Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.
Welcome to Anarchy101 Q&A, where you can ask questions and receive answers about anarchism, from anarchists.

Note that the site is in archived, read-only mode. You can browse and read, but posting is disabled.

Categories

0 votes
Whether it be for leaders or to pass laws, it doesn't matter. Are there at any point exemptions that voting is okay to do or not?
by (570 points)
edited by

mreniena, i'm interested in your own thoughts about this. what are the reasons to pass laws or validate/create a leader? what are processes that make sense to you and ways that don't make sense? and why?

(i would think that you've been around long enough to note when you ask anarchists about whether something is permissible or not. permitted by whom?)

note to be removed once i believe mreniena has read it: i hid your question about the non-aggression pact and what's wrong with it. if you search here for non aggression pact you will find at least two other questions about it, and if the conversations there don't answer your question, then you can bring one of them back to life.

Maybe outside traditional elections (understanding elections as in choosing representatives or general referendums). Voting as a decision method for superfluous decisions.
Okay, I understand about the non-aggression principle question. I never found any questions that specifically asked what was wrong with it beyond the usual ancap trying to make it sound a superior and irrefutable position to take.

As for voting, as an advocate of direct action and to some degree agorism, I really just don't see the point of voting. To me the idea of legitimizing an elitist to boss people around or effect laws that amount ultimately to legitimizing the social construction of the government is just absurd to me.

Where it be either for leaders or laws. It's just to me a really outdated solution to effecting change. We need to start thinking outside the box I feel.

Personally I do feel that if you must vote, do it as a way to hold a genuine opinion about voting. In fact it's a really big eye opener about just how rigged and archaic the process is.

I mean I used to vote myself and did so myself which does grant some credibility in my favor in showing a dislike for the process.

I've voted as both an uninformed voter and an fully informed one before I unregistered to vote. I definitely do have a valid reason to dislike the idea of voting. When I do argue against voting from opponents who say I've no right to complain by not voting, I point out that having voted, I've every right to complain about it.

However, I, for the sake of fairness, remain pretty open minded. If I do hear an argument for voting for so and so, I do the math, then go "well, turns out doing that would actually help effect an anarchist society."

Whether its effect to that end is indirect or direct then I might feel it justified to swallow my pride and feel it help accomplishes an anarchist society.

But it would have to be a really, really, really damn good argument as would the thing being voted on.
Could you perhaps define what you mean by justifiable, permissible, and valid? all of those words assume an authority. Well, at least to me they do.
human: i see justifiable and valid as part of defining what falls within the category of anarchist. (so the authority has to do with whatever authority is involved with determining the meaning of labels or words.) permissible seems to be in a different category to me. for whatever that's worth.

(i'm now more preoccupied with ME's use of "moral,") (lol...)
Yes, I understand that. I perceive words a bit differently, I suppose. I think it's just best to ask whoever what they meant by those words they use. Like the term "valid" and the way it's used, led me to feel that MrE is using it in somewhat of a legal sense or top bottom idea. Hard to describe in text on how I interpret words and make sense.. When MrE used the term "permissible," I assumed something that is allowed by whoever is on top or a group, or authority figure.. Anyways, I interpreted when MrE mentioned "justifiable, permissible, and valid" as an outside force of authority, you could say. Umm.... like an authority, but not, but is. Does that make any sense?

I didn't comment on the moral stuff mainly because I don't have too much to say about morals, I feel they don't exist and are made up by people. Never read too much about morals specifically.

Does that make any sense?
sure :)

at least 12 characters
By moral I meant if it was the right thing to do in regards to helping accomplish an anarchist society.

mr.e:  when you talk of "the right thing to do...", do you see that as applying solely to yourself ("that is how i would do it") or universally ("everyone should do it that way")?  also, do you see a single, "correct" anarchist society?

i don't mean to sidetrack the question, i am just curious about your perspective.

funky, i don't think you've sidetracked the question at all....

because, to me, the words "justifiable", "right", as well as questions like "is it okay?" imply some sort of authority outside oneself.

so the original question seems lacking for me to give an answer, unless i understand it to mean "would you, as a person who desires anarchy, ever vote, and if so, for what reasons (or emotions, or reactions, or desires, or....)?".

in other words, what human said above.

it's funny to me how a lot of the very liberal people I know are getting all excited about bernie sanders, i guess because he vociferously opposes the extreme wealth inequality of the current system. However, after pondering whether I should vote for him or not, I've realized any change under him would be rather illusive as well. He will probably institute a few welfare oriented reforms (which I don't oppose), but I think he won't have the spine or the ability to oppose any of the authoritarian expansions of the government (NSA spying, military expenditure, police expenditure)...in fact, I can easily imagine him supporting cop-cams to supposably curb police violence..... but that would just empower the state to further fuck with people! He would undoutably be just as dissapointing as Barack Obama from a radical left perspective, and if we are to be absolute opponents to authoritarian rule, I don't think we would want a radical leftist government.

the 30 minutes it would take to vote isn't even worth the time you could spend catching up on errands....

"and if we are to be absolute opponents to authoritarian rule, I don't think we would want a radical leftist government."

i want NO government, period. every radical leftist government that ever took/got power was proven to be absolute enemies of actual anarchists. as they should be - they are statists. 

but i hear you about bernie. the liberal left is all gung-ho, and i probably would be too, if i was a liberal/progressive. thing is, nobody that would ever really enact radical change could ever be elected in this country. if bernie makes it too far in this campaign, he will come up against serious trouble - quite possibly assassination. that's my take. or, i guess it is just as likely that he will simply adapt his rhetoric, get into office, and like clinton and obama, greatly disappoint everyone naive enough to believe a fucking politician (regardless of stripe).

see why they pay me the big bucks as a political analyst?  lol!

@MrE, I'm confused on what you mean by "the right thing to do?" In similar fashion to funky@'s response to you. If you want to vote, then vote. If not, don't.

@rs666 Liberals/progressives love the Bernie and his populist rhetoric. That's all it is.
any rate, I only comment cause I perceive any more welfare benefits and limits on police power as being good things. However, I'm so hateful of the whole employment/legal/political process that I'm going to try to be as little of a part of it that I can be, it's better for your health
I don't know much about him as I don't really pay attention. The one thing I assume is he's probably not being truthful.

2 Answers

+4 votes
I am pretty certain I can say that I am never going to vote in good faith again (ie - to pass laws or elect leaders), but I won't absolutely say there might not be times where I would choose to use voting as an intentional sabotaging of the system. I can't think of an example that I have actually seen/lived through that would be amusing enough for me to actually register to vote, but I imagine that there could be an argument made for it. To be clear this argument I am referring to is more along the lines of IRL trolling than one of using the system while also working from outside or the lesser of two evils arguments (what I think of as the typical activist arguments for continuing to vote).
by (22.1k points)
+4 votes

like ingrate, i seriously doubt i would ever vote (again). i find it useless, "corrupt", ineffective (except in supporting and perpetuating the very system i want gone), and completely contrary to the autonomy that i desire.

however... if a self-proclaimed anarchist chose to vote for a local measure/referendum that directly impacted them, and they had some (non-delusional) reason to think that passing said measure would actually result in a desired change, then i might not completely ridicule them. 

i have no problem using the system i despise as a tool to sabotage or destroy it. i just cannot imagine a scenario where voting would actually accomplish that (or anything even close). but (also like ingrate) if i ever saw such an opportunity, i would almost certainly take advantage.

problem is, this socio-economic-political system - democrapitalism - does a far better job of ensuring its own survival than humanity itself does. that is why i cannot imagine it providing the means - through voting particularly - to destroy itself. 

see everything as a potential tool, choose your tools carefully, and use them well.

by (13.4k points)
^this. Voting is currently a tool I find not only odious and deplorable (I would say the same of automobiles and fiber optics), but for now, it is a thing that I can reasonably opt out of. If using a thing I hated made sense, why not use it? So long as it is effective, there is nothing to lose but a false sense of purity.

Still, that is a far cry from the reality most of us who post and comment and lurk on this sight live.
...