A Non-Voting Anarchist. . .Voting?

[dpalme]

I submitted this to Seth for DA, but we decided it would be better as a forum post. Enjoy, comment, debate, whatever you'd like.


        I must confess: I am an anarchist, and I still support Ron Paul. While I understand the man will never be our president, I still feel the urge to try my best to get him in the White House. This has been an internal issue for me for quite some time now. You see, I am a recent convert to anarchism. For a long time I had the typical libertarian idea that you absolutely need a government for somethings, but I wanted it to be a small government. Call it what you will, libertarianism, minarchism, whatever, that was me.

   About a month or two ago, anarchism clicked for me. Like with most people, I just want a world of peace. I'm 22 and for the majority of my life all I have seen is war, and like the majority of my generation, I'm sick of it. So when I started looking into anarchism, mainly due to Seth great work on this site, I realized that the state is the issue. It's fairly obvious that without a state we wouldn't have giant wars with millions dead at the end; sure there would be little skirmishes, but nothing to the extent to what we're seeing in Afghanistan.

   So what does that have to do with voting? Nothing really, just a little peak into my mind. Now to get to the nitty gritty.

   I have sworn off voting. I can't really say I'm a non-voting anarchist yet since I haven't not voted, hell, I took part in my town's caucus and was elected a delegate; and that leads me to my conundrum: Can a non-voting anarchist still take part in the political process? Most of you will say no, it negates the meaning of being an anarchist, and to an extent, I agree. But you have to think of the average citizen. Do you think if you went to your local mall and asked people, “Could a stateless society thrive?” they would willingly agree with you? For the most part I'd think not. People need to see a gradual decline in power. This is why I'm still supporting Dr. Paul.

   I'll go to the state convention in a few months and vote for him. I'll continue to tell my friends that he's not a racist kook, or a tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy nut. He has good ideas. I honestly believe that if Dr. Paul wins, people will realize that small government can work, and we don't need a giant state telling you what milk to drink. Once people see that, they will be much more willing to look at a stateless society.

   So if Ron Paul is on the ticket in November, I will vote for him. I will not vote for him if he is a vice-president, that's not worth a damn to me. But if he's going head to head with our present dictator, he has my support.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

The way I see it, RP is doing a good enough job of creating new political libertarians. He doesn't need our help. We need to work on getting them off the RP highway and take the exit to anarchism. In my opinion, voting damages the name anarchism (just think of all the so-called "left anarchists" who are really direct democracy advocates with black bandanas). I think it's important to build and maintain a distinct brand of libertarianism so that the RP supporters will actually believe that we have something different and better to offer. That's why I don't like the open blending of RP/voluntaryist symbolism.

[Mark Stoval]

There are some folks who believe that voting supports the status quo; the government. There are others who think that we live on a continuum and that since we must live under a government that one can vote. I admit to being somewhat of a divided mind on this.

I personally vote for Ron Paul when I can and I have not voted for anyone else at any level in decades. So, I guess I make an exception.

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

 Dpalme, I know how you feel. Though I consider myself a free-market anarchist in many respects, I am still a supporter of Dr. Ron Paul. In fact, like you, I attended my state's caucus and became a delegate. I will be attending my state convention in March to vote for Dr. Paul to make sure he becomes our candidate.
 
 In all honesty, I think it's very difficult to imagine that our society can become truly voluntary over night. I think we need a catalyst, or medium, to make the transition easier, and Ron Paul is the missing piece to the puzzle. If and WHEN Ron Paul wins, it will be a major sign for all of us that this country is ready to make a major transition to the acceptance of libertarian based values. From there, teaching them about our way of thinking can become much easier to accomplish.  

 Dr. Tom Woods, a man that I'm sure most of you identify as an an-cap, wrote an article about a yr. ago on why he think it's important for an anarchist to vote. In the article, he describes a situation in which you are an anarchist in a jail, and there is vote going on to determine what the prisoners will have for dinner. The choices are between gruel and prime rib, and your vote will decide what will be put out for dinner. If you follow your anarchist tendencies and decide not to vote, the gruel will be given out. On the other hand, if you decide to vote for the prime rib, everyone in the prison will be treated to a grand feast. The question, then, is what would you do? I think it's clear that we would all vote for the prime rib because it would be a major benefit to us and people. That is what Ron Paul is. Dr. Paul is that thick, juicy cut of prime rib drowning in au jus sauce. If we choose to vote for him, we will be doing a benefit to society by giving them the transition they need to freedom, which, in turn, can lead to the next step to a voluntary society.

 Let's be honest here: I think it's unrealistic to assume that agorism can be taken in by people at the current moment. As I said earlier, we need a catalyst that can help us, and that's why we need Ron Paul.

 By the way, Ron Paul can and will win. Right now, with the delegates being ordered to their respective candidates, Ron Paul is a mere 11 points behind Mitt Romney. Romney has 93 delegates, and Dr. Paul has 82. Even with the rampant voter fraud running loose in states such as Nevada and Maine, Dr. Paul is still gaining major steam. Dr. Paul is also set to pick up between 50-75% of the delegates from areas such as Colorado and Mich.

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

Further evidence that Ron Paul is winning:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7PDwmDlS7I" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7PDwmDlS7I</a>

[dpalme]

The way I see it, RP is doing a good enough job of creating new political libertarians. He doesn't need our help. We need to work on getting them off the RP highway and take the exit to anarchism. In my opinion, voting damages the name anarchism (just think of all the so-called "left anarchists" who are really direct democracy advocates with black bandanas). I think it's important to build and maintain a distinct brand of libertarianism so that the RP supporters will actually believe that we have something different and better to offer. That's why I don't like the open blending of RP/voluntaryist symbolism.

I can definitely see that, but I think it's just wishful thinking (like expecting Ron to win I guess ). There aren't going to be giant amounts of RP supporters that are just going to become anarchists. The statists will still outnumber the ancaps. Just because the man loses doesn't mean they'll just come over to our side. Like BlackandGr9y said, there needs to be a catalyst, and RP is it.

[AgoristTeen1994]

1. While I AM a staunch agorist/STV-favoring mutualist, I strong believe in the fact that agorism is too radical for vast majority of people, those I not so affectionately refer to as "sheeple". Besides, think of it this way: If Ron Paul wins, and starts slashing the size of gov't, then it will be much easier to deal with...after all, so many people have become dependent on gov't you have to show them it's not necessary and one of the best methods IMO is practical demonstrations since while people like me, Rothbardian, Seth, JSNTS, et cetera, can see the logical coherence behind anarchism and accept it based on that alone, or for more "Bleeding Heart types" see the cruelty of the State and the potential benevolence of anarchism and accept it based on that alone, for the vast majority of people they need to see a practical demonstration that big gov't isn't necessary. And sadly for our cause, many people NEED authority in their lives and are arrogant enough to assume that what's good for them is good for everyone. This can be explained partially by the MBTI-theory and the temperament theory of Dr. David Keirsey, those people need to be shown that authority and hierarchies are NOT necessary in all circumstances. Besides if you have a big gov't and it collapses, the total chaos that will result will cement in many people's minds the idea that gov't is necessary. They won't even CONSIDER that it's just the "transition period" between statism and liberty, they will see that transition period as liberty. I mean look at how the Dark Ages resulted from the collapse of the Roman Empire! That was because so many people were dependent on the gov't to provide their needs, that when the Empire collapsed, chaos resulted. While I would very much prefer a (non-violent) revolution, I am realistic enough to understand the potential of that to massively backfire. Besides, which would be easier to confront, a small gov't or a big gov't? While there are some ways in which each is easier, there are ways in which each is also much harder to confront. Personally I'd prefer "confronting" non-violently of course, a small gov't.

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

 There's one other thing that i forgot to mentioned in reference to Ron Paul. At the current moment, there are a total of 14 unpledged delegates. There is a growing sense of confidence that these individuals will go to Dr. Paul. If that happens, Paul will gain a total of 96 delegates, putting him ahead of Romney by +3.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

To me, endorsing Ron Paul is an example of where a greedy algorithm fails. We exist at position X on the continuum of tyranny and liberty, so you want to take one step in the right direction. Then what? What can Ron Paul do? Do you believe we will continue taking steps towards freedom and that we'll go all the way to anarchism? I don't.

On this continuum of tyranny and liberty, we have a vector field acting on us at all times, pushing us towards tyranny. All the special interests that never rest. We can push back politically at certain times, but that lasts for but a short period. We can't sustain that energy forever, but those who benefit from the status quo can and will.

Forgive me if I sound too combative. You are all welcome to your own beliefs about what can be effective. I'm just saying I disagree.

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

But I disagree. You say that on the line of tyranny and liberty, we are on position X. That's true. However, what you seem to be forgetting is that we are so far down the line of tyranny, that it's virtually impossible for us to go only further. Electing Ron Paul to office would do nothing but allow us to go in the opposite direction, toward liberty. Tell me, how do you consider a man that wants to end all wars, abolish the fed, bring back liberty, return to gold, and bring back the free market an individual that can't bring us to a voluntary society? Again, we're so far down the road of tyranny, that it's hard to imagine that we can go any further. Paul can and will lead us in the other direction.

[derick]

But I disagree. You say that on the line of tyranny and liberty, we are on position X. That's true. However, what you seem to be forgetting is that we are so far down the line of tyranny, that it's virtually impossible for us to go only further. Electing Ron Paul to office would do nothing but allow us to go in the opposite direction, toward liberty. Tell me, how do you consider a man that wants to end all wars, abolish the fed, bring back liberty, return to gold, and bring back the free market an individual that can't bring us to a voluntary society? Again, we're so far down the road of tyranny, that it's hard to imagine that we can go any further. Paul can and will lead us in the other direction.

Imagine a boot stomping on a human face forever.... We have a long way to go in realizing the hell of tyranny. All of the things you listed that Ron Paul would do if elected, would be nothing short of state force and coercion, but apparently its OK if a libertarian uses force. I have my doubts weather Ron Paul really wants to be president, I tend to believe he has used his political platform to spread the libertarian message. As an anarchist I am not interested in a "leader" and I'm certainly not interested in fixing our top down government.   

[dissidentX]

Every moment Paul gets on a stage is a moment more people are likely to be exposed to anti-government information. Ron Paul has turned more people on to an-cap philosophy than anyone else in my lifetime. Hell yes I will vote for him.

copying my reply from the blog home page:

Limited whatever… Dr. Paul has awakened more people to liberty and has inspired more people to read our favorite books than anyone else in my lifetime. If you think that the majority of non-voters are anarchists “protesting the man” you are sorely mistaken. The majority of non-voters are fine with being ruled over, the easiest conquers of a dictator, and have no fucking clue what is going on around them.

I’m voting for him. The moment he takes office and doesn’t start dismantling things or un-enforcing victimless laws then I’ll join you to this extension of non-participation. Most of us participate in the system to some extent. My vote for him is a more positive act than paying my taxes/fines is. Supporting a man that wants to end these taxes/fines vs giving blind legitimacy to the system by paying these taxes/fines. It’s a no brainer.

Sure there are a few braver people than me that don’t pay these taxes/fines. They are a minority among the volunteerists. Most of us are willing to pay in order to not be murdered or tortured if we are forced to do so; which we are…

[dissidentX]

Another good reason to vote for Ron Paul: You can actually save lives immediately and literally via his foreign policies. You've never seen a man on the debate stage saying the things he's saying against the military industrial complex and you're not going to vote for him?? If elected he can literally save lives and you won't shed just a small amount of pride and vote for him?

[Tom J]

I’ve been an anarchist for over 25 years. As I see it, one of the downsides of the Ron Paul campaign and any others like it for trying to elect someone head of a state, is that they propagate the falsehood and delusion that the state is not inherently aggressive and that it’s possible for someone (in a democracy) to be given the power of head of state, without committing themselves to aggression on behalf of many groups of people. Also, IMO Ron Paul’s age and old appearance alone disqualify him in the eyes of most Americans from being the commander in chief of the US world empire, which they largely believe their survival and way of life depends on. It’s at least as likely a Buddhist or Hindu will become the next Pope, or a pacifist will become head of the Mob, that Ron Paul will be elected President of the US world empire.

[Will]

Another good reason to vote for Ron Paul: You can actually save lives immediately and literally via his foreign policies. You've never seen a man on the debate stage saying the things he's saying against the military industrial complex and you're not going to vote for him?? If elected he can literally save lives and you won't shed just a small amount of pride and vote for him?

This assumes that voting for him will actually help him win. Perhaps in some states that is the case (I have my doubts), but where I live that certainly isn't. All the primary delegates will go to Romney and the entire electoral college will go to Obama. It doesn't matter if I vote for him or if everybody in the surrounding ten counties does, the results will be the same.

I just don't see it as worthwhile use of my time, plus its kind of refreshing to be able tell people I've never fulfilled my 'civic duty' to the institution I'm criticizing.