Voting For Anarchy?

in #anarchy7 years ago

There are still some people who are attempting to use the political system to try to promote the principles of self-ownership and non-aggression. But both tactically and philosophically, that is a really bad idea, which is doomed to be counter-productive.

First, I want to acknowledge the one potentially good outcome, which would be using the ridiculous circus of “politics” to bring attention to the philosophical principles underlying voluntaryism. However, to do that without being completely counter-productive and self-contradictory, one would have to run a “campaign” that is very clear and loud on several points:

The results of elections have absolutely no moral significance. Individual rights don’t depend upon constitutions or legislation. The entire game of political elections (choosing masters) is inherently illegitimate and immoral. Freedom doesn’t come from “government” or political action; freedom is always the diametrical opposite of “government” and political action.

In other words, an actually consistent anarchist “running for office” would intentionally make a mockery of the whole charade, making it quite clear that the outcome of the election does not matter in the slightest, because political “authority” is 100% mythological bullshit, with no relevance to right and wrong, or to what human society ought to be. An actual anarchist would not speak of any political or “legislative” agenda or plan, because he would know that constitutions, elections and politician scribbles have absolutely no legitimacy to begin with. In short, the only anarchist political “campaign” I would have any respect for (and I would still object) would sound a lot like this:

This whole game of politics and voting is a stupid, bogus charade. Pressing buttons in booths doesn’t give anyone any special power or authority. I am only playing the part of another clown in this ridiculous circus in order to point out the absurdity and illegitimacy of it all, and to use the platform—and whatever attention I might get from it—to condemn statism entirely, in principle, from top to bottom, without exception, and to promote and spread the ideas of self-ownership, non-aggression, and a purely voluntary society: ideas which are in every way incompatible with the very notion of ‘government’ and political ‘authority.’ I will not win this election; I do not want to win it; winning it doesn’t matter in the slightest. If you vote for me (or anyone), you are still horribly misguided and duped.

The moment an “anarchist” political candidate starts taking himself, or his campaign, at all seriously, you should run away from him as fast as possible.

(Incidentally, almost every tyrant rose to power by promising that, if given power himself, he would use that power to free the people from the injustice and tyranny coming from someone or something else.)

And if a supposed “anarchist” candidate ever says anything starting with “If elected,” then you know he is lying to himself, lying to you, and is only strengthening the insane notion that it matters who “wins” that silly clown show. There are several reasons why it is completely irrational to think that an anarchist getting electing is going to do any good, including (but not limited to) the following:

1 - Basic math dictates that, long before any anarchist would ever win any major election, it would already be completely unnecessary for him to run at all. For example, if we reach a point where 25% of the population believes in non-aggression and self-ownership, they would still be losing every election, while also easily having the numbers to simply ignore any authoritarian regime out of power.

2 - There is no office, including President of the United States, which can unilaterally legislate (or “un-legislate”) anything. Those who understand how federal legislation works (as bogus as it is) know that the President is the last step in the process, and can do exactly nothing by himself, except for Executive Orders which either apply only to federal employees, or carry out specific powers which Congress already delegated (i.e., pretended to delegate) to the President. They aren’t just a magic wand.

3 - The entire show of federal elections has nothing to do with reality. If you aren’t a loyal puppet ready to do the bidding of your masters, you have exactly no chance in hell of getting anywhere near the White House. Ever. (Ron Paul’s campaign was a fine example of someone who had massive real support from many millions of actual, honest people, and who was squelched, suppressed, silenced, demonized and destroyed by both parties, and the mainstream media, so that he never had a chance of winning.)

4 - When (not if) a voluntaryist candidate loses, it then looks like hypocrisy and “sour grapes” to declare that whoever did win doesn’t really have the right to rule. To play a game, lose it, and then whine about the results, is not exactly the best way to spread a coherent, consistent, principled message of liberty.

5 - Even in the best cases, a political campaign will automatically be perceived by most people as being about a certain person more than being about any idea. And the “cult of personality” routine, implying that we need a certain savior/leader/hero to save us, is the last thing that voluntaryists should be doing, or should be presenting to the world as their message.

6 - And most importantly, to campaign based on some legislative or political agenda clearly and obviously implies that you think that elections and legislation are actually legitimate and relevant. To try to play the role of savior by saying that, if given political power, you will use it to give people their freedom, is philosophically entirely statist, and psychologically a sign of some serious megalomaniacal delusions. Furthermore, anyone looking to a political candidate to grant them freedom obviously doesn’t know the first thing about self-ownership or non-aggression.

Democracy is the best trick tyrants have ever come up with. It is a way to give the slave class the illusion of control and influence, while giving them no real power. It allows the masters to pretend that the slaves have “consented” to the arrangement by choosing a master. Most importantly, it creates at outlet for the anger and frustration of the abused peasantry which uses up their time, energy and money, without ever getting them one inch closer to true freedom.

Watching supposed “anarchists” joining in that game, legitimizing it, and acting as if that game can be used to achieve true freedom—pretending that if you give the Ring of Power to the right person, he will use it to free you—is, at best, extremely misguided and counter-productive. And at worst, it is just another variation of what politicians always use politics and “democracy” for: empowering and enriching themselves—growing their own egos, their reputations, their influence, and their bank accounts—by exploiting the fear, anger, frustration, desperation and helplessness of everyone else. That is not the road to freedom.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

P.S. Some people, in trying to justify political involvement, will talk about how we need to move towards a free society gradually, in steps, and that it can’t be done all at once. Aside from the obvious historical fact that “government” never gradually reduces and gets rid of itself (quite the opposite), whatever happens along the way, the only point that matters is digital, not analogy: every individual either owns himself, or is the property of someone else (e.g., the collective, or the ruling class). A slave trying to get his slave-master to be nicer, even if it works, is never the way to achieve freedom. Likewise, trying to get “legislative” permission to be more free has nothing to do with actual freedom, and thinking that way is still just playing into the hands of the parasite class.

P.P.S. Some people will point out, and rightfully so, that Ron Paul started a lot of people on journeys that ended with those people becoming anarchists. But that had everything to do with the ideas Dr. Paul expressed, and nothing to do with elections or legislation. Indeed, in his closing comments on the House floor, Dr. Paul said about himself what I had been saying about him for years, including this:

In many ways, according to conventional wisdom, my off-and-on career in Congress, from 1976 to 2012, accomplished very little. … In spite of my efforts, the government has grown exponentially, taxes remain excessive, and the prolific increase of incomprehensible regulations continues. … I never believed that the world or our country could be made more free by politicians, if the people had no desire for freedom. Under the current circumstances the most we can hope to achieve in the political process is to use it as a podium to reach the people to alert them of the nature of the crisis and the importance of their need to assume responsibility for themselves, if it is liberty that they truly seek. … Achieving legislative power and political influence should not be our goal. Most of the change, if it is to come, will not come from the politicians, but rather from individuals, family, friends, intellectual leaders and our religious institutions. The solution can only come from rejecting the use of coercion, compulsion, government commands, and aggressive force, to mold social and economic behavior.

Sort:  

So why are you afraid to debate me on this point?

Why do you take swipes at me while I'm in jail?

Why do you talk trash and spread lies about me behind my back, yet can't mention my name here?

The cowardice of the messenger betrays the cowardice of your message. Let us confront the state every way we can!

http://KokeshForPresident.com/platform

Hello Mr. Kokesh.

Do you feel disapionted because Mr. Rose his post is exactly the same, and consistent with all he has written before (about voting/ elections/masterplans etc.) and he applies volutaryist principles always in the same way?
Would you have hoped that all of a sudden he would have said; Go vote (only this time, or only on Adam)?

If Stefan Molyneux was running for not president or present an new masterplan, the same post would have been written, would not use a name either, and aplied the same ideas/principles. I can however see and understand, that you could take it personal.

If Mr. Rose would have written this post a month from now, was it then o.k.?
Because it would have been written at some point....don't you think?
Expecting differently is setting yourself up for disappointment?
Or do you disagree on that?

And nice politician-esque blustering in your first line. If you can actually address the points of the article, instead of doing the politician emotionalism and tap-dance routine, I would be happy to publicly debate you on it. Know a good moderator?

Adam.... I am very disappointed as being someone who has been inspired by your words in the past!
Your platform is logically and ethically inconsistent with anarchist/ voluntarist principles. Voting for anarchy is like fucking for virginity. It's antithetical to logic and reason!

A 100 dollar self-upvoted comment. Fucking gross.

I'll debate you.

I think the real issue is that you don't want to because if you got too deep into this stuff, you'd find yourself trapped. Lots of folks asking. Why let your fans down?

Are you able to actually debate ideas or do you just engage in name calling?

101$ upvote man...this just pressing of button to upvote can seriously fill my pocket for 6 months...

this is called finger power 😀

I criticized your campaign for giving bail donations to a statist political party while you were in jail, because that's when it happened. I don't "talk trash or spread lies." I point out inconsistencies and bad tactics. And, like all politicians, you responded with emotional tantrums and personal attacks, instead of substantive responses. I intentionally left out quite a few things in the article that would have been about you personally, because in the long run, they are irrelevant. The principles are what matter. And in principle, "running for office" in the name of freedom is philosophically and tactically daft, for the reasons explained in the article--NONE of which you even responded to in your comment.

Well said Larken. This is why I believe anarchists should be careful of following people who intend on running for president even if the platform is to eliminate the office.

This post is really good. I just had to copy a small paragraph and paste it into my post. If everyone would think that way, things around would be pretty different

I would like to know more about anarchy and volunaryism and how it would work in a modern society. As a person who has never voted I am tired of seeing the corrupt farce that is democracy and how people (in Australia) are forced to vote.

If what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, that anarchy and volunaryism could only be implemented through opting-out of the democracy game with great numbers then people need to be educated on how these two ideals would work. How society would function. How roads will be built, how prisons would be maintained etc

I love Ron Paul and relate to a lot of what he says and do subscribe to the idea of less government than more.

Give Rothbard's For a New Liberty a read.

Cheers, I'll check it out.

If you're open to that, you might also enjoy checking out Freedom by Adam Kokesh and The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose. Also watch the Philosophy of Liberty video. Those (among much other study) were the most helpful for me in realizing the myth of authority.

Thanks for letting me share my views with you. I hope they are useful.

I think you're in the right place. I'm sure there are TONS of people on steemit that will gladly introduce you to voluntaryism. If not, I'll do it. But to be honest, there's already a lot of replies that probably give you a lot of the basics. But a lot can be answered with the free market. Check out Austrian Economics. Mises.org is a great source and many books there are free in pdf format.

It sounds like you are making a decision to support one political philosophy versus another by weighing the outcome according to what you like. I know that people do that, but Larken is saying that the government itself is illegitimate. In the strictest sense, he is saying that regardless of whether the government steals things on your behalf that your like or steals things that you don't like, either way the government is illegitimate and should be rejected regardless of the outcome.

Above he says "Pressing buttons in booths doesn’t give anyone any special power or authority." Politicians think they are on a higher moral plane than you and feel justified in taking your money, but there is no objective basis to conclude that any one person is on a higher or lower moral plane in such a way... democracy is built on an imaginary distinction based on the magic power of pressing a button in a voting booth that entitles one person to steal from and micro-manage another.

It sounds like you are making a decision to support one political philosophy versus another by weighing the outcome according to what you like

Of course that's what people do when presented with new information/ideas, to suggest any less is not rational. Whether the government is illegitimate or not is by all means a matter of opinion. There a literally hundreds of millions of people who disagree with that statement. In fact I would say an overwhelming high percentage would say that we need some form of government. There are hundreds of millions of oppressed people who would die to have a democracy that we have.

In the strictest sense, he is saying that regardless of whether the government steals things on your behalf that your like or steals things that you don't like, either way the government is illegitimate and should be rejected regardless of the outcome.

That's all fine and dandy but to be honest most people are awake to the corrupt and thieving nature of government but to move people from their cushy sofa's the alternative and and more importantly the transition to the alternative needs to be clearly laid out. The government is not going to hand over power without a fight. So how will that fight look like? Protesting? Shit you can't even get people protesting for serious moral violations at the moment.

Sorry for the late response. I'm new to Steemit and did not see your reply.

You originally said people would want to know the outcome of a society that undergoes some type of anarchy. People would want to know:

How society would function. How roads will be built, how prisons would be maintained etc

Realistically, yes, most people would want to know that. Some people are less concerned with the quality of roads than with abiding by certain moral principles, like not initiating aggression against them by taking their money in terms of a tax. Larken might not care if some roads fell into disrepair or if some poor people go no welfare check because he is more concerned with underlying principles.

As for how such a change might happen, I do not follow Larken's suggestion of all out war. I suspect people who hear a message of anarchy or voluntaryism would first cut out social welfare and regulations. Where it all ends, I have no idea.

And while I feel I'm an anarchist (more like an agorist), that is MY biggest issue... how to support people who can't work, or can't work full time (like me).

Not that the gov't actually GIVES money to people in need because their formula for giving money to people is IDIOTIC, what they give to people is so little that there's NO WAY to live off of just over $1,100/month. You'd have to make money some other way to even pay the bills, let along have ANY kind of life that is normal.

There are MANY homeless people who can't even qualify for money because one person in the family makes a measly $16-18/hr. which is NOT enough to pay for 2 adults & a baby, PLUS pay child or spousal support.

I found out the fucking gov't looks at his GROSS income, NOT his NET.

Like I said, they are either stupid, or they do this on purpose so they don't have to pay out. I believe it's the latter.

Myself I have health issues & can't work full time because I don't have enough energy. Whenever I try to work 40 hours, I'm either making too little or I burn myself out.

Many seniors can't work because they are ill.

While I'm ALL for freedom, these to me are the BIGGEST issues & SHOULD be discussed, but every time I bring it up to anarchists they JUST ignore me like little children.

And I don't give a SHIT about the roads LOL who cares about fucking roads. How we can support ourselves is WAY more important than roads.

As it is, in the US most of the roads are in a total state of disrepair & there IS a gov't right now.

I really don't believe that anarchists are serious about freedom.

I've reached out to a few over the last 3 years & not one of them has ever written me back or wanted to have a SERIOUS discussion about this.

ALL talk & no action.

Hey you! 🙌😎 trying to find Amanda on here too!

megalomaniacal delusions yup nailed it right out of the ball park!

Anarchy day by day we are comming closer to realiza how muhc we need it.

The two guys hanging picture says it all.

I got to give it to you Larken you never shy away from the truth. So how will Frodo throw away the ring of power if we don't give him the ring?... I guess we all have to be Frodo maybe some of us can be Sam. I still think there is some good that comes out spreading awareness of anarchy.

I agree 100% Larken, but if you can admire Dr.Paul for what he did, I think we can give Adam the same respect. Not voting for him but remaining supportive in spreading his message, which is far closer to liberty than anyone else by a long shot. Aside from the contradictions to voluntaryism, it would be great to get it out to a lot of people. The Freedom book is pretty solid. Ron Paul meant to wield the power to gain liberty as well.

I always enjoy your content sir!

Why should anyone support a message that involves a proposition to utilize an immoral, illegitimate system, to illegitimately, centrally assume ownership of massive resources and lands?

Aside from the small drop of arsenic in the water, it’s great water, and we should get it out to the people!

Ron Paul is openly a statist. He is not claiming to be anything he is not.

Kokesh needs to stop calling himself a Voluntaryist. It is fraudulent, false advertising.

For exactly the reasons stated in the post and my comment--we know he's not going to win, so the point is to spread the message of freedom, which again is far more about liberty than it's not. Yes, he should drop the voluntary label, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't have a massive effect to bring people around full circle, just like Ron Paul did for me and countless others.

He has directly stated that he is running to win, and not merely to spread the message of freedom. Ron Paul's ideas helped me along the path as well. He also didn't pretend to be a Voluntaryist, selling a falsely advertised plan.

People can donate to the LP all they like. I'm just letting folks know it's a scam.

Hey, I'm just letting people know that you're wrong:

Whoops. Looks like I missed this one. There are other vids of him saying he is not for anarchy, and wouldn't describe himself as an anarchist. The point I was making was he never said his plan to assume authority as president was voluntaryist in nature as you do. That's a pretty clear and easy distinction. He has also said directly, "I'm not an anarchist." Watch this video from 2:56.

Are you ready to have a formal debate yet, or are you just going to keep ignoring the actual points being raised?

Somebody else chimed in over on the other post you responded to today and they don't seem to think I'm just an annoying troll, but actually understand the critique and asked you some questions as well. Are they just being "annoying and ignorant" too? I'm ready to talk ideas in a formal setting when you are.

Step up to the plate?

Fair enough. But Ron ran to win too. And so for all those folks who still have the training wheels on, like we did when we first heard the Dr., I want him to take it to the masses.

Seems we're both repeating ourselves here. Thank you for your time and I look forward to following your work!

Thanks man. Same to you.

@johnnyhurley - I agree with you.

People need to first have the seed introduced to them, then once they get over their initial shock, fear, etc. they need to take baby steps to learn.

Then it can take years before someone is fully onboard with releasing their chains. It's what they've known their entire life & most humans AREN'T open-minded.

I first started questioning the gov't back in '93/'94, but it wasn't until 2012/13 when someone pointed me to Larken that I was like YEH, I agree with THAT.

Even then I just agreed. I didn't become a full-on activist until about 2 years ago & that's ONLY because I had some time since I was sick & couldn't work so I started learning.

Most people can't hear the message b/c they are chained to their 9-5 job working min. 40 hour. Many are working way more than that, sometimes 70 hours per week.

The EVIL CORPS & gov't create a society where EVERYTHING is so expensive than unless you make a shit load of money, you are forced to work 2-3 jobs.

Even if someone is only working the typical 40 hours per week, they usually HATE their job which puts a HUGE stressor on them & by the time they get home, all they want to do is eat & go to bed or spend time with their family.

To learn requires mental energy. In fact, the brain uses the MOST energy to run a human body.

That, & the fact that the EVILS poison us so our brains don't work properly, it decreases our energy, or it makes us ill so we have those 2 symptoms.

If you don't have a clear brain & tons of energy to live, forget about convincing/teaching people there's a better way.

If even one of these 2 mainstream people capture a WIDER audience & get people thinking, they will start to open their minds a little bit where it's easier to converse with them about taking it to the next level.

But I certainly don't respect or like people who mislead others.

But a lot of people seem to get a kick out of submitting funny names as official presidential candidates
https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2016
if "Toy Testicles" runs again they have my vote.