problems; see the recent Nobel Prize in economics for over-turning the argument of the "tragedy of the commons" (2009 Ostrom and Williamson). As long as group membership is voluntary and non-coercive in the sense that no one is forcing you to join, though membership may entail agreeing to their concepts, then voting is good.

I believe there was efficacy in tribalism and the Tlingit of the Northwest pacific are a great example of a tribe that acknowledges individual merit. The settlers of Iceland held "Allthings" where court was held and disputes were settled.

Even without a formal state, despotism or grouping may occur. The constitution and the structure of our original republic designed and intended to prevent both mob Democracy and mob statism. Both attempts are failing now because of a failure to reign in abuse.

In environmental studies researchers often remark about "Carrying capacity". I believe we have abused the notion of carrying capacity when it comes to Unitary Governance. Washington of 600 cannot govern and should not govern 330 million. Before calling it all off, we need to return rights back to states and then extend more rights to smaller groups like counties and cities.
A return to tribal city-states would be preferable to governance from bureaucrats afar.


Before I go off more:

Yes I am for voting.
No I am not for ending everything and going straight into a completely voluntary society without FIRST trying to reboot our current OS of the republic and trying to do it the way our founders intended.

I would much prefer a minimalist governance where most decisions are made at the tribe, city, or local level, to an unprepared anarchy that could lead to despotism and inner imperialism. but I believe we could get there in baby steps.


http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2009/press.html

[reardenstone]

I am going to change my scr name to rearden thread-ender.