Reject the 'Anarchist' Voters

[Nielsio]

Food for thought:


Reject the 'Anarchist' Voters
-Francois Tremblay, May 23 2007

[ QUOTE ]
It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even to most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support.
~ Henry David Thoreau

[/ QUOTE ]

I hardly want to be seen as a "divider," a person who seeks to reject people from the movement for no understandable reason. I want to include as many people as possible. To ostracize each other merely serves to slow down our movement.

However, what is one to make of this new wave of pro-voting "Anarchists"? Now that a rich, white, male, ruling class politician (Ron Paul) presents himself nicely, and is able to utter some true statements, our so-called friends trip over each other to support him the most, and profess to get ready to vote for him!

If Anarchy is to mean anything at all, it must be a wholesale rejection of political coercion. So what are we to make of people who call themselves Anarchists, but who at the same time support the coercive process of democracy, who support social warfare? What do we call someone who professes one thing, and then willfully and consistently acts against it? We call him a hypocrite.

These so-called "Anarchists" are as dogs, who first raise their right paw and pretend to be one of us, saying "democracy is immoral" and "disengagement is the way," and then, when the ruling class waves a shiny new bone at them, run after the bone, barking the slogans of their temporary masters, fighting against everything we hold dear. They no doubt expect that, the elections over and their ruling class politician having lost, they will reintegrate our movement, proud of "having done something," when all they did was legitimize democracy!

I want to make some things clear. I am definitely not against people who co-opt the elections, and Ron Paul's campaign, to propagate ideals of freedom. Those people are doing good work. We should definitely co-opt the rare good elements within the political process whenever possible.

Also, if voting was a legal obligation, and not voting incurred heavy penalties, then I would be the first to say that voting or not voting should be left to one's conscience, until the movement has grown enough to be able to disengage from the State. But this is not the case! On the contrary, not voting costs you absolutely nothing. To vote, in these circumstances, means that one cannot be trusted for any revolutionary action.

Suppose that we are 30 or 40 years in the future, and our growing Market Anarchist community disengages from State institutions, starting its own police and courts. How can we trust these turncoats to reject the State? The second a court case turns against them, they will quickly take refuge under a State judge's skirt. They will denounce us; they will betray us at the first occasion they get, because the ruling class threw them another shiny bone.

We must send a clear message to all that Anarchists are above this den of violence and corruption called politics, and that we will have nothing of it. These voters can be called our sympathizers, sure; but do not let them call themselves Anarchists any longer. Ruling class sycophants are not our friends!

For those of you who argue that Rothbard himself was engaged in the political process, that may be so, but did he not say:

[ QUOTE ]
(I)f the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do people convinced of the illegitimacy of the State participate in its processes? Do people oppressed by a Mafia gang vote for its rulers?

[ QUOTE ]
The attempt to use governmental or political processes to reform or abolish the evils of coercion is not a voluntaryist means because it rests on coercion. The distinguishing marks of voluntaryism -- that it is at once both nonviolent and non-electoral in its efforts to convince people to voluntarily abandon the State -- set it apart from all other methods of social change. The voluntaryist insight into the nature of political power does not permit people to violently overthrow their government or even use the electoral process to change it, but rather points out that if they shall withdraw their cooperation from the system, it will no longer be able to function or enforce its will.
~ Carl Watner

[/ QUOTE ]



p.s. I have permission from the author to publish this "everywhere"

[pvn]

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

[bobman0330]

I'm not really immersed enough in anarchist theory to assess the propriety of voting for Paul, but I am a little confused about the tone of this article. Is being an anarchist some sort of club that you can be voted out of? Isn't the whole purpose of the movement to allow people to disagree without coercing one another? Isn't the long-term goal for everyone to be an anarchist?

Perhaps even more troubling, what does the author believe should be done with these apostates? Should they just be excluded from anarchist society? And if that's what they want to do to people who voted once for Ron Paul, what do they want to do to the rest of us, who have been voting and paying taxes enthusiastically for years?

[Nielsio]

Is being an anarchist a club? No. Statism is a club. The club of statism is dependent on belief in the club and in support of the club. Francois is trying to outline that falling back into belief and support of the club is higly detrimental to the cause of abandoning the statism club.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
If Anarchy is to mean anything at all, it must be a wholesale rejection of political coercion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, and Ron Paul is the first canidate in a long time to support rapid decentralization. Why the hell wouldn't libertarians and anarchists support him?

[AlexM]

Some people just prefer to live in the real world rather than fantasy land.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]

Johnsson: Who would you support in the 2008 elections?

Rockwell: I would like to see elections for public office abolished, and that is particularly true for the presidency. The idea of the president was initially that some far-seeing, wise person would emerge from the aristocratic class who would sit atop the apparatus of the state and make sure that all things ran well. The founders were not stupid: they knew there was potential for abuse. So they made it possible to impeach the president if there was the slightest slip up. Unfortunately, this didn't work. It was like putting the chief inmates in charge of overseeing the conduct of the other inmates. The problem is that they all end up working together.

If you look at the crop of people who are running for president today, you gain new understanding of Hayek's phrase "the worst get on top." What an amazing bunch of dangerous nothings they are. The Democrats look positively dreadful. The antiwar people among them have touted the idea that every young person should be enslaved into national service. What are these people thinking? Most of them are nothing but voices for a special interest cause. The Republicans are creepy too: people in love with the idea of military force and who think more jails and more wars will solve all the world's problems.

In many ways, it seems like the 30s all over again, when everyone thought we had to choose between socialism and fascism and that there was no other path. At least the confusions of the 30s have the excuse that a depression was raging. What's our excuse for forgetting the liberal vision today? It is really disgusting.

Of course I'm cheering on Ron Paul because he is exposing the nature of the whole system. He is not running for president. He is running against the presidency as it is currently understood. Ultimately, however, I do not believe that politics offers a way out. What we need is a new consciousness concerning the idea of human liberty.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/...interview.html


[/ QUOTE ]

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
(I)f the bulk of the public were really convinced of the illegitimacy of the State, if it were convinced that the State is nothing more nor less than a bandit gang writ large, then the State would soon collapse to take on no more status or breadth of existence than another Mafia gang.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not so sure of this. If 65% of the people don't want a state, but you only "count" the votes of the other 35% then the rule of majority through representatives of the minority will still persist.

Now, you may say "but if 65% of the population doesn't want a government then they'll just use their collective force to overcome the power of the government". But in that case, you are still asserting yourself and forcing others to involuntarily disband their state. Taking the "high road" and not voting doesn't wash you clean of the necessity to coerce those that still want their state to give it up when the time comes.

[ QUOTE ]
The attempt to use governmental or political processes to reform or abolish the evils of coercion is not a voluntaryist means because it rests on coercion. The distinguishing marks of voluntaryism -- that it is at once both nonviolent and non-electoral in its efforts to convince people to voluntarily abandon the State -- set it apart from all other methods of social change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes.

I don't see the ethical dilemma with "voting anarchist". If the statists are willing to count your vote and have their powers limited by anarchist representatives, I don't see how the anarchists are forcing anyone to do anything (at least, not to a greater extent than they are by sitting on the sidelines).

[NeBlis]

Personal attack deleted

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The attempt to use governmental or political processes to reform or abolish the evils of coercion is not a voluntaryist means because it rests on coercion. The distinguishing marks of voluntaryism -- that it is at once both nonviolent and non-electoral in its efforts to convince people to voluntarily abandon the State -- set it apart from all other methods of social change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that if you are in the majority that don't want a state and you cripple the state by building your own police and defense force to counter their force, you've just become an oppressive majority without bothering to count the votes.

[/ QUOTE ]


How so? Hiring private defense is not the same thing as a coervice monopoly. It's the difference between defense and offense. When I get a gun for the purpose of self-defense, I'm not de facto coercing other people.