Guest column by Morey Straus

That the core concept of statism is inherently unjust is not in question. Nor is the notion that the voting is unlikely to produce an acceptable level of reform. To this extent, anarchists generally agree.

What separates anti-political libertarians from principled partyarchs is the advocacy of a vulgar form of unilateral disarmament.^* This form of pacifism is more in line with the LeFevrian stripe than in the simpler sense, in that the anarchist is more concerned with becoming part of the problem than with straightforward avoidance. But it still walks and talks like pacifism. This willful disassociation from tactics used by statists is as doomed to catch fire as was Quakerism.

Voting, argues the voluntaryist, provides the veneer of legitimacy for statism, and therefore anarchists must not reinforce that veneer. The only ethical solution is to abstain from the electoral process entirely.

Following this advice, anarchists miss one of the few opportunities for public dialogue still allowed by the ruling class. One need not advocate the reform of an institution that we agree is on par with any other criminal band. In the same way that an agorist can use the statist roads to engage in counter-economic trade, the partyarch may use the vehicle of elections to advocate the abolition of elections.

Whether the point is made subtly, as would be the case in attacking the most clearly destructive policies, or explicitly (”Don’t vote for me!”) is a choice left to the individual.

For the sake of argument, let’s suspend the current reality and imagine that an explicit anarchist was elected to some office of serious consequence. What action could one take that does not undermine ones ethics? I see three acceptable choices:

1. Refuse the office. Such an action is guaranteed to generate further dialogue among a broader audience. A refusal to be sworn in may be the wisest long-term strategy, in that it could have a greater impact in the public consciousness than any foiled defensive actions attempted as a state official.

2. If the position is executive, accept it. Perform no actions other than abolition, in whole or in part, and veto all state supporting activity.

3. If the position is legislative, accept it. As Ron Paul has done on many occasions, be the lone voice of reason; a kink in the otherwise well-oiled machine. Continue your original campaign intent, by speaking out against the insanity at every available opportunity.

Such a scenario is, of course, academic. For by the time the public at large is willing to elect someone who advocates “pushing the button,” educational tactics will have succeeded, and the state will have already lost its power.

Meanwhile, participation in the context of a political party that represents a broader definition of liberty serves another crucial purpose. Government schools and popular culture produce very few graduated anarchists. Most of us take our first steps into the movement with only vague or arbitrary tendencies toward liberty. It is the community that fosters development of the inquisitive neophyte into the full fledged anarchist. There is no community so accessible as an active local group on the edge of the existing framework.

Yes, there are pitfalls to libertarian politics. Opportunists will continue attempts to co-opt and pervert the message and purpose. They may even organize to collectively dig in their heels against ideological and general intellectual development. That has always been the case. We may have abandoned the concept of limited government as a naive pipe dream, but we can still agree that “the price of liberty is eternal vigilance.”

* The author does indeed advocate unilateral disarmament in the traditional sense, meaning that WMDs can rarely, if ever, be used defensively against individual aggressors.