Reject the 'Anarchist' Voters

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will not be voting. However, I will be wagering on the outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I have a feeling that some of you will not be voting not because you choose not to vote but because you aren't eligible. Make sure to vote for Prom Queen, however.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm eligible. I voted in 2004, though I didn't vote for anyone or anything. I just marked "no" on all the referenda that were "yes/no" and left everything else blank.

In 2000, I voted for Hagelin. Ah, for the old days of naive idealism.

[NeBlis]

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't vote for anyone or anything. I just marked "no" on all the referenda that were "yes/no" and left everything else blank.


[/ QUOTE ]


LOL ... NH SIR

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I will not be voting. However, I will be wagering on the outcomes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why do I have a feeling that some of you will not be voting not because you choose not to vote but because you aren't eligible. Make sure to vote for Prom Queen, however.

[/ QUOTE ]
Personal attacks are fun when void of a valid argument.

[Jeff W]

[ QUOTE ]
paying taxes enthusiastically

[/ QUOTE ]

Now there is a phrase I don't see every day.

[Chimera]

This seems to be the classic example of an Ivory Tower philosopher, who opposes something good on the grounds that it's not perfect. He's more interested in maintaining his own ideological purity than he is in supporting someone that could actually help the cause of liberty.

This self-indulgent navel-gazing ignores the fact that any real change is likely to come about precisely because of people like Ron Paul (or, in the words of the author, the "rich white male", as if voting for a poor black woman would be any more or less statist lol). The fact is that the world is not suddenly going to wake up, have an epiphany, and discover how evil the state really is. If they were, they would have done so years ago. Nor is failing to vote going to cause this to happen. People will just assume the low voter turnout is due to laziness, not principled opposition to the state.

No, if anything is going to lead to the ultimate demise of the state, it will be gradual reductions in state power, that allow the people to see that they don't really *need* the state to survive. This is what Ron Paul is fighting for, and this is why he remains our best hope for real change. Rothbard understood this, which is why he advocated not only a radical philosophy, but also practical political action. Unfortunately, many of Rothbard's epigones seem to be too busy lecturing to get down off their soapbox and actually do anything constructive, choosing instead to criticize those who do as "fake anarchists" or "closet statists". If you ask me, the ones who are truly "fake anarchists" are those who talk about how much they love freedom, but scoff at doing anything to promote it.

In case you're wondering, this comes from someone who hasn't voted since '96. Some might say this makes me a hypocrite, but the truth is that there haven't been any candidates that have seemed to be worth voting for. But now, Ron Paul has changed all that. I don't agree with him on every single issue, but that's not the point. The point is that Ron Paul is dedicated to the cause of liberty, and that's a very rare thing these days. Obviously, if you don't want to vote for him, that's your decision to make, and I can respect that. But please, don't insult my intelligence by claiming that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for statism, because nothing could be further from the truth.

[clowntable]

If A ranks voting for a politician P higher than any other activity at the given time, why shouldn't he/she?

I guess so called Anarchists could then stop calling A an Anarchist on the grounds of supporting "the machinery of evil" and if they do it on their private property or somewere where it is allowed by the owner of the property I see no problem with that.

Now what was the question again?
Ah yes labels suck let people decide for their own instead of forcing a pseudo collectivism on them by labeling them as X and threatening to remove that label.

I wonder who commits the worse crime. The person who calls himself/herself an Anarchist but then plays along in the government-regime by voting or the person who calls himself an Anarchist and then uses collectivist methods to discriminate.

Hint: neither is a crime.

Of course this is all very hypocratical since no so called Anarchist that I know of actively resists all unjust laws. They all swim along nicely and cherry pick the issues that interest them (i.e. voting).
So if ones position is that an anarchist should not vote, by what justification should an Anarchist follow unjust laws or participate in other non law breaking activities that violate anarchist ethics?

[surftheiop]

LOL, the more i read of Nielsio the more im convinced the state is paying him off to attempt to undermine Libertarians efforts in order to be sure that no change of the status quo will occur because this group will remove themselves from the political process.

Keep shooting yourself in the foot, im sure Iron81 couldnt be happier

[Misfire]

[ QUOTE ]
if Boro uses his violent force to prevent them from acting on that moral principle then he is imposing his morality on them. You are still saying "In my moral code it is immoral for someone to take my things, and therefore if all I am doing is defending my things then that's not imposition of morality" which is clearly false, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

preventing an action from being performed != forcing an action to be performed

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
This seems to be the classic example of an Ivory Tower philosopher, who opposes something good on the grounds that it's not perfect. He's more interested in maintaining his own ideological purity than he is in supporting someone that could actually help the cause of liberty.

This self-indulgent navel-gazing ignores the fact that any real change is likely to come about precisely because of people like Ron Paul (or, in the words of the author, the "rich white male", as if voting for a poor black woman would be any more or less statist lol). The fact is that the world is not suddenly going to wake up, have an epiphany, and discover how evil the state really is. If they were, they would have done so years ago. Nor is failing to vote going to cause this to happen. People will just assume the low voter turnout is due to laziness, not principled opposition to the state.

No, if anything is going to lead to the ultimate demise of the state, it will be gradual reductions in state power, that allow the people to see that they don't really *need* the state to survive. This is what Ron Paul is fighting for, and this is why he remains our best hope for real change. Rothbard understood this, which is why he advocated not only a radical philosophy, but also practical political action. Unfortunately, many of Rothbard's epigones seem to be too busy lecturing to get down off their soapbox and actually do anything constructive, choosing instead to criticize those who do as "fake anarchists" or "closet statists". If you ask me, the ones who are truly "fake anarchists" are those who talk about how much they love freedom, but scoff at doing anything to promote it.

In case you're wondering, this comes from someone who hasn't voted since '96. Some might say this makes me a hypocrite, but the truth is that there haven't been any candidates that have seemed to be worth voting for. But now, Ron Paul has changed all that. I don't agree with him on every single issue, but that's not the point. The point is that Ron Paul is dedicated to the cause of liberty, and that's a very rare thing these days. Obviously, if you don't want to vote for him, that's your decision to make, and I can respect that. But please, don't insult my intelligence by claiming that a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for statism, because nothing could be further from the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

A+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Archon_Wing]

Terrible article.

Blah, how can you expect change if you want all or nothing per step? Sure, your final goal can be all or nothing, but you still need to fight your way through.

Besides, this whole "you're either with us or against us" seems like quite a familiar tactic. hmm...