Nsw state election : Who will you be voting? (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

Sdent: How would you propose that an anarchist state come about, if not by democratic means?

 

[Slidey]

Man you're a bore, Sdent. Let us know when you're done spouting anarchist talking points ey.

 

[Nebuchanezzar]

Sdent: How would you propose that an anarchist state come about, if not by democratic means?

With violence and anarchy!

 

[sdent40]

How would you propose that an anarchist state come about, if not by democratic means?

Already answered that in this post

Man you're a bore, Sdent. Let us know when you're done spouting anarchist talking points ey.

wat

 

[withoutaface]

To respond to those points:

1. Suppose the choice is between 10 and 20. 10 is still better than 20, and the latter may well be the result if you do not vote.
2. It would seem to me that the methods you stated would work a lot better if the guys in parliament weren't predisposed to go chasing secessionists and parallel marketeers with guns. If there was a party which stated such a policy, would you consider it worthwhile voting for them? Surely if they polled enough to have a seat in the Senate (or the state's LC, where you need ~5% after preferences to get up) that would go a long way towards making people sit up and take notice.

 

[sdent40]

Ok waf:

1. I agree that 10 is better than 20, but the point here is that just always choosing the "lesser of the two" won't bring any kind of real change in a positive direction. All it could ever do is slow the growth of the state, and that's not a desirable position because I prefer zero state, not a state that increases in size slower than it otherwise would have.

2. The government in its current form wouldn't want there to be a counter economy (because it can't control or steal (tax) from the people working within it), so clearly there would never be a government that 'allowed' agorism. And as for individual secession, I sincerely doubt that the current government would ever even seriously float the idea because that's the whole point of the government's monopoly control over people.

Anyway, you missed out a few bits and pieces in your response (such as the fact that your individual vote is miniscule in the overall scheme of things so there's not a good chance of changing the outcome), but the overall point here is that non-democratic strategies are more likely to yield an actual change for the better, and probably for less effort too. If the strategy of talking to people to get public support isn't pursued, there is little hope for ACism.

 

[withoutaface]

1. I agree that 10 is better than 20, but the point here is that just always choosing the "lesser of the two" won't bring any kind of real change in a positive direction. All it could ever do is slow the growth of the state, and that's not a desirable position because I prefer zero state, not a state that increases in size slower than it otherwise would have.

You speak as if choosing 10 and fighting for zero state by other means are mutually exclusive activities.

2. The government in its current form wouldn't want there to be a counter economy (because it can't control or steal (tax) from the people working within it), so clearly there would never be a government that 'allowed' agorism. And as for individual secession, I sincerely doubt that the current government would ever even seriously float the idea because that's the whole point of the government's monopoly control over people.

What about groups like the LDP, who are in the main minarchist but also have a fair few ancaps among their number? I'd wager that most minarchist libertarians would have little issue with most of the methods you propose and are certainly less likely to shut you down.

Anyway, you missed out a few bits and pieces in your response (such as the fact that your individual vote is miniscule in the overall scheme of things so there's not a good chance of changing the outcome),

One individual running off to create a counter-market is just as unlikely to have any effect. The idea is to change people's minds one by one, be it by voting or by other means.

but the overall point here is that non-democratic strategies are more likely to yield an actual change for the better, and probably for less effort too. If the strategy of talking to people to get public support isn't pursued, there is little hope for ACism.

Again, not mutually exclusive, and it doesn't take much effort for each person who's convinced the state should rot to vote as such.

I guess my big point is that 51% of people voting in an ancap party will be more effective in dissolving government than 51% not voting and the other 49% voting for bigger government, and that while voting might not make a difference, the chance is certainly large enough to be worth 5 minutes every 3 years.

 

[sdent40]

Voting and following a democratic path of changing government requires a lot of specific time and energy in political campaigning as opposed to talking about why the state is illegitimate/hindering society's progress.

To argue that ACists should "play the game" is missing the broader overall point about what democracy is. Democracy seems to me, to be a game of playing to the centre to appeal to as many people as possible, not of changing their underlying viewpoints. I prefer appealing to people asking them to reconsider the status of the state as a legitimised avenue for theft, kidnapping and killing.

The state is not just the physical buildings and the people who work for the state, it is also something that is ingrained in the way many people currently think. People think that somehow the government helps, when it actually harms them. Before the physical elements of the state could be abolished, the mentality that the state indoctrinates in people needs to go first. They need to be rid of this mentality that "OMG who would build the roads?" or "OMG what about the poor people?" (not realising that the state actually hurts poor people and is one of their greatest enemies).

 

[Progressive]

i can not believe Labor is loosing the poll and liberal is winning, is that really going to happen at the next election or will the ferral loose the unloosable election... i wll never vote for Barry the Ferral rat and his conservative parasite party. i will just vote for a party who is more ideologically driven like the greens, yeah i will vote even further left, why not... or maybe i will vote good old labor yeahh for the wokers, yeahh the working class... ahh comrades. You got my vote comrades.

 

[tinfoilhat]

hopefully i will live in another state/country before the next election so i won't have to vote.....
unlikely though with 5 years of uni =\

hahah Progessive you're cool

 

[Progressive]

Ah well comrade we still have alot of work to do, those people who live across the harbour bridge still do not understand, they need to be redistributed, hahahaha muhahahahaha hahahaha beware...

 

[Lentern]

Voting and following a democratic path of changing government requires a lot of specific time and energy in political campaigning as opposed to talking about why the state is illegitimate/hindering society's progress.

To argue that ACists should "play the game" is missing the broader overall point about what democracy is. Democracy seems to me, to be a game of playing to the centre to appeal to as many people as possible, not of changing their underlying viewpoints. I prefer appealing to people asking them to reconsider the status of the state as a legitimised avenue for theft, kidnapping and killing.

The state is not just the physical buildings and the people who work for the state, it is also something that is ingrained in the way many people currently think. People think that somehow the government helps, when it actually harms them. Before the physical elements of the state could be abolished, the mentality that the state indoctrinates in people needs to go first. They need to be rid of this mentality that "OMG who would build the roads?" or "OMG what about the poor people?" (not realising that the state actually hurts poor people and is one of their greatest enemies).

Righto, I'll make you a deal, I'll pay for your tax from here on in and in turn you are forbidden from using state funded schools, roads, hospitals, sporting venues, anything that governments pay for. The only other condition is you have to keep a journal how it goes, it'll be worth the cost of your taxes to read about how you cope in you cope in your own brave new world.

 

[withoutaface]

Righto, I'll make you a deal, I'll pay for your tax from here on in and in turn you are forbidden from using state funded schools, roads, hospitals, sporting venues, anything that governments pay for. The only other condition is you have to keep a journal how it goes, it'll be worth the cost of your taxes to read about how you cope in you cope in your own brave new world.

That's a pretty piss poor attack on AC ideology. If there exists government roads for everyone but him, there's not going to be the market for a private contractor to build more as he claims would be the case if the government didn't exist at all.

Sdent: Voting requires five minutes of your time. Establishing an AC party might take a week, but you needn't dedicate time to 'parliamentary campaigning' as you're already spreading your ideology by word of mouth anyway, assuming that once someone was convinced of AC ideology they'd be prepared to vote for an AC political party.

 

[sdent40]

Sdent: Voting requires five minutes of your time. Establishing an AC party might take a week, but you needn't dedicate time to 'parliamentary campaigning' as you're already spreading your ideology by word of mouth anyway, assuming that once someone was convinced of AC ideology they'd be prepared to vote for an AC political party.

Well to really get anywhere within democracy you often have to make compromises and you can't really stick to your principles because the game is played in such a way that you can't stick to those principles. Look at the libertarian party in the US, Murray Rothbard and stuff were originally active in that, and look where it is now. It gets like 3% of the vote and right now its probably closer to being a conservative party rather than a libertarian party. They've had to make sooo many compromises and they're still not even close to having any real effect on the growth of the govt. If the goal was minarchism, then certainly I'd agree with you, but the end goal here is ACism, so the best way to go about achieving that is outside the current system of democracy. By functioning as a part of the state, it's almost like you're endorsing the state in an implicit way.

And maybe it's "possible" to go for ACism via political campaigning and having an actual political party, but I think it's much easier to not waste time on politics and just convince people of the benefits of a free market society. When the time comes and enough people want the state to rot, they won't need to hold an election about it, the state would just collapse under it's own weight. I think it's highly likely that in the future, the market will just become so much more productive that the state will not be able to keep up, and that states might even just get washed away in a torrent of irrelevance.

 

[chicky_pie]

Voting Results:

NSW Labor Party
alexvincent, badquinton304, Forbidden., jkdsfsio3458963, kerlon44, m00, Nasonex, possessionless, Progressive, randomnessss, simon89, tinfoilhat, Zazo


SHAME ON YOU!!

 

[Progressive]

(How dare you chiky pie = Liberal Party SHAME ON YOU, YA UNION BASHER.)
Comrades Comrades NSW STATE ELECTION VOTE 1 LABOR PARTY. Barry the Ferral skunk can get F#c#ed. hahahaha muhahahahaha. The Labor party for the workers you know Labor for the workers yeahh, Unions United.

 

[moll.]

(How dare you chiky pie = Liberal Party SHAME ON YOU, YA UNION BASHER.)
Comrades Comrades NSW STATE ELECTION VOTE 1 LABOR PARTY. Barry the Ferral skunk can get F#c#ed. hahahaha muhahahahaha. The Labor party for the workers you know Labor for the workers yeahh, Unions United.

"The workers" fucking ruined our state's economy and infastructure. Fuck the workers.

 

[Progressive]

Ah screw the conservatives screw MOLL even more they never think about the social implications of there action, no good MOLL Greed is bad remember Comrade Rudd made speech good one. Screw Barry Screw Liberal Party, screw all them neo-cons across the bridge. hahahahahaha comrades Labor...Labor for the workers yeahh Labor, trade union......... DO YOU NEED TO BE UNIONISED I THINKYOU DO MOLL

 

[moll.]

You need to be castrated. Give Darwinism a helping hand.

 

[Progressive]

yoo need a .... up your hole Moll..... freedom of speech #### off