Living as anarchist in gvt-ruled world

[regevdl]

Hello friends, 

 

For many years I have been constantly shedding prior falsehoods and conditioning.  I am now identifying mostly with anarcho-capitalism and sure there is still more on the horizon.  

 

But the other day, I was spurred to think about voting.  My gut told me that it's useless and I understand the argument  that it is giving permission to a violent system, etc, which I agree.  But voting aside, it made me wonder if anarchists are just as susceptible to complacency by default as those who buy into the false sense of security of government.  

 

Before you get hostile, let me explain:

 

A fellow anarchist was confronted on a political domestic issue.  His reaction was something to the effect of, "well I don't believe in gvt and do not participate and therefore not responsible and it's not my business "  etc.  

 

If that's his feeling, then I am not one to argue but it spurred a concern I have that I don't know if it has ever been addressed. But on one hand he brings up all the hypocracies of gvt but then gives a 'ho-hum' reaction which I find conveniently complacent.  And if I remember, it was issues about cutting funding of some useless, aggressive policy which I would think falls into the philosophy of libertarians and anarchists.

 

I am less concerned about the voting issue and more about how using our voices (even when not believing in gvt) to still use the already existing tools in gvt and use them against itself?  

 

Things like the freedom of information act lawsuits.  If it were up to my friend in my example, he wouldn't even take these measures and those are the activists that have really opened up valuable information (too bad they have to sue the gvt for it) but I hope my point is clear.  Without the work of them, much of the evidence we have against the gvt would still be locked up somewhere.

 

I have other libertarian/anarchist friends who do a lot of work to contact their state reps to change local/state legislature or rather...get rid of horrible laws etc and have had success. Does this still 'enable' gvt or do anarchists see this as a method to whittle down gvt in non violent means? 

 

is this 'encouraging/enabling' gvt or is this a needed step towards a more free/open society by using the gvt format against it's own overreach?  

 

Personally, I feel voting is worthless.  It's not just a feeling, it's pretty much proven that federal elections are bogus.  State and local elections aren't much better but as anarchists are we of better use to totally ignore issues and 'fighting against' overreach or to use the gvt tools against itself?  

 

Overall, the name of the game is education and making valid arguments to allow people to think for themselves and see on their own terms whether or not they think gvt is a good idea, etc.  

 

Would love to hear any thoughts.  thanks!

[TheRobin]

Sure, complacency can happen to anyone, but as an anarchist, my focus is primairly on the initiation of violence against the innocent. So focusing on areas where we can actually make a change is much better use of our time than trying to use some government scripture in the hopes of finding something there that helps aleivate the problem.

 

So I'd rather talk with people about peaceful parenting than anarchy (especially when in a social gathering where I don't know many people directly) or IF I talk about government, then I'd first and foremost shwo them how it is always the use of violence (and ultimately threats of murder) to get what you want. That way you can get a sense of whether people actually care or not pretty quickly, plus once it's clear that they're okay with murdering you for not doing what they think is best, then any further discussion is just a farce anyway.

[regevdl]

interesting point.  True that if they support violence to make change then the discussion is pointless as there is a proverbial 'gun in the room'.  lol  thanks!

[AlesD]

In my view the response of your friend was avoidant. He could have explained the basics why having a government is wrong on the principal level and give people something to think about. Of course this is his choice maybe he just did not want to debate with this people. You have to decide if it is worth to debate about it with the people in question.

 

On the example you make about cutting founding I would guess that this means just channeling money elsewhere in most cases so it might not be so libertarian as it looks on the first sight.

 

My thoughts on political activism are that while it is true that some activists maybe change a law or prevent some law they are also forcing their decisions on other people. For example the people who would like that law. So we get into the situation that the ones who forces his opinion the most prevails which is again just brute force.

Also if the law is so bad maybe the passing of it would wake up many more people to the reality of government. From my perspective such actions only prolong the existence of government because they give the illusion of making a change. Usually the same things then get passed at a later time when people forget a bit or in a different form that does not sound so bad to people. This is nowadays the standard tactics used by leaders in my observation in many fields to push a bit overboard then there is some backlash and they like back down and then gradually they build to the same change with less noticeable changes. People forget quickly and what is today bad can be passed next year when it is forgotten as an important issue. Voting is just another thing that gives the illusion of choice especially since the choices are predefined.

 

I agree with the previous post by TheRobin and with what Stef often says it is better to focus on the personal level first where you can really make a change and expand from there.

[Magnus]

Overall, the name of the game is education and making valid arguments to allow people to think for themselves and see on their own terms whether or not they think gvt is a good idea, etc.

The name of the game is propaganda (or, to use the more modern term, marketing).Rational argumentation is a grand achievement of the human species, but it doesn't move the mass of humanity to action.Propaganda is a highly-developed set of skills. It depends on appealing to a person's identity, his sense of self, the way he WANTS to be seen by others. It's based on system of pre-existing symbols and associations.It's completely non-rational. But these techniques can be used for good purposes just as easily as they can for promoting fascism.

 

I suggest putting effort into encouraging the people in our community to develop skills in media, production, advertising, marketing and related fields.

[powder]

the state is immoral, period.  You don't petition for a nicer master that beats you less, you don't argue for less rape, or join the mafia to make it less violent.  So no, using the system to make changes is unethical.  There are other threads about this topic that have been discussed and it comes down to perspective, if you choose to think of it from a practical perspective (Minarchism) then it seems to make sense that you can work to shrink government influence to make life better.  I think it is better to think of it from an ethical perspective.  Voting is advocating violence.  That is not a complacent stance.  

[regevdl]

Thanks everyone for the interesting responses.  If I may expand my question.  bear with me.    Ok, so I'm a 'soverign' in a governed world.  I pay my taxes (also enabling) to keep from being thrown in a cage.  I can easily convince my peers to switch to the concept of anarchism but they too (so long as the gvt exists) pay their taxes which enables the masters, just so they can stay out of the cage and promote the concept to their friend and so on and so forth. 

 

Does anyone think this will actually create a tipping point or what will need to happen for all of us to STOP paying the seed money as a trade off for staying out of a cage?  

 

My vauge examples (sorry) in my original question had more to do with appealing laws rather than changing them or implementing new ones.  Like if eventually the majority of the country is outspoken libertarian or anarchist and we still pay our taxes for fear of being caged, we could use those voices to appeal as many oppressive laws without implementing new ones or imposing on others....it loosens the chains, no?  

 

Because the country could be full of anarchists or libertarians but so long as we are all 'fearful' of being put in a cage, we will always enable by paying taxes and that enables masters far more than even voting or using democratic tools against the gvt, no?  Just pondering....

[Magnus]

Thanks everyone for the interesting responses.  If I may expand my question.  bear with me.    Ok, so I'm a 'soverign' in a governed world.  I pay my taxes (also enabling) to keep from being thrown in a cage.  I can easily convince my peers to switch to the concept of anarchism but they too (so long as the gvt exists) pay their taxes which enables the masters, just so they can stay out of the cage and promote the concept to their friend and so on and so forth. 

 

Does anyone think this will actually create a tipping point or what will need to happen for all of us to STOP paying the seed money as a trade off for staying out of a cage?  

 

My vauge examples (sorry) in my original question had more to do with appealing laws rather than changing them or implementing new ones.  Like if eventually the majority of the country is outspoken libertarian or anarchist and we still pay our taxes for fear of being caged, we could use those voices to appeal as many oppressive laws without implementing new ones or imposing on others....it loosens the chains, no?  

 

Because the country could be full of anarchists or libertarians but so long as we are all 'fearful' of being put in a cage, we will always enable by paying taxes and that enables masters far more than even voting or using democratic tools against the gvt, no?  Just pondering....

 

The modern state does not need taxes to be paid.  They create all the money, through their banking cartel.  The purpose of taxation is to remove money from our hands, so that we don't drive up prices too quickly and cause general alarm.

 

Until we have free-market money, we're just serfs on their plantation.  They will always be able to buy an army with their fake money, which they create at will, as long as it is considered currency. 

 

For example, it was currency debasement that ended just about every empire, Rome most notably.  They debased it so much that they could not pay the soldiers to maintain the frontier, which allowed the Germanic tribes to invade. 

 

The modern state is not possible without central banking, as it is euphemistically called. 

[NotDarkYet]

My strategy:

 

1.  See if the person shows moral/logical integrity.  If so....

 

2.  Show the moral logic

3.  Show that the present system is flawed

4.  Show some practical examples of how it might work

5.  Direct them to Everyday Anarchy/Practical Anarchy

[powder]

Thanks everyone for the interesting responses.  If I may expand my question.  bear with me.    Ok, so I'm a 'soverign' in a governed world.  I pay my taxes (also enabling) to keep from being thrown in a cage.  I can easily convince my peers to switch to the concept of anarchism but they too (so long as the gvt exists) pay their taxes which enables the masters, just so they can stay out of the cage and promote the concept to their friend and so on and so forth. 

 

Does anyone think this will actually create a tipping point or what will need to happen for all of us to STOP paying the seed money as a trade off for staying out of a cage?  

 

My vauge examples (sorry) in my original question had more to do with appealing laws rather than changing them or implementing new ones.  Like if eventually the majority of the country is outspoken libertarian or anarchist and we still pay our taxes for fear of being caged, we could use those voices to appeal as many oppressive laws without implementing new ones or imposing on others....it loosens the chains, no?  

 

Because the country could be full of anarchists or libertarians but so long as we are all 'fearful' of being put in a cage, we will always enable by paying taxes and that enables masters far more than even voting or using democratic tools against the gvt, no?  Just pondering....

Like Magnus says, paying taxes is not what sustains the oligarchs.  Give a small group the authority to rule and they will find a way to control and enslave.  

 

If the majority of people were anarchist then I don't imagine that the state would be sustainable.  I think the problem with arguing from this perspective of minarchism and taking affirmative action is challenging because you need to shift your perspective rather than look to 'solve the problem'.  Evil does not exist because good people do nothing as the famous saying goes - it only thrives because it masquerades as goodness or necessity.  Once people recognize and are made aware of evil they automatically repel and recoil from it.  

 

Getting involved in the illusion of the myth of authority in any form only legitimizes it.  When people stop imagining that it is somehow OK to allow other people to have special rights - the right to steal and initiate force - then the state will simple evaporate.  You don't kill the beast by training it to be nicer, you simply starve it to death by not feeding it.  

[Mike Fleming]

Thanks everyone for the interesting responses.  If I may expand my question.  bear with me.    Ok, so I'm a 'soverign' in a governed world.  I pay my taxes (also enabling) to keep from being thrown in a cage.  I can easily convince my peers to switch to the concept of anarchism but they too (so long as the gvt exists) pay their taxes which enables the masters, just so they can stay out of the cage and promote the concept to their friend and so on and so forth. 

 

Does anyone think this will actually create a tipping point or what will need to happen for all of us to STOP paying the seed money as a trade off for staying out of a cage?  

 

My vauge examples (sorry) in my original question had more to do with appealing laws rather than changing them or implementing new ones.  Like if eventually the majority of the country is outspoken libertarian or anarchist and we still pay our taxes for fear of being caged, we could use those voices to appeal as many oppressive laws without implementing new ones or imposing on others....it loosens the chains, no?  

 

Because the country could be full of anarchists or libertarians but so long as we are all 'fearful' of being put in a cage, we will always enable by paying taxes and that enables masters far more than even voting or using democratic tools against the gvt, no?  Just pondering....

 

Revolutions (social or otherwise) take somewhere around 10% or so of the population, I think.  It's never been a majority it's always been the "irate minority".  Think about the US.  10% would be roughly 30 million people!  Just think if you had 30 million people disobeying.  30 million people saying no we aren't going to do as we are told, we aren't paying our taxes, we aren't paying our fines, etc.  How would the government get these people through it's justice system?  I don't think it would even require half that or less to overload the system.

 

Just think of it in the terms of slaves and their masters.  One or two slaves standing up can be made an example of.  But once you get to a certain number, there isn't much the masters can do, and the bigger the slave population is, the lower the actual percentage of people required.

 

With the growth I've been seeing in this movement over the 5 years or so I've been involved I'm starting to think it is going to be possible in my lifetime, which I never even considered even 2 years ago as a possibility.  The growth appears to be exponential to me and it's surprising how fast things can grow when using that paradigm.

[J. D. Stembal]

I registered to vote in Colorado last year to vote NO across the board on a handful of tax generating propositions, two of which were regarding sales and excise tax limits for the sale of recreational marijuana. Since giving up all drugs and alcohol, I don't have a personal stake in voting down taxes other than attempting to use voting to decrease government, or at least preventing it from increasing. (What a crazy justification for voting!) Both propositions succeeded by a wide margin, and starting January 1st of this year, Colorado generates nearly a 40% markup in taxes based on all licensed recreational pot sales. This constitutes a considerable largesse for those with cozy relationships with local government, namely anyone involved with the Department of Education: http://www.denverpost.com/marijuana/ci_26247743/pot-revenues-starting-help-select-schools-pricey-projects.

 

Smokers unanimously support these taxes, stating that it's a small price to pay to legalize a common medicinal plant that never should have been illegal in the first place. This shows you how ridiculous it is when people cloak the very idea of freedom in the garb of progressive statism! A stiff sin tax for marijuana translates into even bigger government for every state that legalizes it.

 

After the election, I promptly took my name off the voter registry. I feel dirty for betraying my anarchist principles to try to vote a few tax incentives down. It's definitely the last time I'll register to vote for any reason.