Like him or not, Rand Paul is now at the top of the 2016 ticket. Unless you’re a buffoon that would actually elect Joe Biden.
Let’s hope Rand Paul doesn’t turn into another Obama.
Or a George W. Bush.
W ran on free market economics and being against gov’t…
stop voting jesus christ its like you people get SO close to going full anti-state sometimes but then get pulled back in by your naive dreams and emotional triggers.
I’m full on anarchist but I think that you have to be reasonable about the process of creating a full stateless society. You can’t just hide from the state with your head in the sand.
You must vote to eliminate the state while you fight the state and educate the people.
You have to always cast a dissenting vote. Vote against all taxes, vote against all laws, vote against all growth of government. You don’t have to vote for actual representatives and I can understand why this is counter productive (lesser of two evils, blah blah blah), but voting against local measures and taxes is a must for any advocate of statelessness.
After all, the majority of people aren’t going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly be anarchists. I still live here and I still have to pay taxes and be subjected to the immorality of the law and the force by which it is enforced. While this remains true, I believe it is self defense to constantly vote against it.
I have only voted twice for a ‘representative’. Once for Ron Paul in 2008 for the primaries and once in 2012 when I wrote Ron Paul’s name in backwards. I think electing any national representative is a joke and should be treated as such.
But when it comes to local measures, where your vote isn’t just for the so called “lesser of two evils” and it can actually vote out a criminal activity such as taxation or unjust legislation, you not only should vote, you must vote. It’s self defense.
‘being reasonable’ with the State has never gotten anyone anywhere. ‘be reasonable’ is how police officers justify heinous behavior. dont stand up and bare your teeth, dont brandish your arms and be uncompromising. just ‘be reasonable.’ ‘just cooperate and there wont be any trouble.’ you may as well lay down and die, because theres no freedom in being reasonable with those who do not respect reason in the first place. limiting yourself for some kind of misplaced desire for practical ends at the cost of your own morals wont get you anywhere.
create alternatives and equip yourself for the backlash as best you can. lead by example and try your best to inspire. freedom will never, ever, EVER be won in the court rooms, congress or senate floors. once youve entered there youve already given up leagues of fundamental depth to your views.
I never said you must be “reasonable with the state”. I said you have to be reasonable about the process of eliminating the state. That distinction is important for you to understand.
You have to understand that ignoring who is in power and what they can do simply because you think anarchism is equatable to not voting is exactly how tyrants secure and execute their power.
To create and maintain a stateless society, that society must also continually stay vigilant and aware of individuals who are attempting to or capable of hoarding power for coercive and corrupt means. These people are the weak link in a stateless society. They seek to mitigate the power of individuals and funnel it into their own pockets, to weaponize and monetize that power.
Least we get into the fact that voting isn’t strictly a function of government and that in a stateless society there would still be benefits to voting, even in a stateless society. We vote all the time in our day to day lives without involving government in any form. Like when three friends vote on where to eat or when you and a spouse choose between what movie to see and where to see it and even down to where we sit.
The difference between stateless voting and state-empowered voting is that there is no state to force you to obey the results of the vote. In a stateless society, if you don’t agree with the outcome of a vote, you can simply opt out, you can walk away.
So voting itself is not evil. Forcing people to obey the results despite their wishes is evil.
Without getting into if I think you’re right or wrong, let’s further explore what you’re advocating when you say we shouldn’t vote at all.
You are saying that the only way to get rid of the state is to 1. Ignore it completely 2. revolt (violently, if necessary) or 3. vote it away. And you don’t believe in #3 so that leaves you with the first two options.
Option #1: You can ignore the state and dip your head in the sand and hope it doesn’t come after you and hope that it leaves you alone but we’ve tried this for a long time and what are the results? And before you go on stating that the majority of the people haven’t, let me ask you what percentage of people actually vote in this country? The majority of people typically don’t vote and don’t get involved with government. Most of these people don’t like and don’t trust gov’t and would not mind it shrinking or disappearing or leaving them alone for good. And what do we have to show for it? Less gov’t? Less corruption? Less force? None of the above. We have trended in the opposite direction since the day after we won the American Revolution. So you can toss Option #1 out the window.
Let’s look at option #2. If you revolt, you either do so by peacefully asking gov’t to leave or by violently forcing them to leave. So let’s split this Option into two part; #2A Peaceful revolt and #2B Violent Revolt.
We can eliminate violent revolt because it probably violates the NAP and it most certainly fringes on coercive. If the idea of anarchy is truly that good and the people want it, it should be possible without a single drop of blood being shed. Unlike the state, I tend to believe that anarchists are generally peaceful people and the idea of anarchy, if taught properly is more than just an embraceable concept, it is a coveted one.
So that leaves us with option #2B. Unfortunately for you and others who don’t believe in voting, option #2B is most easily achieved by vote. I know I eliminated #3 because you’re against voting, but voting with a dissenting voice actually does have it’s some merit.
This is essentially what went down in Iceland. People were sick of their government. They educated themselves and set out to show their dissent in massive but pretty calm protests. When the gov’t didn’t listen, they voted them out of office. All of them. And what did the representatives do? They left. No one was killed. No coup d’etat was needed, no violent revolution. Just the power of one’s voice backed by the very real power of the masses.
Now Iceland chose to keep a functioning government, though they changed how they functioned. But they could have easily not elected a government once they had rid themselves of their previous installment. Now as a true anarchist/voluntaryist, I respect the people’s ability and decision to install a government of their liking if they chose to do so. I, personally, would have not.
Voting is can be a very effective tool for destroying the state, why would we not capitalize on this?
I think that there are a few peaceful ways to end the state:
1. Educate yourself and others. There’s nothing that can doom a good idea faster than a terrible defense of that idea.
2. Vote for a smaller government, or none at all, whenever you can. We’ve been given a magic tool to voice our opinion and fight the growth of government, why not use it to our advantage?
3. Don’t give up an inch. Never compromise when it comes to liberties and freedoms. They are yours and yours alone. Never trade them for security. Never suspend them for any reason.
And if it makes you feel any better, I still wouldn’t vote for Rand Paul.