Response to Wendy McElroy Blog Post - "The Golden Days of Non-Voting"
Paul Antonik Wakfer
blog post entitled "The Golden Days of Non-Voting" by Wendy McElroy:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3097
-------------- Start of personal email ------------------
Hi Wendy,
I enjoyed reading your blog post about the late 70s and early 80s in
LA, also with some nostalgic memories. Although I was not in LA until
ten years later (1991 - living there mostly until 1999), I was an avid
observer and partaker of some of the events there from Toronto. At the
extreme end of the 70s at age 41, I was highly disenchanted with
Libertarian Political action (after a stint as LPC President and
leading a marathon effort to get the party registered), with my
continuing political philosophy reading and thinking (after starting
out as an Objectivist in the early 1960s). I sought and read all anti-
voting books (purchasing Sy Leon's book in 1979), following SEK3's
actions and becoming a member of the Libertarian Left (MLL61, IIRC)
and then becoming one of the first Voluntaryists and getting all that
literature (which I still have). The voluntaryist approach and
writings were definitely what best suited me and what I thought at the
time (and for many years afterwards) were the closest to the correct
approach and the most valid view of ethical libertarianism.
With regard to Murray, I also attempted to persuade him of his folly
and also of his ethical error in effectively being the recipient of
stolen funds (taxes) through his position at a University, both to no
avail. BTW, I also, to no avail, attempted to persuade SEK3 of *his*
folly in incorporating his Agorist Institute as a 501(c)3 corporation.
Now I am going to try to persuade you of your folly at wasting your
precious time on any libertarians who are foolish and misguided enough
to rally behind Ron Paul. As with Murray, your time could be much more
valuably spent doing outreach to the many young minds who are really
looking to find the most ethical and valid ways to examine and to live
in the world, rather than attempting *save* libertarians who mainly
bitch and moan to other libertarians about all the bad things that
governments do. If any libertarian gets caught up with the Ron Paul
trap, then s/he simply does not understand hir fundamentals enough.
And if any such person has been around for any reasonable length of
time and hasn't developed that understanding (as did you and I fairly
quickly), then s/he is not likely to, no matter what you say. So I
say, cut your losses and go after the new and the young who are still
open-minded and truly looking for answers.
----------- End of personal email ----------------
The bulk of the above was quoted by Wendy in another blog entry:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3117 which contains
additional interesting information, but upon which I do not wish to
comment.
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting
Paul Antonik Wakfer
[deleted my personal message to Wendy]
> The bulk of the above was quoted by Wendy in another blog entry:
> http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3117
However, Wendy used only my initials in attribution of the quote of my
response to her, so I sent the following email to hir with the
subject: Use of my writing and name
----------------- start of personal email ---------------
Hi Wendy,
I was pleased to see your blog entry quoting most of what I sent you
in response to your "Golden Days of Non-Voting" entry, but you
unintentionally did me a disservice by attributing to only initials
rather than my full name. In future be aware of the following, which
both I and Kitty have been telling everyone with whom we relate. We
are totally convinced that full openness and identification is
absolutely necessary if social progress to a fully free society is
ever to happen.
Unless I contract with a person beforehand, everything that I send hir
is as much hirs as it is mine to do with as s/he pleases. The only
difference in use entitlement between such persons relates to who is
the creator/originator of it. In addition, it is my desire and request
that if anything originating with me is used by someone else that
person provide at least my full name as the originator and preferably
also a link to where more information about me can be found.
---------------------- end of personal email --------------------
To which Wendy then replied (by top posting):
------------------- start of personal email ----------------
My apologies Paul. It is blog policy to not identify people unless
explicitly given permission to do so and I had no idea what was your
attitude toward correspondence. I will not make the same mistake
again.
----------------------- end of personal email -----------------------
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational -http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project -http://selfsip.org
Kitty Antonik Wakfer
[snipped less pertinent portions]
> Unless I contract with a person beforehand, everything that I send hir
> is as much hirs as it is mine to do with as s/he pleases. The only
> difference in use entitlement between such persons relates to who is
> the creator/originator of it. In addition, it is my desire and request
> that if anything originating with me is used by someone else that
> person provide at least my full name as the originator and preferably
> also a link to where more information about me can be found.
>
> ---------------------- end of personal email --------------------
>
> To which Wendy then replied (by top posting):
>
> ------------------- start of personal email ----------------
>
> My apologies Paul. It is blog policy to not identify people unless
> explicitly given permission to do so and I had no idea what was your
> attitude toward correspondence. I will not make the same mistake
> again.
>
> ----------------------- end of personal email -----------------------
>
Wendy's reply somewhat surprised me since I had a similar exchange with
her back last November:
------ start of relevant portion of Wendy's personal email ----------
Thank you very much for the feedback Kitty. I posted your comment on my
blog after taking out identifiers but leaving in the links you included.
I hope that's OK with you.
----------- end of relevant portion of Wendy's personal email -------
To which I responded:
---------- start of relevant portion of personal email ------------
Most assuredly and thank you for doing so. Actually, anything either I
or Paul write or say is the recipient's to use as s/he wishes, unless
agreement to keep it private was obtained *prior* to the transmittal of
that information. This reflects the physical fact that information
received (always through the senses) cannot be unlearned by the human
brain, just as a bell cannot be unrung. However, repeating of the
information can be purposely self-suppressed; but if such a prior
non-disclosure agreement is broached, all that we can and would do is
negatively social preference this person(s).
----------- end of relevant portion of personal email ------------
And again there was this in January, just over 2 months ago:
------- start of relevant portion of Wendy's personal email ----------
Hello again back at *you* Kitty. And thanks for another provocative
email that I posted on my blog today. I hpe[sic] you do not mind being
identified by name; I felt free to do so as the links you included
clearly lead back to you, Paul and the fine work you are doing. As for
the response to the ACLU letter...interesting question. I'll look into
the answer when I have a few minutes.
--------- end of relevant portion of Wendy's personal email ----------
It is highly likely that Wendy's writing and speaking schedule, in
addition with her personal life "on a farm in North America", keeps her
on the go and she simply forgot the contents of my earlier emails, even
though they reference Paul. I had hoped then - and do so even more now -
that Wendy will engage in discussion regarding this essential aspect of
interpersonal communication.
**Kitty Antonik Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Paul Wakfer
meta
I have copied the above to Wendy and separately sent her an invitation to join this group and respond here. I sincerely hope that she does.
/meta
--Paul Wakfer MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> On Mar 7, 8:31 pm, Paul Antonik Wakfer <p...@morelife.org> wrote:
>
> [deleted my personal message to Wendy]
>
> > The bulk of the above was quoted by Wendy in another blog entry:
> >http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3117
Wendy deleted the above referenced message from her blog, so the above
link no longer works. However a search of her website found a copy at:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/print.php?news.3117
I am still hoping that she will respond to my substantive and
fundamental questions which are similar to the thoughts/writings/
actions of most libertarians and, which I again remind readers (and
especially Wendy), are not meant to attach any blame or censure to
Wendy herself.
Paul Antonik Wakfer
> On Mar 8, 4:31 pm, Paul Antonik Wakfer <p...@morelife.org> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 7, 8:31 pm, Paul Antonik Wakfer <p...@morelife.org> wrote:
>
> > [deleted my personal message to Wendy]
>
> > > The bulk of the above was quoted by Wendy in another blog entry:
> > >http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.3117
>
> Wendy deleted the above referenced message from her blog, so the above
> link no longer works. However a search of her website found a copy at:
> http://www.wendymcelroy.com/print.php?news.3117
Since this copy of Wendy's original blog entry has now also been
removed (for unknown reasons), I really have no other option in order
to save
the connections from this thread, but to post the entire contents here
(as retrieved from Google's cache).
News Item: : Is Defensive voting possible?
(Category: Anti-Voting)
Posted by Wendy McElroy
Wednesday 03 March 2010 - 08:14:11
A reader writes in to comment on my blog post The Golden Days of Non-
Voting in which I reminisce about the heyday of non-voting theory and
activity in Los Angeles. I concluded by stating that I needed to
"manufacture" enthusiasm to critique anew Ron Paul and his Paulistas
as I expected the electoral mania surrounding the man to suffuse and
suffocate libertarianism once again. P.W. writes, I enjoyed reading
your blog post about the late 70s and early 80s in LA, also with some
nostalgic memories. Although I was not in LA until ten years later
(1991 - living there mostly until 1999), I was an avid observer and
partaker of some of the events there from Toronto...I sought and read
all anti-voting books (purchasing Sy Leon's book in 1979), following
After a bit of thought, I emailed P.W. back to let him know I was
convinced. Indeed, from the stab of relief I felt after sending the
message, I realize how much I was dreading another round of saying-
the-
same-old-thing. Besides which, I've never enjoyed going on the attack
against specific people. I make an exception in the case of
politicians because they have (IMO) declared themselves to be on the
attack against me, and viciously so. Nevertheless, specific attacks go
against my nature.
Instead, I want to start doing old-fashioned gloves-off anti-electoral
theory -- the sort of analysis that inspired me as a libertarian
upstart to become an outspoken anarchist. As a framework: I am not at
all apolitical or anti-political; I am passionate about politics and I
have been an activist for many years. What I oppose is electoral
politics and I do so as a matter both of principle and of strategy. In
other words, I believe electoral politics is not conducive with
libertarian principle (the non-aggression principle) and it will not
achieve libertarian goals. Also, I have no interest in condemning
libertarians who vote; I think they are acting contrary to
libertarianism -- that is, I think they are wrong. But I've never been
comfortable with an "I'm purer than thou" attitude and I don't see how
it advances arguments or understanding on any issue. Nor do I consider
all pro-voting arguments to be obviously non-libertarian; for example,
the "voting as an act of self-defense" argument has some plausibility
on its surface. But, again, I disagree.
As an opening argument, I want to distinguish defensive voting from
voting that seeks to place someone into a position of power over other
people. For example, voting in a referendum.
To do so, I refer to a debate on the subject that occurred in Benjamin
Tucker's periodical Liberty...
The young Russian Anarchist and associate editor of Liberty, Victor
Yarros, published an article entitled “Anarchists in Politics.” It
began, “No question seems to be simpler at first blush than that of
the proper attitude of Anarchists toward political struggles. Absolute
non-participation is obviously the clear deduction, the inevitable
corollary from the general Anarchistic philosophy. Yet . . .”
Following his provocative “yet,” Yarros asked whether, if some
immediate and practical good could be achieved by casting a vote, an
Anarchist could legitimately do so. Was it not possible that the
immediate and practical good could be so beneficial as to outweigh the
possibility of a vague far-off harm such as legitimizing the State?
Yarros concluded, “Answer this question in the negative, and all
reasons for boycotting politics vanish.”
According to Yarros, although Leo Tolstoi’s Christian Anarchism
eschewed violence, scientific Anarchism should adopt a more
“situational” ethics, namely, the position “that the ethical propriety
of men’s acts must be determined by the requirements and possibilities
of the situation.” Part of the situation was that people still adhered
“to governmentalism,” and hence Government would have to be abolished
gradually. Given the context of gradualism, Yarros did not consider it
“inconsistent to use government to abolish government” so long as the
gains to Anarchism outweighed the damage done. In this case, voting
would be a matter of personal preference, not of principle. “I think I
should vote in the case supposed, but I am not at all sure that Mr.
Tucker would . . . [T]he behavior of any individual Anarchist would
depend on the vividness of his imagination, the intensity of his
feelings, the bent of his mind. Some would unhesitatingly make an
exception to their general rule, while others would adhere to the
rule.”
In the same issue, in an article titled “Principle, Policy, and
Politics,” Tucker replied. He admitted that there were circumstances
in which he would use a ballot to further his goals. They were the
same circumstances in which he was willing to use dynamite and risk
injury to innocent parties. He cautioned Yarros: “Anarchists should be
careful to make it plain that to them the use of the ballot is
something more and worse than a trivial act of inutility. Mr. Yarros,
to be sure, declares parenthetically that use of the ballot is
aggression, but certainly the tendency of his article as a whole is to
make light of it in its aggressive aspect.”
In the following issue, Yarros defused the charge of making light of
aggression by stating that to “argue in Liberty that majority rule is
aggression is to burst in an open door. I passed over the question as
too well settled for argumentation.” Yet, while admitting the
aggressive nature of majority rule, Yarros denied that voting was
necessarily an act of force. He offered the example of voting in favor
of free trade by voting down a proposed measure that would enforce
protectionism. What if one vote alone would ensure free trade. How
would casting that one vote violate anyone’s rights? “If no one’s
rights are violated,” Yarros concluded, “those who vote for free trade
are not guilty of any offence . . . What I did was to vote for
freedom, for the absence of restrictions. I injured nobody and hence
have not transgressed the limits of equal liberty.” Yarros declared
such noninvasive voting to be an exception to the general rule that
ballots and bullets were inherently aggressive. Instead, he maintained
that casting a referendum ballot was an act of self-defense because
“the majority has a perfect right, under equal freedom, to prevent the
minority from imposing restrictions,—that is, from committing
aggression.” Yarros freely acknowledged one of Tucker’s points,
perhaps because it was a point he himself had made in the initial
article. The sight of Anarchists voting in any fashion could “confuse
the public mind” as to what constituted Anarchism and, thus, dilute
Anarchism as a force in the larger political life. This objection,
however, was a strategic one, not a principled one.
Again, Tucker’s response preceded Yarros’s article—a tactic the editor
often employed, whether for layout reasons or for strategic ones we do
not know. In an article titled “Aggression and the Ballot,” Tucker
accused Yarros of shifting the ground of argument in several ways. One
was by tacitly premising “such a transformation of politics that
invasion is eliminated.” For example, a voting system not financed by
taxation: this condition in no way resembled the current state of
affairs and, therefore, “has not the slightest bearing on the question
whether it is possible for Anarchists to non-aggressively participate
in the invasive thing that politics are to-day.” Then Tucker hit
directly on what he considered the key flaw in Yarros’s argument:
Yarros conflated electoral voting with voting on referendums, but each
produced a distinctly different result. “Voting for a law
maker” (electoral voting) involved placing someone in a position of
unjust power through which he could impose invasive measures. Tucker
added, “If he [Yarros] votes for a man who favors a particular
libertarian measure, this man will vote in the legislature . . . not
alone for the one libertarian measure, but for a thousand invasive
measures. Any man who would not do so could not be elected, for the
majority are in favor of invasion in most matters.” (48) Moreover,
even if Yarros’s candidate voted for nothing but “libertarian
measures,” he would still be paid a salary gathered by compulsory
taxation. The costs of the election—for example, counting the ballots—
would also be paid by taxation.
The next and last exchange between the two men showed an erosion of
goodwill, with Yarros accusing Tucker of taking advantage of what had
been “a slip of the pen” by which the former had misstated himself.
Again Tucker’s reply preceded Yarros’s article. Tucker claimed to be
pleased by the “manifest weakness” of Yarros’s arguments, which
relieved him from the task of answering them point by point. The
debate on the propriety of Anarchistic voting was over; again more
because of ill will than because the issue had been resolved.
-------------- End of Wendy McElroy Blog Entry -----------------