Those seeking peace, justice, lawfulness and non-violence in the socio-cultural order and norms and institutions of the world -- in other words, those seeking to move the world to libertarian voluntaryism -- necessarily need to employ ethical/moral means (education, association/disassociation, agorism, parallel institution building, homeschooling, homesteading, etc.).

It is impossible to use political coercion (i.e. the State itself, including, importantly, the act of voting in electoral democracies) to reduce or eliminate the State. Secondly, in addition to being illogical, such actions are inherently immoral.

We assume the above fundamental anarchist premise. Also, the words 'voluntaryist', 'libertarian', 'anarchist' and 'anarcho-capitalist' are used interchangeably and synonymously in this note and everywhere else by this author. Technically, the first three terms are necessarily related, while the last two are synonyms.

Given that people are still, by and large, political, how are anarchists to analyze specific political actions?

There is of course the straightforward option of the usual course of truthful rhetoric -- which is to proclaim that action through the State of those who are beginning to love liberty (minarchists, political libertarians) will only ultimately reduce liberty and that actions of those who do not value liberty (e.g. progressives, liberals, neo-conservatives) can quickly lead to technocratic totalitarian tyranny and various kinds of social, economic and cultural disasters, along the way.

But, should anarchists merely always start and end there in their commentary regarding others' political actions?

The fact that anarchists don't engage in political action does not mean that others don't, either for anti-libertarian values or for libertarian values (foolishly).

1. Should anarchists sometimes comment on political actions engaged in by others?

2. Could there be some good arising out of political action -- even as an unintended consequence? Can that be celebrated and can one be thankful for it?

3. If yes, does that fact ever mean that anarchists must endorse such political actions and/or themselves act politically?

The answers are "yes", "yes", and "no", respectively.

These answers, which are logically consistent, can be too hard for some to simultaneously assent to. Recognizing that immoral acts can sometimes result in unintended good is not a justification for anyone to act immorally in the first place. God's grace and providential arrangement of evil for good ends does not give man the right to act in an evil way, in the first place.

In this note, we explore specific political phenomenon in the 21st century, from the lens of this perspective, mainly focussing on America.

Ron Paul Revolution and the Mises Caucus

While the intellectual edifice of Austrian economics (libertarianism) was established by Ludwig von Mises and his peers and its modern synthesis with individual anarchism --- called 'anarcho-capitalism' -- was continued by his heirs Murray Rothbard and his peers, the popular awakening to this truth for many (arguably, most) modern-day anarchists started with learning about Ron Paul.

Recognizing that Ron Paul couldn't use the State apparatus to increase liberty is unremarkable because it is plainly true, as emphasized earlier. But, indirectly, his presence and words created hordes of liberty lovers, many of whom have since left the GOP and have become full-blown anarchists, by taking nascent principles to their logical conclusion, in order to escape the Matrix.

The same is likely true of the many good souls in the Mises Caucus, who kicked out the socialist/elite shill anti-libertarian carcasses that populated the Libertarian Party in the Reno Reset of 2022.

Javier Milei -- an ancap President?

In 2023, Javier Milei, emerged on the scene as the first politician in the history of the modern world to explicitly espouse anarchist/anarcho-capitalist values. Even Ron Paul skirted close to the issue without being so completely brazen and explicit. Of course, to reiterate yet again, anarchist rhetoric and State action are not logically compatible. Therefore, Milei, regardless of what he does or does not do, will not reduce or eliminate the State in any meaningful sense. However, many people, significantly more than during the Ron Paul Revolution, have heard of libertarian ancap principles for the first time ever! The rhetoric, taken on its own, is true and correct. And, many of these people will complete the journey on their own.

Vivek Ramaswamy, Anti-Woke GOP Presidential Candidate 2024

While the modern conservative movement (21st century and 20th century) has whined and whimpered flaccidly and impotently about the growing cancer of wokeism and progressivism and political correctness and the LGBTQ perversion in public life and in culture, they've never even been able to mount a rhetorically sharp attack on the Left, until the arrival of Ramaswamy.

Ultimately, a culture that rejects lawfulness and liberty is so morally perverse that other perversions will quickly follow -- therefore, conservative politics, even when they "win", always lead to progressive depravities growing in culture.

So, the only good that could ever come out of the GOP and political conservatism was the small hope of at least a rhetorical resistance to the Left (even if it was an impossibility, substantively). But even this has not happened until Vivek Ramaswamy. Examples :

https://twitter.com/VivekGRamaswamy/status/1741490841275846813

- VivekGRamaswamy

Trump 2.0 (edit, Nov 2024)

@paulvp/a-voluntaryistanarchists-response-to-trumps-2024-victory