Logical Anarchy Today Episode 121 – Voting Doesn’t Work but the Alternative Can

Logical Anarchy Today – Logical Anarchy Today Episode 121 – Voting Doesn’t Work but the Alternative Can

Voting doesn’t work. Not only that but it’s ethical and moral nature is questionable at best. But agorism can work and it doesn’t require principled anarcho-capitalists and libertarians to sacrifice their principles. Abolishing government through the political process is a rigged game. But destroying the state with a thousand cuts while showing people that voluntary exchange can work accomplishes two things. It shows the power of the market and it get’s people away from running to the state to support.

Why Voting for Freedom Won’t Work

Non-Voting Validation

How to Start Doing Agorism

Tom Woods Liberty Classroom

Interested in Bitcoin as an alternative to US Dollars? Use our Coinbase link!

If you sign up with our coinbase link and purchase $100 in bitcoin, you will recieve an extra $10 from coinbase.

The “Shift” Bitcoin debit card is through coinbase as well.

Support the show by entering Amazon through our link HERE!

Support the show with Bitcoin HERE!

Use this address to add the Logical Anarchy Today show to your podcatcher or subscribe on iTunes!


Logical Anarchy Today Episode 120 – Memorial Day 2016

Logical Anarchy Today – Logical Anarchy Today Episode 120 – Memorial Day 2016

On Memorial Day, I remember those that died that didn’t have a choice. The victims of imperialism.

Episode 49 – Was the Iraq War Justified?

Episode 47 – Chris Kyle and How the Military is a Cult

Tom Woods Liberty Classroom

Interested in Bitcoin as an alternative to US Dollars? Use our Coinbase link!

If you sign up with our coinbase link and purchase $100 in bitcoin, you will recieve an extra $10 from coinbase.

The “Shift” Bitcoin debit card is through coinbase as well.

Support the show by entering Amazon through our link HERE!

Support the show with Bitcoin HERE!

Use this address to add the Logical Anarchy Today show to your podcatcher or subscribe on iTunes!


Non-Voting Validation

So on Thursday we had the co-founder, James Chillemi (really nice guy), of Liberty Hangout on our live show to talk to us about why we should vote for Austin Petersen. I further elaborated my position on not voting with this article here. It seems that my predictions and ideas are proving themselves true in a way. This let down for those libertarians that still view politics as a political tool had me thinking as well. Where do we draw the line?

libertyhangoutjohnsonIn conversations with other anarcho-capitalists that argue in favor of voting, the pragmatic argument that we must sacrifice some principles in order to save them comes up a lot. The incremental victory angle is championed as the best method for achieving individual freedom from Government. These people who view political action as a tool for incremental victory often point to how the left was able to gain so much power by this incremental method. But as I argued in my article on the matter, that’s because the lefts goals increase state power, therefore, those in control of the state are perfectly happy to let the left win. The anarcho-capitalist agenda is the abolishment of the state all together. Those in control of government that profit off of the racket are not going to let an “outsider” in that wishes to minimize, let alone abolish, its vehicle for immorally generating wealth for themselves. This was made evident by Ron Paul’s 2008 and 2012 runs along with Austin Petersen’s attempt at the LP nomination and what will be Gary Johnson’s run for president (more than likely).

But this made me think on what the anarcho-capitalists that want other anarchists to vote for Austin are thinking themselves. Their argument is that Austin, or any other LP candidate they are advocating for, does not align completely with my principles but they are the “lesser of evils” so I should vote for them for the sake of incremental victories. But if that is true, why are these people who are disappointed about Johnson getting the LP nomination upset themselves? Couldn’t the same argument be made for Johnson? Sure you wanted Austin or McAfee but Johnson aligns more with your ideals than Trump, Bernie or Hillary. So shouldn’t you now vote for Johnson now that he is the “lesser evil”? Let’s be honest though. What chance does Johnson himself have of winning the presidency? Should you vote for Trump or Hillary since one of them has the best chance of winning the presidency?

This is why I stick to my principles and convictions as an anarcho-capitalist. I’d rather be “foolish” in the eyes of those that are willing to sacrifice these principles than engage in a slippery slope argument that inevitably feeds the leviathan rather than slays it.

Self-Ownership Naturally Implies Property Rights

This is segment from a facebook conversation I have been involved with. It was with a crazy Bernie Sanders supporter. The original topic was on this nonsense going on with trans people and bathrooms. I simply put forth the most simplistic and non-violent approach; let the property owner decide how their property is used. There could be some grammatical errors that follow. I’ve tried my best to correct my comments as well as my opponents for the sake of an easier read. That said, they could still be prevalent.

Me: Let private property owners decide how their bathrooms are used. Problem solved. Easy peasy.

Bernie Supporter (BS): Yeah – who wants Jews using bathrooms?! Gross!

Me: So because you disagree you get to use the coercive arm of government and force people to associate? How civil and moral of you.

BS: Oh – no! I am agreeing with you! If Trump wants to let Caitlyn Jenner use his bathroom, but forbid Mexicans and Muslims from using them, it should be his right, even if it’s a semi-public space, right?

Me: Totally. If someone is being a douche with their business, you just don’t shop there or support them. You exercise your own right to disassociate with scumbags.

BS: Jon Torres Likewise, if a trans-man breaks into your house and uses your bathroom, you’re not going to call on the strong-arm of the government to prosecute them for trespassing, right?

Me: Haha. No. I’ll take care of it myself. But using the fact that I am coerced into supporting the government monopoly on defense proves my point, not yours.

BS: And if a private contractor builds the only bridge on a public road (with partial public funding) for 20 miles across a river, but does not want to let anarcho-capitalists use it, they can just walk to the nearest crossing point!

Me:  Public property is a myth. Private property is the only legitimate form of property. Public property means it’s been stolen and gained unjustly. We’ve been over this “BS”. Your argument is that you need a gang of thieves now so that gangs won’t take over.

BS: Private property exists ONLY by the consent of the community. Period. Possessions exist under your own power. Private “property” is a communitarian socially granted “right”.

Me: //Private property exists ONLY by the consent of the community. Period.//

Incorrect. It exists as a natural right. In fact, our very disagreement presupposes private property as a natural factor of human existence. I pointed this out in another of Williams posts. Have you heard of argumentation ethics? Hans-Herman Hoppe says the following:

“Argumentation is a conflict-free way of interacting. Not in the sense that there is always agreement on the things said, but in the sense that as long as argumentation is in progress it is always possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement about the validity of what has been said. And this is to say nothing else than that a mutual recognition of each person’s exclusive control over his own body must be presupposed as long as there is argumentation (note again, that it is impossible to deny this and claim this denial to be true without implicitly having to admit its truth).”

Which means that we can both agree that a disagreement is going on. Which assumes that you have control over yourself and I have control over myself. We individually own our bodies otherwise this debate would not even be possible.

If we are in control of our bodies, we are the only ones with the best moral claim to them and no one outside of our bodies has a better moral claim. This means that you own yourself. If you own yourself, you are then entitled to own your labor. If you own your labor, you are entitled to the fruits of your labor. Taking the logic the other way (the side you are arguing for) we see that you are attempting to claim ownership of someone else’s reward of their labor. To do so is to claim ownership of their labor. If you are claiming ownership of their labor, you are claiming ownership of their bodies. But we have just established that this disagreement itself presupposes self-ownership as an inherent condition of the human experience so you run into a contradiction both logically and ethically.

This makes your philosophy nothing more than an ideology of murderers and thieves. Slave masters. You are advocating for a society where everyone is entitled to a portion of everyone else yet they are not entitled to own themselves. This means that people are incapable of acting without consent of the collective. So not only is it immoral and illogical, it is devastatingly inefficient.

BS: You own your own body – that is possession, not property.

Me: Now you’re just being silly and playing with semantics because you are in a corner.

Possession: an item of property; something belonging to one.

Therefore, let property owners decide how their bathrooms are used.

BS: No. A possession is that which you can physically control. You cannot possess a mountain, you can possess a pebble. You cannot possess a slave. You can possess your own body. Property is that which, by communal consent, is socially granted ownership to one who may or may not be physically capable of defending and controlling it. You can have a mountain as property. You can have a slave as property. A bathroom in your estate is your property, not your possession – and as property it is granted you only by the consent of the community (unless you are in it, occupying it – then it may be possession). The distinction, which you elide, is critical. It’s not semantics – it’s reality. Try facing it.

Me: No. it is semantics on your part.


Again, you are simply playing with words to justify the violence inherent in your system.

“Furthermore, if the original land is nature- or God-given then so are the people’s talents, health, and beauty. And just as all of these attributes are given to specific individuals and not to “society,” so then are land and natural resources. All of these resources are given to individuals and not to “society,” which is an abstraction that does not actually exist. There is no existing entity called “soceity”; there are only interacting individuals.”

-Murrary Rothbard


“The concept of Society as a metaphysical person falls flat when we observe that Society disappears when the component parts disperse.”

-Frank Chodorov

Society itself has not created natural resources so why does an abstraction have a better claim to property than the component parts upon which it’s own existence hinges on?

So again, if you own your body, you own your labor and the fruits of your labor when you mix it with unclaimed resources (or voluntarily trade for resources that previously were unclaimed and transformed by another’s labor), then you own the rewards of your labor and no other human on earth has a better moral claim to it than you.

Let us use the example of an artist since I am a painter myself. Let’s say I am capable of creating my own pigments from natural resources and I find an area of nature unclaimed by anyone else where I find the resources to make my pigments. I take the resources and convert them into paints through my labor brought about by my body which we both agree I control. I create a really nice landscape painting on piece of canvas that I traded a canvas maker voluntarily for. Are you then saying that after my painting is complete, you have the right to come along and claim that the painting is now yours? How ludicrous is that but that is exactly what you are arguing.

“The Georgists argue that, while every man should own the goods which he produces or creates, since Nature or God created the land itself, no individual has the right to assume ownership of that land. yet, if the land is to be used at all as a resource in any sort of efficient manner, it must be owned or controlled by someone or some group, and we are again faced with our three alternatives: either the land belongs to the first user, the man who first brings it into production; or it belongs to a group of others; or it belongs to the world as a whole, with every individual owning a quotal part of every acre of land.”

-Murray Rothbard

Practically speaking, it is impossible for everyone to own a quotal share of everything. Again that is a world where everyone must ethically wait for the approval of everyone else. Nothing would ever get done. In practice this leads to dispute since if I want to do X with resource A and you want to do Y with the same resource (and both X and Y are mutually exclusive), we must come to blows over who gets to use the resource. The only way to stop this is to put “special” individuals in place as “managers” with the ability to use force to “defend” resources they have neither traded, homesteaded, or been gifted. These individuals can now use the resources to control the actions of others, unjustly, by exercising their coercive control and monopoly over various important resources. How can I control my body by exercising free speech if I a collective owns all the outlets of speech and can use violence in order to silence me since I am a recalcitrant? Self ownership is inseparable from private property.

Economics is based on of 2 axiomatic laws.

1. All individuals engage in purposeful behavior towards the fulfillment of ends by applying the scarce means in their control. This is a synthetic a priori proposition meaning that any attempts at refuting this axiom as false requires the axiom to be true. So by arguing that it is false you are taking purposeful action by using time, labor, etc, towards the fulfillment of a purposeful end, namely proving the axiom false. It constitutes a very fallacious and poor argument to rely on that which you are trying to refute in its own refutation.

2. Individuals vary in preferences (which is made evident by our disagreement here which again, through argumentation ethics, proves self ownership). Your collective cannot satisfy all preferences individuals may have therefore it must use coercive force in order to CONTROL PEOPLES BODIES to only engage in economic activity that is within the parameters of the collective.

So stop pretending like you believe in self-ownership. You don’t.

BS: Stop pretending like you understand the vocabulary you are using. You don’t. First off, Economics is not based on axiomatic laws. And the economic gobbelty-gook you are spouting is sheer (as in: rather baseless) ideology. Most of what you spout is the justification that commes with “Just-World” theories – which are patently false, but very satisfying to those who hold them.

You have utterly failed to understand my (and Rousseau’s and Jefferson’s) distinction between “property” and “possessions” – you haven’t even tried. Instead you retreat to the first of a set of definitions of common usage, and ignore the rest. (You seem to conflate “property” and “possession” completely.)

Me: //Economics is not based on axiomatic laws//

Thanks for proving that it is “BS”. You just performed an action with expressed purpose which means you relied on the synthetic a prior proposition (the action axiom) in its own refutation. Good job. You did the work for me.

I see that the rest of your statement is nonsense. It is not an argument because you are just saying “I’m right and you are wrong because I say so”… So thanks for proving that second axiomatic principle that all individuals vary in preferences. I appreciate other people voluntarily doing the work for me in proving my arguments

//Instead you retreat to the first of a set of definitions of common usage, and ignore the rest.//

Oh really? Like how you ignored how I showed self-ownership is inseparable from property rights? You are the one putting your hands over your ears going “La la la I can’t hear you.”

So since all you have left is baseless accusations, I guess we’re done here.

//Stop pretending like you understand the vocabulary you are using. You don’t.//

Last comment. I know exactly what these words mean. It’s why I used them and it’s clearly why it bothers you. So please don’t project your issues on to me.

Actual last comment. If you can own your body and nothing else, you might as well not own your body since you cannot express yourself or act without permission of the collective. You speak out of both sides of your mouth on this issue with your appeal to authority fallacy (“You just don’t get Rousseau or Jeffereson!”).

BS: LOL – you again conflate “ownership”, “possession, “property”, “use”, “control” – you refuse to examine these concepts or even the ideas and structures behind these concepts. You also have not “shown” how self-“ownership” is inseparable from “property rights” (of external objects and things or people). And you accuse ME of supporting slavery? Hah! That’s YOUR specialty!

Me: //If you can own your body and nothing else, you might as well not own your body since you cannot express yourself or act without permission of the collective.//

I’m just going to keep reposting that. You keep accusing me of ignoring things. “The pot calling the kettle black”

//And you accuse ME of supporting slavery? Hah! That’s YOUR specialty!//

Slavery: thralldom, enthrallment. Slavery, bondage, servitude refer to involuntary subjection to another or others. Slavery emphasizes the idea of complete ownership and control by a master: to be sold into slavery. Bondage indicates a state of subjugation or captivity often involving burdensome and degrading labor: in bondage to a cruel master. Servitude is compulsory service, often such as is required by a legal penalty: penal servitude.
So nice straw man “BS”. That’s your specialty. How is advocating from self-ownership equal to slavery? You are the one that is advocating for taking things you did not earn from others by paying lip service to self-ownership and then castrating it by limiting the ways, through force, individuals can act. Get out of here with that BS I have no time for it. I’m not the one claiming the ownership/thralldom/involuntary subjugation of others. That’s you with your “You can own yourself but nothing else” BS.

Have fun in those breadlines.

I think what occurred here is that this guy had never encountered argumentation ethics. He realized he couldn’t refute it without proving it true so he accepted self-ownership as true and then attempted to divorce self ownership from property rights. But again, owning yourself in a world where the collective owns everything means that you cannot exercise your self ownership without asking for permission from the collective. If you have to ask for permission of the collective to exercise your “self ownership”, you do not actually own yourself and the ownership of yourself is a fiat right.

Why Voting for Freedom Won’t Work

Yesterday evening on our live show we talked to James Chillemi from Liberty Hangout and he made the case for voting, and in particular, voting for Austin Petersen. I wanted to write a little follow-up to clarify some points that were made in the podcast episode. Here are some reasons, in no particular order, of why I am of the opinion that voting is not a path to liberty.

“Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

The above quote was said by Lord Acton and I think that it rings true for the nature of political power. As anarcho-capitalists and voluntaryists, we have a principled view of the state. Sociologist Max Weber noted that government is simply a monopoly on violence within a given territory. Violence is how anything is enforced by government, and because of this, government is not a legitimate protector, caretaker or owner of anything. Essentially, the government is a gun that is pointed at innocent people.

The case for voting for a libertarian candidate involves putting someone behind the coercive gun as the trigger man. There is no way around this. And even if they are a principled person with convictions, the potential for abuse and corruption is always there. This is a historical fact that has already occurred within American history. George Washington is a hero founding father for many, and many would consider him a good man and an icon of freedom. But his abuse of power set a tone for all later abuses of the presidency. First there is the neutrality proclamation made by Washington. The British and the French hated each other and the United States was caught in the middle. In 1793, Washington bypassed congress (unconstitutionally) by decree and stated that the United States was to be neutral. If one believes in the constitution, checks and balances, so on and so forth, one needs to take issue with this blatant abuse by who many consider to be a “good man” and a “fighter for liberty.”

Washington further abused the office with the Whiskey Rebellion. Hamilton proposed an excise tax on whiskey (which is constitutional). The thing is that the Whiskey Tax was never actually enforced. A lot of people point to the tax being the moral issue. This is because if the tax was to be enforced, it would have hurt many of the marginal producers and distillers. Whiskey was used at the time as a medium of exchange (that’s pretty interesting if you ask me), but the real problem with the Whisky Rebellion is actually a completely different issue all together. The problem is that none of the people on the frontier received the memo that these taxes were not going to be enforced (and indeed were repealed in a way). These frontier farmers rose up, started proclaiming “no taxation without representation”, and began to give trouble to tax collectors in Pennsylvania. Washington was then persuaded that the army needed to be sent in, and that the Federal Government must do something about the ruckus being caused in the region. At the time, the Federal Government could not go and intervene militarily in a state (remember that these states are united but supposed to be seen as sovereign) without the approval of a supreme court judge. This was because of the Militia Act that was passed just before the Whisky Rebellion. Many viewed sending federal troops in as a military invasion. But even this act was “unconstitutional” because Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution says that the Federal Government can only bring troops into a state if the state legislator (or the Governor if the legislation is not in session) grants it the permission to do so.

Thomas Mifflin was the governor at the time and he was a member the Philadelphia Convention and the Ratifying Convention. He gave no such authority, under Article 4 Section 4, for the federal government to intervene in their State. In fact Mifflin said that they did not need the army and that they had it under control; but a supreme court judge (James Wilson) from Pennsylvania “overrode” this and told Washington to send in the troops anyways (siting the Militia Act). This is where the true problems with the Whisky Rebellion are (along with taxation itself). Hamilton himself conceded that the point of sending in the army was to showcase Federal power and undercut the power of these, supposed, “sovereign” states. Washington is not the only “hero of liberty” to say one thing and do another. Thomas Jefferson also failed to not abuse his role in office with the Louisiana purchase (it was unconstitutional). I don’t think Petersen, as a minarchist himself, would make his pedestal higher than that of Jefferson’s.

So what is the point that I am trying to make here? My point is that even while these very libertarian and classical liberal ideas were fresh in everyone’s minds, these “leading lights of liberty” still failed. In fact, you can look to the actions of these founding fathers as the progenitors for all of the abuses of the executive branch today. They set the historical justification for it. Today, these libertarian ideals are not so fresh in everyone’s minds. We have a far more statist culture than the founder’s culture. There is no way an outright socialist like Sanders would even be given the time of day back then if frontier farmers were willing to rise up because of an excise tax on booze. My point is that if we cannot trust Jefferson or Washington or any other “hero” while the flame of freedom burned brightest, why should we trust Austin Petersen right now while that same flame flickers?

Voting is consent. Not voting is individual secession.

Some people like to say that voting is not consent if your candidate loses and your enemy wins. I would say that it is consent. Theodore J. Lowi has noted how voting is playing the game. He argues that people who in engage in the political process are people who are playing the game and people “who play the game must accept the outcome. Those who participate in politics are similarly committed, even if they are consistently on the losing side.” I love playing Risk (I know, a strategic game of conquest) and if I play the game and lose, I have to accept the fact that my opponent won the game. People would say that I lost touch with reality if I adamantly said that my opponent didn’t win and that their victory as not legitimate because I didn’t win. But if I refuse to play a game of Risk with someone and the person responds with “Aha! I beat you at Risk!”, everyone would understand how that is false because I never engaged in playing the game. The person claiming victory over me for a game that never took place is now the one who has lost touch with reality.

Therefore, voting and losing, means you have consented to the results of the game no matter what the results are. You have now put your stamp of approval on the outcome. So even if you vote for Austin, you consent to Trump or Clinton if Austin loses and one of them gets to be the trigger man. In my opinion, I cannot consent to such an outcome because I know that game that is played, democracy, is a rigged game. Who wants to play a game that is rigged? Libertarian Anarchists that favor voting often point to the rise of the left and its incremental victories and say that we must gain the same ground incrementally through the political process. But again, the game was rigged in their favor from the beginning. As I have just shown, the statist system is designed to expand government powers, not limit them, so this aligns perfectly with the left’s obsession with having government be the solution to every woe. The Voluntaryist/Anarcho-Capitalist message is diametrically and completely in opposition to this, meaning, the game is not rigged in their favor. It’s like playing that game of Risk mentioned above with unfair dice that favor your opponent. Perhaps you can get a victory here and there, but the game is most assuredly going to your opponent. Not only that, you have engaged in playing the game meaning that you must accept the outcome that comes about when playing a rigged game that you know is rigged (your defeat).

If all of this is true, it is logical to assume that the opposite true. That refusing to play the game means the you refuse to accept the outcome of those that choose to play.

“Moral Obligation”.

One point brought up in our conversation was that of moral obligation. If an individual can vote and stop violence (such as drone strikes abroad) don’t they have a moral obligation to vote and try to exact change? No. This is for a couple of reasons. First, the funds used to pay for the atrocities of government are first stolen from us against our will. If a robber steals your car and then goes on a spree of hit and runs, are you morally responsible for the carnage the thief causes? Of course not. Likewise, when you are accosted by the monopoly on force every April 15th, the government comes and says “Your money or your life.” What the thief does with your money after that is not your moral responsibility. Along with that, we have already established that if you play the game, you accept the results of the game. So if you try to give your consent to the system by voting, even if you are voting against drone strikes, you concede and consent to the outcome if you end up losing. Again, the person that withdrew consent from system is the only one who can, with a clear conscience, say that they have not consented or condoned the violence of the state.

But while we are on the subject of moral obligation, lets talk about the only thing required of us. Non-aggression. And if voting implies that you consent to the outcome of the game, it means that voting is indeed aggression, though it is indirect. This is actually the reason democracy is one of the most insidious political systems because it removes the initiation of violence back a few steps and conceals it behind the mysticism of voting. So consenting, and by extension, legitimizing the system, is probably one of the most immoral things one can do.

Austin’s Tax Plan.

Another point that was brought up in the conversation was that of Austin’s tax plan. It was mentioned that Austin wants to end the income tax and instead seeks to fund government through “voluntary” means like lotteries and what not. On Petersen’s own site he says:

“Abolish the existing, complicated tax code that discriminates against the most productive Americans, and replace it with a simple, flat tax at the lowest rate necessary to support the core functions of government.”

Perhaps getting to “voluntary” means of funding government is part of his plan eventually, but the first step involves stealing from people a little bit with a flat tax plan. So the individual that argues that taxation is theft (the voluntaryist/anarcho-capitalist) is to put this idea aside, sacrifice their principles, and vote for less violence than more violence. This is the “better” choice that we as anarcho-capitalists are to take. As someone who has “seen the light”, I cannot cover it up under utilitarian grounds in order to use the coercive monopoly on violence itself in order to destroy itself.

The utilitarian angle makes no sense.

Not only do I believe that voting is immoral, but it is not even practical. First, the electoral college completely warps the system.  Robert Murphy says the following in the matter:

“So for your vote to matter, it first of all has to be the case that the presidential race is close enough that the state you live in, is decisive in terms of its votes in the Electoral College. (A state gets as many electors in the Electoral College as it has representatives and senators.)… Now suppose the nominees end up being Trump and Clinton, and that Clinton ends up winning by a margin of 62 votes. In other words, suppose Clinton gets 300 total electoral votes, while Trump only gets 238. (There are 300+238=538 total electors in the Electoral College.) Further suppose that California and New York went for Clinton, while Texas went for Trump. In this hypothetical outcome, we can say that California’s outcome mattered to the election, but that in an important sense, no other state’s outcome did. That is to say, if any other state had had a different outcome in its statewide popular vote, it wouldn’t have mattered; Clinton would still have won…
Indeed, only in the ridiculous scenario in which the popular vote in your state is decided by a margin of 1 or 0, will your individual vote matter. In other words, so long as the candidate who wins in your state has a margin of victory of 2 votes or more, then it didn’t matter how YOU voted.”

Not only that, but if your state does manage to come to the point where your vote could matter, it still doesn’t. The chances of your vote making a difference can be expressed as 1/n where “n” is the number of voters that cast a vote. Which means that if 100 million voters cast a vote, your vote has of chance of 0.00000001% of swaying the election. As economists, we can’t help but think on the margin in saying that it doesn’t matter which way you vote.

Why would those that control government allow an “enemy” to take the highest office?

Hans-Herman Hoppe says the following here:

“Presidents and prime ministers come into their position not owing to their status as natural aristocrats, as feudal kings once did, i.e, based on the recognition of their economic independence, outstanding professional achievement, morally impeccable personal life, wisdom and superior judgment and taste, but as a result of their capacity as morally uninhibited demagogues. Hence, democracy virtually assures that only the most dangerous men will rise to the top of the state government.”

He goes on to say:

“Under a one-man-one-vote regime, then, a relentless machinery of wealth and income redistribution is set in motion. It must be expected that majorities of have-nots will constantly try to enrich themselves at the expense of the minorities of haves.”

This is why the left has been able to make incremental victories. Their goals align with the State’s, the anarcho-capitalist agenda does not in any capacity. The left and right succeed because their agenda is the same on a fundamental level. Coercion and state expansion. So why would those that control the political process and profit from its crimes allow someone to take the reins who will limit their ability to profit from said crimes? The state is violence so I don’t think it would.

This is why I will not vote and I will not vote for Austin Petersen. It makes no sense on either the practical or moral level. I will not join up with the mafia to change it from within. I will simply withdraw my consent and refuse to play the game because it is the only moral thing to do. People often say “vote your conscience”. My conscience says to not vote.

Sources and further readings for this piece:

“Voting Strategically is nonsense” by Robert Murphy

“Non-Voting” by Carl Watner

“The Ten Worst and Ten Best Presidents” course at Liberty Classroom