AnCaps should Vote!

With the 2008 Presidential Election coming closer I want to respond to something I see that I consider to be a very serious error on the part of some “anarcho-capitalists” (AnCaps). I’m addressing the position that “not voting is the principled position.”

First off I want to state something that all anarcho-capitalists agree on, that “the American Political structure is a problem”, and also state that I agree them about why. This does not change the fact that you (speaking to American AnCaps who do not vote) are directly and indirectly linked to that problem whether you choose to acknowledge it or not. To answer the question “Who’s problem is it?” I would respond, it is the problem of the American Citizens… that means you and I alike… voters and non-voters. We all suffer equally under the Government, no matter which direction it moves in politically.

Acknowledging the problem is important, and most people do at least implicitly when they complain about the way things are. Once the problem has been identified, the next logical step is evaluating possible ways in which to deal with that problem unless you choose to ignore it’s existence… but because most of the AnCaps I know acknowledge the Primacy of Existence they understand that a problem of this magnitude cannot simply be ignored into non-existence and that it can and will in most cases become much worse if simply ignored.

I argue that in this particular election cycle, not voting is exactly that kind of “simply ignoring it” because of unique circumstances, and a unique candidate. So if we’re going to talk about principles we should start there, acknowledging the problem and that you’re responsible for doing something about it (an implicit confirmation of the primacy of existence). A core principle.

To stress again, analyzing the campaign reveals that the problem is such that this unavoidably affects you, both directly through forceful taxation, and indirectly through making your home (America) an object of hatred and disgust throughout the (fast becoming nuclear) world. These are only two examples because I know that all of you are fully aware of how unjust the government is to you, and won’t go into detail about it.

Your range of possible choices has already been limited because you have been confronted quite abruptly with this problem. It’s an unjust problem to confront because you are not the cause of the problem, you didn’t set up the government. No, in fact all you did was inherit its problems from your ancestors. This problem has been wrongfully shoved onto you and you can either do what you can to keep from passing the problem along to your children, doing them the same injustice your fathers have done to you, or not. I consider the “or not” option to be a violation of an individuals Honesty, if you’ve acknowledge the two previous points. It represents an attempt to fake existence, to pretend that you aren’t confronted with this problem, however unjust, when you clearly are.

A principled approach to dealing with the problem begins by acknowledging that some positive action is required on your part if you are to solve the problem. The alternative to some positive action would be no action, i.e., ignoring it and pretending it will go away. Maybe that act is choosing not to vote and encouraging others not to, I maintain that it is not the proper action. The main point I want to make is that irrevocably once the problem has been identified and it’s weight rightfully assumed, one cannot avoid positive action in solving it. Even speaking negatively about how “unprincipled voting” is in reply to this blog is a positive action and an investment in time.

The second logical action in dealing with a problem is attempting to construct the most likely outcome for a given choice, and gauging it’s ability to accomplish the most preferable solution by anticipating the consequences. This situation is different in that the problem isn’t an earned problem, but it is a problem that is immediate and damaging, which makes this a forced decision. You can’t escape not choosing, it’s been shoved on you, and you will suffer (or reap the benefits) of that choice no matter what it is. This is a situation in which no complete win is possible immediately, that is the nature of the problem and it again is a matter of honesty to acknowledge it as such. So, an attempt to gauge the results of this choice against the “ideal results” is an act of violating the primacy of existence, wishful thinking, because ideal situations are not what exist… what instead exists is a highly complex problem that you must accept on it’s own terms, which has been forcefully thrust upon the whole of the American population, a problem that every individual must deal with… including non-voting AnCaps.

This is incredibly taxing in the current discussion because gaining a substantial understanding of what you’re forced to deal with (the problem itself) and the underlying philosophic principles and tools you can utilize in solving it, and justifying that solution, are all applicable and necessary. AnCaps I speak with about this imply that gaining an understanding of politics is entirely unimportant, and an unecessary burden at best. The underlying premise was something similar to, “why does it matter it’s all wrong anyway and you should be focusing on ways in which you can further the right ideas!”

I strongly disagree with the notion that it is unnecessary to understand a problem you intend to solve, but AnCaps posture as though remaining willfully ignorant offers a potential solution to the problem. That seems, on the face of it, an act of explicit evasion… an attempt to ignore what currently IS and instead slink back into an imaginary ideal that doesn’t exist. I do however agree that we should be doing what we can to further the right ideas. I intend to answer the question of how we promote those ideas much differently (that is the purpose of this writing, justifying myself in voting for Ron Paul and persuading the protest voting AnCaps to do the same).

I choose to analyze and become knowledgeable of the problem, because I’ve accepted that it affects me and some positive action is required on my part in solving it. I don’t think it’s very rational to maintain one can solve problems one refuses to become knowledgeable of. If you disagree, I’d like to know why.

To limit the scope of the current discussion I’m going to consider the relevant options for dealing with the problem. First what a vote for the front-runners for each party would entail, then what not voting entails, and then what a vote for Ron Paul entails.

First I will summarize Hillary Clinton’s position because she might as well already have the nomination… The race is incredibly lopsided and nothing short of a miracle could hand Obama the nomination. Oprah’s endorsement might just be that miracle, but I still see him fighting an uphill battle. Hillary’s campaign consists of perpetuating more of the same thing, more government obligations/power, higher taxes, and continuing the war on poverty, drugs and terror. Liberal philosophy is fairly straightforward, higher taxes and more/bigger government spreading out the wealth. AnCaps all fully agree that all of the new obligations she plans on piling on the government could very likely be the straw that breaks the camels back so to speak, sending the country into an economic collapse the likes of which we can’t fathom.

Shouldn’t we attempt to fathom it though, simply because we consider it to be a real possibility? Would a principled approach at solving a problem entail ignoring consequences we acknowledge are very real possibilities? No, this again would be another instance of explicit evasion. That being said I’ll allow your own imaginations to do the dirty work of exploring what such a collapse would be like for America. Think about the great depression, think about how much more direct a failed government will be towards its citizens in an attempt at maintaining it’s stranglehold of power.

The important realization to come to is that under no circumstances is the anarcho-capitalistic philosophy in the “front runners” of possible solutions that will dig us out of this trench once we’re in it. The current mentality pervading popular American culture, is anti-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is in last place in the realm of possible solutions because of this widespread mentality.

If our intention is to promote and spread anarcho-capitalistic ideas, and we are considering a vote for Hillary to hasten the destruction of the current system, shouldn’t we also acknowledge that this (campaign or collapse) will not, absolutely not, be the way in which anarcho-capitalism reaches the spotlight? Yes, we must if we are consistent in our thinking and honest with ourselves. It’s too radical of a change too soon.

What about Rudy Giuliani?
I’ll just directly quote from his campaign website, because it’s damning enough… (my comments in parenthesis)

1) I will keep America on offense in the terrorist’s war on us.
(maintain and expand the police state military empire that has already reached 130 countries in the world)
2) I will end illegal immigration, secure our borders, and identify every non-citizen in our nation.
(Through RFID chipped cards tax payers will fund, we’re next btw – see… Real ID Act)
3) I will restore fiscal discipline (as if it ever existed) and cut wasteful Washington spending.
(1,2, already prove this a blatant lie)
4) I will cut taxes and reform the tax code.
(at the same time expanding immigration control and the war on terror, a blatant contradiction)
5) I will impose accountability on Washington.
(Clearly a filler statement to boost his “pledge count” for some reason, maybe he just likes the number 12 better than the number 11)
6) I will lead America towards energy independence.
(It’s now a matter of “national security” apparently, as everything else is justified – but seriously this man is not going to lead us to energy independence, research and innovation by individuals in a free market will)
7) I will give Americans more control over and access to health care with affordable and portable free-market solutions. (Free market solutions imposed by government, that’s not a direct contradiction)
I will increase adoptions, decrease abortions, and protect the quality of life for our children.
(Who wants the quality of life merely “protected”? I want to be free to increase my own quality of life. This is just more Neo-con “everything is about security” rhetoric. It’s brainwashing for when Orwell’s 1984 becomes the reality in it’s fullest sense.)
9) I will reform the legal system and appoint strict constructionist judges.
(8 Proves this to be a complete lie on it’s face, because the only way to “decrease abortions” is to make them illegal or interfere in the sexual practices of private citizens like most Christians want to do anyway, which would require reinterpreting the Constitution to define a fetus as a citizen or individual.)
10) I will ensure that every community in America is prepared for terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
(This is where the gestapo sets up a local precinct in your “community.” Also think about the premise behind these goals.)
11) I will provide access to a quality education to every child in America by giving real school choice to parents.
(Government schools are all equally terrible, and parents already have the choice to home school, government education isn’t going to change. Our test scores around the world won’t increase by allowing parents to choose between equally terrible public schools. The relocation of miseducation won’t increase education.)
12) I will expand America’s involvement in the global economy and strengthen our reputation around the world.
(1 proves that our reputation is only bound to go downward. Participation in the global economy is spooky language for sending our jobs overseas so that they can remain competitive… this ignores the entire state of economic frailty at the moment. Under Rudy Giuliani our economy is going to increase the amount we already “piggy back” off of China and the real authorities will become world government bodies like the U.N.)

It’s not possible to maintain a spreading military empire, increase border security, fund the branding of illegals, and lower taxes at the same time. Rudy Giuliani is a different breed than Hillary Clinton, but they both want to have their cake and eat it too.

Is economic downturn or collapse a possibility under Giuliani?
I think so absolutely, and maybe even more so than under Hillary because all of these schemes under Giuliani will be justified as matters of national security. The public will demand them. Giuliani represents a substantial increase in the police powers of the government which is the exact aspect that needs decreased the most, and it’s in some ways even more threatening directly than Hillary’s nonsense… because he’s not shy about telling you that he wants you in a database… and chipped… and tracked… all in the name of “not lettin the terrorists win.” Insofar as economic collapse is possible under either of these candidates, the same dooms day scenario described earlier for Hillary applies and because anti-capitalism is rampant, an AnCap solution in the wake of economic catastrophes remains implausible.

How about not voting period?
The problem here lies is having already acknowledged the problem, and where it’s heading (assuming you are knowledgeable about it). You’ve committed a positive action in committing to choose not to vote, making you just as responsible for the outcome of the election and direction of our government as someone who positively voted for a specific candidate. Their campaign time was spent on street corners waving signs, meeting in rallies and yours was spent in discussions in online blogs such as this, and investments educating yourself enough to attempt to justify your position. You’ve equally acknowledged the problem, and equally made a choice. What investment you’ve made in stressing the importance of not voting, others have invested in voting… so the difference in amount of effort input is very little, if any at all.

In most presidential elections, people will tell you that it doesn’t matter who you vote for because the candidates are so much alike. This is a half truth, because in most presidential elections the candidates are a lot alike, representing only slight nudges in a similar different direction… for democrats its socialism, and for republicans its fascism (not exactly of course, but the point is they’re only slight variations of the same evil in the same direction). Every vote nudges the direction seemingly insignificantly down the same road, while the candidates pay lip service to the countries core values (reason, science, life, liberty, and property) and at the same time subvert and undermine all of them. I can completely understand this insofar as you don’t believe voting will change the direction of a counties path, I think it’s rational to abstain and not waste your time in most elections. However…

What if the candidates aren’t all the same? What if a growingly popular candidate is significantly different, and represents a radical shift in direction? I think one’s choice not to vote must change or at least be put into question if one agrees with the direction.

The classic anarcho-capitalist approach to dealing with voting is to present the argument that will render it “unprincipled” and then as a matter of moral consistency condemn voting.
…………………But………………..
–If you acknowledge that the American government is a problem…
—-And you agree that problems must be dealt with…
—-And you agree that you must be knowledgeable of a problem in order to most effectively deal with it…
—-And you agree that the front-runners are vile “nudges” that will in no way further your ideas…
—-And you agree that the likelihood that a collapse will NOT result in the promotion of your ideas…
—-And you acknowledge that if you don’t choose to endorse any candidate you will suffer the consequences just the same as if you did…
—-And you acknowledge that this radically different popular candidate represents a strong shift in direction toward the ideas you promote…
–Then on principle you must endorse the radically different popular candidate in order to most effectively promote your ideas and “nudge” the direction of politics in the proper direction, helping to solve the problem.

Who could this radically different popular candidate be?
Perhaps it is Ron Paul…

What makes Ron Paul so radically different?
First, I want to preface by stating that solving this problem of government cannot happen over night, that is why the entire “vote for Hillary so that economic collapse ensues” is an utterly irrational, unreasonable, and unprincipled viewpoint if your goal is to actually spread anarcho-capitalistic ideas. You don’t get to choose how easily the problem is solved, that’s not up to you, what is up to you is committing to solve it.

We are currently in the “dig ourselves out of this mess” mode and a lot of these policies are geared with that premise in mind. Think “fundamental change of philosophy first” and not “short term quick fix”, because that is what the Ron Paul candidacy is about… and he’s said so.

Unlike Giuliani and Hillary, Ron Paul will cut taxes and bureaucracy and spending instead of attempting to maintain the contradiction of pretending you can actually have one without the other. The only way you can conceivably cut taxes and remain economically sound is if you plan on performing fewer services, i.e., limiting the size and involvement of government. Not limiting the size of government… except for all of our national security “needs” as Giuliani would disguise it… but limiting it period.

So what’s Ron Paul all about, what does he propose, represent, and how does he plan on doing it?

–Ending foreign engagements immediately, while adopting a philosophy shift back to what the founders advised in avoiding Entangling Engagements. Non-Interventionism. Whoever it was in another thread talking about “Ron Paul will initiate the use of force” would need to contend with this.

—-This will result in a cut of approximately 500 billion dollars a year. Our national dept (last I checked) was just over 9 trillion. If this were the only cut made, it would only take 18 years to make up the entire difference. But we’re not going to completely cut this money and use it to pay off the national dept of course, we can’t, it will be rerouted to solve other problems. What little of the military does remain will be redirected to border security. Ron Paul does not plan on implementing RFID tracking for immigrants (and eventually US citizens), but does plan on eliminating the incentive to want to enter the United States by eliminating birthright citizenship, and welfare for illegals, at the same time deporting illegal immigrant law breakers.

—-This increased savings will also allow fulfilling the government’s current obligations of welfare, social security, Medicare etc… but at the same time Ron Paul will initiate plans to allow young folks like myself and you, reader, to stop having to pay in to those scams. He will also prevent the government from taxing the Social security benefits of seniors when they receive them (that’s your inheritance from grandma btw!). Young people would not choose to pay into these if given the choice, and this will effectively end these forms of socialism over the coarse of time. No other candidate has a plan for bringing these programs to an end, or even believes that they need to be ended. Voting for Ron Paul sends a message that the American people want these programs ended.

—-Unlike Giuliani who would contribute to the steady march toward one world government by signing over governmental power to organizations filled with unelected officials like the International Criminal Court (ICC), NAFTA, GATT, WTO, UN, and CAFTA, Ron Paul would prevent such undermining by withdrawing from these world government bodies. No other candidate is directly opposed to involvement in these bodies, or acknowledges the threat of one world government enslavement. If anarcho-capitalists think the American government is oppressive (which it completely is) wait until you’re confronted with a world government. Scared? Good… you should be.

—-Other areas of spending cuts Ron Paul will work to make are things like the Dept. of (mis)Education, the Dept. of Homeland Security (the Gustapo), The IRS. No other candidate plans to eliminate the IRS because they don’t really plan on limiting he amount they tax you. They have to keep the IRS because they need to make sure they are able to suck you dry at the point of a gun, the IRS is that gun. Pretty simple when you look at it that way isn’t it, and what a radical shift… “no government bully capable of seizing your property” because you didn’t pay it off in taxes like a street gang (MS13 does this all over the world). That’s REAL tax reform ladies and gents, removing the power of the government to tax you by force. Ron Paul also wants to eliminate the FDA because they are driving up the cost of medicines, intervention which is crippling the health care industry, in their attempt to “comply” with their international masters like the Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA. He also opposes Forced Vaccination, which on the face looks like it might have some value… but then you think about what they could potentially decide to vaccinate you with… and it becomes horrifying.

—-REPEALING THE PATIOT ACT –no one else will
—-ENDING THE WAR ON DRUGS –no one else will

—-Ending the war on drugs alone will empty our prisons of 50% of its population, mostly minor first time drug offenders for mostly marijuana consumption. With half of our prisons empty, that’s a lot of the workforce back in action! No other candidate will end the war on drugs, and the government will continue using this as a weapon in it’s arsenal to deprive you of the right to live your life the way you see fit.

—-Ending the Federal Reserve. This is really brilliant I think. Move away from Fiat Currency Central Banking, which is nothing more than the confiscation of wealth through inflation (Greenspan what happened!!)… by allowing gold and silver currency (coined by the Congress as authorized by the Constitution) to compete along side the monopoly money. Serbia, Montenegro, and other countries already have more than one currency running side by side, so this is not a new idea… but a return back to hard money is absolutely necessary if we are going to eliminate the governments ability to keep it’s citizens weak through the confiscation of their wealth. The standard of living is going down and Ron Paul is the only candidate that has the balls to point it out, and point out why… and at the same time gives a strong solution for fixing it. Under Giuliani and Hillary, you’re going to see the Amero introduced in 2010, this will function as the Euro does once America is neutralized as a country and merged into the North American Union… our constitution will be meaningless (as if it weren’t already) and we will be subject to rule by unelected foreign officials. One world government is what we want to prevent!

—-Ending Imminent Domain property seizures, and denying NAFTA the ability to confiscate enough property in America to build a multinational highway from Canada into Mexico. A vote for other candidates, and the choice not to vote, is a choice for centralized one world government authority. This is a direct quote from Ron Paul, “The next president must get federal agencies out of these schemes to deny property owners their constitutional rights to life, liberty, and property.” Confiscations are the “nudge” we want to move the government away from, Ron Paul is the only candidate that represents that nudge.

Why does it matter so much at this point?
There are a lot of circumstantial factors that make this election a very important opportunity to shift that zeitgeist by giving it a nudge in the right direction.

1) Libertarians rarely run on the Republican Ticket. Because Ron Paul is running on the Republican ticket he is getting a lot more exposure to the main stream than independents ever do… this presents a rare opportunity to further good ideas. Even if you disagree (wwhich most of you do) ith libertarianism, this is much closer to anarcho-capitalism than socialism is.
2) The possibility exists that a successful Ron Paul presidency could reshape the fundamental philosophy in America, by allowing free market economics, and limited government to prove their worth in explicit terms (even though they have already in creating the wealthiest nation on Earth)… once this has been established the suggestion could be strongly considered whether or not to adopt a strictly anarcho-capitalistic society. No such alternative exists in any other choice, including the choice not to vote.
3)Popularity: Ron Paul is growing so fast in popularity; he is really redefining “grass roots” campaigning. In the Third Quarter Ron Paul raise over 5 million dollars, as of this writing (December 24) he’s already raise another 18 million for the final quarter. This topped John McCain in the third quarter. Ron Paul has won the text message vote every single GOP debate (with the suspicious exception of the following poll where Romney won). Here’s a good link at how badly “Insanity and Clone” manipulate people into thinking Ron Paul is really a trailing candidate. (you can’t vote more than once btw the support is REAL.)
4) Why are GOP cell phone polls so important? The National Polling is conducted over land line phones, and an increasing number of the younger population is adopting their cell phone as their primary (and most of the time ONLY) household phone because it’s not economically reasonable to have both. My parents (45-50 ish) also no longer have a home land line, it’s become dinosaur technology. A lot of my friends and friends parents (I’ve asked) no longer have land line telephone anymore either. So the landline polling is excluding an ever growing percentage of the population, this percentage as demonstrated in the GOP polls is heavily in support of Ron Paul. Because the news outlets of this country are biased and controlled, the neo-conservative fascist ideology is promoted, and real reform is squelched and made to look insignificant. IT’S NOT. As evidence, drive around town and count supporters of Ron Paul (look at signs in yards, bumper stickers, etc…) and contrast that with the support you see for other candidates. How many conversations do you have per week about Ron Paul vs. Other candidates?
5) Ron Paul pools a lot of different interests into one basket. Liberals like him because of his stance on ending the war as soon as he’s elected. Christians like him because he’s for overturning Roe v. Wade (one of his biggest downfalls imo). Republicans like him because he’s really about limited government. Eliminating a large portion of taxation is beneficial to everyone equally. Libertarians completely back him for obvious reasons. This crossroad of common interests is another rarity that needs to be capitalized on.
6) This does need to be capitalized on NOW because it’s unlikely the opportunity will present itself again for many years, and we will be stuck suffering through lame candidates who mirror one another again… and we will continue our march toward economic collapse and one world government.

So I think the notion that “not voting is a matter of principle” to be a completely unprincipled and unjustifiable approach to American politics (but of course you’re free to do what you want). I equate it to a childish tantrum that represents a wish for existence to be different than what it is. I think it’s contradictory to consider “not voting” as an alternative to endorsing a candidate because your impact on American politics can be even more damaging if you abstain from voting, and allow the worst to flourish by default.

I find an Ayn Rand quote most applicable here, “The Spread of Evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles.”

The basic principle that the anarcho-capitalist approach compromises is intimately related to acknowledging the primacy of existence, in that a problem must be confronted on it’s own terms if you are to handle it appropriately. I think this contradiction manifests itself in the expressed opinion that following politics is a waste of time, because this represents acknowledgment of the problem and at the same time evading the knowledge necessary to solve it. I believe it is this contradiction that has enabled well meaning anarcho-capitalists to end up believing, however wrongly, that “not voting is a matter of principle” when in reality I believe it to be more along the lines of rationalized laziness, intellectual laxness, and an attempt to evade the attachment that cause has with it’s effect.

So as I said before, If you’re interested in furthering your ideas and recognize that economic collapse can never be the answer (and would instead be a great source of increased suffering for a lot of people), that things as they are haven’t been the answer and that your lack of participation only allows what isn’t working to continue not working, then you should vote for Ron Paul in 2008 and seize the opportunity to make a real change.

I personally believe this presidential run COULD spark an economic enlightenment because of how charged the supporters of this campaign are.

~ by spaghettim0nst3r on December 24, 2007.