RE: (Voting = Violence) = Dangerous Leftist Idea
@adamkokesh: The idea that voluntaryists need to vote for a leader on a national level to change things is just oxy-moronic. The system is inextricably and intrinsically founded upon and dependent upon violence for its very existence. The idea that this system will "let you in" to destroy it and make it suddenly "nonviolent" defies any sort of sound logical thought process there is.
I just posted about this, in fact, but am not commenting here to link bomb or plug said post. I am only commenting here in the hopes that the principled, budding anarchists who are already changing and decentralizing things don't get caught up in this election hype sensationalism suffering a diversion of resources and time for a pipe dream.
Even if you should, by some miracle, become president, the plans I have heard you describe for "dissolving the Federal government" are all top-down, centralized plans, to be headed by yourself and a group of selected "custodians" who will manage who gets what, and how everything is to be broken down. This is not a voluntaryist approach at all, as it necessitates making vast claims over property miles and miles away, and does not permit those land owners, communities, and individuals with most direct demonstrable link to the properties, land, and resources to decide what to do with them. This is, essentially, an application of force via magical mandate.
Voluntaryism does not need a leader in the sense of a statist figurehead such as a "president" or even a "notpresident." Nor does the violence-based system of "Democracy" need to be legitimized.
Folks here on Steemit are already changing things. And it is happening in a direct, principled, and non-violent manner. You should look around a bit and see what I mean. Tons of stuff going on here, that is real, grassroots change, and not some big "campaign."
I can't believe it needs to be said that anarchists don't need a president.
I agree with what you're saying, and it's well expressed.
Point of order, though: it's kind of a spin-off from Adam's main topic, which was whether or not voting = violence.
You can be correct that voting and political action are not the right path to voluntaryism (and I think you are), and Adam can still be correct that it's not an act of violence.
Like dressing sloppy might not be the best way to impress your boss, but whether it technically breaks office policy was a different question.
I think what people need to understand, and I've come to realize this moreso since Trump has taken office, is that the president is not all-powerful. He can't just snap his fingers and end laws that he disagrees with. Waging influence over the legislative branch to do the right thing is tricky business.
If he wants to dissolve the corporate United States, one might wonder if the shareholders have any say in this. If so who are they, and how does he get their approval? Maybe it is a pipe dream, but if it's not I think the practicality of it needs to be fleshed out. Including probably some of the more occult facts of the corporate nature of government.