Young people on a journey for knowledge are often times idealistic, furthermore, with extremely limited real world experience, their education is rather useless.
Anarchists are of no value to this movement because anarchists don’t vote. Any form of grassroots efforts they engage in is to convince people not to vote. That movement is completely at odds with this movement.
You're a helluva collectivist, too!
"Anarchists" aren't a single homogeneous mass of people who all do things the same way. Some may not vote, some may encourage people to vote for people who promise to regulate government once on the "inside". If there are any anarchists here, wouldn't they pretty much de facto be supporting voting for Paul?
Further, why is voting the only, best, or preferred method for changing the system? As far as I can tell, if the current system remains in place, the majority of the people will be content enough to keep voting for people that want to preserve the status quo.
Personally, if the State is going to allow me to play some infinitesimal part in deciding which 'leader' is going to claim to represent me, I want to take part in that process. But it is the State's process, not mine. If there is one candidate that proves to me to be exceptionally trustworthy and earnest, I'll encourage others to vote for them also.
But I recognize the futility of consistently filing a vote for the less-than-one-percent category of someone who tells the truth and doesn't promise the voter that all of their dreams will come true, and sense that other, non governmental, non-political processes must be implemented to first win the hearts and minds of the democratic voters.
So do I urge people that they must vote? Of course not. Do I reject using the system as currently enabled to bring about incremental change, as you suggest? Again, no.
