What will libertarians do?
(posted by Libby Spencer)
I’m watching the anti-climatic closing of the RNC tonight with a mix of horror, revulsion and disbelief. It’s incomprehensible to me that anyone could take the Republican party seriously anymore, yet the pollsters tell me 40% of my fellow Americans support the pathetic man standing at the podium right now, who is pledging to continue the failed policies of the last eight years, for the next four. Only this time they’ll work because — in case you haven’t heard my friends — he was a POW forty years ago. And hey, he has a really hot VP. She’s a gun totin’, moose huntin’, pork bustin’ mother of five and that changes everything.
I’m assuming libertarians aren’t buying this recylced rhetoric but I was wondering tonight what is the libertarian strategy for 08? Who are you going to vote for in November? Are you going to take a chance on handing the election to insane McCain and vote for Barr?
For myself, I don’t see any other choice but to vote for Obama. He needs a huge plurality to overcome the voter suppression mechanisms the GOP currently have in place. Will you cross over to give it to him?
September 4th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Libby: This libertarian is voting for Obama. Sarah Palin is a sexy, empty suit who can do red-meat-speechifying, (yeah, yeah, call me sexist, then ask me if I care.) One can hope that in her debate with Biden her total lack of foreign policy comprehension will be utterly manifest.
Bob Barr is no more electable than Nader.
And of course, McCain is OLD and showing signs of it in his memory. Do we want this parochial woman (person, or whatever) to lead the U.S. if he falls to an old age illness or dies? I think not.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
I’m a libertarian in a state that is guaranteed to go for Obama, so my vote doesn’t really matter. I don’t trust Barr (he was a drug warrior for way too long) and I have no enthusiasm for any of the other third party candidates. I’ll probably write in a vote for Glenn Greenwald and Nadine Strossen.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Of course, thoreau, even if you were in a tight swing state it’s almost statistically impossible for your vote to actually decide the electoral outcome. So, I don’t see why anyone libertarian’s vote will matter much. I’ll either vote for Barr or write in Grover Cleveland, as is my usual practice.
As for libertarians as a group, they will do what they usually do and go in a bunch of different directions depending on their individual judgment. Some will vote for Barr. Some, who care more about keeping taxes low, might vote for McCain. Some, who care about ending the Iraq war, will vote for Obama. Many oppose voting altogether on moral or practical grounds and will spend that half hour doing some valuable to the world — masturbating, perhaps.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Are you going to take a chance on handing the election to insane McCain and vote for Barr?
If I thought the election would be decided by a single vote, I would vote for Obama. But I don’t, so I won’t.
But I also won’t vote for Barr because I don’t consider him a libertarian. I will probably write-in Mary Ruwart.
September 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
so far i’ve voted for harry browne and no one. this time it’ll probably be nader. but it depends how i feel that day. i dont take it too seriously, but i won’t vote for warmongers. down ballot its third party or, when n/a whoevers running against the incumbent.
a more interesting question is who would be better for libertarians: obama or mccain w/dems in control of the house and senate?
September 5th, 2008 at 6:07 am
Under normal conditions, I’d probably register a protest vote for the Libertarian candidate, but Barr is unacceptable. So… it’s either Obama, a write in for Mickey Mouse (I wouldn’t dishonor Paul with a write-in nobody will count anyway), or staying home and getting drunk.
It’s weird, ’cause I’m used to Virginia being a solid red state, but it might actually be in play this time around. That, more than the candidate, is going to affect my decision. But Obama is worthless as a positive choice, and I’m downright ashamed of my Kerry vote in ‘04.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:18 am
a more interesting question is who would be better for libertarians: obama or mccain w/dems in control of the house and senate?
I would say Dem in the White House + Dems controlling Congress is the better outcome this time around. Historically, Congressional Democrats have not moved in lockstep with a Democratic President, and are probably likely to give Obama a hard time, because they know they can get away with it. On the other hand, a President McCain will be likelier to abuse the precedent of the “unilateral executive” to pursue his apparent goals of war with Russia, China, and possibly Madagascar. Also, Congressional Dems have already shown their inability to stand up to a shameless, lawless bully in the Oval Office.
An even better outcome would probably be a Republican Congress + a Democratic President, as they often seem to cancel out one another’s worst excesses. Rule of law, Constitutional checks on executive authority, subpoena power, etc, etc, would once again become suddenly sacrosanct to Repubs. But such a switch in control is not in the cards yet, and with this current Republican Party still unspanked, would probably turn immediately into another impeachment circus anyway.
And since Connecticut is unlikely to go for McCain, I’ll probably go with Barr: even though he’s probably a social conservative drug warrior in Libertarian clothing, he has been fairly tight with the ACLU on several matters even before the party switch.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:20 am
In a way that satisfies the libertarian’s often economics informed indifference to voting yet alsodoes some good to affect change on Nov 4th, I think I’d rather spend the monetary equivalent of a drive to the poll (and admittedly a tad more) on a donation to Anti-War.Com. Or the ACLU. Or Food Not Bombs.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Thank you so much for your answers. It’s very interesting to see the variety of responses. For myself, I’m a believer in building viable third party movements. I think in the long term that’s the best answer to solving the problem of the coersive duopoly that is strangling the system now. I’ve voted third party many times myself in elections where in effect, the outcome was so predictable that rubberstamping the result wouldn’t matter.
However, in this election, I don’t think that’s true. I would urge everyone to consider the importance of every vote, even in states where the outcome is virtually decided. Obama needs to win with a huge plurality, not just 50 +1 that’s been the pattern recently. Every vote counts moreso than usual this time if we’re to break the monopoly the GOP, or maybe I should say the neocons and materialistic conservatives have on power. Which by the way I believe is feeding the corporate coercion that Roderick is talking about in the post above.
To use a simple analogy, if you have a pile of a million pebbles that forms a barrier against something undesirable and a million people take just one as a momento, because there’s so many that it doesn’t really matter, eventually the barrier disappears enabling the undesirable outcome to manifest.
I’d also say that sitting it out is the greatest cop-out of all. You can’t change the system if you don’t participate. Even if you show up and turn in a blank ballot, it makes a statement and records your interest in the process. If the stakeholders in the power structure have no tangible way to know you’re interested in participating, there’s no incentive to be responsive or accountable.
Kevin, unless one is in the top tier of the income ladder, why would you think McCain is going to lower taxes? His plan, as far as I can see he has one, is to continue to same mythcal supply-side, trickle down plan that has created the widest disparity in income distribution in generations. Futhermore, the model provides no real avenue for the bottom tiers to move up the income ladder and as we’re seeing now, when the bottom falls out, the ill effects trickle up and diminish the value of assets, even for those at the top. Isn’t that the same effect as a tax, without the benefit of contributing to the common good?
September 5th, 2008 at 9:37 am
As fond as I am of grid-lock, I’ve become convinced that logrolling has virtually eliminated the happy grid-lock effects of divided government: The dems get republican support for their awful pet policies in exchange for the reverse, and all those who fail to support these so-called triumphs of “bi-partisanship” and “reaching across the aisle to get things done” are more easily labelled as obstuctionists, extremists, and the like.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:11 am
Libby-
I want McCain to lose, but I have no interest in seeing any President, not even Obama, get a mandate. Bush thought that 48% against a guy with 49% was a mandate, and look what we got. If by some cosmic chance California becomes a dead heat I’ll vote for Obama. Otherwise, there is no way I will vote for somebody who voted for the wiretap bill. You can say I’m being an unrealistic single issue voter, but this bill gave immunity to people who helped a President break the law, and I don’t want to vote for putting a person like that in the White House. Yes, McCain is worse, and I hope he loses, but after seeing Obama’s vote against the rule of law as a check on Presidential power, I am less than enthused about the prospects of an Obama presidency either.
Also, I second the person above who said that with a Dem in the White House the GOP will rediscover the sanctity of the rule of law.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:53 am
I’d also say that sitting it out is the greatest cop-out of all. You can’t change the system if you don’t participate.
There are other (mostly more effective) ways of working to change the system than voting. One blog post makes a greater contribution to affecting the political culture than all the votes you have ever made or ever will make in your entire lifetime.
September 5th, 2008 at 10:56 am
I won’t cross over to Obama or vote for Barr. I’m staying home.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:14 am
I’m inclined to stay home. I’ve come around to the opinion that if you vote for a candidate, you’re partially culpable for the horrors they unleash.
My main hopes for Obama where that he would be less of an interventionist and would bring some drug policy reform, but that seems less and less likely as time goes by. I’ll still vote for him if it looks like my state will be close, but otherwise I’d rather not waste my time.
September 5th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
I’m going to vote for Barr, but only because he’s who the Libertarian’s are putting up. I’m in Massachusetts, there’s no chance in hell Obama won’t take this state in a landslide. I was on the fence about just staying home, but we’ve got ballot initiatives to end our income tax and decriminalize cannabis in small amounts. (Those are two separate initiatives, not one put forth by, I don’t know, the Kottonmouth Kings or something).
September 5th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Hey everybody. Sorry for the delay in replying. I’ve job hunting today.
Araglin - I hear you. Gridlock isn’t what it used to be. The dupoly is just one beast with two heads.
Thoreau - I totally agree with your points. It’s been clear to me since the beginning that Obama was not going to deliver the kind of limited gov’t I’m interested in seeing and no one is more pissed off about FISA than me and I’m not at happy about giving the Dems power over both the WH and Congress. However, the prospect of McPOW living out the old war in his head while he has his finger on the nuclear trigger and putting Gramm in charge of the economy is terrifying.
I think this is the one time that a huge plurality is necessary to overcome the GOP’s hold on the voting process. He needs a huge plurality to prevent another stolen election. I also agree that the GOP will suddenly rediscover the rule of law, but I have some hope that Obama, despite his FISA vote will be willing to restore accountability. There’s none if the GOP steal the election.
Roderick - I’ve been blogging for five years, and counting this one, I’m now posting to six blogs. There’s millions of us and the handful of A-listers with real influence. We’ve changed the narrative, but we haven’t had much success in changing the system or the FISA vote would never have passed.
The Villagers don’t understand blogs and don’t feel threatened by them. I believe that hundreds of thousands of blank ballots, or write-ins would get their notice and put some fear into them. Again, they won’t know you’re watching if you don’t show up. They’ll assume you don’t care.
John and Travis - if you don’t show up, you’re just as culpable for not preventing the horrors from occuring and again, it leads the pols into believing that no one is watching.
Lucas - as a former Baystater, I’m sure you’re right that Obama will take it in a landslide, but it’s a very good point that the downticket races are just as important. IRRC, there’s a marijana initiative on the ballot this time, isn’t there?
You’re all of course free to do as you will, but after watching the horror show that was the RNC, I don’t think the stakes could be any clearer. Not to overdramatize, but a McCain administration could well be the end of civilization as we know it. It would be handing our future to the fundies and the neocons. I think it’s worth a compromise vote to prevent it.
September 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
At one time, I took a lot of flak for making a libertarian case for Obama (not from anyone here, of course). Unfortunately, Obama eroded the basis for a lot of my arguments this summer with some of his “centrism” on executive power and civil liberties issues (especially the FISA capitulation, which wasn’t just campaign pandering, but an actually meaningful piece of legislation). The loss of trust this resulted in pushed me pretty strongly into Barr’s corner.
For reasons that should be fairly obvious to most people here, I view executive power as the single most important issue this year. An Obama who was committed to cutting back on executive power would have been a candidate for whom I would compromise many less-important values; but an Obama who I can’t trust on executive power is in my mind not significantly better than McCain given that the Dems will control both Houses of Congress, and the Congressional Dems as a whole haven’t exactly been committed to protecting checks and balances and civil liberties - and that’s during a period when they DIDN’T control the Presidency. Under the present circumstances, McCain would be worse on both executive power and war, especially since the Congressional Dems have no demonstrated backbone on these issues.*
If you are a civil libertarian (of either a libertarian or liberal stripe) who no longer trusts Obama to scale back executive power, then I think this leaves you with only one hope: doing something to force Congressional Dems to grow a backbone, or, at the very least makes civil libertarians into a cognizable “swing vote” for whose vote it’s worth pandering (in the process hoping to shake up the long term nature of the Dem coalition). The basis for this theory is that I think there are relatively few “swing” voters who would vote Republican BUT FOR the Dems’ Republican-lite positions on civil liberties and international relations. To the extent such voters do exist, they are worth pandering to only to the extent there are fewer civil liberties voters who would change their votes due to that pandering.
If, say, five to ten percent of the electorate were to vote for a third party due to civil liberties/executive power concerns, and if that five to ten percent would otherwise vote Dem, then you have a pretty significant “swing vote” - one that is far more worth pandering to than the handful of people who vote Dem only because the Dems are sufficiently close to the Republicans on executive power issues.
I tend to think that Barr is a much more effective vehicle for this than Nader, who I think has become too synonymous with a single issue to be an effective protest vote on another issue. But I also realize that Barr is far from ideal, as well.
*FWIW- As I’ve argued many, many times, I don’t necessarily blame Obama personally for this sorry state of affairs, but rather the nature of coalition politics and conventional wisdom about the political “center.” (See, e.g., here: http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/07/myth-of-moderate-why-political-center.html).
September 5th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
The neo-cons stampeded the country into the irrational act of voting by raising the specter of an out-of-control despot with WMDs. Now they’re threatening to attack another country for the same reasons. I guess threatening people with hob-goblins works pretty well.
Now you are goading people into the irrational act of supporting a hopelessly immoral and corrupt system by casting ballots, by raising the spectre of McCain-goblin. Yes, he’s scary. So is Barack “Two-Face” Obama and his proposed 2-million man “domestic security force.”
Sorry, the neo-cons didn’t fool me and neither will you.
September 5th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Sorry, the post above should begin, “The neo-cons stampeded the country into the irrational act of invading Iraq …”
September 5th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Voting is for old people. I prefer masturbation, per Kevin B. O’Reilly’s recommendation. I am not “interest[ed] in the process”, nor am I “interested in participating.”
Politics is a strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?
September 5th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Mark! How nice to see you here. I can’t argue with you because I agree. Executive power is a great concern of mine also. In fact, government power altogether and the quasi-police state we already have is a great concern of mine, as you well know. I took a lot of ridicule two years ago when I started warning people that we would find ourselves today where civilian LEOs would be militarized and rounding up the dissenters.
Something like 800 people were arrested during the course of the RNC. They detained members of the major media. They raided houses where the observers were staying before the thing even started. I’m sure you saw the photos of the detainees, sitting on the ground with their hands on their heads. Ordinary people, most of them, many just passing through at the wrong time. It looked just like Baghdad.
There is no libertarian case to be made for Obama. There isn’t a progressive liberal case to be made for Obama. We’re stuck with one of them. Obama maybe won’t be so great. But McCain would be a disaster. All his handlers came straight from the Bush cabal. Is there anybody who really wants four more years of what we just went through?
Scott - I’m going to answer that, even though you’re trolling me with that canard about the domestic security force. IIRC, that was debunked long ago. But to get to the point of whether Obama would exploit the existing framework for domestic surveillance and intimidation that Bush will leave behind, I’m not so sure Obama won’t dismantle that and restore some civil liberties. He might even pursue investigations of this administration. Maybe he can’t even use it because it’s so GOP centric.
I’m very certain if McCain gets in, the police state will surely grow. I’m not willing to take that chance. I’m not going to stand on principles that require the perfect and sacrifice potential good. I’m casting an pragmatic vote and the choice is obvious to me.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
It’s incomprehensible to me that anyone could take the Republican party seriously anymore
You need to think like reality, and it will be less incomprehensible. I suspect though that it is more gratifying to dismiss these things as bizarre and unexplainable. Surely such politicians could not be re-elected on the basis of voter support rather than electoral fraud!
I have never voted and never will unless the extremely unlikely possibility of vote having any effect comes up.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
But to get to the point of whether Obama would exploit the existing framework for domestic surveillance and intimidation that Bush will leave behind, I’m not so sure Obama won’t dismantle that and restore some civil liberties. He might even pursue investigations of this administration. Maybe he can’t even use it because it’s so GOP centric.
I would love to see him dismantle tools of oppression, investigate crimes, or at least be rebuffed from using a tool that is not his to wield. But I fear that a Blue boot can stomp on a face just as easily as a Red boot. Maybe in the older republic there was a way to stop that, but the Republicans have corrupted so many institutions and set so many precedents that even they may not be able to contain the beast.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
If at all possible, I will find out who the head brewer is at Great Divide Brewing Company and write their name in. Otherwise I’m staying home.
I engage in politics these days only to try to undermine the concept. Haven’t remotely considered a vote since Harry Browne ran.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Libby:
I’ve been blogging for five years, and counting this one, I’m now posting to six blogs. There’s millions of us and the handful of A-listers with real influence. We’ve changed the narrative, but we haven’t had much success in changing the system or the FISA vote would never have passed.
The Villagers don’t understand blogs and don’t feel threatened by them. I believe that hundreds of thousands of blank ballots, or write-ins would get their notice and put some fear into them.
But I’m not talking about millions of bloggers versus millions of voters. You are an individual; you can’t direct millions of people into voting versus blogging. You control your actions. And my point is that you (or any other individual) do, individually, far more good with one post than with all your votes over a lifetime.
Again, they won’t know you’re watching if you don’t show up. They’ll assume you don’t care.
They’re not my target audience.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Chill out TGGP, I having a conversation here, not giving an academic dissertation. It’s a figure of speech. It’s shorthand for mind bending astonishment that some voters could be so easily deluded, over and over. I understand very well how it could happen but if you don’t see the reality in voter fraud, I might respectfully suggest you spend less time musing over estoteric theory and a little more time paying attention to reality yourself. The fraud has been well documented by credible authorities.
Thoreau, I don’t discount that possibility, but that doesn’t obviate the need to make the best choice based on a pragmatic assessment of the possible outcomes.
Roderick I’m not sure we’re on the same wavelength here. I’m not following your reasoning. When I talk about the Villagers I mean the entire collective inside the beltway that form the beast. I can’t reach them directly with my blog. They don’t read it. I can reach them with my vote and your vote and the thousand other votes I might sway by blogging to the people who do read me. Some of those readers are other bloggers and if they adopt my arguments and sway their readers, collectively it makes a difference.
To go back to my earlier analogy, let me reverse it. A million people holding one brick in their hand can’t do much with it individually, but together they can build a wall to keep the beast at bay. Talking about it is fine and necessary to build the consensus but in the end, if until we tangibly assemble and actually build the wall with a physical action, the beast still roams at will.
With due respect for the right to make personal choices, frankly I find the arguments for not voting, lazy. More of an excuse for inaction than a strategy towards a solution.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:16 am
Thanks goodness my one vote means nothing. Obama may be the least bad of the two, but I couldn’t in good conscience vote for him. He’s really not that different. Have you read his foreign-policy views? Tell me how they differ from McCain’s, except stylistically?
September 6th, 2008 at 8:22 am
One more thing: Don’t vote. It only encourages them.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Sheldon, if you have to ask that question, you’re not really paying attention. I’ll grant that Obama is more hawkish than I’d like, but come on, the difference between him and McCain is glaring.
McBomb Bomb wants to continue the same belligerent pre-emptive military interventions. Obama wants to negotiate diplomatically and use military force as a last resort.
But I’m not surprised you think that, if you read everything I’ve said and interpreted it to mean your vote doesn’t count. My point is exactly the opposite. But by all means, do nothing and then bitch because nothing changes. Great strategy.
And you know what? The best reason to vote for Obama is that he’s smarter than McCain. I, for one, am sick of intellectually incurious presidents who spew the same outright lies repeatedly and are lousy orators.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
…and neither wants to openly question why our military budget rivals that of the entire rest of the world combined, deal with the all-too-firm ridiculous assumption that having occupation bases pretty much everywhere is necessary for our defense, or ask why the security of Israel is any of our business.
September 6th, 2008 at 10:46 am
Libby:
Roderick I’m not sure we’re on the same wavelength here. I’m not following your reasoning. When I talk about the Villagers I mean the entire collective inside the beltway that form the beast. I can’t reach them directly with my blog.
Right. Like I said, they’re not my audience.
A million people holding one brick in their hand can’t do much with it individually, but together they can build a wall to keep the beast at bay. Talking about it is fine and necessary to build the consensus but in the end, if until we tangibly assemble and actually build the wall with a physical action, the beast still roams at will.
I’m not questioning the value of collective action. I’m questioning your assumption that collective action via the ballot is more effective than other forms of collective action.
With due respect for the right to make personal choices, frankly I find the arguments for not voting, lazy.
I wasn’t making an argument for not voting. (Unlike my agorist comrades, I usually do vote.) I was making an argument for voting being of minuscule importance compared to most other form of activism.
But as for the claim that the case for nonvoting is “lazy” — you’ve got to be kidding me. Nonvoting libertarians spend far more time and effort on nonelectoral forms of activism than the amount of time and effort it would take to vote. Accusing their stance of being motivated by laziness is a ludicrous smear.
More of an excuse for inaction than a strategy towards a solution.
So voting is the only form of action? I did not know dat.
September 6th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Roderick, I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree on the importance of voting. My position is that it’s a primary operational mechanism of the system and an effective method for ordinary voters to register their preferences and influence outcomes. I’m certainly not suggesting it’s the only means to do so but it’s the simplest and has a great probabilty of success. You don’t like the way government is run, then throw the bums out. Vote in someone who will listen to you.
Neither were my remarks on not voting directed at you. I’m sorry if I didn’t make that clearer. Nor is suggesting that not voting is a lazy strategy intended as a smear. It’s my opinion on this issue, not a overall judgement of character. My point is it takes very little effort to show up at the polls and cast a vote, so not utilizing that method of change in addition to other forms of activism seems to me to be a cop-out.
As for what non-voting libertarians do, perhaps that’s at the root of our failure to communicate here. I don’t really know what they do in terms of activism. It hasn’t been visible to me. Maybe you could write a post explaining the pragmatic methods libertarians are employing, in order to further this discussion. I, at least, would find it very helpful in identifying how we can reach a consensus on common goals.
B-psycho - I agree this is a problem, but it’s not one that can be solved in the short term. No candidate is going to be elected on a platform of reducing the military in this political climate. You can’t fix decades of misplaced priorities in one electoral cycle. Again, one of these two will be president in January. Which one is more likely to utilize the military responsibly?
September 6th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
Yeah, to us they’re misplaced. To the type of people that actually obtain power, they’re just fine, and we’re a bunch of lunatics. This attitude actually stretches back much further than many people realize: I’m not talking about mere military overreach, I’m talking about imperialism, and ending it is more than this election, or any future election, can ever hope to do.
I agree with the general aim of this site, and the larger movement it is a sign of, but it has to be remembered we have different methods within. I hope over time people out there that are planning on voting can try to drag the discussion further from the status-quo, and think it’s good if my words help that, but in the end my personal aim is not to legitimize this system but to lay groundwork for its uneventful collapse. Long as we realize that difference and can live off each other through it (IMO, by the radicals providing hints at a direction for non-radical moves, while the non-radicals buy space for the radicals to operate), it’s cool. If not, then I don’t see how this is gonna work.
September 6th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I think we’re going to have to agree to disagree
Robin Hanson says no.
I fully admit I’m not doing anything productive. I’m in the camp of Monsieur IOZ.
September 6th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Libby, as an electoral activist I think you are overoptimistic. I also think that elections can make a real difference, but the American system restricts this to movements around the center to an excessive degree.
Electoral politics will always reduce voter influence to selections between coalitions, but the American FPTP system creates coalitions that are too diverse to be meaningful. Better electoral systems always elect candidates who want to reduce the military, because there are always such views present.
Note that if I was in the US, I would be a very active democrat- but also one not very happy with the party or American democracy.
September 6th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
As for what non-voting libertarians do, perhaps that’s at the root of our failure to communicate here. I don’t really know what they do in terms of activism.
Have you checked out LeftLibertarian.org lately?
September 6th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
You (the US) have a broken voting system. It grants two parties monopolies, one on the left, and one on the right. Tactical voting is a symptom of the systems failings.
Instant-runoff voting would be a strictly better system for presidential elections. This way greens and libertarians can run without fear that they’ll hand it to the other side. Republicans and democrats could even choose to field more than one candidate, and people can vote for who they want. There is no way to vote tactically. There could be political competition based on competence and not just on how far left or right the candidate is.
Its seems like a no-brainer to me. How come people do not talk about reforming the voting system? Obviously it is not in the interests of the incumbents and hence the main stream media, but even so …
September 6th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
I would add that referendum voting is much more effective than voting for politicians.
September 6th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
“I would add that referendum voting is much more effective than voting for politicians.”
This is arguable, but it is not ’strictly’ better due to cost and complication, nor is it a complete alternative, as it couldn’t possibly be used for all executive decisions.
Does the US never have referendums?
September 6th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Mike G: Its not in the interests of the incumbents, it won’t happen unless they do it, so whats to talk about?
The entire directly elected president thing is a crock regardless. Introducing instant-runoff won’t really change anything- it will still be the same two-party system. There is still political competition on competence, however. Why do you think folks like Mondale and Quayle are so “fondly” remembered, and got hammered so badly?
September 6th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
“Mike G: Its not in the interests of the incumbents, it won’t happen unless they do it, so whats to talk about? ”
To some extent you could say the same about anarchism (and I believe you to be an anarchist who talks about anarchism). I know tactical voting is working with the current system, so I concede I am a bit off topic, but it really amazes me because I consider that by any practical democratic measure instant run-off is better than what the US has.
“it will still be the same two-party system. ”
That is an incredibly defeatist and unfounded prediction. It will improve the two-party situation, to what degree I cannot say for sure. If the other elections were reformed similarly it would not be inconceivable that one or both of the two parties get replaced with time (probably fading after finishing 3rd in an important election).
“The entire directly elected president thing is a crock regardless”
Arguable.
September 6th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Mike: I am not an anarchist, I’m this sites other supposed target market. I just am happy to engage with them. I would expect the media to (probably rightly, inasmuch as they are reporting what is happening) give about the same attention to both. I agree IRV is “better”, just not much.
Well, I am arguing it. Single Transferable Vote or Additional Members System and actually representing diverse views, not just allowing some throwaway votes. Allowing any one group to hold such a powerful position for 4 years is not democracy in action. IRV actually doesn’t make 3rd parties that much more likely to replace one of the two, and still creates a structure based on two sides- it is better to represent the real diversity of views.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
B-psycho - it’s unlikely the utter collapse of the system would be uneventful. We are too many and various a population to have NO agreed upon framework for co-existing.
TGGP - as I said before, I’m a realist, not a theorist. To acknowledge that a discussion has reached a point where both parties have intractable views, doesn’t preclude further conversation. As a pragmatic matter, it’s more productive to move on and seek other avenues of consensus and wait to see if time and events will temper now fixed positions down the line. For the record, I do adore Monsieur IOZ as well.
tinter - If I could be any more unhappy with the party or American democracy right now, I don’t want to know how. I’m finding the current state of the union very alarming.
Roderick - I wasn’t aware of the site. Thanks for the link. I also agree that referendum voting is more effective but I don’t think it’s the whole solution. The politicians still control the process. If it gets too effective, they can change the rules. Hence the need to be sure the right politicians are in office.
Mike G - I am a big proponent of IRV and I’ve been begging people to get moving on voter reform since 04 online. Voting reformers don’t get any more attention than drug policy reformers or libertarians do. I’d agree that it would improve the system. Not so much on the presidential level, unless third parties start drawing more of the vote, but certainly downticket all the way to local. It would have a huge impact from the bottom up.
However, as you point out, the psychological value on the presidential level could increase the third party draw. It would allow both a principled and a practical vote. The duopoly depends on the fear of the worst man winning. IRV would allow you to vote for the best man first.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
tinter: This argument is quite a big one, and I do not entirely disagree. So change to IRV and then fight it out for a change to hybrid PR, agreed?
September 6th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
Nope, but of course I’m not from the US so…
In the UK, this issue has had actual political significance. IRV has been discussed by those in power and the general view is amongst those of us who want to win PR is that accepting it would just destroy all momentum for PR for a long time to come. Once you’ve agreed to constitutional change, people are not sympathetic if you then tell them this new system is rubbish and you actually want whats behind door number 3… Though YMMV with your federalism.
Any kind of electoral reform is a huge deal. Its not something you do in gradualist steps. Pick a system and campaign for that system. Although admitedly if I was in the US I would mostly work on other things since I think, sadly, its hopeless for you. The amendments to circumvent the electoral college is a somewhat better place to start.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
“I am a big proponent of IRV…”
Yeah, sorry if I am boring everyone. Actually I am not sure to what degree everyone knows and accepts the situation. Perhaps articles on tactical voting should start with the qualifier “given the impracticality of reforming the voting system … “.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
“Nope, but of course I’m not from the US so… [I am from the] UK”
Snap, me too. There goes some of my anonymity.
September 6th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Ha, well, you should be able to guess my party as well then.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:44 am
I’ve been stopping in here and reading all the comments and I think there are quite a few thoughtful, intelligent fellow Americans here who are practicing the principles that made this country great. However, I would like to add an aspect here I haven’t seen addressed. I think most of us, especially those of us who lived through the 60s, 70s, etc, can remember the feeling of empowerment when we took it to the streets enmass. But reflecting back on those sometimes heady times, it’s easy to forget the harder lessons; like change doesn’t come easy and it doesn’t come all at once in a neat package.
The freedom of the 60s has slowly eroded into the ultra conservative, constricting, fanatically religious, big brother society we are saddled with today. As long as most felt they were prosperous, they were willing to accept the status quo. But our country has been turned upside down and I feel change in the air. Can we put a perfect candidate in the White House in Nov whose plans and ideals dovetail neatly and completely with ours? Probably not; but what we can do is put a wedge in the door by placing the least offensive person in there and, if he can make some headway into important issues like the economy and restoring constitutional rights to pre-Patriot Act days while trying to afford some peace and stability in world affairs, then perhaps four years from now we will see another president that can take it even further. So please consider making your vote count even if the candidate isn’t ideal if for no other reason than to buy some time.
September 7th, 2008 at 2:52 am
I have no quarrel with non-voters, but the achievement of a free society will depend on convincing people that public goods can be provided without coercion: even though I know my vote won’t decide any election, I vote as evidence that the social norms on which an anarchist society will depend are strong, and that we don’t have to fear that the mass of people will base all their actions on narrow interpretations of self-interest. The fact that so many people continue to vote when it makes no difference is, in fact, a strong argument for the viability of a free society and the amount of cooperation and consensus that can be achieved without having to rely on either force or personal economic incentives. I realize that “I vote because it is a waste of time” sounds absurd, but there is a useful point in there somewhere: a certain amount of ideological altruism (h/t Jeffrey Rogers Hummel) is essential to the future of liberty.
I always vote for the candidate I consider to be the most libertarian, which in the past always meant the Libertarian Party nominee, even the most flawed. But this year, I’m not so sure. If Barr devotes his limited airtime to non-intervention, repeal of the Barr amendment(!) that kept medical marijuana from being legalized in DC, and repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act’s provisions that allow the continued exclusion of gay immigrant partners, estate taxation of gay couples upon the death of one, and other abominations, that will be enough to secure my vote. Some of the support he received within the LP was based on the belief that he would be doing so, and offering a stronger testimony for such views because of his past opposition. At this point, he has not done so, and probably won’t, but there are still two months.
If he doesn’t change his tune, then I think the future usefulness of the LP to the broader movement depends on Barr’s campaign being viewed internally as a flop, so that the still-strong radical wing, evidenced by the 45% market anarchist Ruwart got in the LP nominating convention (if just 40 more anarchists had shown up … sigh), has a chance to strongly influence policy after November. In particular, Ruwart is the strongest LP voice for a dialogue with progressives (I see our main disagreement with sincere liberals being our differing views on the consequences of state action and whether the state is or can ever be a friend to the powerless).
So, barring Barr raising the bar in his campaign, I am most tempted to hold my nose and vote for the Green candidate, Cynthia McKinney, on the basis of her outspoken opposition to military intervention, since War is the Health of the State. I’d also consider writing in Ruwart, except that California doesn’t count write-in votes unless the candidates submits a slate of electors, which Ruwart isn’t doing. Still, I haven’t ruled out Barr.
I agree with Roderick that every blog post in defense of liberty does more good than a hundred votes: the people who read blogs are far more intelligent and socially aware than the average person, and less beholden to government institutions: that represents the most reachable part of the public, and probably many of the most influential when there is a critical mass to move onto later steps. It will take much less than a majority to build alternative institutions and ignore the government in large enough numbers to weaken the state: look at the inability of the government to keep out 12 million illegal aliens because a large enough minority of the population refuses to accept the xenophobia of the majority.
September 7th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Rocky! Thanks so much for coming over and weighing in.
Les said: I agree with Roderick that every blog post in defense of liberty does more good than a hundred votes: the people who read blogs are far more intelligent and socially aware than the average person, and less beholden to government institutions: that represents the most reachable part of the public, and probably many of the most influential when there is a critical mass to move onto later steps.
I’m afraid I still don’t get this logic. The average person is the audience that needs to be swayed. Everything else is just preaching to the choir. It seems to me if that if swaying the intelligent high-info demo was going to work, the libertarians would have had much more success in changing the dynamic by now. Arguments alone, no matter how intelligent and well reasoned, will not the slay the beast. Just MHO.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
“not just 50 +1 that’s been the pattern recently”
that has been the pattern in 1 of the last 4 presidential campaigns. that is an interesting use of the word “pattern”.
September 7th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Libby, I think we agree that a free society would require that the average person accept the idea, as Roderick likes to express it, that “other people are not your property.” A free society requires social norms of mutual respect: the institutions that arise are derivative of those norms. And when non-aggression becomes the consensus view, any voting should reflect it in majority support for non-coercive methods of achieving social goals.
The question is how useful blogging vs voting is in changing that consensus. I think blogging does much more. I should point out that I also consider running political campaigns to promote libertarian ideas to be valuable, if only to attract people to the movement so that other organizations have a foot in the door to radicalize them: I think the voting part is the least important point of the LP.
Alas, it is not the consensus view of either the average person NOR the average intellectual at present. So I don’t think we are at a point where the intellectuals are in agreement with our views to no avail, but that the intellectuals aren’t in agreement with our views. Blogging is NOT, alas, preaching to the choir. Yet.
Even on your own terms, I think blogging is more valuable than voting. At most, your vote is one vote (assuming, as always, you don’t live in Chicago), but a blog entry to encourage voting might add several votes. Indeed, you would probably increase the number of people voting for your favorite candidate more by blogging in favor of the candidate and then staying home on election day than by keeping your mouth shut and voting on election day.
But I’m beating around the bush: while I will continue to vote, it takes a plurality to change policy that way, while it takes smaller numbers to succeed by, for example, civil disobedience: blacks in the South desegregated restaurants and buses in areas where they were a distinct minority and I mentioned immigration already as a case of civil disobedience defying the views of the majority. Also, creating and supporting alternative institutions (which liberals have done much more than libertarians, to date) can effect change without having majority support amongst the public.
Finally, I see more change than you do: for example, the legal and social treatment of LGBTQPSANI members has advanced enormously over the past few years, anarchist ideas are getting far more attention in the last few years than at any time in the past century, and military non-intervention is starting to gain some respectability as a position (though not fast enough for any of us). So I don’t see what has happened to date as a failure. Of course, I could be wrong.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Less and Libby,
What evidence from history do you have that a libertarian majority can ever be possible? How many countries have made a transition to democracy and subsequently became more libertarian? Britain, the U.S., Germany, Austria, France, Canada, Australia, China, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Hong Kong - these countries all either developed their market oriented legal systems and relative freedom of speech as authoritarian states, or they inherited their system from a colonial ruler.
I can think of numerous examples of democracies ( or failed attempts at democracy) moving in a less libertarian direction. Compare Britain 1884 ( the year of the Reform Act granting universal male suffrage ) to Britain 1950. Germany 1871 to Germany 1935. Russia under monarchy to Russia under the populist Bolshevik revolutionary government. Or Argentina in the first half of the 20th century to Argentina in the second half the century. France under any of the monarchies to France under any of the succeeding republics. India under the Raj to India post-Raj. Zimbabwe pre-universal suffrage, to Zimbabwe after universal suffrage. The democratic Massachusetts Bay colony to the crown colony of Pennsylvania. The U.S. under King George to the U.S. under George Washington to the U.S. today.
The only counter examples I can think of are the former Soviet republics. However, that is not really fair, since 1) it would be impossible to be more anti-property than the Soviet system and 2) the Soviet system arose as a result of a populist revolution. Ireland might be another example, though I haven’t studied its history enough.
I recommend the book “The World of Yesterday” by Stefan Zweig. He lived through the transition of Austria from monarchy to democracy around 1900. Zweig pines for the days of monarchy, when taxes were a mere 2%, inflation non existent, there was freedom of speech, you did not need a passport to travel between countries, and warmongering politicians were far fewer in number. People need to learn that the ability to put a piece of paper in a box once every four years is totally unrelated to personal freedom.
September 8th, 2008 at 6:48 am
Les - I think we all agree that blogging is more effective in swaying opinion and good point about civil disobedience and civil rights. That was a huge factor in changing public opinion, more so than voting alone could ever be, but in the end, a big part of its influence was that it increased that community’s voting participation. The changes had to codified into law to have any practical effect on the situation and that was effected by electing representatives that made laws to enforce the changes. Civil disobedience alone didn’t desegregate schools and buses or create affirmative action programs that allowed that demo to rise socially and economically.
In the present day, we’re seeing a roll back on affirmative action, because another minority demo elected legislative representatives, who stacked the bureaucracy with members willing to enforce their views and loaded the judicial system with like-minded jurists who validated them by altering the standing law. The fundies and the neocons are certainly a minority and they’ve been frighteningly effective, especially in the last eight years, mainly because they gained power by co-opting the levers of government. They charged up their ranks using rhetoric, but it was their GOTV that allowed them to change the system to reflect their preferences.
My point is that using every tool available is the most pragmatic method to effect change and under our present system, voting is a necessary tool. Moving others to vote by blogging or whatever persuasive method is fine, but if one doesn’t also vote as well, it just weakens the overall effect as far as I can see. As the old saw goes, there’s strength in numbers.
Devin - I’m the liberal here. I don’t have enough knowledge about the libertarian movement to speak to your point. From my perspective, the progressive liberal community is gaining in influence because we taken this two-pronged approach. We’re electing progressives. Not enough to change the system yet, but as I’ve said before, I don’t believe you can accomplish your goals in a few electoral cycles. It’s a long term project.
I would add however, if you look at what’s happening in the Latin Americas, civil disobedience by the powerless gave voice to the desire for change, but again electing legislative representatives is causing the actual change to occur.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:31 am
Devin,
A reasonable challenge. I think the evidence is overwhelming that Viking Iceland had a solid libertarian majority for around 300 years, and that Celtic Ireland had one for more than a thousand years:
http://libertariannation.org/b/history.htm#ice
Consistent with your thesis, though, neither of those societies used democratic means to arise: they were private property anarchist societies from the start. But they DID depend on majority support in order to function effectively: I see no success for libertarianism absent a social norm that respects self-ownership. As I indicated in my first post in this thread, my reason for voting is not a confusion of democracy with liberty, but a belief that we should use social norms as part of our strategy to persuade others.
That said: I do think there are clear cases of democracy being used to increase liberty: the British abolitionist movement used it to end slavery, the Jacksonian movement was a grass roots democratic movement that substantially increased American liberty in the early 19th century, Costa Rica, Ireland, and New Zealand have all used their democratic processes recently to successfully and substantially expand liberty and, as you noted, several former Soviet Republics democratized before marketizing (Estonia, in particular, is an extraordinarily inspiring example).
At the same time, it is absolutely the case that liberty can expand in the absence of democracy, and by no means do I think voting is the most important element of the movement: as I noted earlier, I think voting is the least important point of the Libertarian Party.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
the Jacksonian movement was a grass roots democratic movement that substantially increased American liberty in the early 19th century
By empowering a genocide-minded executive who demonstrated that he was above the law because his party controlled Congress? I think this one was slightly less of an incontrovertible win than British abolitionism.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
mds:
In that part of my message, I was referring to various democratic movements that resulted in society moving strongly in the direction of liberty: not one of them was a free society as a result of the movement, but I think it IS uncontroversial that all of those examples involved societies that moved strongly in the direction of liberty. Just as Devin wasn’t arguing that monarchy was liberty, only making a comparison with democracy, I was describing democratic political movements whose overall effect was libertarian in direction.
I wish the movement of that time period had a different title, since the Jacksonian movement is normally intended to refer to the entire period of political change that started with the popular election of presidents and led to the abolition of the central bank and a massive overall decline in the size and spending of the national government during the 1829 to 1840 period. Compared to the administrations of the first 6 presidents? Yes, I think we can say that the Jackson/Van Buren years were clearly a period of expanding liberty. Maybe not for Congress, but they aren’t high on my list of state victims.
Until we get to Grover Cleveland, every president has a body count with respect to Native Americans (I think Van Buren was the only one without a formal war, but the forced relocation of the Cherokees and the deaths from disease during that relocation occurred under him). The lives of slaves didn’t improve, either (although the sense of popular empowerment from that period may not be unrelated to those years seeing the founding of the Liberator and the start of the “immediate emancipation” movement). and the rights of women made no great advances during the Jacksonian period (though, once again, this was the period when the Grimke sisters broke the barrier against women speaking to groups of men, and women’s rights were among the topics they addressed, though an effective movement for change was still far off).
I do try to avoid the “liberty’s never been tried” argument, so I am willing to discuss and defend relative improvements. And I think we need American examples: Iceland is certainly a strong case for anarchism being workable, but people are so unfamiliar with it that the discussion often leaves people cold (sorry).
By the way, Wilberforce in Britain wasn’t quite as likeable as the character in Amazing Grace, and advocated some pretty unfree things, especially during the period of war with France. Still, the movement coincided with much good. I probably should have added the free trade movement under Cobden & Bright as a case of democratic methods leading to enormous expansion of liberty.
I do believe that, when anarchism comes to America, credit will be due to a combination of political, non-political, and anti-political activism.
September 9th, 2008 at 12:19 am
massive overall decline in the size and spending of the national government during the 1829 to 1840 period
Do you have stats/data on how much spending declined? The end of the second national bank was definitely a good thing, but I was unaware of the extent that spending decreased.
Overall though, I’m not the Jacksonian democracy was a victory for liberty. First, was the invention the spoils system. Second, and much more important, was the intense political polarization that led directly to the Civil War. In the late 1700’s, many southern whites talked openly about the evil of slavery and the need for gradual abolition. But by 1850, it was taboo in the South to speak any pro-abolition sentiment. I believe this to be the result of the well known phenomenon of democratic polarization. The natural state of a democracy is to have parties, and in order to achieve victory, a political faction demands solidarity from their members. Thus any Southerner who might wish to publicly support abolition was accused of supporting the violent, John Brown-style insurrections. One northern liberal noted in 1854 after a visit to the south: “The south was just on the eve of abolishing slavery, the abolitionists arose, and put it back within its innermost entrenchments” source.
In all, though, the counter-examples you cite are pretty weak compared to the original examples I provided. Even when there has been slight democratic-libertarian reaction ( the repeal of the corn laws, the repeal of the second bank) the overall direction of democratic societies has been extremely anti-libertarian. In every country, everywhere from Austria to Zimbabwe, from Britain to South Africa, more democracy has meant less libertarianism.
In my mind the main culprit is not so much public opinion ( people believe what they are told to believe - in most monarchies the king is very popular ) but the peculiar structure of modern electoral democracy. The idea that a mere 50% of the vote of 300 people in former swamp a thousand miles away can determine what food I’m allowed to put in my stomach is preposterous. The entire idea that anyone should be making law seems pretty awful to me.
Other fundamental flaws include: 1) elections are marketing for the state, and just as Budweiser tries to convince you it is the source of all fun, the politicians try and convince you that they are the source of all freedom, health, education, economic development, etc etc. 2) the immense power and revenue capacity of a state creates an incentive for organizations to indoctrinate the public into supporting anti-libertarian policies. Libertarians cannot counter-act this because libtertarians have no organization. They have no organization because being principled, they have no ways of distributing electoral winnings back to supporters. 3) Most people have no clue how the free market actually works, and how wealth is created. I was a big government progressive throughout my college days, until I started working at a startup. The number of Americans who work in the bureaucracy or regulated fields quite out number those who are producing the wealth of the country in small businesses 4) Elections are innately corrupt. People contribute time or money to candidates in order to get something in return. See Nick Szabo on this issue. 5) Because the power of a vote is so infintesimally small, people do not vote based on self-interest, but based on how the vote makes them feel ( and about it socially). Thus while somebody might not give $1,000 in charity to an unemployed person without serious oversight, they will vote to give $1,000 in tax dollars away, because their vote does not make a difference, but it makes them feel good that they support the poor. 6) The Iron Rule of Oligarchy states that government will always be an oligarchy. If there is a permanent, oligarchic government, it will always want to increase its size.
In total, I think the only hope of a libertarian government would be to eliminate elections, eliminate congress, and eliminate the presidency. Only keep the courts, the military, and small civil service. For overall oversight, make use of juries and hybrid election-lotteries to select temporary board of directors. If that doesn’t work, then maybe we’d be better off with a king
September 9th, 2008 at 4:58 am
Devin, I’m not sure I can find online materials in a short time about the level of federal spending during the 1830s, since most of the historical charts online don’t provide detail prior to the twentieth century. I do enjoy the second chart on this page:
http://www.die.net/musings/national_debt/
to call attention to how unusual that period was in the history of the national government’s budget. Your challenge will send me googling so that I have a link at my fingertips next time (anyone who knows of one is asked to post it).
I don’t think we’re arguing about the same thing. You’re pointing out that increased democracy doesn’t equate to increased liberty, and I agree with that viewpoint. I am arguing that the democratic process, where it exists, can be a vehicle for libertarian change when used to achieve libertarian goals (such as establishing free trade and abolishing slavery), and I think I’ve offered some decent examples. It can also be used to promote coercive goals, and usually has been.
I have no disagreement with your points about why elections are held, but those who believe elections validate government power also believe that the right to vote is sufficient justification, whether or not people exercise the franchise. In most local elections, turnout is less than 10%. These governments haven’t withered away from the lack of participation: if anything, they are MORE corrupt and beholden to special interests, since it is easier to buy elections when so few vote.
One of your arguments (on the good feelings vote for charity) suggests that you have read Bryan Caplan’s The Myth of the Rational Voter or similar arguments, and it worth noting that his thesis is that government is, in fact, giving voters what they want. The problem is what they want. This suggests that educating these people is useful, and since they are voters, one of the best ways to get their attention is during election campaigns. I think BURY THE CHAINS is a great book that discusses the manner in which British abolitionists used all of the tools at their disposal, including politics (as ONE part of the strategy), to abolish slavery.
The main problem is that few have advocated total liberty (you might have been half-joking, but even you thought we needed to keep the courts, military, and a small civil service). Where the social norm has been complete self-ownership (returning to Viking Iceland and Celtic Ireland), there were no judicial or executive institutions. And these societies really existed, and looked good in comparison to the other societies at those times, with no kings, and lasted for many, many centuries.
In today’s environment of greater prosperity and communication, the workability of a society based on social norms and using the enforcement power of credit ratings, ostracism, and boycott to full effect, is more than a pipe dream: it is a serious possibility when the current warfare-welfare state crumbles over the next couple of decades, if enough people are persuaded.
Devin, what strategies do you advocate? Other than blogging, of course.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Less -
My point is that electoral democracy has anti-libertarian biases built into it. Thus libertarians should not focus on getting individual measures passed by a legislature, but should focus on changing the very algorithm by which decisions are made.
I believe that some form of anarchism might be desirable. My trouble with anarchism, though, is it seems like it would be an unstable military equilibrium. Things may have been great in anarchic Ireland, but they were invaded and conquered. Then things were not so great.
The one good thing about the current American empire is that we’ve seems to have reached a stable military equilibrium. Despite the Iraq war, the past couple decades have been far, far less violent than the first half of the twentieth century. It’s even been less violent than the Concert of Europe period. Stable military equilibrium are hard to find in history, so it seems like a good thing to try and preserve if we can. I’d worry that an abdication to total anarchism would only seduce a new power to try and grow and establish itself as hegemon.
My final criticism of “anarchism” is that I don’t know what it means. All systems of government have some number of competing authorities that resolve conflicts. For instance in the U.S., we have the F.B.I, state police, local police and mall police. Where is the line where a “protection agency” turns into a government? Is a college that has its own police, judicial system, power plant, housing, retail, etc, a government? Would it be allowed in an anarchic system? What if the college had 50,000 people? Or 500,000? When does it become a government? Nick Szabo writes an excellent post on this topic.
My ideal system would be to divide the United States into something like 1,000 city-states, each with full jurisdiction over its own territory. These city-states might be a variety of governments - republics, monarchies, neocamerlist, aristocracies, anarchist, etc. It would be interesting to see which ones worked out the best. There would then be a continental court to resolve disputes between city-states. There would also be a continental defense force to defend the continent and ensure the seas were free of pirates.
As for strategies that might bring this about, there are two main things that need to be done.
First, is creating competing information systems. The K through College education system indoctrinates everyone into believing that the post-New Deal state is the best of all worlds, that FDR was the greatest president and Harding the worst, that Federal Reserve is needed to make capitalism work, etc. etc. What is needed is an online source of information that is more reliable than the universities ( and by extension, more reliable than wikipedia, which is too reliant on official information sources). It needs to line up the best arguments from each side, so that an uniformed reader can quickly see the best arguments from each side, and get a lot close to the truth. A college student listening to his professor lecture in class could browse the debate online, and see every point his professor makes thoroughly rebutted. Some others and I are actually working on this, you can read the blog post that sparked it here, and join the google group here. ( I highly recommend reading Unqualified Reservations, I’m cribbing a lot of his think, see for instance his post on the impossibility of anarchist libertarianism.
The second thing this is needed is an organization. This will come much later on. All power flows through organizations. The organization must have a clear goal that focuses on one particular algorithm change, such as: a) creating an amendment allowing secession b) dissolving the United States c) allowing the creation of autonomous “freedom zones” within the U.S. d) abolishing congress, etc. Then the organization must build members. Common tactics include running web sites, creating books clubs and meetups, holding dinners, creating email lists, lectures, etc.. Finally when the membership is large enough and fervent enough the lobbying for the Constitutional amendment begins. You’d probably only need a critical mass of 5-10% of voters who would be fervent enough to be single issue voters on the amendment. You don’t need anywhere near a majority. The loud minority always beats the silent majority. If you have 10% of the voters who are single issue voters on an issue, for each representative, that’s a 20-point swing in the next election. That’s often the margin between defeat and victory. Thus the rational representative will vote for the amendment.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:45 am
Your response is very interesting. Time constraints prevent me from continuing our discussion at the present time, but I do look forward to pursuing some of these matters in future discussions.