|
The Anarchist Vote by Mark Davis Exclusive to STR January 14, 2008 The
beatings will continue until morale improves.
~ Unknown The
Ron Paul for President Campaign has been the cause of much discussion
among anarchists as to whether we should all jump on the bandwagon.
The exposure of ideas we all hold dear during his campaign
pertaining to the elimination of state agencies and policies, especially
central banks, has reached a larger audience than any other source to my
knowledge. The education of a
willfully ignorant if not brainwashed populace has grown by leaps and
bounds. As I have previously written,
I am glad that Ron Paul is running and I hope that he wins the election.
Further, I think he is a genuine, honest man of principle and
appreciate his efforts to educate people on the evils of the United States
Imperial Federal Government. But
in the end I can’t vote for him on principle. The
arguments used by the anarchists come minarchists (actually ministatists
is more appropriate) to tempt the rest of us primarily include the
relativist fallacy, appeals to fear and appeals to authority.
The almost cult-like following that somehow has come to believe in
the ability of a special man to turn decades of experience with obvious
facts and sound logic on its head must raise an eyebrow or two among
principled anarchists. I
refuse to fall prey to exceptionalism, sacrifice my principles to fear or
follow others who did. Still I
can use the campaign as a useful tool to educate diehard mega-statists on
the evils of the state and move ministatists toward a better understanding
of self-government with a clear conscience.
That is, I am not required to personally commit an immoral act in
order to educate the masses. Individuals
who ritually absolve their immoral acts in the illusion of collective
pragmatism greatly outnumber those who take the Non-Aggression Principle
to heart. If every anarchist
in these Targeting
diehard statists with a strategy of revealing economic and historic truths
that have seemed heretofore mysterious if not repugnant to their
miseducated, dogmatic belief in a corrupt system is all to the good.
However, inspiring hope in this process that signals submission to
tyranny in those who have heretofore rejected participating in that
process is counterproductive to resisting the forces of tyranny.
I still hold out hope that a President Paul administration will
come about as the ultimate learning experience for statists of all stripes
even though his principal desire is to save the system he loves so much.
I also fear that too many will be inspired with false hope and get
sucked back into the system. I
sympathize with and respect those anarchists whom oppose the Paul for
President Campaign completely because they recognize this career
politician’s stated purpose of saving the United States Imperial Federal
Government from collapse. But
do not fear that he will accomplish this task and start the process all
over again; it is way too late for that.
Think Gorbachev. This
purist opposition is healthy, as it keeps the true ideal of
self-government alive. I hope
that we can all avoid unnecessary and counterproductive animosity after
the election, win or lose, because we will need to organize our efforts in
the waning days of the empire and after the collapse due to bankruptcy.
We certainly don’t want another state to replace this obsolete
one, much less end up with an American Putin coming to power. The
arguments attempting to convince anarchists to vote for Congressman Paul
using appeals to authority (or the “Hey! even Murray Rothbard voted”
argument) don’t need rebuttal for most readers, but I would like to
address the argument that mixes exceptionalism (or the way lesser of two
evils argument) with an appeal to fear.
This is supposed to be the show stopper.
This argument infers that even if you believe that voting is an act
of violence, and it is,
and unless you are a pacifist, voting for Congressman Paul is an act of
self-defense that any sensible person interested in survival must do. The
analogy used to deliver this coup d'état to anarchist principles and
relegate them to fungible commodities to be compromised in the crucible of
situational ethics generally goes as follows.
In this “life-boat” situation, you and your mates are the
subjects of tyranny (slaves, serfs, taxpayers, prisoners, et al), and the
brutal tyrant (master, lord, tax collector, warden, et al) using violence
to force submission to his dictates makes you and your mates an offer that
you can’t refuse: He offers
to let you (the group of subjects) vote in a democratic election for
someone to directly supervise your activities with the choice of
candidates being between a cruel taskmaster who beats you all the time and
a kind custodian who offers little more than gentle persuasion.
Of course, real freedom is off the table, and if you don’t do as
you’re told, the cruel taskmaster will be called back in. I
have elaborated the analogy somewhat to point out its weakness.
Typically it is presented as simply an offer to choose between
getting beaten mercilessly and not getting beaten much at all.
What rational human being wouldn’t prefer getting beaten as
little as possible? I like
this analogy because it reveals how voting is an act of submission: When
you no longer resist tyranny, but agree to submit to the threat or use of
force and do as you are told, when you no longer question the higher
authority because you are allowed to choose your supervisor.
In the process you condemn your offspring and future generations to
be subjects of this authority establishing an institution of tyranny that
eventually is accepted unquestioningly, perhaps even celebrated. The
elite who exploit you no longer need to resort to the physical violence
that is counter-productive. Increasing
violence undermines productivity, and it must eventually escalate to the
point where you revolt. If
civil disobedience does not result in disengagement and freedom, then
either the master beats you to death or your kill him in self-defense.
Each way, the system collapses and the exploitation that was the
original purpose of beating you into submission is no longer possible.
Therefore, the offer to stop beating you if you submit peacefully
was always the goal. The naked
exploitation is impossible to hide in a master-slave relationship where
violence is used. But clothing
it in a process that offers an apparent choice of master-agents usually
does the trick. The violence
is always implied, it is just hidden behind a façade of respectability. This
choice to participate in legitimizing institutional tyranny is also
different than accepting food, water, clothing, shelter or a place to walk
from your master. These items
are required to exist. I do
not advocate suicide as a strategy of resistance.
Voting is a choice that is not required for you to continue living.
You could argue that it is an act of cowardice though (uncle,
uncle, I submit to be your slave, please don’t hurt me anymore!) I
also don’t see how Paul and his followers can rail against Hamiltonian
policies while at the same time supporting his blueprint for implementing
them. When Hamilton, Jay and
Madison wrote the Federalist Papers in support of the Constitution, they
were vigorously opposed in what is known as the Anti-Federalist Papers.
Guess who turned out to be correct about the dangers of centralized
power, taxes and standing armies? So
if you believe that the Constitution is how we should organize our
government, then you are a Hamiltonian.
This contradiction appears lost on many. The
Constitution is the greatest document ever created for the purpose of
restraining state power. It
unfortunately also still serves the purpose of creating and legitimizing
state power. Oh, and it
failed, miserably; because alas, that is the nature of the beast.
In case you didn’t notice, the revered Constitution resulted in
the largest, most expensive, most powerful central state in the history of
the world, with standing armies straddling the globe in the insane quest
of being “The World’s Policeman” with a Central Bank to match.
So if the greatest, most liberty-loving geniuses in the history of
the world could not construct a “social contract” that would not be
abused, is it really possible to do? Do
you think that starting over with The political campaign for Congressman Paul’s bid to wear the ring of Presidential power can lead to a large number of people waking up to the folly and immorality of the political process itself, or it can suck millions into the endless loop of justifying the institution that perpetuates their slavery. We can use this opportunity to shine the beacon of freedom that is self-government to those who look this way even if they don’t have the courage to leave the herd. And let’s prepare for the next step in the evolution of social organization beyond statism. But let’s not surrender the high ground to expedience and fear mongering. Mark Davis is a husband, father and real estate analyst/investor enjoying the freedoms we still have in Longwood, Florida.
|
