by 
[ad]My previous Strike the Root article on libertarianism and Ron Paul’s campaign for the republican nomination for the presidential election (here) has gained some attention. I expected to receive a large number of e-mails from “Ron Paulians” about how Ron Paul and the “rEVOLution” is about to save the world. To my surprise, most e-mails I received were from libertarians sharing my analysis.
This fact should mean, and I am generalizing of course, that the support for Ron Paul is real in the sense that it is not only a libertarian phenomenon. The thousands of people supporting Ron Paul’s campaign are not simply libertarians calling themselves republicans only to vote for “their” candidate. There are no doubt many such people too, but I suspect a large number of his supporters are actually republicans or “independents” in the party political sense. His support is real.
All comments I have received, however, are not positive. In a debate on Strike the Root following the publishing of my article, a number of points have been raised about the analysis in my article and arguments have been articulated to show how I am wrong. I dedicate this post to discuss two such points that I find particularly interesting – and that I think strengthens my view.
Initial remarks
Before beginning the discussion I would like to make one thing very clear in order to avoid confusion. I do not in any way support politics or political means, neither as a possible nor a moral means of change or liberty. In my view, I do not see politics as something that could ever bring about liberty – politics is a game of and for power, and as such it is utterly immoral and evil. This does not, however, mean I do not recognize differences between regimes; I would certainly be better off in one of the fifty united states under the constitution as it is written than in, e.g., Hitler’s Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union.
But I find those differences only different in degree, not in principle. The American constitutional republic is an oppressive state system of power just as Stalin’s USSR was, it is just that the systems grant their subjects different sets of rights and “freedoms.” Call it what you will, but both are state systems and as such I do not support them. One should not refrain from calling things what they are – and one should certainly not support something that is evil but “less evil” than other possible alternatives.
Some say it is a matter of semantics to not support but be “against but not as much against as other alternatives.” That statement is a mistake: support means action in favor of, whereas I have dislike for Stalin’s and Hitler’s state systems just as I dislike the constitutionalist union (federation). There are degrees to dislike without “less degree of dislike” necessarily transforming into support.
Having said this, I should admit that I would of course rather see Ron Paul as president than any other republican or democrat candidates. It is rather obvious to me that Paul might cause a lot less harm (perhaps even some good) to me than the others. But this doesn’t mean I support him as president – I don’t. Choosing between evils means you choose an evil, and I refuse to take on such responsibility. The fact that the political system is a system for creating a sense of legitimacy for power and rule should make it clear to all libertarians that the involvement in such a system (and thereby support of it) is not compatible with the non-aggression principle.
Now, to the points raised. The first one is about Ron Paul’s rhetoric and what he can possible do – and why he supports certain things simply because they are in the constitution. I call this argument “He is against the state – but follows the law.” The other argument is more practical and claims Ron Paul as president would make a hell of a change.
He is against the state – but follows the law
It may very well be true that Ron Paul is a man who is strictly opposed to the state. I personally doubt it, but I don’t know him and therefore I won’t say it isn’t true. However troubling the statist libertarian (read: minarchist) view is, I find the supporting argument much more annoying. “Ron Paul follows the law.”
Of course, this argument is usually not stated this way, but rather in terms such as “he has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution” or that “he uses the constitution as an argument against his fellow law-makers.” It is true that presidents and members of Congress alike take an oath to uphold the constitution. But it is equally true that very few throughout history have ever taken that oath seriously. So why would anyone who is against the state take that oath seriously, with the only effect being to restrain one’s possibilities to get rid of the state once and for all?
Since no one else on “the Hill” cares at all about the constitution and they frequently move to enact laws contradicting it only to further the state’s (their own) powers, then what good does the only person opposed to such behavior taking the oath seriously do? If this is really the case, if the libertarian on “the Hill” is really pro liberty, then the oath has only one real effect: it stops moves for liberty while having no effect whatsoever on those working against liberty. That should be reason enough to not care about the oath nor the constitution.
Another reason for working to uphold the constitution while not really believing in it might be that the person in office takes his or her word seriously. This is a ridiculous argument – if the person elected for congress is really for “more liberty” than allowed by the constitution, then being a member of congress itself is so evil and contradictory a position that breaking an oath to uphold something one does not believe in doesn’t change a thing. It only means tying one’s own hands – for what reason?
In either case, the libertarian on Capitol Hill has no reason to obey and uphold the constitution. It could be a strategic move with underlying good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are no arguments for working politically for the constitution unless one either 1) believes in it or 2) has as [sole] aim to “stop the others” – or both. If one believes in the constitution, which I believe is the case for Ron Paul, one cannot be anti state (and thus the argument above falls). And if one is only trying to stop the ongoing destruction in Washington, DC, then there is no reason to believe this person is at all libertarian – what are the ideals and ideas?
I believe that Ron Paul fits both – he both believes in the constitution (and is thus not anti state) and works mainly to stop the “madness” in the federal government.
Now to the second and final point:
He can and will make some real change
There should be no doubt this statement is only possible to make if one has a fundamental belief that change is, in fact, possible through the system. Without such a belief the statement simply wouldn’t make sense. At all.
It isn’t enough to claim the system has, indeed, been changing – I do admit to the factual statement that the system isn’t perfectly stagnant, it changes all the time. But I realize that the system continuously changes for the worse, not for the better. The system, no matter how “system” is defined, has never worked to strengthen liberty or roll back the powers of the state (these are really synonymous statements).
There are nevertheless events to the benefit of liberty, usually as a result of popular distress and risk of revolution or “losing control” or “chaos” (the latter two are usually used to describe such times when the masses no longer accept the authorities’ oppressive measures). But these events are only temporary setbacks for those with power – they realize they have tried to increase their powers a little too fast, and thus “take it back” only to do the same thing again at a later time when people aren’t watching (or have calmed down or are focused on something else).
The fact is that real change in society to the benefit of liberty only comes about as revolutionary leaps forward rather than gradual change. Such leaps may be the result of a tipping point having been reached, but the change is always great and happens almost all at once. Lady Liberty never approaches taking baby steps.
That said, what could Ron Paul do as president? With George W. Bush having made the U.S. presidency more powerful than admitted in the constitution, there should be some possibilities of change. Setting aside the fact that all such powers are unconstitutional (and thus president Ron Paul, taking the oath seriously, wouldn’t be able to use them – only to abolish them), Paul could make use of the presidential power as commander in chief and stop the slaughter and bring all troops home.
But what about spending? What about the welfare state? Those are matters for Congress and for president Paul to accept Congress’s decisions. Will Congress change because Ron Paul is president? He seems to think so, and maybe it will. But will it change radically? Hardly.
It seems to me what people in general hope for is that Ron Paul as sworn president means something much more than someone taking the oath seriously. It means the whole American society has changed, that the people has gotten sick and tired of government and wishes to abolish most (or all) welfare state programs. With such a change Congress will no doubt change radically as well – the reps and senators love their privileges too much to have ideals, and thus would throw out whatever agendas they have in order to stay in power and keep the people’s “confidence.”
But such a change really has nothing to do with Ron Paul and it has nothing to do with his presidential campaign. Rather, a Ron Paul presidency would then be an effect of a radical change that has already happened. So radical change by president Ron Paul is not an option – radical change would happen anyway, not depending on who is president. And if this is really the case, then why would Ron Paul have to adopt the view that he must restore the constitution (assuming the claim that he is in reality an enemy of the state)?
If there is no such radical change, which to me seems a lot more plausible, then Ron Paul as president would have to work with a lot of resistance – from both the people and Congress. Why anyone would believe such a presidency would mean real and concrete change I do not know. Politics, after all, is a means for oppression and destruction of liberty – not a means for liberation.
“Politics, after all, is a means for oppression and destruction of liberty – not a means for liberation.”
Politics is the activities and affairs involved in managing a state or a government. (Politics is a noun.)
Smaller government means less politics, which reduces the means by which a government may oppress or destroy liberty.
So I guess you have to decide on how big you want your government to be, if you want to control the amount of liberty you have. I believe most would vote for the candidate that reduces the size of the government.
Government means mind control. It’s roots are Latin, Guber = Control, Ment = Mind. And some of us have an aversion to mind control. But your welcome to it if you want. :-/
“On the Ron Paul problem” The main problem is Ron Paul has been warning us about what has passed for government for over 30 years from the floor of the House. And he was absolutely right. We have been to lazy or busy to pay attention. And now The President has imprisoned and tortured anyone they call a terrorist. In foreign prisons with out representation for as long as they want to, releasing some after 6 years with out bringing charges. It’s against American Law, it’s against International Law, We signed international treaties against it after going after the Germans and Japanese.
The Federal Reserve has Deflated the dollar to $0.04 of it’s 1913 value. The value it had when they took control. In the last 3 years the value has dropped over 35% the oil price isn’t going up it’s the standard that the dollar is valued against. And the Value of everything that’s tied to the dollar has lost value, your savings, stocks, your house all will buy less oil than they would have before Bush’s unlimited War on whatever he can dream up.
They have been giving the economy a Jolt Cola, throwing money at it to keep it running. Like a caffeine addict it has the jitters and when the sugar is consumed there will be a collapse. The budget that was just passed $1.4 Trillion $700 Billion for Defense and War $700 Billion for Domestic spending $500 Billion for the interest on the loan. Was the back room deal that they worked out. Basically Bush got everything he wanted, War, Missile defense system for Europe, 700 military bases in 138 foreign countries.
Congress got their Pork and the continuation of the bloated government.
We got the shaft, and the bill with out the kiss.
They have more bills to take away our freedoms and make it easier to call us terrorist. The domestic violent terrorism act. it basically sets up a internet monitor thru the Homeland security Dept. with Pat Robertsons Collage as agents to monitor us, for any opposition to the government on the net.
It neatly ties up the holes in the Patriot Act and makes the US a fascist State.
After the collapse of the US economy, we’ll have IMF imposed austerity measures imposed to justify further loans and it will look like the Great Depression only in first person.
What we can do;
Impeach Bush and Cheney, which will remove Bush’s power of Pardon.
Libby, Bolton and Rove will start talking or go to jail, and we’ll get to the bottom of the crimes committed by our leaders to protect us and National security.
This Nation Stands for Freedom , Personal rights and Fair and Just Treatment of all People. If we give up that, what are we fighting for?
Ron Paul himself acknowledges that the “revolution” isn’t about him…it’s about an idea and the message he brings. He has simply lit the torch and the grassroots are carrying it forward. This is the sign of a good leader.
Provide a role model, good advice, and inspiration and let the people turn them into actions. He is a honest humble man who is here to serve, not control.
Why waste your time on a person who doesn’t vote or participate? They are as detrimental to freedom as any open borders one worlder is…because that is who benefits from their apathy.
Responding to mike, Daniel, Barbara, and “NH”:
First of all, it seems we have very different perspectives or points of view. I wrote this post from the perspective that politics is not a means to achieve whatever end that includes liberty. The state has the power to take away liberty, but not to grant it.
mike stresses an important point when stating the Latin roots of the word government; how much mind control do we want? I for one would like NO mind control and thus I am against government and the state. Being anti state, as I reason in this blog post, means you cannot trust or use political means or become part of the governmental system to accomplish liberty (anti statism) – the system itself is fundamentally biased towards power and increased power.
What I argue in this post, as I have also done elsewhere, is that one cannot change the system from within. The system of coercion can only be changed through non-compliance and people directly opposing it. If liberty is what we want, then we should not become part of the systematic “unliberty” and try to change it. Isn’t it better to get rid of it and build something much better from scratch?
Just as Daniel writes, the federal government has given us a lot of problems. What has it given us that we need and cannot supply ourselves (individually or together with others)? If you want an unbiased answer, it can only be “nothing.” The state (government) does not supply goods – it can only withhold them. Also, the state does not engage in production – only in destruction. This should be very clear – take a look at history and imagine what history would be like without a ruling elite and its wars (on foreign and domestic peoples).
Barbara is right in that Ron Paul does not consider himself the “leader” of the “revolution.” Paul should get credit for the good he does, and I don’t hesitate to give him that. The “revolution” seems indeed to be about “an idea” (or rather, a set of ideas), but I maintain that the idea is corrupt; the idea is not consistent and it is not what it seems to be.
The idea is supposed to be liberty, but it is only a kind of liberty protected, supported, and maintained by government. But please tell me how liberty is strengthened through adding coercion, restrictions, and power! Liberty through the state can only mean liberty for some – and liberty in a specific way (the way that its rulers support, accept and condone).
The fundamental question here is: a liberty that is PERMITTED by those with power – is that true LIBERTY?
My answer is NO. One does not have freedom of speech if one is not permitted to say certain things. Even if only one word is not permitted speech is not free – it is restricted. Liberty is the same way, either you have liberty or you do not; if you have liberty only at someone else’s mercy, then you are not free – you do not have liberty.
This does not mean you do not have liberty of X, Y, and Z. Even slaves are free to do certain things under certain conditions (breathe, dream, have a family…).
The problem with Ron Paul’s candidacy is, and I have voiced this before, that it is a statist candidacy – his messages is a false message of liberty. It is false because he talks of and promises liberty “under the constitution.” There is no such thing.
When Paul says he seeks the presidency for what he doesn’t want to do rather than for what he wants to do, I believe he is telling the truth. And I would probably be better off under a Ron Paul presidency than under any other possible presidency (the other candidates are worse, but Ron Paul is not good – he is “less evil”). But the freedoms we [might] have under president Paul are granted by him – we are free because he permits us to be free to that extent. This is not freedom. There can be no freedom under the state.
Now, back to politics as a means. Politics is the “game” played in order to get power. It does not matter what you intend to do with power – if you have it you are the ruler, even if you are a “granter” of freedoms. Taking part in politics means you compete for power, you want power to use it the way YOU believe is right. It might be right in some sense, but what on earth gives you the right to choose for everybody?
Also, as I have stated before, politics is not productive. The only way to get one’s liberty back is to TAKE IT. One cannot play the game of power and hope for the best, that is not a way forward. Imagine if everybody in the Ron Paul “revolution” would instead do something themselves rather than spend hundreds of hours and dollars to support a representative for ideas “almost” their own. What would it mean if these thousands of people would stop supporting the state; what if they would spend their time and money establishing competing institutions? THAT would be a Revolution.
This is something that “NH” obviously does not even consider. It seems to me the belief in politics and the political system of power we are fed through media and education is successful – even libertarians prefer competing for power to actually doing something. It means accomplishing nothing for liberty; it means indirectly supporting and strengthening the system and the state.
Yes, you are wasting your time trying to make me “understand” why spending my time and money to support a candidate in the Quest for Power is the best I can do for liberty. I have seen the political system from within and I have studied it for almost twenty years. There is no way of achieving liberty through the political process – it is fundamentally the exact opposite of liberty.
“NH” is also right in that I do not participate – I do not participate in that which ultimately will lead to my own destruction. I participate only in such campaigns that could bring about liberty, but such campaigns are never political in the political party sense. You are participating in something that will never bring about liberty but that might eventually strengthen the system and its philosophy. That I cannot accept or support. Never.
Per:
To extend a Rothbardian analogy: Imagine a peaceful neighborhood that is terrorized by rival mafia gangs. Suppose the gangs reach some kind of mutual agreement not to compete with each other (perhaps by granting exclusive territories). They decide to allow the neighborhood to decide, via plebiscite, which gang will rule over it. (Of course, being free from the rule of either gang is not offered as an option.)
Certainly, no resident of the neighborhood has a moral obligation to vote for the lesser of evils. Some residents will likely choose to boycott the plebiscite, refusing to grant the process any legitimacy. Others may decide, for purely pragmatic, tactical reasons, to vote for the gang they deem less oppressive. Would you say that members of the latter group are behaving immorally, on the grounds that they are “participating in something that will never bring about liberty but that might eventually strengthen the system and its philosophy”? Their behavior may of course be impractical, or ineffective, at reducing oppression (perhaps they get some short-run relief from the tougher gang but, by appearing to support the process, make things worse in the long run). But would you agree that the decision to vote in the plebiscite or not — to “participate in the political process,” as it applies to this example — is a pragmatic, prudential decision, rather than a fundamental, moral one?
If you do agree, then are Americans voting for, or working to elect, Ron Paul behaving any differently?
Yes, we anarchists are in a strange position. I, after many years of non-voting, may vote for Paul, though I’m not decided.
I know the argument well, that you shouldn’t give any ligitimacy to the state. That has been my mode of operation for many years.
But I’ve been thinking, if I were called in by the police on a drug charge, it would be prudent of me to show up in court, even though it would be giving legitimacy to an illegitamate law…it’s something that I must deal with to continue my life in a reasonable fashon. I think in the case of voting for paul, there’s something of great practical value for liberty in him that sets him apart from 100 years of politicians.
Ron Paul has a critical mass of libertarianism in him. That critical mass of pricipality pushes him over the edge from “crap politician” into a person of real practical value for liberty. Therefore I feel a bit obliged to cast a vote, even though the vote may giving support to an immoral process.
If Ron Paul gets in, he could be used as a destructive force against the state. Of course, complete destruction wouldn’t be possible. But he could weaken the state, and wouldn’t that be a huge help for liberty in the long run?
My position presently is this: Unlike 99.99% of politicians Ron Paul has a critical mass of principal in him to be real destructive actor against state power. Why not throw a bomb into their engine?
I’m still open to non-voting…I’m just want to see it from all angles.
Can you cast a vote that says “Let’s not cast any more votes?” I don’t know.
As president of the United States Ron Paul will be the comander in chief and could easily end the war in Iraq. That’s good enough.
To Flavian: Sometimes the simplest messages ring clearer than books. “As president of the United States Ron Paul will be the comander in chief and could easily end the war in Iraq. That’s good enough.”
Although I have been reading Ron Paul “stuff” for sometime and weighing all the + and -‘s you hit the nail on the head. He IS the only candidate that will bring home the troops now!!! We can all resonate with that no matter who we are, unless we are making money off the war, I would guess.
Ron Paul may not be everyones cup of tea, but he’s the best we have at the moment and I definitely see the tide turning. He just may have started something.
Yes, Per, it’s easy to agree with you philosophically; but Americans as an identifiable people are so far removed from achieving an acceptable or sustainable libertarian living standard that it’s finally become imperative to take a stand.
And to do so, one can either sit on their hands and do nothing… with full knowledge that the state is running roughshod over the lives of you and everyone else; or actually participate in a peaceful process to express meaningful discontent… which attempts to weaken and undo… much of this ultra-coercive state’s destructive harm.
So it boils down to “reasoned” non-compliance and inaction; or peaceful participation in a rEVOLution which merely seeks to promote conditions… in which love and freedom… can reasonably be allowed to flourish.
In the end – for those who truly would like a stake in this country’s future prosperity – to sit and do nothing under these circumstances is, in my view, almost a violent act in and of itself.
For to do nothing is akin to witnessing violent crimes being routinely committed in your neighborhood, then always slinking away in fear, so as to not get too involved.
I may be a loner, of a sort; and I may often be smug or self-righteous in my viewpoints – but I refuse to admit I’m a coward. Nor am I willing to deny… that looking the other way… might be tantamount to being a traitor.
Though I enjoy reading Strike the Root very much, I’m afraid my time spent there lately will have to wait until after the Ron Paul rEVOLution has been quashed… or undone altogether… since I must consider it in context of what new living arrangements… I may have to make for the future.
In the meantime, like you, I intend to seek pleasure at every turn, come what may. Whatever is my reasoning, my greatest pleasure these days comes from simply… but forcibly… speaking my mind – unafraid of the consequences – for as long as I am able… and it still remains true… that the “pen is mightier than the sword.”
Let’s hope we’ll still have unfettered access to free and lively debate on the internet, in our homes, and in the public spaces – whatever our choices.
To vote or not to vote… in this 2008 election process… to prepare for our preferred candidate… the world’s bully pulpit… is a decision in which thinking Americans of a libertarian bent… cannot blithely ignore… without consequences… for failure to rise and be counted.
It’s not like we’re being told to submit ourselves to violence – at least, just not yet! ~lol~
But let’s also hope we don’t come out of this election cycle – given the very serious economic climate we live in – with our spirits dashed and our heads slung low… so complete was our failure… to seize a better day and more hopeful tomorrow… while we, as a tolerably cohesive society, still had the opportunity to do so.
I, for one, don’t want – that as part of my lasting legacy – that I did next to nothing… during the time this grand experiment… called the USA… finally ceased to exist.
Responding to Peter G. Klein:
I don’t agree with the example being perfectly applicable, and the question you ask does not follow from the example. There is a distinct and important difference between “voting for” and “working for” – the latter case involves investing a lot of time, energy, and effort whereas the former does not necessarily mean more than punching a card (in terms of labor/work invested).
In my previous comment to this post I discussed the implications of working for a candidate and thus work to get him or her elected rather than doing something productive to further liberty and push back the state. I wrote:
“Imagine if everybody in the Ron Paul “revolution” would instead do something themselves rather than spend hundreds of hours and dollars to support a representative for ideas “almost” their own. What would it mean if these thousands of people would stop supporting the state; what if they would spend their time and money establishing competing institutions? THAT would be a Revolution.”
As for voting, I do recognize the argument of voting being a “practical” short-term way of escaping immediate oppression. But it is not a moral choice, since it necessarily includes making a positive claim on what government should do. Voting is not a defensive act – it is an offensive such. The system is itself anonymous and thus you cannot “get even” with it without necessarily attacking and violating individuals who haven’t directly attacked you. You are then committing a crime, even though you may have intended to get back at the system.
For me, voting could be interpreted as many things. But it essentially means one thing: your vote is a positive action to get the state to act in the way you prescribe through the vote (the candidate, party program, etc.). You want the state to use its powers in a certain way, and you enter the Big Game to make it do just that through voting. Others will vote too, and the group able to get most votes (more support) gets to decide how the state’s powers are to be used.
Such a game can never be defensive, since voting means making a positive claim of what the government should do – you cannot vote for what the government should NOT do.
This is not a matter of semantics. I have encountered a lot of people trying to convince themselves that voting for someone who wants to “do less” means defending yourself from that “less” part of the state. But you do not and cannot vote against, you always vote FOR. So you vote FOR a program that may contain less policies, but that still implies you wish the state to act according to that program (rather than some other program).
Voting means asking for privilege, even if it is not direct privileges for you – the privilege to choose the program for the state is also privilege.
Responding to Jesse Munson:
You pose the question, “Can you cast a vote that says ‘Let’s not cast any more votes’?” My answer would be that you certainly can. I don’t see voting as inherently evil – if people get together and choose to vote to make group decisions I see nothing wrong with it. However, this is certainly not the case if a group of people band together and say to another group “We have different ideas on what to do to you, and we give you the right to decide by voting.”
The latter case involves force, violence, and coercion. It makes the individuals in the second group vote for violations against others to “save” themselves – there are only victims when such votes are cast, and the victims have not voluntarily joined or accepted the system. It has been forced on them.
There is thus a rather great difference between government elections and referendums (depending on how the referendum question is formulated, of course). The former is the frequent procedure set up to legitimize oppressive government through making its subjects accomplices through indirectly fighting each other to become “victorious” as to which programs the state should “follow” (it usually doesn’t follow those programs anyway). The latter could very well be a way of measuring if there is popular unity in a certain issue.
So can you cast a vote that says “Let’s not cast any more votes”? If it is in a referendum asking that question, it doesn’t necessarily have to be legitimizing (especially if you vote “let’s not cast votes”). If that vote is cast in a general election for President or Congress, the implications aren’t as clear. You take part in the legitimizing system but don’t ask for a program to be “implemented.” Is that moral or immoral? I’m not sure.
Responding to Lark:
It seems to me you share, at least to some extent, the faulty thesis that change is only possible through working within and through the political system. As many have stated in this comments section and elsewhere, they see non-participation in the political system as “doing nothing.” This is completely false – one can do a lot for liberty without taking part in or becoming a part of the political system.
As I have reasoned before, both in this blog post and in my first comment on it, working for liberty is most efficient when taking action outside of the system. The system is extremely biased and works fundamentally as a tool to seize, strengthen, and elevate power in society. If non-power is the end which one wishes to achieve, then “using” the system is a waste of time.
I have also touched on the nature of change: is change constantly taking small steps or taking leaps forward? In an oppressive system based on the use, abuse, and threat of force the chance for establishing liberty is slim (infinitesimal). One will have to take on the whole system and come out victorious from such a battle. I don’t think this is a feasible strategy.
Change for the better (i.e., liberty) has throughout history happened in leaps forward where the state is challenged and ultimately overthrown. All such changes have happened not through people seeking and gaining public office, but through common people and intellectuals taking a stand when the time is right – and demanding radical change. I am no proponent of violent revolution, but find disobedience one of the greatest tools for “force” changes to a corrupt and oppressive system.
Is disobedience “doing nothing”? It cannot be, not even from a political point of view, since it implies action and such an action that necessarily has consequences. Did Gandhi “do nothing” to change the state of things in India? What would have been the result if he instead had become part of the political system and launched a campaign to get elected for office? Which strategy do you think is most efficient and most likely to succeed in bringing about real change?
“As for voting, I do recognize the argument of voting being a “practical” short-term way of escaping immediate oppression. But it is not a moral choice, since it necessarily includes making a positive claim on what government should do.”
I don’t think you’ve established this. In my example the people who vote for the less oppressive gang are not, in any way, making a positive claim on what the gang should do. They are simply expressing a preference for one gang over another, given the options (they perceive to be) available to them. They may be wrong, of course, from a tactical perspective, but I don’t see how their act sanctions the process. If a condemned man is offered the choice of execution by hanging or firing squad, and selects the firing squad — rather than refusing to answer — does this mean he sanctions his execution?
Remember that the point of Rothbard’s analogy was to separate “democracy” — the means by which particular leaders are chosen — from legitimacy, the justification of the system itself and the acts committed by those leaders. The fact that a government has been duly elected does not in any way legitimize its behavior. It is still, in Rothbard’s language, a criminal gang. It just happens to be the criminal gang that a majority or plurality of the voters despise less than a rival gang.
“Imagine if everybody in the Ron Paul “revolution” would instead do something themselves rather than spend hundreds of hours and dollars to support a representative for ideas “almost” their own. What would it mean if these thousands of people would stop supporting the state; what if they would spend their time and money establishing competing institutions? THAT would be a Revolution.”
Perhaps, but this is an empirical question, not a moral one. The marginal return on an hour of one’s time could be higher in the former activity, rather than the latter. It depends on the situation. And we don’t know the elasticity of substitution between the two sets of activities. It could be the case that people investing time and energy for Paul would be unwilling to boycott the state instead, so there is no opportunity cost to their pro-Paul activities.
Per, I really appreciate you replying to each post with a thoughfull response. I know it’s time consuming and frustrating. Your arguments are principaled and thought out and you obviously have a mastery of argumentation.
I, and probably you, greatly dislike arguing with “imagine” scenarios because the imagined scenario is usually unlikely or impossible or not a good analogy. Socialists might use one like this: “What if ONE man had all the resorces of the world? Would that be ok?” Or some garbage proposition like that.
So it is with a feeling of self-loathing and hyprocracy that I present an imagined scenario for a case of voting. Suppose one candidate is in favor of “letting” some anarchists buy land to start a free-market society. Unlikely, yes. A dream perhaps. But it would start an anarchistic and non-coercive society. Would’t this be worth it? I think yes.
My point is, in my mind there MAY be some place along the utility curve that would warrant me playing their little game. Though, it’s the exception to the rule. Perhaps the exception that proves the rule.
Again, I think “imaginary unlikely scenario” arguments are a terrible way to develop a principal or a philosophy…and I’m still against voting, but I enjoy confusing myself.
I think the rule still stands…don’t support government, don’t give them legitimacy, don’t vote…UNLESS it’s going to be a clear-cut case of helping state destruction. Don’t you think that’s reasonable? Again, I’m open to ctiticism of this idea. I’m not married to it, but that’s where I stand now.
It seems to me you share, at least to some extent, the faulty thesis that change is only possible through working within and through the political system. As many have stated in this comments section and elsewhere, they see non-participation in the political system as “doing nothing.” This is completely false – one can do a lot for liberty without taking part in or becoming a part of the political system.
———————————————————————————————–
Usually, some individuals fail to express their thoughts deftly in writing. The term “doing nothing” does not mean that you are not working the cause of liberty, but that you have or are failing to further advance liberty by a specific inaction. I agree that one could work towards liberty outside the statist political system. Now I need to know how this could be done? Tell me how libertarians could destroy the corporatist and police state?
———————————————————————————————–
As I have reasoned before, both in this blog post and in my first comment on it, working for liberty is most efficient when taking action outside of the system. The system is extremely biased and works fundamentally as a tool to seize, strengthen, and elevate power in society. If non-power is the end which one wishes to achieve, then “using” the system is a waste of time.
———————————————————————————————–
No anarchist believes that using the system could achieve full liberty. In fact, the aim of some of the supporters of Paul is to end U.S. imperialism and the police state. I believe that Paul could do both things to great effect.
———————————————————————————————–
Change for the better (i.e., liberty) has throughout history happened in leaps forward where the state is challenged and ultimately overthrown. All such changes have happened not through people seeking and gaining public office, but through common people and intellectuals taking a stand when the time is right – and demanding radical change. I am no proponent of violent revolution, but find disobedience one of the greatest tools for “force” changes to a corrupt and oppressive system.
———————————————————————————————–
Are the common people now demanding radical change? No. The common people want a president who would not engage in preemptive wars or spy on Americans without having the requisite legal evidence. The idea of the common people advocating the abolishment of the state is unrealistic in this context. The common belief by some libertarians is that once people hear the libertarian gospel they would be sold. Such a belief is naive. Most people believe the government and taxation to be perfectly legitimate. Indeed, the policy of the IMF and other institutions is to compel through contracts libertarian prescriptions for countries, prescriptions which the respective citizens of said countries have rejected. Then, there is the matter of religion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam all support the belief in statism. The gospel of libertarianism stands no chance against the gospel of the ‘prophets’.
Besides, your history lessen is ahistorical. Most revolutions that have occurred involved the demolition of one form of the state that was to be replaced by another kind of state. Examples, include the Russian Revolution, the French Revolution and the American Revolution. All revolutions that explicitly attempted a nonstatist society were crushed shortly after they succeeded in toppling the former regime.
———————————————————————————————–
Is disobedience “doing nothing”? It cannot be, not even from a political point of view, since it implies action and such an action that necessarily has consequences. Did Gandhi “do nothing” to change the state of things in India? What would have been the result if he instead had become part of the political system and launched a campaign to get elected for office? Which strategy do you think is most efficient and most likely to succeed in bringing about real change?
———————————————————————————————–
Gandhi did get elected to office. His nonviolent protests occurred in conspicuous places in the British rule India. True enough, Gandhi did not seek to be a functionary of the British Empire, but he did seek political independence for India. An independence that would be actuated by universal suffrage to choose which political party would form the new government.
Is it immoral to pay taxes? Is it immoral to use government created roads and facilities? To me paying taxes helps the state perform its evils. If you pay taxes you are just as guilty as the voter.
———————————————————————————————–
For me, voting could be interpreted as many things. But it essentially means one thing: your vote is a positive action to get the state to act in the way you prescribe through the vote (the candidate, party program, etc.). You want the state to use its powers in a certain way, and you enter the Big Game to make it do just that through voting. Others will vote too, and the group able to get most votes (more support) gets to decide how the state’s powers are to be used.
———————————————————————————————–
The state has no power without the purse. By paying taxes you animate the state in its evil practices. You could say that you are forced to pay taxes. In other words the result of not paying taxes would be detrimental to you. To some the result of allowing certain politicians to have power is a increased detriment to them. No one could choose not to pay taxes, and no one could choose not to have politicians. The act of helping to circulate federal reserve notes contributes to what Ron Paul and other call the hidden tax of inflation. I assume that you use notes sanctioned by the state.
You said elsewhere: “Many of them don’t even pay the taxes that finances the war. (I do pay such taxes, I’m afraid)”
Not paying taxes is also hurtful to your neighbors. After all, you would techically be a free rider. You would be using services funded by taxes while others pay for it. Not paying taxes means that you are FOR being a leech and a free rider.
———————————————————————————————–
This is not a matter of semantics. I have encountered a lot of people trying to convince themselves that voting for someone who wants to “do less” means defending yourself from that “less” part of the state. But you do not and cannot vote against, you always vote FOR. So you vote FOR a program that may contain less policies, but that still implies you wish the state to act according to that program (rather than some other program).
———————————————————————————————–
If I vote for someone that does not mean that I endorse their whole plan. Again, I cannot vote to abolished the state and when I do vote for only measures meant to weaken the state. The result of my voting may technically see the whole plan implemented though.
In sum, your poisition is exemplary of the lifestyle anarchism that Murray Bookchin warned against. Indeed, you take personal militancy to more important that organized movements. I know that you said that people should use their collective energies for the abolition of the state instead of supporting Ron Paul. However, that sentiment is useless since the very people you cite are not anarchists. I could hold the sentiment that if everyone refrains from voting the state would be demoralized. But, that is not going to happen at present. It follows that suggesting the improbable as an alternative to the possible -electing Ron Paul – is self-gratisfying nonsense.
An an anarchist I believe that people come first. I want the state abolished, but I realize that most people do not. Instead, of claiming and acting like I am morally superior to them, I prefer to work with them insofar as they want to ease the tyranny of the state. Doing all that won’t stop me from advocating anarchism though. In short, if I could help elect a politician who could bring relief to people, then I will.
One Love!
To put it simply, I’m having a great deal of congnitive dissonance concerning voting. My anarchist position tells me it’s wrong. My practical “horizon anarchism” tells me it’s imperative to help.
One of the important things you didn’t address, Per, from my laundry list of what good it would be to have a president Ron Paul, was the pardons. Simply by pardoning hundreds of thousands of non-violent convicts now languishing in prison for possession or sale of “narcotics” and for other non-violent acts (tax avoidance, paperwork errors on gun sales, paperwork errors on securities sales, political protests, etc.) he could do a lot of good.
It always seems academic to those who have not sat in a jail cell for three days, as I have done on occasion, to talk about how people in power always have power, and the rest of us have to avoid supporting them in any way. But, sometimes people in power can be the source of freedom for people who are in prison. And, I really have a lot of reasons to sympathize with that goal.
I look forward to the next fatuous comment about how I should get a commando together and go break people out of prison.
This idea of choosing between gangs and accepting that “(Of course, being free from the rule of either gang is not offered as an option.)” is surrendering to the threat of violence. You are looking for the easy way out that is being offered to you for that specific, strategic purpose by those that would rule you. It takes greater courage to refuse to cooperate in justifying your own subjugation than going the “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” route. Further it institutionalizes that subjugation for your descendents.
If someone asked me to chose between a firing squad and hanging or whatever, I would spit in their face and struggle to my last breath to be free.
Consider if a Paul-like candidate ran against Hitler in Nazi Party elections in the late 1930s and was able to win; and also was successful in scaling back the worst programs of the Nazi Party. This “moving towards greater freedom” with Furher Paul and saving Nazi Party rule thus strengthening its power over the German state for another 50 or 100 years. Would that really have been such a good thing? What if Gorbechev had been successful in reforming the USSR enough to “save” the Soviet state collapse to rule for another 50 years? Is saving any state from collapsing under its own weight furthering the cause of liberty?
Also, for those who missed it, the US Constitution has resulted in the largest most powerful state in the history of the world with military bases and troops in more places than any state in history along with a banking cartel to match. So a white knight riding in the prolong the final throes of bankruptcy for the US mega-state may not be in our best interests over the long run even if we get some short term relief. I say good riddance and lets move on to self-government. Preparing for the next step would be a better use of time and resources than saving an obsolete, failed corporate-state.
There is no way that you can work within a system without becoming a part of that system and ending up supporting that system.
Responding to Peter G. Klein.
It might be true that one of the “gangs” might not have a certain program and that the voters thus don’t know what they are voting for (assuming politicians’ promises are trustworthy). Let’s say this is the case. Wouldn’t the vote placed on one gang, an “expression of preference” in your words, mean they are not only expressing a preference for “a gang” – but rather for WHICH GANG SHOULD RULE. Elections such as the ones for the presidency, for Congress, or for a “preferred gang” in the Rothbardian example, are, if I am not mistaken, for who should rule. If this were not the case there would be no reason for elections at all – and there would be no [theory of] democracy.
The conclusion is thus that the “preference” they are expressing is for who should rule them. Such a system generally doesn’t allow votes for “none of the above” and thus the system does not allow votes AGAINST something (or everything): a vote is FOR something. Would you then not consider it counter-productive to vote for the “lesser” of two evils if your vote is necessarily for that group rather than against the other group?
As I wrote in a previous comment, I do recognize the argument (not necessarily the conclusion, though) for voting as a [very inefficient] way to gain short-term relief. But what we have to realize is that there is a fundamental difference between e.g. referendums and elections. The former generally asks questions such as whether “the people” wants solution A, solution B, or neither. If this is the case, then it is possible to vote negatively: to vote AGAINST. (Politicians usually seem to try to avoid making such votes possible, however.)
An election is fundamentally different, it offers no negative alternatives – all votes are necessarily for someone or something: for a person, a party, a program, etc. Would you say such a vote, which in its very nature cannot be negative, does not mean legitimizing the system?
I know many disqualify the “legitimacy” argument, but I think their conclusion is based mostly on their inability to see the system for what it is. Any system that allows its subjects/parts to express preference in WHO SHOULD DECIDE but not IF anyone should decide, and that allows its subjects/parts to NOT vote, is asking for its subjects to legitimize the system. If you play the game you must have accepted the rules, so to say (or, in this case, the rulers).
Such a system cannot be divided into democracy and legitimization; they are two sides of a coin. Rothbard obviously failed to realize this (if you have explained his example correctly). Democracy, if separated from the rest of the system, is simply the process of voting (which is not the case in any democracy theory I am aware of). Voting might not be a bad idea as a means to make decisions, but voting in a context where 1) votes can only be FOR something, and 2) everybody, voting or not, is always subjected to the outcome, necessarily is a very bad idea.
Legitimizing or not, such a system does not allow for anti-system votes and it does not allow for exclusion – that is clearly immoral.
As for the morality in taking part in such a system, you write:
“If a condemned man is offered the choice of execution by hanging or firing squad, and selects the firing squad — rather than refusing to answer — does this mean he sanctions his execution?”
This example is simple but I find it totally out of context. Elections don’t offer a clear choice of alternatives where the outcome is known and the same in each case. Quite the opposite, elections at best offer you the “chance” to influence (I’m being generous – the influence is in reality almost zero) WHO SHOULD DECIDE what will be done to you as well as how and if you should be executed. The moral implications of picking a decider in this case are very different from the “condemned man” example.
Also, your example includes only one subject: you. This is not the case in elections, where your vote compete with the votes of others for being “majority” and thereby your voting means partaking in a game where some get to choose leaders for everybody. Who gave you the right to make such a choice for others? Would you say partaking in such a system is a MORAL act? As libertarian it should, from a principle point of view, be literally impossible to make such claims without compromising the non-aggression principle. (But I do know many libertarians refuse to think that way in order to be “practical.”)
If I were sentenced to death I would probably choose execution by firing squad – without any problems of morality. The outcome is known, and it is simply a matter of how they will kill me, not whether they will or whether I recognize their right to do it.
If I were, on the other hand, offered to take part in a lottery of who gets the illusion of “right” to be my master (and the “right” to force me to comply with whatever this “master” wants) I would refuse: I will not sanction such a system even though I will probably be forced to comply with the outcome. At least I will still have my pride from not having made any claims on how other people should lead their lives and I have offered the system no legitimacy.