Politics is an immoral dead-end

[shyfrog]

If you don't like other libertarians engaging in politics, then why not provide us with a better solution.  The solution of dropping out and convincing others to drop out is quixotic. 

It is like it is a matter of faith.  If we can get enough converts and are pure and faithful enough we will have a second coming of the anarchist messiah and we will all finally be free. This will happen because our doctrine says it will.  We will then move to the next historical stage and the state will simply wither away. 

+1 for hitting it square on the head...twice

[MaineShark]

So you can't think politics and voting sucks ... until you give up dealing with anyone who deals with the state?

Thinking they suck is different from thinking they are immoral.

The argument that voting occurs under duress, the same as paying taxes, is absolutely absurd.  When you face the threat of jail for abstaining from voting, then and only then can I accept that argument.

Really?  They threaten you with jail if you abstain from going to restaurants (meal tax), buying gasoline (gas tax), etc?  You don't need to do any of those things.  You choose to.  So you are "voluntarily" paying taxes, with no threat of jail if you do not, right?

Joe

[shyfrog]

The argument that voting occurs under duress, the same as paying taxes, is absolutely absurd.  When you face the threat of jail for abstaining from voting, then and only then can I accept that argument.

Really?  They threaten you with jail if you obstain from going to restaurants (meal tax), buying gasoline (gas tax), etc?  You don't need to do any of those things.  You choose to.  So you are "voluntarily" paying taxes, with no threat of jail if you do not.

Joe

I know of people who live completely free of the non-existent "state".

[Lloyd Danforth]

And, they too are often victims of local jails

[brandon dean]

How about Joel Winters or Josef Stalin - who would you vote for?

Joel Winters the weather guy? 

Why do you all focus on voting?  Of all the ways to participate in the system, that is about the most innocuous.  This is something that occurs once every few years and is likely to not have any impact about what occurs. 

If you don't like other libertarians engaging in politics, then why not provide us with a better solution.  The solution of dropping out and convincing others to drop out is quixotic. 

It is like it is a matter of faith.  If we can get enough converts and are pure and faithful enough we will have a second coming of the anarchist messiah and we will all finally be free. This will happen because our doctrine says it will.  We will then move to the next historical stage and the state will simply wither away. 

hahaha damn, nicely said... saying it's immoral for anyone else to do anything is a mistake in my opinion.  morals are decided on an individual basis, even if you choose to define your morals as being influenced by outside religious or legal pressures...
I don't think law has as much to do with morals as it does with interpretation, and politics follows suit.  I'm a person with anarchistic leanings, but not steadfast beliefs, and I believe in common law, in which each criminal case or decision to be made should be made on an individual basis by peers, depending on the circumstances of course.  the more stiff (or less flexible) a "rule" is, the more oppressive it is. 
ron paul is not succeeding because he's a great or smart man so much as he has the correct message.  I actually agree that voting can be a contradiction to freedom, but not that it's morally unjustifiable.
my one problem with anarchism as a whole is that it really offers no solutions beyond everyone magically agreeing at the same time to leave everyone else alone.  so if everyone doesn't agree with anarchy, it will never work.  best you can hope for is to keep getting your word out there so anarchy can influence the debate, so to speak.  or just live an anarchist lifestyle and forget what anyone thinks... 

[Russell Kanning]

I think I'll vote RP instead of "flushing" and waiting around to see what the other two might do.

Why do some people think that by not voting .... some people are just flushing or sitting on their hands?

Because "some" are.

but would you?

[Russell Kanning]

If you don't like other libertarians engaging in politics, then why not provide us with a better solution.  The solution of dropping out and convincing others to drop out is quixotic. 

you say that like it is a bad thing

[shyfrog]

I think I'll vote RP instead of "flushing" and waiting around to see what the other two might do.

Why do some people think that by not voting .... some people are just flushing or sitting on their hands?

Because "some" are.

but would you?

I do what I can...and I vote.
None of my candidates of choice have ever won (including the one time I wrote myself in).
But I've met lots of like-minded people in the process.
And it led me here.

[anthonybpugh]

If you don't like other libertarians engaging in politics, then why not provide us with a better solution.  The solution of dropping out and convincing others to drop out is quixotic. 

you say that like it is a bad thing

Not exactly.  I do find a lot of the stuff that you do to be highly entertaining and I think that in the right times and places doing such things can be highly effective.  The situation will dictate which strategy and tactics will be the most effective.  Right now I think that the suggestion that all that needs to be done is convincing everyone to drop out of the system is nothing more than tilting at windmills. 

[jaqeboy]

Vitruvian, here's the bone I want to pick with your statement (not your moral argument, which is rock-solid) and it goes back to "define your terms"-land. Your launching post, first para:

I have heard it said that political activity (i.e. voting, running for office, involvement in campaigns) is the most effective way to achieve our goal of a free society.  Some go so far as to suggest it is the only way.  I could not disagree more.
...

Advance apologies for the long post, but here goes:

The term "political activity". Because you advocate against that, many readers of this thread assume you aren't going to do anything and just let the world go to hell in a handbasket. That misunderstanding, in some cases, is just a limitation in their view of the universe of possible actions one can take, but largely it comes from an, I believe, loose usage of the word political.

The clarification I got back in the 70's was simple and very helpful to me: most people (including on this thread) use the term "political" action to mean running candidates, voting, getting elected, then ruling other people, but that is just one area of political action - the one that you oppose as immoral.

Consider even M-w.com's def. of politics: 5 a: the total complex of relations between people living in society, or

Wikipedia's "politics" first line: "Politics is the process by which groups of people make decisions.", or other quote: "Hannah Arendt states that 'political power corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.' "

Wikipedia "political philosophy": "...the study of fundamental questions about the state, government, politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law and the enforcement of a legal code by authority: what they are, why (or even if) they are needed, what makes a government legitimate, what rights and freedoms it should protect and why, what form it should take and why, what the law is, and what duties citizens owe to a legitimate government, if any, and when it may be legitimately overthrown—if ever."

So, the simplified version of what I mean by "political action" is doing things to affect the other people (or the people as a whole) to do what I think is right.

What we, as libertarians, oppose is "parliamentary" political action, ie, getting together in bodies, selected various ways to vote on what's right for you and me. Admittedly, various types of government have been tried (or imposed on the people) with varying motives, and, various movements of the people have thrown off unsuitable forms, with Tom Paine and Sam Adams' separation movement being one notable one with a pretty darn consistent libertarian drive. Arguably, the federalist movement to put an end to the independence of the several States was an attempt by others to impose a federal, centralized, more powerful parliamentary model of social organization. At best, we can grant that many of the founding fathers of that movement thought it an accomodation, a necessity, to maintain American ideals.

Libertarians, since they oppose the dominant, statist mentality and political drive of most people are generally an opposition movement and some believe that the best thing to do to roll back the state and see the rights of people respected is to be involved in parliamentary political action, while others choose to influence others by their civil disobedience political actions (there are still many other ways). The CD actions are even, in essence, political, since they hope there are many eyes on them (via the media) and many hearts moved by the injustice of arresting someone for just handing out a flyer or driving down the road, for example.

The mission of a libertarian intelligentsia is to come up with actions that fit our morality and are efficacious in effecting a freer society, and my fear, like yours appears to be, is that those very worthwhile goals will be smothered by the "practical" and compromising actions of those that essentially agree with the basic morality (stated by the non-agression principle), but think they must do something, even if it's something you have identified as basically wrong (morally). So, we've got to develop practical things that realize the moral thing.

Just an example of a non-parliamentary political action (paraphrased):
After years of trying to vote for people who would end the Vietnam war, dedicated opponents, veterans of many political campaigns of many types, marched on Washington and camped out on the Mall, 1 million strong. Lyndon Johnson reportedly said, when viewing the multitudes from outside his window, "I can't do this anymore" (I can't do something where that many people oppose me) and decided to not run for re-election.

I had the opportunity to hear William Pepper speak a couple of weeks ago and he was with Martin Luther King Jr. as an attorney in support of King's movement. He stated that King was planning a march from (Memphis?) through the south to gather up people to go to Washington and form a tent city on the Mall with the plan of badgering Congressmen, the White House, anyone in Washington they could to press for ending the war (King had turned his focus at this point to peace). They killed him because they knew this would be incredibly powerful. The above march followed however and had the intended effect.

This and the soldiers' movement (organizing, newsletters, coffeehouses, refuseniks, desertions) made it impossible to continue the ground war.

All these are examples of "political" actions by people who had given up on parliamentary politics or were disenfranchised from it.

So, as strange as it may seem to you at first, I say:

Up with political action! (just keep away from that parliamentary baloney - it's a rigged system to generate psychological mass consensus)

Cheers 

[jaqeboy]

I do what I can...and I vote.
None of my candidates of choice have ever won (including the one time I wrote myself in).
But I've met lots of like-minded people in the process.
And it led me here.

Thanks for coming, by the way. We DO appreciate it! We'll just keep trying to influence your political philosophy! 

[Vitruvian]

Why do you all focus on voting?  Of all the ways to participate in the system, that is about the most innocuous.  This is something that occurs once every few years and is likely to not have any impact about what occurs.

Voting is far from innocuous.  I agree with Carl Watner, when he writes that voting is actually the most violent act most "normal" people ever commit (source: http://users.aol.com/vlntryst/wn103.html).  I focus on voting and other forms of political action because it is my opinion that, apart from their being immoral, they are holding us back from achieving the ultimate goal of a free society.

Not exactly.  I do find a lot of the stuff that you do to be highly entertaining and I think that in the right times and places doing such things can be highly effective.  The situation will dictate which strategy and tactics will be the most effective.  Right now I think that the suggestion that all that needs to be done is convincing everyone to drop out of the system is nothing more than tilting at windmills.

You can think this all day long.  That does not give you a right to make decisions about the lives and property of others.

Up with political action! (just keep away from that parliamentary baloney - it's a rigged system to generate psychological mass consensus)

Point taken.  Excellent post.

[srqrebel]

While I am quite confident in my newfound understanding of the immorality of voting, the long-term practicality of voting is at least as important.  This is especially true considering that many politically inclined freedom lovers are pragmatists who seem to think that the end justifies the means -- moral purity be damned.

Wendy McElroy's essay, Why I Would Not Vote, (http://www.voluntaryist.com/articles/085b.php) is very well articulated, relatively short, and easy to read.  Here is a hard-hitting excerpt from it:

"Albert Jay Nock wrote of two sorts of power: social and state. By social power, he meant the amount of freedom individuals actually exercise over their lives - that is, the extent to which they can freely make such choices as where and how to live. By state power, he meant the actual amount of control the government exercises over its subjects' lives - that is, the extent to which it determines such choices as where and how people live. There is an inverse and antagonistic relationship between social and state power. One expands only at the expense of the other.

I stress the word "actual" because the power of the state does not rest on its size - the number of laws on the books or the extent of the territory it claims. A state's power rests on social conditions, such as whether people will obey its laws and how many resources it can command to enforce obedience. A key social condition is how legitimate the state is seen to be. For without the veil of legitimate authority, the people will not obey the state, and it will not long command the resources, such as taxes and manpower, that it needs to live.

In other words, freedom does not depend so much on repealing laws as weakening the state's authority. It does not depend - as political strategists expediently claim on persuading enough people to vote "properly" so that libertarians can occupy seats of political power and roll back legislation. Unfortunately, this process strengthens the institutional framework that produced the unjust laws in the first place: it strengthens the structure of state power by accepting its authority as a tool of change. But state authority can never strengthen social power." 

With that in mind, consider what would happen if everyone who is interested in accomplishing true freedom of the individual, which can only exist in the complete absence of State, would withdraw altogether from the illegitimate political system, instead focusing on other forms of activism such as civil disobedience. This would leave only centrist and statist types to participate: Not only would the size of the State grow by leaps and bounds (think boiling frogs), but it would also bring the true essence of the State into sharp focus for the average person, if they can see that all who struggle for freedom operate entirely outside of the political system.  The illusion that the State can be used to advance freedom of the individual would dissolve, and with it the State's veil of legitimacy.  Conceivably the State's very existence would soon follow.  This (I think) is the basis of the lucid observation Vitruvian made in his second post:

Participation in the "system" preserves the illusion of its legitimacy.  This obstructs all who strive to convince others that it is illegitimate.

This leads me to believe that freedom lovers who participate in the machinery of the State are no doubt the most powerful influence for preserving the very veil of legitimacy that the State derives it's power from, and bear the major responsibility for the continued existence of the State despite all of our best efforts and intentions.  This is a sobering thought indeed, and I am actually beginning to regret ever having participated in the political system in any way.

[Vitruvian]

This leads me to believe that freedom lovers who participate in the machinery of the State are no doubt the most powerful influence for preserving the very veil of legitimacy that the State derives it's power from, and bear the major responsibility for the continued existence of the State despite all of our best efforts and intentions.

Exactly.  It was this belief that motivated the present thread.

[srqrebel]

The argument that voting occurs under duress, the same as paying taxes, is absolutely absurd.  When you face the threat of jail for abstaining from voting, then and only then can I accept that argument.

Really?  They threaten you with jail if you abstain from going to restaurants (meal tax), buying gasoline (gas tax), etc?  You don't need to do any of those things.  You choose to.  So you are "voluntarily" paying taxes, with no threat of jail if you do not, right?

Joe

This certainly is a valid point, but as far as I can tell it is virtually impossible to participate in our current civilization (or anticivilization, as Dr. Frank R. Wallace dubbed the State-based society) and remain 100% morally pure.

That said, the purpose and intent of voting is to wield the immoral collectivist power of the State, no matter how you rationalize it -- while the purpose and intent of purchasing gasoline is to function efficiently in a civilized world, and the resultant support of the State is a mere side effect.  (Perhaps one thing moral purists could do to help undermine the existence of the State, would be to make alternative fuels available through an 'underground' network.)

As far as purchasing meals at restarants, I am beginning to really respect Dave Ridley's tax-based personal avoidance of restaurant purchases.  I have a long history of living on fast food as a matter of expedience -- but the fact that in NH, there is no sales tax on groceries while there is on restaurant meals, leaves little excuse for supporting the State through meal taxes.  (It is still worth mentioning that the purpose and intent of purchasing restaurant meals is to obtain sustenance, not to support the State.)

I hereby officially withdraw from purchasing taxed food as long as I can obtain non-taxed, nutritious food from other sources.