Can anarchists hold public office?

[rp08orbust]

Could an anarchist hold public office? Sure, I suppose so. Would an anarchist ever hold public office? Not without lying through his or her teeth. No public official would ever get elected by making arguments to smash the state and get rid of it completely.

I see nothing wrong with concealing one's ultimate objective in seeking public office. Jesus never explicitly announced that his ultimate objective was to get crucified

Simply declare your criteria for voting:

1. You will never vote to raise or introduce new taxes, and will vote to reduce or eliminate existing taxes at every opportunity.
2. You will work to abolish the government's monopoly over money.
3. You will never vote to authorize an aggressive war.
4. You will oppose conscription.
5. You will vote "yes" (or at least "present") on all spending bills, provided they strip no one of their freedoms.

Only a tiny percentage of the sheople would put these together and deduce that you're trying to abolish the state. Such a platform would have bipartisan support among a large chunk of the sheople (1, and perhaps 2 would appeal to the "right", while 4 and 5 would appeal to the left; since most Americans deny that the US has ever conducted aggressive warfare in its entire history, 3 would not be controversial either).

 

[tremendoustie]

"holding office" is antithetical to anarchism, so no. However, campaigning is not evil if one just plans to use the opportunity to give speeches and so on condemning the establishment.

I disagree. If the office holder returns all salaries back to the people, and votes/exerts all possible power towards preventing government violence, a voluntaryist can hold public office.

(I don't like the term "anarchist" when used to mean "one who does not believe in aggressively coercive government")

 

[rp08orbust]

Anarchists hate the government, so no anarchist would be the government.

This is like asking "can an atheist be a priest"?

That's a good analogy. An atheist could become a priest in order to infiltrate and sabotage the Catholic church in the same way that an anarcho-capitalist could run for office in order to infiltrate and sabotage the state.

 

[rp08orbust]

If the office holder returns all salaries back to the people

Explain how one goes about returning one's salary "to the people".

 

[tremendoustie]

I see nothing wrong with concealing one's ultimate objective in seeking public office. Jesus never explicitly announced that his ultimate objective was to get crucified

Simply declare your criteria for voting:

1. You will never vote to raise or introduce new taxes, and will vote to reduce or eliminate existing taxes at every opportunity.
2. You will work to abolish the government's monopoly over money.
3. You will never vote to authorize an aggressive war.
4. You will oppose conscription.
5. You will vote "yes" (or at least "present") on all spending bills, provided they strip no one of their freedoms.

Only a tiny percentage of the sheople would put these together and deduce that you're trying to abolish the state. Such a platform would have bipartisan support among a large chunk of the sheople (1, and perhaps 2 would appeal to the "right", while 4 and 5 would appeal to the left; since most Americans deny that the US has ever conducted aggressive warfare in its entire history, 3 would not be controversial either).

I was with you until point 5. How could a principled person support government spending?

 

[rp08orbust]

I was with you until point 5. How could a principled person support government spending?

By not having principles against victimless spending.

I don't object to the government issuing a medal to Rosa Parks. I object to it forcibly taxing people. They are two separate issues.

Imagine that a 100% voluntarily funded government exists. Then a slim majority of minarchists get elected by its customers and they manage to get a tiny involuntary income tax passed that applies over a territory that includes non-customers in order to fund, say, a border fence. Would the anarcho-capitalists then be obligated to suddenly oppose all of the spending the voluntary government has thus far engaged in, just because the government is now only partially voluntary? Would they be morally obligated to go even further and resign?

Of course not. They would only be morally obligated to seek to abort this fetal state and to seek to wrest control of the organization back from the minarchists.

The current situation only differs from this hypothetical one in degree: Some unknowable percentage of our government's activity is voluntarily funded, and at least some of its programs would continue if it became 100% voluntary. Nothing about anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism prohibits government spending. It only prohibits involuntary taxation, conscription and monopoly.

 

[Conza88]

I've had this discussion before... I agree with Lysander Spooner & Rothbard mostly.

So far Ron has never personally done anything to agitate for more government / control / centralization.

There are differing opinions / thoughts on this obviously, within the ancap / non-archist camp..

So to the minarchists etc.. don't you dare put up a stone wall around it, because you don't think you could then legitimately support Ron Paul or any other Liberty candidates...

Because you'd be completely wrong.

 

[tremendoustie]

By not having principles against victimless spending.

I don't object to the government issuing a medal to Rosa Parks. I object to it forcibly taxing people. They are two separate issues.

Imagine that a 100% voluntarily funded government exists. Then a slim majority of minarchists get elected by its customers and they manage to get a tiny involuntary income tax passed that applies over a territory that includes non-customers in order to fund, say, a border fence. Would the anarcho-capitalists then be obligated to suddenly oppose all of the spending the voluntary government has thus far engaged in, just because the government is now only partially voluntary? Would they be morally obligated to go even further and resign?

Of course not. They would only be morally obligated to seek to abort this fetal state and to seek to wrest control of the organization back from the minarchists.

The current situation only differs from this hypothetical one in degree: Some unknowable percentage of our government's activity is voluntarily funded, and at least some of its programs would continue if it became 100% voluntary. Nothing about anarcho-capitalism/voluntarism prohibits government spending. It only prohibits involuntary taxation, conscription and monopoly.

If the money to be spent was originally obtained, in part or in whole, by theft, it is immoral to support its expenditure, because it is stolen property which should be returned to the rightful owners.

 

[rp08orbust]

If the money to be spent was originally obtained, in part or in whole, by theft, it is immoral to support its expenditure, because it is stolen property which should be returned to the rightful owners.

What if the rightful owner cannot be identified, or even defined?

 

[tremendoustie]

What if the rightful owner cannot be identified, or even defined?

The rightful owner is whoever the money was taken from in the first place. Assuming tax records exist, one could do quite a good job of returning the stolen property. Even if one did not, the money could be distributed to the "taxpayers" in some other way.

Justice is always imperfect, because we do not have time machines. Thus, if I break your window, I cannot unbreak your window, but I will be required to pay you a best estimate of the cost of its replacement, plus perhaps some money which we guess compensates you for the hassle.

One does the best one can -- but supporting the continued expenditure of stolen money is not moral. I could not morally be in charge of expenditures for Al Capone, unless I use that position to do the best I possibly can to return the extorted and stolen money to the victims.

 

[South Park Fan]

While I think it is okay for an anarchist to hold public office, I don't think it is a very good strategy for success.

 

[Kludge]

No. Who would vote for them unless they use fraud to be elected?

 

[rp08orbust]

No. Who would vote for them unless they use fraud to be elected?

I would.

 

[tremendoustie]

No. Who would vote for them unless they use fraud to be elected?

Well, that's another question. Once a majority exists to elect a voluntaryist, we probably would not have government anyway, because people would simply refuse to participate.

Some people support the idea of dishonesty in order to get elected, on the basis that it is justified to lie in order to protect people from violence -- although I don't agree.

It is possible to say the truth in a way that could still allow one to get elected, however.

 

[rp08orbust]

The rightful owner is whoever the money was taken from in the first place. Assuming tax records exist, one could do quite a good job of returning the stolen property. Even if one did not, the money could be distributed to the "taxpayers" in some other way.

Which would be to support spending

And not a demonstrably more just way of returning the loot than simply continuing to fund or expand the victimless spending programs that already exist. See my points above about the arbitrariness of trying to define each individual taxpayer's "fair share".

 

[tremendoustie]

Which would be to support spending

And not a demonstrably more just way of returning the loot than simply continuing to fund or expand the victimless spending programs that already exist.

That's not the same thing. The purpose of restitution is to do the best possible job of returning the stolen money from those it was taken from, and as I say, the government, being the ones who took it, could probably do a quite good job.

Your list supports any expenditure, which means your hypothetical politician would be just fine taking a pile of money extorted from bridge playing engineers in deluth who make over 100K, and sending it to a fishing company in Alaska (after taking a big cut for themselves). That's not restitution.

 

[tremendoustie]

See my points above about the arbitrariness of trying to define each individual taxpayer's "fair share".

It's not arbitrary at all. Add up taxes paid by a particular resident, that's what's due. Everything but sales tax could be reconstructed quite accurately. And the politicians and bureaucrats who supported or enforced the "taxes" are personally liable, although I could support some sort of general amnesty if it would end the continuing theft.

 

[rp08orbust]

It's not arbitrary at all. Add up taxes paid by a particular resident, that's what's due.

Would estate tax be included? And if so, why not taxes paid by one's deceased parents? And if deceased parents, then why not grandparents? Would previously received welfare payments, student loans, tax credits, etc be deducted from what the government owes an individual? If so, then what about benefits from government that are not as easily quantifiable, like contract awards, protection, monopoly rights, etc?

What if the total amount due to taxpayers were 50 times government assets and the personal assets of government officials (speaking of which, would those personally liable include retired government officials, the beneficiaries of deceased government officials, etc?). Would the government borrow to pay them back? But then what about previously existing creditors--should US bondholders have been paid back pro rata before any restitution of taxpayers were attempted?

The world of taxpayer restitution is absolutely arbitrary.

 

[BlueCalico]

This representative is not stealing money from anyone himself, he might just be accepting stolen money that would have been stolen anyways no matter if he was employed in the free market, and to whom the rightful owners of the money are impossible to identify.

This anarchist representative, is essentially a net subtraction on the amount of state coercion that would have existed without him.

The only problem here is, YOU would be stealing. Is stealing only wrong if nobody else is doing it?

 

[Andrew-Austin]

The only problem here is, YOU would be stealing. Is stealing only wrong if nobody else is doing it?

I don't understand what you are saying. This hypothetical anarchist representative would not be steeling himself.

And why cap 'YOU', I never said I was running for office. lol