--- In [email protected], Jon Roland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is an old question, but one that needs to be periodically revisited. > > The Dallas Accord, a compromise between anarchists and minarchists, to > allow both to work together within the Libertarian Party (LP), also > needs to be revisited. > > While I find many if not most anarchists charming people, socially, with > whom I enjoy debating principles, I also find that they really don't > belong in the LP, or any other party, and wonder why they participate. > Their presence in the LP is the main factor that holds it back from > being more successful in elections.
P) I disagree. Many of the party's hardest working activists are anarchists. The idea that the LP would be much more successful without us is an assertion not backed up with evidence. The Constitution and Reform parties aren't doing better than us. >LP candidates would get more votes > without them. While one always wants to maximize the numbers of the > members of a political movement if those members are assets, it is an > illusion that strength is found in adding liabilities. P) You haven't demonstrated that we are liabilities. > I repeatedly ask anarchists, "Why do you support candidates for > governmental positions, and not just 'none of the above' for all > offices?" P) Many reasons. 1. None of the above is not an option in most government elections. 2. In the ones where it is, it is not a binding option in most. 3. Suppose none of the above WERE a binding option in all government elections. For most offices, NOTA winning would not change things. For example, if one or two US Congressional or state legislative districts voted for NOTA, the result of votes in Congress or the legislature would be the same or worse than otherwise. 4. But what about executive positions? If NOTA wins in one election cycle, it might mean that the legislative branch would then rule without a check on its powers. Unless NOTA won across the board it would not make things better - if anything, worse. The best thing that can be said for NOTA is that it would send a message. 5. Suppose NOTA was binding and it could really shut down a particular function of government for that cycle. That would be a much better reason to vote for NOTA than what we have now, but there still might be an argument for running for office even then. Why? NOTA would only be in effect until the next election. An elected libertarian could take concrete steps to shut that function down more permanently. >To support a candidate other than 'none of the above" for any > office is to accept the legitimacy of the duties of that office, and > therefore of the constitution of government that defines that office. P) Not necessarily, although many anti-voting anarchists make the same point. Others see voting as self-defense. Just because you choose to ignore the state does not mean the state will choose to ignore you. > Indeed, it would seem to be incompatible with an anarchist position to > accept voting itself and to participate in it, because every election or > referendum is an exercise in mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon. p) Many anarchists believe so, and many don't. See above. > I respectfully suggest that all anarchists leave the Libertarian Party, > and not form another, but just join the ranks of those who don't vote or > participate in the political process. p) For the moment, I choose to participate in the political process with the goal of shutting down its machinery until it has no control over me. If and when that happens I will be glad to no longer participate in it. >We can still meet over a beer once > in a while, and have a good debate, but there are two conflicting > concepts of society involved, and only one of them belongs in a > political party: > > Anarchists want to believe that it is possible and desirable to > reduce coercion to zero. A society is regarded as a truce, with no > duty of mutual protection. p) Possible mischaracterization. Some of us believe in a moral duty of voluntary mutual protection. > Constitutionalists recognize that the goal is to protect rights and > reduce the restriction of them, and that to do that a society must > seek an optimum level of coercion, mutually agreed upon, that > balances the conflicts of rights that inevitably arise in social and > economic interaction, and that protect members from threats, > especially predators, whether foreign or domestic. P) Coercion mutually agreed upon is a contradiction in terms. >A society is > regarded as a mutual defense pact, with duties as well as benefits. p) So long as those (positive) duties are not coerced, I have no problem with this. > Anarchist positions and statements are a turn-off to the vast majority > of people, who regard such as either hopelessly naïve, misguided, or > even dangerous. p) And running as an alternative party is viewed as being a spoiler by a majority. So what? It just means we have a lot of work ahead of us. >They have a constitutionalist view of society, even if > not always a constitutionalist commitment to limited government. We need > to decide whether to include persons that make us look like kooks to > most of those whose votes we seek. > > -- Jon > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Constitution Society 7793 Burnet Road #37, Austin, TX 78757 > 512/299-5001 www.constitution.org [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > p) Go ahead and try to purge us them. Or purge yourselves. I'll stick with the Dallas accord for now. -p
