Should social anarchists support Ron Paul?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kaj,

Territory implies violent aggression and violent conquering. That is opposite to voluntary and peaceful cooperation. Voluntaryists do not hold territory to be legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in an AC world, nobody can administrate over a territory? So if I want to set up a teepee in your living room, you don't have a problem with that? Seriously, dude, enough hyperbole! My little group and your little group can administer our separate territories and still exchange voluntarily with no violence or aggression whatsoever. And if we can't, then your dream world is impossible anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he's making a distinction between property and teritory. Like how my house is supposedly my property, but supposedly also within the US's ("sovereign") territory.

[Brainwalter]

hmk the difference between your apartment complex and a local government is that the management (presumably) legitimately owns the entire complex. I know you know that, but I think this is an equally or more important difference than the Federal vs local legitimacy issue you discuss.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Kaj,

Territory implies violent aggression and violent conquering. That is opposite to voluntary and peaceful cooperation. Voluntaryists do not hold territory to be legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, in an AC world, nobody can administrate over a territory? So if I want to set up a teepee in your living room, you don't have a problem with that? Seriously, dude, enough hyperbole! My little group and your little group can administer our separate territories and still exchange voluntarily with no violence or aggression whatsoever. And if we can't, then your dream world is impossible anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]


If you acquired something through just means, then there is no issue. When you acquired it through unjust means (violent conquering), and you hold it through a power-monopoly afterwards, then there is a big problem.

For example: when you start ruling the streets of one city through bold power, then there is a problem. But when people who own property make agreements through contracts that help them keep their properties safe, then there is no problem. In the first example the group with guns hold a territory (like a state). In the second example the group with guns do not hold a territory (like an insurance agency or a gardener).

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
And it also means that anarchists who scoff at those who would work or advocate to decentralize / limit existing governments (such as minarchists or libertarians), are actually inhibiting the very conditions required for their own system to ever emerge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep! The so-called "purists" are their (and our) own worst enemy. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[JuntMonkey]

I have a friend who used to be a hardcore Democrat (actually a socialist, but wanted to fit neatly into the glorious two party system). I hadn't talked to him in around 4 years, and it now turns out that he is an anarchist.

He is anti-voting, but he did cast one final protest vote for Nader in 2004. I am unclear on what he thinks an anarchist society would ideally look like, but I do know that in the world as it is today, he would not consider it immoral to rob any corporate executive of all of his possessions in his home at gunpoint and to leave him there tied up and starving to death (he gave this exact example, and I really don't think he's being facetious).

He also briefly mentioned something about how he'd like to see Batman stories explore the fact that Bruce Wayne is "exploiting" the same people that Batman is supposed to be helping.

So, if he had to support a candidate, I have no idea whether he would choose a libertarian or a socialist. I'll be asking him.

[Dan.]

[ QUOTE ]
So, if he had to support a candidate, I have no idea whether he would choose a libertarian or a socialist. I'll be asking him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the example with the executive, I'd be greatly surprised if he'd vote libertarian. For noncapitalist anarchist, the slow weening-off of government that would occur by voting Libertarian, would make things a whole lot worse before they got better. Think of all the things the labor movement had fought for following the industrial revolution. Most of those protections--right, wrong, or otherwise--would be lost. So while ASists seek the same stateless society as ACist, I think it has to come in a more radical, revolutionary way.

[clowntable]

Would it be utterly selfish to promote voting and vote to make the situation a lot worse so that the transition to AC becomes easier?