A Non-Voting Anarchist. . .Voting?

[Mark Stoval]

My last (and only) vote for Pres (when I was young and naïve) was Reagan in 1980, but he didn’t “double cross” anarchists. He had a 2 term record as governor of California that spoke for itself, and he never pretended to being an anarchist. I do appreciate your frustration, however.

I meant to indicate that he double crossed libertarians (and small government conservatives also I guess). I realize he was not an anarchist but getting an anarchist into office would be an amazing thing.

Reagan's south American covert wars alone is damning evidence that he was no libertarian!

[Tom J]

I meant to indicate that he double crossed libertarians (and small government conservatives also I guess). I realize he was not an anarchist but getting an anarchist into office would be an amazing thing.

Reagan's south American covert wars alone is damning evidence that he was no libertarian!

I don’t see how Reagan “double-crossed” libertarians when his political base and political friends were conservative republicans, and his consistent well expressed stated positions on the issues, going back even decades , was right wing conservative republican; and he had an no libertarian record as Governor of California. He also led the opposition to the Panama Canal Treaty, which put him farther to the right than even William F. Buckley Jr. (also John Wayne), who strongly supported it.

[Tom J]

...
Just a hypothetical situation: If the shit did hit the fan and the federal government was eliminated or crippled enough so that it could not function and enforce it's laws... Would the public rejoice over the fact their rulers are gone or would they demand new rulers?

At this point in time I do believe they would want new rulers rather than being the enablers of their own destiny. The monetary system and the modern incentive of production is tied to the federal government. There's about 3 days worth of food on the shelves in every major city and most of the citizens are uneducated in providing for themselves the most basic needs in this type of situation.
...

I, similar to other anarchists like Stephan Molineux, don’t regard the government as being this thing distinctly separate from the population that could be crippled or eliminated in such a way. The Great Depression seems like the kind of scenario you describe and led to greater dependence on the state, but there was never a move toward anarchy involved. I also don’t buy the apocalyptic monetary/economic collapse predictions. They're good politics though.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Unfortunately, history cannot always be read as a laboratory notebook of past experiments. It's very hard to compare the Great Depression to something that could happen today. We don't know what will happen, and even if we did, we're starting at very different points. At best we'd be comparing somewhat similar events occurring under very distinct circumstances.

[Mark Stoval]

I don’t see how Reagan “double-crossed” libertarians when his political base and political friends were conservative republicans, ...

He used the language of libertarianism well. He indicated that he would leave the government smaller and weaker than when he left office than when he entered office. He did the opposite.

(Edit typo)

[derick]

Ronald Reagan did just like all "conservative" politicians, campaign on libertarian ideas and do the exact opposite. This is another reason voting is a complete waste of time, politicians can say one thing and do another while the voter has no recourse but to wait for the next election and start the whole process over.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Ronald Reagan did just like all "conservative" politicians, campaign on libertarian ideas and do the exact opposite. This is another reason voting is a complete waste of time, politicians can say one thing and do another while the voter has no recourse but to wait for the next election and start the whole process over.

Yeah, I actually have to paraphrase Ayn Rand here. She said that the "liberals" are bad, because they openly endorse taking freedoms, but that "conservatives" are worse, because they claim to champion freedom, but do no such thing.

[Rothbardian]

That's why I don't like the open blending of RP/voluntaryist symbolism.

*looks at signature*



***Not that I really consider myself a "voluntarist" anyway. I'm a political Anarcho-Capitalist.

[AgoristTeen1994]

Even if the whole US doesn't become ancapistan, could we set up a decent territory in NH, and then defend it, hoping to avoid the power struggles to restore the national government?

And of course there's always the Inland Northwestern states of Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming, esp. Wyoming what with the FSW

[Tom J]

He used the language of libertarianism well. He indicated that he would leave the government smaller and weaker than when he left office than when he entered office. He did the opposite.

(Edit typo)

Part of his message had “less government” rhetoric in it, as is usually the case with conservative politicians in this country. It’s your own fault for ignoring the rest of his message, as well as his record as governor of California, as they were both the opposite of libertarian.

[derick]

Yeah, I actually have to paraphrase Ayn Rand here. She said that the "liberals" are bad, because they openly endorse taking freedoms, but that "conservatives" are worse, because they claim to champion freedom, but do no such thing.

When I was still a conservative, I watched an old interview with Ayn Rand, when I heard her say that, it stuck with me, even to this day I can remember how hard that hit me.

[Mark Stoval]

...  It’s your own fault for ignoring the rest of his message, as well as his record as governor of California, as they were both the opposite of libertarian.

Perhaps, but you must not have lived through the big government era that came before him. When I still was voting for the "lesser of two evils" then RR seemed to beat hell out of the other side as far as getting government out of our lives. We saw in his first year that he was a god damned liar. But then, most are. As I think I said someplace here; RR was the last presidential candidate I voted for.

[Mark Stoval]

... When I was still a conservative, ...

I have also noticed over the years that "liberal", "conservative", "left", and "right" are so warped in everyday speech as to be useless. I think there is a great case to be made that any anarchist is on the far, far left but I have been called a right-winger often. (and called a left-winger often also)

What was that they used to say? "Separated by a common language"?

[SinCityVoluntaryist]

 The terms "liberal" and "conservative" no longer have any inherent difference in the political mainframe. Both sides have proven that they support the same statist policies as everyone on the other side of their spectrum. Just look at the seemingly unlimited correlations that exist between Bush and Obama. The terms are used as a psy op. Their purpose is to make people think that they have a difference come election time, but the truth is that, with the exception of Paul, it's just the same shit from two different sides of the aisle. It's one of the primary reasons why I won't vote for anyone other than Ron. As the saying goes, "Ron Paul or not at at all!"

 What's sad is that when I was at my state's caucus a few weeks ago, people who said they supported Ron Paul stated that they would still vote for one of the other Republican candidates if they won. I tried explaining to them that with the exception of the good doctor, both sides of the spectrum are controlled by the same forces, but to no avail. If voting for Paul is an example of non-aggression on my part, then I'm happy to do it.

[dissidentX]

I also don’t buy the apocalyptic monetary/economic collapse predictions. They're good politics though.

Well I can agree that it takes a really long time for a wealthy nation to destroy it's currency but we've had a long time at doing it already. Our currency is rapidly losing the production value that backs it while foreign currencies are gaining value in that regard. We are almost at a point where a collection of allied nations led by China could make our currency worthless once they are able to exploit 3rd world resources enough like they have been doing. A central planning government like China's is more willing to sacrifice people to  increase their fiat currency's value than we are at his point. It did take a long time to devalue the dollar but it won't take near as long to make it completely worthless...