Anarchist Axioms Against Electioneering

Anarchist Axioms Against Electioneering

Download a PDF version of this article.

---

By: Matt K. [social title=”” subtitle=”” link=”endtheterrorwar.tumblr.com” icon=”fa-tumblr”]

September 29th, 2015

Introduction: QuiteFranklyTV & Article 5 Convention(s)

 

On 9/24/15 I was interviewed by Frankie Val from ZenLiveTV. This experience was educational in understanding where other radio show participants across the country stand.

At the end of the interview, Frank and I had the following exchange, which motivated me to write this article:

Frank: “What do you think about non-partisan movements like the push to use Article 5 to limit terms on all representatives in Congress? Do you think that’s a good step?”

Matt: “I don’t like reformism, but I think it’s an admirable goal. So…good luck guys. That’s the best I can say.”

Frank: “Thank you. And everybody out there who is pushing for that, good luck to you as well.”

After some after show discussion with Shane, we’ve agreed that I will be making future appearances on ZenLiveTV at currently undetermined dates. However, as always, we will keep everyone regularly updated.

The purpose of this article is two-fold: Naming ten axioms about electoral politics that show why they are dangerous, immoral, corrupt, and untrustworthy, and secondly, to address another question Frank had during the interview:

Frank: “I’m totally onboard with you guys on the concept of voluntaryism, with free markets, with government non-interventionalism in people’s lives. I’m completely down with it, BUT, how does it get to that point? How in your mind, do you see a society, a country like the United States, go from the Federalist system, which has completely gone astray for political reasons. It’s been led astray by a political juggernaut. How do we get from where we are right now to a society that has no representation, it’s just people living on their own, and living in a place where they’re dictating the courses of their lives based on non-aggression principles and what not? How we even consider making that transition?”

Matt: “Well, I don’t blame you for having that question. It’s very difficult. I think the best thing I can say is, because this is also a difficult thing that the Minarchists have to deal with. You know, the Constitutionalists, right? What those guys have to tackle with, you know, on the other side of the spectrum is you know. How can you say that ‘government needs to be abolished to form a new government’ because that’s in the Declaration of Independence, right?”

Frank: “Mmhmm.”

Matt: “You can’t say you want that, but at the same time, you have the Constitution which has the insurrection clause. The contradiction is amazing honestly, because there’s no legal process for abolishment which only leaves you with armed resistance.”

I could’ve elaborated my point a little better, but the answer was within my response. The way to achieve the anarcho-capitalist objectives in a society is NOT to “form a new government” right after the old one has been successfully been abolished. This is where leaderless resistance would prove to be a focal point in achieving liberty for ourselves and others in our lifetimes. Obviously the Federalists were hypocrites when Americans have held strongly onto the belief in the right of revolution, in the Statist mindset, resistance to local governance can never be tolerated. Monkey wrenching, or sabotage, is already listed under the freedom umbrella. Its useful application will gradually have a place in the dismantling of the Federalists coercive violent monopoly. As Frank and I had already (ironically) discussed about the contradictory nature of “Anarcho-Communism”/Syndicalists, wanting to implement a State after proclaiming to desire a Stateless society is hypocritical! That’s not what the freedom umbrella is here for. We strive for consistency here at Liberty Under Attack, and we are open to correcting previously erroneously made statements or claims and adjust accordingly to fit the objective of having as much integrity as possible.

To quote SEK3:

“The basic principle which leads a libertarian from statism to his free society is the same which the founders of libertarianism used to discover the theory itself. That principle is consistency. Thus, the consistent application of the theory of libertarianism to every action the individual libertarian takes creates the libertarian society. Many thinkers have expressed the need for consistency between means and ends and not all were libertarians. Ironically, many statists have claimed inconsistency between laudable ends and contemptible means; yet when their true ends of greater power and oppression were understood, their means are found to be quite consistent. It is part of the statist mystique to confuse the necessity of ends-means consistency; it is thus the most crucial activity of the libertarian theorist to expose inconsistencies.”

I don’t trust the U.S. Constitution, or the Federalists who coercively saw fit to impose it upon early America, so no amount of ‘Constitutional conventions’ is going to be seen as a Biblical “pillar of fire” to guide the American people to promised salvation by me. I wouldn’t be an anarchist to believe otherwise, if anything, I’d be a hypocrite. While Frank and I may part ways in methodology and even ideological adherence, the purpose of this documentation isn’t to play “who can better toss insults at each other.” He was a decent host, and to err is human. I wasn’t expecting absolute perfection, although it was a fun bit of dialogue. I wish “good luck” to the article V reformists, because they are doomed to failure, that and it’s the kindest gesture I could verbally offer. Kyle Rearden has demonstrated the ineffective nature of Christopher Cantwell’s attempt to lobby for an Article V convention, which reached Committee Deliberation according to the New Hampshire Almanac’s page “How a Bill becomes Law.” Generally speaking, as you can read in Kyle’s article, the “anarcho-lobbyist” season one has been a classic reformist failure with very low probability of success in Cantwell’s failure in appealing to the New Hampshire legislative body of local governance.

I think it would do justice for Frank and company to read Kyle’s analysis regarding his exchange with Cantwell regarding his wasteful voyages to Concord:

Kyle Rearden: “I was curious about your Anarcho-Lobbyist series. When you started it, and the subsequent videos that have rounded it out, were you attempting to influence legislators, or were you more just trying to kind of empirically demonstrate that grassroots lobbying does not work?”

Chris Cantwell: “Well, I suppose there’s a couple of angles here, right? I take a certain amount of pleasure in going there and ranting before the legislature, some people seem to take an interest in it, I get to comment on policy, and whatnot. I do believe that some of these people have taken a great deal of interest in what I’ve said. I have yet to see if it actually tends to influence policy. I’d like it to influence policy, whenever I go in there and I say, “Hey, I shouldn’t have to have a permit to carry a gun.” I really do, I sincerely hope, that these guys say, “Hey, he’s right, and we’ll repeal that,” and I hope that that happens, but if it turns out that these bills are getting defeated and that sort of thing, then we can see that it does not work. So, I’m going in there and doing it, and waiting to see what happens, more or less.”

Think for a moment about the implications about what he just admitted. Cantwell, more or less, wants to have his cake and eat it too, quite possibly. On the one hand, he wants to “influence policy,” which is reformism (that is, “working within the system in order to change it from within”), yet on the other hand, he appears comfortable in, say, taking one for the team, by demonstrating on video that grassroots lobbying these politicians does not work if the goal is to secure individual liberty. Although I can certainly appreciate his wait-and-see attitude, I find this to be an expression of wishful thinking, in that he seems to me to be presuming that if he is (marginally) successful in influencing legislators to shrink the power of government, then grassroots lobbying would not only become a technique worth doing, but also one worth being emulated by other libertarians outside of New Hampshire.

As we can see, the power to “influence policy” is a statistical joke. Had Cantwell sought out means of direct action, even before the freedom umbrella was publicly available to read here at LUA, he could’ve achieved some semblance of victory that couldn’t be found in the lobbying experiment. Obviously, attempts to change the system from within are at best a horrible joke and at worst a consistent embarrassment for those devoted to achieving liberty in the absence of government bureaucracy to determine what should be “allowed” to occur within the jurisdiction of their respectful judicial monopoly racketeering on average Americans across the continent.

The segment with Frank was only 30 minutes, so in another respect, this article is to answer the questions mentioned above that he asked in further detail. The following will be a mix of personal opinions and cited evidence that reinforces my views as a nonvoter. Although, I must say, I’m puzzled how welcoming Frank was to have me on ZenLive, since we’ve already had a debate regarding the differences between voters and nonvoters in the States between Nov 5-8, 2014. If anything I’ve posted on my blog in the year since has led him to a different approach, obviously more respectable in my humble opinion, then I welcome this peculiar change of heart on his behalf and hope to continue further collaboration between ZenLive & LUA-ETTW in future. I’ve a lot of information on my hands, but I’m not short of providing the necessary transparency to readers. Finally, before moving on, Frank mentioned West Virginia as a Union State. I’m not going to assert that he was wrong in making that assessment, I would just like to point him to an article in my Statist Holidays series: “What West Virginia Day Means to an Anarchist.”

An axiom is defined as:

“n. A self-evident truth that requires no proof.“

For the purposes of the 10 axioms below, the proof is optionally provided, even though by definition it’s not a prerequisite by its nature of being self-evidentiary.

 

10 ANARCHIC AXIOMS AGAINST ELECTIONEERING:

1. Nonconsensual governance, the danger of the “Constitution” social contract.

The Constitution is a deceptive document, instituting a hierarchy of violence upon the heads of the American populous. Every “authority” named within the document endorses a violently coercively monopoly, known as government, towards those that acquiesce to its claimed representative authenticity and worse, those who DON’T wish to be ruled under the authoritarian apparatus at all.

Among the “authorities” listed within the Constitution of 1787 are the following:

• Preamble – “We The People“, Union;
• Article 1, Sec. 1 – Congress (a. Senate, b. House of Representatives);
• Article 1, Sec. 2 – Electors, Representatives, Speaker of House of Representatives;
• Article 1, Sec. 3 – State Senators, President of the Senate/Vice President of U.S., President pro tempore, Chief Justice;
• Article 1, Sec. 4 – State Legislatures, Congress;
• Article 1, Sec. 5 – Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of each Congress;
• Article 1, Sec. 7 – Congress, Senate, President;
• Article 1, Sec. 8 – Congress, Post Offices, Supreme Court, the Militia (a. State Militias);
• Article 1, Sec. 10 – States, Congress;
• Article 2, Sec. 1 – President, Vice-President;
• Article 2, Sec. 2 – Commander in Chief of Army, Navy, and Militia of States, Senate, Ambassadors, Supreme Court judges, Congress;
• Article 2, Sec. 4 – President, Vice President;
• Article 3, Sec. 1 – Supreme Court, Congress;
• Article 4, Sec. 1 – States;
• Article 4, Sec. 2 – Citizens of States;
• Article 4, Sec. 3 – New States, Congress;
• Article 4, Sec. 4 – States guaranteed “Republican Form of Government” (21);
• Article 5 – Congress, State Legislatures, Senate;
• Article 6 – State judges, State Legislatures, Senators, Congress;
• Article 7 – States;

Signatories: George Washington, George Read, Gunning Bedford, Jr., John Dickinson, Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom, James McHenry, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll, John Blair, James Madison, Jr., William Blount, Richard Dobbs Spaight, Hugh Williamson, John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, Pierce Butler, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Nathaniel Gorham, Rufus King, William Samuel Johnson, Roger Sherman, Alexander Hamilton, William Livingston, David Brearley, William Paterson, Jonathan Dayton, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, Thomas FitzSimons, Jared Ingersoll, James Wilson, Governor Morris, William Jackson.

As I’ve already revealed in Part 1 of the Federalist Paper series, Alexander Hamilton, right on the outset admits that the role of the Papers is to assume governments must be obligatorily formed:

“After an unequivocal experience of the inefficacy of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The statement is coercive in nature, it implies that people are OBLIGATED to formulate “new” governments and “new” social contracts (Constitution’s). This is immoral and an infringement upon individual freedom of choice to live without government or a social contract. Hamilton is proposing, to the populace of New York, that government is a MANDATORY institution that every person must subservient themselves to. As a start-off to the Federalist position, Hamilton makes a very unconvincing speech.”

The implication here isn’t that the U.S. government in its earliest years was sufficiently “representative”, wherein today it isn’t. I’d argue, it NEVER has been. Under these conditions, elections are a past time for the easily beguiled. They aren’t a promising indicator that the “restoration of the paper cage” signifies any substantial differences from today’s political climate. As shown by Hamilton’s words, corruption within the Federalist’s system wasn’t an anomaly, just par for the course of the Washington Consensus. The institution of governance is such a pervasive evil, that it might as well be imagined as a trickster monstrosity: It will fall back on the paper cage for convenience, because people love when the paper cage is cited, this reduces accountability. Once the audience has been duped that the monster has used the paper cage to appear “imprisoned”, it will violently and randomly attack any competition to secure its monopolistic game.

There is nothing inherently libertarian to me about believing that the words or “spirit” of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15. Its proof positive that the “right of revolution” had been criminalized by the hypocritical Federalists and their fore bearers of the modern age, and the only process permitted on the Potomac was the illusive phantom of hope: Reformism. The very nature of government leaves any notions of a working social contract to be broken from the very start.

As such, in the words of Lysander Spooner:

“Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

Couldn’t have said so better myself.

To conclude this first axiom, whether elections are “Constitutionally” enacted or not does NOT gauge the morality of participating within the franchise. Governments are coercive monopolies, and voting is compulsively expected out of Americans, and these problems lead us right into the issues faced by the 2nd axiom. (The case against compulsory voting)

 

2. Party politics, how the mob proclaims “We Are the State!”

 

There’s a particular reason I despise political parties: They are the establishment of dictatorial authoritarianism, whether they “succeed” or “fail” in any given election.

I will define my terms, here:

Dictatorial, adj. “expecting unquestioning obedience”

Authoritarianism, adj. “characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against individual freedom”

During elections, The Party is recognized as the authority that expects unquestioning servitude to gain political leverage against other political parties or to intimidate those disinterested in politics into compulsively joining the franchise. A good example of this would be the appalling “vote or die!” campaign, which the Democratic Party saw fit to incorporate into “Vote Obama” merchandising.

While there are disenfranchised voters, I believe it should be recognized that there are also disenfranchised non-voters. They can be driven under two different subcategories:

1. Anti-political nonvoter – An anarchist much like myself, who prefers direct action to its fullest extent, without reformism.
2. Political nonvoter – Someone who will only act as a ‘swing voter‘ or ‘single-issue‘ voter due to their beliefs in politics. In this way, the word ‘political nonvoter’ is a bit of misnomer, because they are inconsistent. They will claim to opt out if the election results aren’t in their favor or that of their political party affiliation, but as soon as the tide changes in the other direction, they are back on the voting bandwagon again.

This provides a whole different outlook to election demographics, because disenfranchised nonvoters are their own strata, under constant pressures from voters and government to join the populistic majority.

A reading of Kyle Rearden’s “Thoughts on the Suffragettes & the “Civil Rights” Movement” should shed some light as to why the political nonvoters must recognize and desist from empowering the State in its balkanization goals. If they wish to see themselves and other Americans prosperous, adhering to the dictatorial authoritarianism of partyarchy is a dangerous waste of time. The answer to those wondering how to live without government, is quite simply, to find our way. The way I’ve chosen, and hope to encourage others in doing, is through the freedom umbrella. Voluntaryism succeeds where coercion belongs in the trash bin of history.

When faced with someone like Naomi Wolf excitedly claims at New Hampshire’s Liberty Forum 2014: “We need the State…we need to become the State”, anyone of us must stand up to them and say “No! A sensible individual will always defy the collectivist Statism that permeates the American psyche. A road back to Classical Liberalism would be a step forward, comparatively speaking, with our modern day American Nightmare, but it threatens to start the cycle all over again due to Lockean adherence, so I’ve personally see no use for it in answering how we transition the American populous under the voluntaryist lifestyle. It cannot be forced, that would violate the non-aggression principle and it cannot feasibly be executed as punitive, statutory exercise. Achieving a state of nature would liberate the aggregate population of The States from ‘societal’ expectations to be compulsory goaded into elections or joining party politics. It’s not much of anything, but that covers the 2nd axiom.

The best way to stop providing legitimacy to any government is to revoke your consent by all measurable ways possible. Among them: cancelling your voter registration.

The 3rd axiom is a reflection on the previous two.

 

3. None “represent” me but myself.

Being an anarchist, it’s elementary principle that guides me in saying: “I don’t wish to impose rulers on you, and certainly don’t want them for myself.” I’m an individualist, propertarian that believes in the subjective theory of value. Because of these personal attributes of self-governance, I don’t rely upon any notions that aspiring political rulers or their willful pawns can ever ‘represent’ me or my interests. Given the subject matter of the axioms presented here, and the introduction above, the subject matter of this article requires to be addressed. In my integral application of my philosophical, anti-political position as a nonvoter it’s absolutely crucial to disown any and all attempts at violent coercion on myself and others.

This process of disownment can take several steps:

• Reject the “authority” of the Constitution of 1787 and all parties therein as a non-signatory outside observer;
• Denounce and opt-out of elections that seek to provide to legitimacy to the political climate you live in;
• Seek out a lifestyle to fulfill the economic means of making money, instead of the political means;
• Refuse to participate in elections and party politics, because they empower the violent monopoly;
• Work within the counter-economy to prove sustainability can exist without The State;
• Voluntarily apply, debate, and document empirical evidence with options available under the freedom umbrella with others as a free market alternative to reformism.

The problems of “representation” lead us right into the 4th axiom.

 

4. The voter registration trap.

U.S. Code provides some very intriguing issues on the issue of voting, penalties ironically imposed for the use of coercion (ironic given that the State and it’s media apparatus encourages national voter turnout so much that it results in such occurrences in the first place, but I digress). I will be citing a few examples below for purely educational purposes, and then make my case as to why I call voter registration a trap within this axiom.

52 U.S. Code §10101 (B)3 states:

“No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with the right of such other person to vote or to vote as he may choose, or of causing such other person to vote for, or not to vote for, any candidate for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, or Member of the House of Representatives, Delegates or Commissioners from the Territories or possessions, at any general, special, or primary election held solely or in part for the purpose of selecting or electing any such candidate.”

52 U.S. Code §10307 (B) repeats:

“No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for voting or attempting to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote, or intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for exercising any powers or duties under section 10302(a), 10305, 10306, or 10308(e) of this title or section 1973d or 1973g of title 42.”

The registration trap is a means used by the State to reinforce State ID, I have firsthand experience in getting the “correct documents” to appease the local DMV’s expectations of having sufficient “identity” & “residency” paperwork present to continue the bureaucratic process. Under WV State law, getting a means of “voter identity” is a qualifier for renewing “State citizenship”. I will not lie, I didn’t particularly enjoying the coercive nature, given that the other options were strictly unavailable. Thankfully, as far as I know, I’m not “lawfully” obligated to vote because of the registration card. Nonetheless, the coercive hoops one is required to jump through to “prove” themselves to the State is astounding in my personal opinion. Adherence is always a reluctant exercise to an anarchist that would rather live in such a manner where such absurdity would be minimized (or much better) nonexistent.

Here is the local law:

“Proof of Residency documents: WV utility bills (not more than 60 days old, cannot be a termination notice, and cannot be two bills issued by the same company); Tax records with a WV street address; WV mortgage documents, WV homeowner insurance documents for a WV residence, or proof of WV home ownership; WV W-2 form that is not more than 18 months old (you may use the same W-2 as your proof of Social Security number); WV Weapons Permit; A valid WV vehicle registration card; WV Voter’s Registration card; Driver’s Eligibility Certificate (required for all applicants who are under the age of 18 that do not present a diploma or other certificate of graduation issued by a secondary high school when applying, can only be used as proof of residency if it has a WV street address); WV Homestead Tax exemption; Proof of WV public assistance; Residential rental or lease agreement; WV DMV Affidavit of West Virginia Residency.”

The other end of the registration trap is the acknowledgement by the federal government that voters are treated as ‘privileged’ individuals (presumably over nonvoters, instituting a State-based hierarchy on elections):

52 U.S. Code §10101 (C)2:

“Whenever any person has engaged or there are reasonable grounds to believe that any person is about to engage in any act or practice which would deprive any other person of any right or PRIVILEGE secured by subsection (a) or (b), the Attorney General may institute for the United States, or in the name of the United States, a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventive relief, including an application for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order.”

A privileged few of voters, who act as guards for the violence monopoly, act quite “undemocratic” against majority populous nonvoters or simply those that describe themselves as disinterested in political affairs altogether.

Undemocratic, in this instance, is defined as: “a situation in which everyone is treated unequally and has unequal rights.”

The voter registration trap runs contrary to the marketplace of ideas, due to the dictatorial authoritarianism of party politics, previously covered by the 2nd axiom.

 

5. A non-voter’s exercise of argumentation ethics and the electoral mugger’s sandwich: “Your freedom ends where my nose begins.”

 

Before I begin the 5th axiom, it’s appropriate that I cite the mixed sources regarding the title and explain from there the purpose of this section.

First, argumentation ethics is the social application of the non-aggression principle wherein we can debate each other until the cows come home, but the moment an opponent seeks to violently and physically impose their views on others, they’ve already lost any semblance of ethical discourse. I would argue, for personal reasons of sensible precaution that implied threats to another individual’s well-being would also disqualify the opposition as lacking a moral compass in adhering to libertarianism. Any appeals to the violence monopoly/extortion racket fall within such a category. (Ex: “You MUST vote for Bernie Sanders!” implies an unknown and possibly violent consequences for failure to vote for the expected candidate of the speaker that is used to coerce the non-voter into participation in elections). While it lacks the physical altercation, I would say it certainly violates the non-aggression principle. Whether the arguing opponent can substantiate their threats of violence with self-incriminating evidence would entirely depend upon them, instead of on the threatened or skeptical party, to prove their accusations are authentic means of arguing instead of bluffing. That’s just my personal bias speaking, I think it’s well within reason of the precautionary principle to be consistently on alert from plausible risks to one’s life, liberty, and property.

Second, the mugger’s sandwich is a reference to Kyle Rearden’s Restoration Trilogy. A recommended read. In this context, the “electoral mugger” is the voter.

Lastly, the quote “your freedom ends where my nose begins” means that one person can do whatever they wish, so long as infringe upon another.

Now that I’ve hopefully clarified the title for the 5th axiom, the purpose herein is to list some fun (possible) violations of argumentation ethics on behalf of voters towards nonvoters. I leave it up to the reader’s discretion on whether or not they agree with my analysis above on argumentation ethics and their application during elections.

Voter’s arguments:

• “You lose any right to criticize when you don’t exercise your right to vote.”
• “If you don’t vote, you don’t get the right to bitch, and if you do decide to bitch, I will be reminding you of how you didn’t vote.”
• “It’s cool, don’t vote. Bet ya’ll bitches won’t have no food stamps.“
• “Get off your ass and vote.” “Thousands of people have dedicated their lives to give you, Tumblr user, a democracy that listens to its people.” “Do your civic duty today; then you are entitled to bitch about politics as much as you please.“
• “If you’re an American citizen of legal voting age and you didn’t step up today, fuck you. No matter who wins or loses, you don’t get to say shit because you didn’t do your part.“
• “12% voter turnout? If you didn’t vote you should be embarrassed for yourself. People die in waters south of us by the thousands for the right to do something that takes you 2 minutes to do. 88% of people in Miami-Dade County chose ‘lazy’ over ‘freedom.’”
• “Every citizen has a responsibility to vote.“
• “Vote or die!“
• “One man, one vote! It’s a sacred duty!” (67)
• “Non-voters: I would pity you if I wasn’t so busy imagining you on fire.“
• “Don’t bitch about the end result if you didn’t vote. :)”
• “Not voting just means you never change anything.“
• “Not voting isn’t an act of rebellion, it’s an act of surrender.“
• “If you didn’t vote and you could have, you have no right complain about the results because you didn’t care enough to actually vote on whatever it is you’re upset about.“
• “#VoteBlue because the Tea Party’s voting, and you don’t want them winning.“
• “When people tell me they’re not voting today: You’re disgusting.“
• “If you did not go out and vote, then you have no right to complain about the results of the 14′ midterm elections.“
• “If you don’t vote then you are doing the greater evil a favor and making it easier for them to take power.”
• “Abstaining from voting is not useful or radical, it’s playing right into the hands of the people who want this country to progress backwards.“
• “Silence implies consent. If people are too stupid and/or lazy to vote, they consent to the choices of those who do vote. ”
• “If we don’t vote, we will only be opening ourselves up to the possibility of a terrible president. If your voice isn’t heard, then we can’t complain when people like Trump end up in office.“
• “To all the people who have decided not to vote: Not voting against Trump, might as well be a vote FOR Trump.“
• “Make your friends vote! Drag them out of their house, and make them vote!“
• “REGISTER TO VOTE. IT’S A PRIVILEGE DENID TO MANY, BE GRATEFUL YOU CAN YOU LITTLE SHITS.“
• “The next time someone says they don’t want to vote because it won’t make a difference, show them this cartoon!“
• “Just because both parties are gross and self-serving and they lie all the time DOESN’T MEAN THEY’RE EQUALLY BAD OR THAT YOU SHOULDN’T VOTE!“
• “Y’all better take your asses to vote. We will not have a psycho leading our nation.“
• “You must want Donald trump to be president.“

Since I’ve already responded to most of these, or have reblogged from responses I agree with, I leave it up to you to determine if these voters are within the parameters of argumentation ethics, while being electoral muggers. As far as I’m concerned, they are so invested in getting votes, that they will bleed as many noses as they please for turnout during elections by serving their dictatorial authoritarian political parties and candidates. And that doesn’t grant them arbitrary special privileges as being better than the average nonvoter. It is mob violence, and it’s disgusting.

It should be noted that I was on my last legs with Constitutionalism while I still used my previous blog St-Confused. I’ve always had anarchist tendencies, it’s only when I came to starting ETTW on Tumblr that I began to fully embrace my identity as an anarchist after growing up witnessing the disturbing trends of elections from 1992 until 2012. I saw how the Washington Consensus allows those within the GOP-Dem monopoly to play “President” every several years, I saw how ineffective third party campaigns and candidates were – especially with regards to the so-called “Ron Paul Revolution.” At one point, I broke off entirely from endorsing party politics altogether because another Ron Paul supporter at the time thought it was somehow within the bounds of securing liberty by adhering to ‘permits to protest’ by local State authorities. (If you’re confused by that, don’t worry, you aren’t alone) Apparently if you lick the jackboot enough times, they’ll “allow” you to demonstrate publicly. I decided to part ways from the Ron Paul campaign supporter on that basis and was already well on my way to my anarchist lifestyle. Lastly, and most consistently, I saw how coercive elections are first-hand and decided against it. Obviously, those coercive means haven’t stopped in the interim years, hence the arguments listed above. At most, I was an online supporter for Ron Paul. I didn’t invest money or personal campaign experience by joining the bandwagon that’s common among all political campaigns. I trust my intuition saved me a lot of trouble for balking the so-called “civic duty to vote.”

You could say I’ve had three stages in my positions on elections over the years, and since I’ve accepted myself as an anarchist, I’ve never felt it was another “phase” to grow out of:

• Independent Constitutionalist – I didn’t want to identify with the GOP or Democrat parties, but I still had some small glimmer of faith in “restoring the Constitution.”
• Statist in denial – I believed reformist action between voters and nonvoters was feasible to set government straight, somehow. It led to dissatisfying results. Voters won’t voluntarily discard their vested interests of reformism with the State.
• Anarchist – I stopped believing in the U.S. Constitution, any and all forms of government, party politics, elections, and attempts to appease voters as allies to “make government right again” as a nonvoter through an alliance between voting and reformist means of direct action. While I still believe in direct action (see: the freedom umbrella), I’ve given up reformism. Then I eventually met Shane, and we began working together in the LUA-ETTW partnership via online radio.

Everything herein the 5th axiom is important to reaching the 7th axiom and reinforcing the anarchist position against elections.

 

6. The Massachusetts Compromise & Constitutional Amendments, why American freedom CANNOT be secured by paper cages.

Much like the 1st axiom, we must historically examine the Founding documents and other relative texts to understand the government we have today and ask ourselves: Has it always been this way, or has it gradually devolved from a previous status of Golden Age moral standing? Being the anarchist I am, my answer to this question is simple: Government has ALWAYS been corrupt, untrustworthy, and violent. It has NEVER worked for the majoritarian interests, and even when it did, it was to give bread crumbs of concedence to shut up the “uppity” folks on the streets of our country. It’s an entity out for its own survival, and if that means turning against the “governed” in the process, it will and has historically on many occasion.

Let us review some definitive points from the previous axioms:

* Government, by its very nature, is a monopoly on violence;

* Government, is also an extortionist racket upon the ‘governed’;

* To reinforce the two previous statements, I shall provide the following quote from SEK3’s An Agorist Primer:

“When most of humanity settled into peaceful farming communities, with perhaps larger marketplaces (remember the original agora of Greece) in towns, some people discovered a means of surviving parasitically from the productivity of others. They formed robber bands and attacked towns and settlements, plundering, raping, and murdering. Probably the original barbarian hordes were hunters who took to hunting man when their game died out rather than taking to farming, trading, or productive manufacture. These roving groups were a small minority (or their victims would have died out and they as well) but large as compared to a single town or village. Somewhere along the way, one of them discovered that they could allow the peasants to live with enough to survive on and come back at the next harvest for another raid. Then these raiders had another idea: they would stay in the same towns, steal lightly but regularly, murder enough to keep the peasants and merchants in line, and live well. Other areas, seeing these petty kingdoms arise, decided to submit themselves to their own home-grown warlords so that they would not fall prey to foreign warriors. (The Book of Samuel in the Old Testament describes the anarchist prophet Samuel trying to convince the Israelites that they didn’t really want a king but finally giving in to them.) Parasites must remain a minority or kill their hosts. So they discovered religion (and later ideology) as a means to intimidate peasants and win the all-important sanction of the victim (an apt phrase of Ayn Rand’s). Brutal thugs became “kings by divine right” and some very powerful statists called Emperors, Pharaohs, or Tsars were said to be divine, the unstoppable choice of gods. And so these barbarian raiders institutionalized plunder (taxation), murder (execution and warfare), and even rape (droit de seigneur, for example). They took control of roads to plunder the caravans (tolls, tariffs), they suppressed all rival criminal gangs with their own (police), and established their own churches, schools, judges, and even philosophers, minstrels, and artists to work in their royal courts. Thus was born the State.”

We should reflect that the Constitution of 1787 was ratified under the conditions of the Massachusetts Compromise by the Anti-Federalists to their Federalist opponents, who “permitted” the Bill of Rights as a small coincidence by the violent monopoly in the works by the Federalist’s to impose upon the country at the time and thenceforth. It’s nothing to wave your Statist flag over in blind celebration of the geographical landmass. As the saying goes: “You can love your country WITHOUT loving your government.” Imperfect as the quote is for an anarchist, at least it gets the point across sufficiently enough. So, under those wonderfully appalling conditions, Americans were “granted” their rights by the Federalists who wanted nothing but unchecked, absolute, no-questions-asked, totalitarian power. Being the aristocratic class that the Federalist’s were, this should come as little surprise. The Federalist’s power-grab set historic precedence for the Fascist-Communist internal coup de grace from within The States themselves. The ancient Leviathan grew into a chimera of four heads in our modern era. The size of the monstrosity (big gov. vs small gov.) matters very little compared to the benefits of starving it to death and making the killing blow.

If you cannot trust the “social contract” of the U.S. government on the Constitution, and it specifically fails on being trustworthy with regards to the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights. The logic course of action is to dismiss the authority of the State altogether, and find its nature with regards to the other Amendments equally questionable.

Let’s see what Howard Zinn has to say about the government sticking to the 1st Amendment:

“Seven years after the First Amendment became part of the Constitution, Congress passed a law very clearly abridging the freedom of speech. This was the Sedition Act of 1798, passed under John Adam’s administration, at a time when Irishmen and Frenchmen in the United States were looked on as dangerous revolutionaries because of the recent French revolution and Irish rebellions. The Sedition Act made it a crime to say or write anything ‘false, scandalous, and malicious’ against the government, Congress, or the President, with the intent to defame them, bring them into disrepute, or excite popular hatreds against them. This act seemed to violate the First Amendment. Yet, it was enforced. Ten Americans were put in prison for utterances against the government, and every member of the Supreme Court in 1798-1800, sitting as an appellate judge, held it Constitutional.” (A People’s History of the United States, page 100)

I don’t trust paper cages like the Bill of Rights or Constitution when it comes to securing liberty, when the law racket is constantly present to prove as violators for the State’s monopoly on violence.

I conclude the 6th axiom with the words of Josie Outlaw:

“If you ask me whether I support the document which ended up creating the most powerful authoritarian empire in the history of the world, no I don’t. If you ask whether I want to try the same thing again while hoping for a drastically different outcome, no I don’t. If you ask me whether I believe that a piece of parchment can defend liberty, no I don’t. If you ask me whether I think any government has ever or will ever truly represent and serve the people it taxes and controls, no I don’t. If you ask me whether I think elections or Constitutions or any political process of any kind can create real peace justice and freedom, no I don’t. Now if you ask me whether I think we have anything to learn from the Founding Fathers, yes I most certainly do. (..) The Founders were right when they explain that all men are created equal and have inherent rights that do not come from government and that outrank anything man-made legislation can ever do. They were right when they spoke about natural law and the unalienable right that every individual has, the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They were right when they advocated disobeying and resisting the arbitrary and unjust commands of a supposed authority. They were right when they said that the people have a duty to cast off any government that becomes a violator of individual rights. They were right to say that human organization should be based upon consent, but they were wrong in thinking that government could be a part of it. They were wrong in their assumption that political power could ever be good, or legitimate, or could ever make society what it should be. Basically they were right about every power that they said government should not have and wrong about every power they said government should have. (..) If there’s anything to be learned from the American experiment, it’s that limited government is a myth. A political authority cannot be kept in check by any document, any political process, any election or any supposed system of checks and balances. If the American experiment proved anything, it’s that once the seed of authoritarian power has been planted, however small and limited it may seem at first, it will find a way to grow and it will become a threat to peace justice and freedom.”

 

7. Enemy of electoral terrorism. 

 

Terrorism is defined as:

“n. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.”

State monopoly on violence is defined as:

“the concept that the State alone has the right to use or authorize the use of physical force. The German sociologist Max Weber defines the State as a ‘human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.'”

A government extortion racket is defined as:

“Government officials may demand bribes to look the other way or extort something of value from citizens or corporations in the form of a kickback. It need not always be money. A lucrative job after leaving office may have been in exchange for protection offered when in office. Payment may also show up indirectly in the form of a campaign contribution.”

As I’ve attempted to show above in the 5th axiom, voters really have an itch for using intimidation and coercion, especially for their political parties or particular candidates in any given election towards nonvoters. It’s been a theory I’ve sat on for the last several years, but if the United States is indeed a warzone, then voters must be considered out-of-uniform proxy forces for the State as they will not revoke their “consent of the governed” by canceling voter registration and they will not seek to live without the intimidation and coercive nature of electoral political participation. Intentional or otherwise, aside from outside appearances, they are no different than any other government agents. The rest of the world has been very vocal about their distrust and hatred about American “Democracy” and how it seeks to impose itself throughout the planet, and given the conditions of elections in The States, I can’t say that I blame them for finding the “tyranny of the majority” unacceptable. It’s more than just a fallacious appeal to everybody else falling off a bridge, it’s downright amoral, unconscionable violence.

Consistency in my anarchistic philosophy permits me to defy terrorism in all its forms: State, non-State, and even electioneering.

 

8. Living life outside the franchise of politics.

It’s a common question people ask, “Whatever would we do without government?” The simple answer is that we decide amongst ourselves how best to self-govern. If people can guide their own lives 300+ days of the year, without going out every day to government buildings to beg the rulers on “how to live”, then election days are literally the exception to the rule. No amount of taxation by government; no amount of playing Russian roulette with political parties and candidates; no amount of grassroots reform will ever satisfy you but it will certainly empower the abusive nature of the State.

 

9. Reformism is a suicide pact, and the State cowers in the face of abolishment.

As I mentioned in the 1st axiom, despite the Declaration of Independence acknowledging the right to abolish government is blatantly contradicted by Article 1, Sec 8, Clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution.

There is no “law-abiding, legal” way that the government can, will, or has ever written in United States Code on how citizens may abolish it peacefully. There are no guidelines to abolishment, by the State, because it thrives on reformism and will not GIVE the ‘governed’ the means to end its violent monopoly. While there are other portions throughout the Constitution to assert how the government is illegitimate, the insurrection clause just happens to be my personal favorite to hate. The conundrum isn’t that people can’t live without the State, it’s that the State doesn’t know what to do with civilly disobedient, unruly, ungovernable, people.

The chimera of Statism is the enemy, and it should most certainly be afraid, but we needn’t fear it.

 

10. Reflecting on 2016 and beyond.

I’ve honestly never cared for elections, but I’ve been a very keen and disturbed observer of the anthropological nature of the voting populous in The States. They are a desperate bunch, and nonvoters work as convenient boogeymen to lay blame and their own irresponsibilities on. I don’t concern myself with candidates, because I don’t seek to impose rulers on anybody else. I don’t care for political parties, because I’m not a collectivist. I’m not naive and childish enough to believe that the government is my servant, when it pretends every miserable day of my life to play slavemaster. It’s a dangerous superstition, backed by adherents who believe that “violence is fun” and thus back the phantom of reformism by ‘securing’ electoral cult events.

 

Conclusion: How to transition Americans under the freedom umbrella from today’s political climate.

 

The best way to transition Americans under the freedom umbrella and away from today’s political environment is to follow Shane’s example in his Adventures in Illinois Law anthology by taking political field trips and learning the nature of the State from the inside. Specifically, learning the ropes from the judicial, legislative, and reformist organizations. Readers are welcome to go on several political field trips as a learning curve if they desire, it doesn’t have to be a one-time experience. The political field trips serve the purpose of being a posterori, a red white and blue experience of LOCAL GOVERNMENT troubles, providing a scope to just how nightmarish State and Federal are in comparison. (Author’s note: If you live in a big city, municipality works the same as local in rural towns). Once you’ve had your fill of political field trips, look at the freedom umbrella of direct action as the alternative to reformism and attempts to ‘change the sytem from within.” Instead of fearing about political candidates, invest in the economic means of a self-sufficient lifestyle, learn to adapt security culture, and live as if The State doesn’t matter. Let’s starve the monstrosity of The State, instead of feeding it unquestioning subservience through political adherence and action.

Once government is successfully abolished, it’s absolutely paramount NOT to seek out the formation of another government in its absence.

Resurrecting a new extortion racket, won’t make the old one any better, they would just be historic mirror reflections of each other.

“We’ve got to be triage people. Can this person be saved? Can this person listen to reason? Can this person see the evidence? If not, you’ve just got to keep moving, because we’ve got a lot of work to do as far as waking people up.” –Stefan Molyneux, Statists Don’t Care About You, LibertyFest West, February 11, 2012.

Voluntaryism is the foundation of the LUA-ETTW partnership. If the triage doesn’t work, I will move on.