Options: Voting, Violence, and the Third Way… and Fourth Way.

So, here’s another post that is somewhat related to the Jason Stapleton Show.

It seems like the last couple days he has hit on a particular point over and over again, mainly the necessity of being involved in the political process, because the only alternative to affecting change through the political process is, so Jason tells us, the attempt to affect change through violent means.

Jason still believes we can restore the republic and go back to the constitution. He admits it’s going to be hard, but this in an understatement. I’d love it if I were wrong, but as far as I can see, not only will we not have a free society in our lifetime, but we will continue to become less free for the foreseeable future despite our best efforts. We’re never going to get a libertarian president, much less a libertarian majority in congress. Yes, I understand if we had 10 libertarians in the senate, with 45 republicans and 45 democrats, that they would wield a huge amount of power. But, they still wouldn’t be able to pass their own spending bills, bring soldiers home, abolish the Fed or the IRS, or even get a good justice on the supreme Court.   So what’s the point? And how far out are we looking? 25 years, 35 years, 50 years?

With all the variables at play how can you even try to plan that far out?
Facts are facts; we’re not going to get there through the federal level. At best, it’s a game of limiting the damage, but at the same time, the more presidents we have like Obama the more incentive there will be, and the more likely it will be for the states to resist the federal usurpation of power.  This doesn’t mean I’m hoping for the whole thing to fall apart.

Jason has talked a little bit about one of the options besides voting. Violence. And, he and I are in agreement there. But, I think there are some other options.

One option is sort of a midway point. It involves voting, but the aim isn’t to affect change at the national level, but rather to nullify federal legislation and ultimately secede, state by state.

Another option, a bit less desirable, would be mass noncompliance. As I’ve written elsewhere, in line with the thought of Etienne De La Boetie, if people didn’t obey the rulers, they wouldn’t be rulers.

In practice for this to work, the state has to get really stupid and pass lots of super ridiculous rules before the masses grow bold enough to ignore the state. Usually a great degree of corruption is necessary, and this is more or less the case in Argentina, as far as I understand it. The people don’t pay attention to the regulations, and the cops don’t try to enforce them so long as you don’t get on their bad side.

It’s either that or if the ideas of anarcho-capitalism could take hold, if people began to recognize the state for what it is, then we could skip all the bad laws and the political corruption, and go straight to ignoring the state.

If there were a million anarcho-capitalists in the country, we could, and would, stop paying income tax, just for instance.

Of course, in both scenarios, there is the danger of isolated enforcement. Let’s say you’re dating a pretty girl that happens to be a cop’s sister and he decides he doesn’t like you. Then he could enforce some bad law, bribe the judge if necessary and off to jail you go…. This is also how it sometimes works out in Argentina.

In either case, through mass noncompliance or secession, people will somehow have to stop having respect and reverence for the federal government. Not the politicians, but the offices themselves; for the very structure of the Washington machine.  Rrealistically, while we might praise the ideals put forth in the constitution, or at least the bill of rights, the fact is that if the constitution were so great, we wouldn’t be where we are at.

Once people stop respecting the federal government, revering senators, and honoring presidents, and the offices, that’s when we’ll have our chance.