flynn23 wrote:
] ] Anarchists' Convention Debates Whether Voting Makes You a
] ] Bad Anarchist
]
] does anyone else see the humor in this that I do?

Anarcon? 175 people? Thats like 1/3 of Phreaknic. Do these people represent the voice of anarchists in America? What kind of anarchists are they? Anarcho-socialists? Anarcho-capitalists? LaVey satanists?

Of course, the libertarians have had this debate for years. The fact is that there is no fault in using a tool that helps you achieve your goals. This is the key reality that the libertarians are missing. They need moderates in their party who are electable and can move the baton a little in their direction rather the settling for all or nothing.

Decius wrote:

] The fact is that there is no fault in using a tool that helps
] you achieve your goals.

kinda like terrorism?

flynn23 wrote:
] Decius wrote:
]
] ] The fact is that there is no fault in using a tool that
] helps
] ] you achieve your goals.
]
] kinda like terrorism?

If the deaths of innocent civilians are in line with your goals then you've lost perspective about what is important.

Decius wrote:
] flynn23 wrote:
] ] Decius wrote:
] ]
] ] ] The fact is that there is no fault in using a tool that
] ] helps
] ] ] you achieve your goals.
] ]
] ] kinda like terrorism?
]
] If the deaths of innocent civilians are in line with your
] goals then you've lost perspective about what is important.

I used that extreme of an example to make a point. There is fault in using a tool to achieve your goals if the tool being used falls beneath your values. Case in point with the Libertarians not taking Federal campain funds, or with Anarchists casting votes. Sometimes you can make a louder point and enact stronger change by sticking with your values. At least Ghandi had some luck with that.

flynn23 wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] flynn23 wrote:
] ] ] Decius wrote:
] ] ]
] ] ] ] The fact is that there is no fault in using a tool that
] ] ] helps
] ] ] ] you achieve your goals.
] ] ]
] ] ] kinda like terrorism?
] ]
] ] If the deaths of innocent civilians are in line with your
] ] goals then you've lost perspective about what is important.
]
] I used that extreme of an example to make a point. There is
] fault in using a tool to achieve your goals if the tool being
] used falls beneath your values. Case in point with the
] Libertarians not taking Federal campain funds, or with
] Anarchists casting votes. Sometimes you can make a louder
] point and enact stronger change by sticking with your values.
] At least Ghandi had some luck with that.

Hrm. Ghandi was not opposed to violently overthrowing the British. He simply had the vision to realize that his goals could be achieved without bloodshed, and this was preferable to him because he has his priorities straight. It would never have worked if the threat wasn't there.

However, I understand your point. If you think that participating in democracy is unethical because your vote imposes your will upon others, then you shouldn't participate in democracy.

flynn23 wrote:
] ] Anarchists' Convention Debates Whether Voting Makes You a
] ] Bad Anarchist
]
] does anyone else see the humor in this that I do?

How do the pollsters reconcile the anarchist non voters from the politically indifferent non voters or even more ironically, the politically indifferent anarchists??