As an anarchist with agorist sympathies, I’m no fan of electoral politics. Democratic decision-making is unjust, it brings out the worst in people, and I don’t see much hope for any significant move towards more freedom through existing political structures.
A lot of people who share these views seem to think they imply that libertarians should not be concerned with arguments over government policy. We don’t think there should be a government to have a policy on these things, so why should we sully ourselves by talking about it? I think this is a huge mistake.
One of our most important jobs is to convince the public that government is not the answer to social problems. While there are some arguments which can only be ignored or mocked as the entirely pointless by-product of democratic politics – a major political argument over the past year here in New Zealand has been over how to spell the name of a town, for example – many policy issues offer us a salient forum in which to discuss our ideas.
Convincing a person that government should interfere less in one particular area is a crucial step in convincing them that government should cease to exist completely. I, like many others, first became sympathetic to libertarian ideas by reading Milton Friedman’s arguments on government policy. Often, he didn’t even advocate a complete withdrawal of the state. His arguments on the Negative Income Tax and School Choice, for example, imagined a significant role for the state but stressed the importance of individual freedom by insisting that individuals and families are better at making decisions than the state.
Even self-described anarchists have produced wonderful policy analysis. David Friedman’s work in law and economics and Ed Stringham’s recent brief on alcohol policy spring to mind. Neither Friedman nor Stringham suggest that the state is in any way necessary, but simply take the state as given and ask what it should do in some particular area. As we might expect from anarchists, the answer is generally the libertarian one: that government should do nothing.
Those who favor freedom should avoid involvement in electoral politics: supporting the lesser-of-two-evils candidate inevitably involves compromise and hypocrisy, and sends the message that we’re just another political team trying to enforce our preferences on everyone else. That doesn’t mean we should close our ears to the arguments our statist friends are having. Refusing to engage in such discussions prevents our viewpoint from being heard. It may feel good to stand outside and above politics, but isolation from public debate is counterproductive.
Brad Taylor is a graduate student in Political Science at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. He blogs at 
I hear this. I sat yesterday in committee meetings taking pictures. This was my first time. They argued for an hour about whether or not a woman with handicapped children should still be forced to go to jury duty even if that means they leave their children home alone. Some even thought it’d be too “wordy” to add amendments that would help a woman and others in situations like this. The State is run by imbeciles and it’s hard to believe we’re going to gain freedoms back by kissing these people’s asses.
Spot on in my book Brad. You did it again. Keep up the great work.
This is why I’ve gone to four Tea Parties so far. I find it useful to engage people on their own premises. In some cases, I can show where those premises lead to absurd conclusions. In others, I can get them to look at my premises differently than they otherwise would. In some cases I can show that there are concrete positions, that even if we arrive at the by different routes, we still agree on.
Secession is one such position that I have gotten some positive response on. I believe that to be the 800 lb gorilla in the Tea Party movement. It is a strong undercurrent, but it is an issue few will initiate any open discussion of because they all think that the rest of them will find it too radical.
They are not going to be convinced from one conversation, but I can plant positive memes where there is overlap in values, and plant doubts about the values I find onerous. One thing that must be understood about the Tea Party people is that they are people of principle. I disagree with many of their principles, but they do hold principle above immediate practicality or feel-good positions. That alone is a substantial basis for productive conversation and possible persuasion.
I intend to distribute the Agorist Manifesto at the next Tea Party. I believe that many of them will take it seriously, though not necessarily agree to it in whole. It may, however, catch the attention of what I believe to be a substantial minority that is markedly more radical than the mainstream of the movement.
Agree with them or not, the Tea Party movement is on the verge of transforming the American political landscape. How much concrete benefit that will have is debatable, but engaging them now is a chance to get in on and influence the ideological ground floor of something that has the potential to be highly influential.
Yo! This post is excellent. In an interview I conducted with Northern Irish horror author Wayne Simmons, I stated that I was in fact still active in electoral politics, for the sole reason of helping people get out of politics. That’s not to say that I think people should disengage from debate, especially in open forums held by people involved in political movements.
Soon I will plan on attending a Republican Party County Central Committee Meeting, with a couple of politico friends of mine. This may also be a meet the candidate thing. If the opportunity arises, I will bring up the point that, even in it’s smallest form, government must violate the rights of some to protect the rights of others, and that this cannot be avoided, due to the power of the state originating at the point of a gun. Locally, this is known as “heralding unrighteous dominion.” Hopefully this will plant some seeds in the minds of people that gov’t is evil, and as such, is unnecessary.
Wow, Furb, a “central committee.” How very soviet.
I agree with Kyle, and do my part to attend tea party events and libertarian party events (there being several libertarian parties, imo) to engage people. It seems to me that there is a role for a radical agorist in electoral politics. That role, in my view, is to recruit people who are ready for a more radical approach.
The system of electoral politics and bureau-rats taking stupid choices on behalf of the vast majority isn’t going to disappear overnight. If Rothbard’s button existed, I would be pushing it right now. I would definitely push the button to eliminate tyranny instantly.
But it doesn’t exist, and we all know it. We can no more avoid engaging ourselves in childish discussions over what to name things than we can avoid engaging ourselves in discussions over whether there should be death camps, and which dissidents should be sent to them first. We engage our friends, neighbors, family, and strangers in discussion because it is a peaceful means to advance our cause.
Our cause is freedom, individual sovereignty, free markets, and being left alone. I have utter hostility to all forms of tyranny over the minds of men. No, of course I won’t shut up about it.
Kyle writes:
“Secession is one such position that I have gotten some positive response on. I believe that to be the 800 lb gorilla in the Tea Party movement.”
It seems to me that some tea partiers are riding on the back of that gorilla and don’t even know it. A number of small government conservatives and libertarian minarchists claim to favor secession, yet appear to be oblivious that they are calling for the abolition of the federal government, in essence.
These same people have been telling me for sometime that I am crazy for wanting to abolish the federal government. Suddenly, they have joined me in crazy town. How refreshing that they have seen the light. Let’s have secession for all 50 states, then we can work on secession for counties and cities from their respective states.
Tom,
Yep, if there’s one thing that marks the Tea Parties, it is an almost desperate flailing about for a coherent set of positions. It’s not so much that there are different factions vying for their set of positions (there is some of that), its more that nobody really seems to know what the hell they want to do.
They’re at that awkward stage: they are starting to see the same things most of us have lived with the knowledge of for years, but they haven’t quite crossed over to the new paradigm, and their old premises and beliefs are holding them back.
They’re on a razor’s edge, and could still fall either way. They believe deeply in the Constitution, but are dimly aware that the constitution has either mandated or failed to prevent all that is happening to them. They have faith in the Federalist system, but see the federal government as effectively trying to kill them. They believe in the rule of law, but see that everything being done to them is done by law.
Sarah Palin’s move to jump in front of their bandwagon probably signals them falling back to the federalist side of the razor, but that’s pretty uncertain as well. We’ll see what the fallout is from that after next month. I’d guess it will be a factionalization, with the largest faction becoming Palinized and a minority going on the same as they are now. On the other hand, I suspect Palin is just a little more radical than she’s let on so far, but that’s just a hunch. Her speech will be fascinating to see, if only as theater.
To misquote Claire Wolfe, “America is at that awkward stage. It is obviously too late to fix anything by working within the system and it is still too early …” and too pointless “to just shoot the bastards.” In fact, in 2004, she said it was no longer too early. But it remains counter-productive.
The more you shoot them, the more sympathy they get from the law and order types.
I agree that getting in there and talking about it is a good idea. When you talk about a specific issue or event, especially on a local level, sometimes you can really get other people to think from a totally different perspective. Lately, it seems like I’ve been getting an increase in positive comments about my column from local residents so I’m hoping that at least a few people are really starting to get it.
“On the other hand, I suspect Palin is just a little more radical than she’s let on so far, but that’s just a hunch.”
I don’t know much about Palin or her beliefs, but I’ve heard everything from strict exclusionist Libertarians bashing her as a Neocon to Tea Partyers on the edge loving her. Personally I can’t help but want to like her, so I hope your hunch is correct. Or maybe, like so many people nowadays, the constant questioning leads to them waking up. Either way, I don’t think I can or should throw her out completely…
Nice post Brad. Whenever I debate a particular government policy with others, I always point out the folly of the policy to begin with and advocate government alternatives. People *seem* to be more receptive when you have a drop-in replacement, regardless of whether or not they grasp the underlying anarchist principles.