An Anarchists' Apololgia
by J. Neil Schulman
I have just registered to vote.
Those who have been following my libertarian writings for
the last two decades may well wonder why I, one of the activists
of the "Vote For Nobody!" campaign, and a proud antipolitical
nonvoter for twenty years, have seemingly abandoned a principle
of remaining aloof in all ways from the State, so as not to
sanction it. They are quite right to ask, since in my own writings
I have gone on record against voting, quoting Jack Parr that "It
only encourages them."
Let me state for the record that in spite of this act, I
still believe that voting, or registering to vote, is in no way
a prerequisite to "good citizenship," or "social responsibility,"
and that those who refuse to sanction the State by registering with
it for voting are taking a morally justifiable stance and a
strategically valid one. "If you don't vote, you have no right to
complain" goes the statist refrain around election time, yet the
percentage of adults who choose not to register, and of registered
voters who choose not to vote, gets higher every year. The
establishment media call this apathy. Libertarians rightly call
it resistance -- an unwillingness to play a rigged game.
Yet I have just registered to vote. Why?
I could quote Robert Heinlein's Lazarus Long and say, "Certainly
the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet
you can't win." But that reasoning is specious: with a Congress
that has gerrymandered districts to such an extent that there is
a 98% reelection rate, the wheel isn't rigged -- it's \frozen\.
I could quote Lysander Spooner in \No Treason: The
Constitution of No Authority\,
"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual
voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, \even for
the time being\. On the contrary, it is to be considered
that, without his consent having even been asked a man
finds himself environed by a government that he cannot
resist; a government that forces him to pay money,
render service, and forego the exercise of many of his
natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He
sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him
by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he
will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of
relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by
subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself,
without his consent, so situated that, if he use the
ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it,
he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative
than these two. In self- defence, he attempts the
former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has
been forced into battle, where he must either kill
others, or be killed himself. Because, to save his own
life in battle, a man takes the lives of his opponents,
it is not to be inferred that the battle is one of his
own choosing."
This, however, strikes me as moral relativism at best, moral
cowardice at worst. If one is voting to rule rather than be
ruled, even in self defense, then one is abandoning the concept
that freedom \works\, and that one never needs to choose between
false dichotomies -- that the lesser of evils is still evil.
Nevertheless, Lysander Spooner's point is valid: one can not
and should not take the act of registering to vote or voting as
an implicit sanction of the State or of the political process.
And let me state explicitly that for me it is not: I will vote,
but I do \not\ promise to abide by the outcome of voting if that
outcome maintains or increases the violation of individual
rights.
Still, why should anyone believe me? Can one register to
vote and still oppose the system in which one is voting? If one
believes that the game is rigged and one stands no chance of
winning, isn't one at best a sucker to put one's money on the
table -- and at worst a shill, trying to con others into the
game?
Until a few weeks ago I would have said yes. Obviously I
have had a change of heart. Why?
I have been, for the last two decades, a committed
libertarian revolutionary. I still am. I oppose "gradualism."
I oppose the concept that one must work within the system to
prevent anarchy: anarchy -- the absence of a centralized means of
coercion -- is my goal. I oppose the "Fabian" approach to
achieving social change -- the idea that one can vote in freedom
"one step at a time."
I oppose trusting politicians with our rights. I oppose
delegating one's rights to political institutions, or submitting
them to the outcome of a vote. If a politician says, "A vote for
me is a vote for freedom," he is a knave or a fool -- a knave if
he knows that the method of politics is the aggrandizement of
power for one's own ends, a fool if he doesn't realize that power
once aggrandized must either be wielded or abandoned.
Yet I have registered to vote. Why?
Do I think that one can reform the existing major parties so
that either of them can become a force for liberty? No. Do I
think that the (or a) "Libertarian" party can gain political
power and achieve liberty thereby? No, on two counts: (1) I
doubt that any third party can overcome the obstacles the
entrenched political parties have erected to protect their power;
and (2) even if it succeeded, it would still be a political party
and therefore subject to the same rules of power-politics that
are antithetical to liberty.
Yet I have registered to vote. Why? What do I hope to
accomplish by this act? What am I after? What's my pay-off?
CREATING A "NEGATIVE POWER BASE"
My answer is: I hope to use the political system to erect
barriers to effective utilization of political power. I am going
to try to obstruct the system from within. Throw sand into the
gears. Slow it down.
My specific strategy is to use the Initiative system in
California -- a method by which a popular vote can bypass both
elected legislatures and the courts -- to coalesce a "negative
power base."
What is a "negative power base"?
It is any single-issue coalition whose goal is to deny power
to the State, or to return power to the individual. To be
defined as a negative power base, the issue must be defined in
such a way that no increase of power is granted to the State, and
power currently wielded by the executive, legislative, or
judicial branch is either stunted or dispersed.
I have assembled three propositions which I believe meet
these criteria (I drafted the first and the third), which I call
The California People's Initiative.
***
[SIDEBAR]
***
As can be seen by the propositions, none of them have the
effect of sanctioning existing political power. Any one of them,
if passed, increases the net power of individuals to control their
own destinies. At worst the propositions can be stopped by political
dirty tricks, or by being ignored by the courts, or interpreted out
of existence -- yet, there is a high price for the statists to
ignore the direct will of the people: it de-legitimizes the State for
them to do so.
As we have seen recently in the Soviet Union, if the people
are successful in using the system's own means for disempowering
it, and the hard-liners attempt to maintain power in spite of the
people's clear will, it creates a moment for revolutionary
resistance.
If a popular will can be forged to restrict the State's
power, the statists must either go peacefully, or attempt a coup.
You then either have peaceful revolution or violent
revolution, and the outcome depends on who has the people with
them.
I am not willing to put my trust in princes. But, as a
revolutionary, I must admit that if I do not put my trust in
the people, I have no where else to place it.
There is a personal cost to me for this decision. Some of
my allies will now be suspicious of me and my motives. My
address is now a matter of public record. I am now subject to
being drafted by the State for jury duty.
This is a price I am willing to pay. I feel that by staying
completely aloof from political action, I have in effect been
marginalized.
I fully admit the possibility that this strategy may be
flawed, and that it may backfire upon me. That is a risk I have
chosen to take.
As to those who believe that the path I have taken is wrong,
let me say: I do this alone. Let no one who is out of the system
follow me in.
--J. Neil Schulman
August 23, 1991
***
[SIDEBAR]
***
THE CALIFORNIA PEOPLE'S INITIATIVE
PREAMBLE. PURPOSE OF ACTS
The purpose of these Acts is to curtail the ever-increasing
transfer of power away from the people and to political bodies
controlled by narrow interests by (I.) Establishing a direct
means by which the people can disapprove legislation it dislikes;
(II.) Reaffirming the traditional right of juries to rule on the
law as well as the facts in any trial where government is one of
the parties; and (III.) Enabling those most victimized by crime
to defend themselves rather than being forced to rely upon a
government system of police and courts which does little to
protect the public beforehand from crime and is otherwise
ineffective at curtailing it. [It is my current understanding
that each Article will have to be introduced as a separate
proposition.]
ARTICLE I. CITIZEN'S LINE ITEM VETO.
SECTION I. PURPOSE OF ARTICLE: CONSTRUCTION
The State of California shall establish a statewide
voicemail telephone system whereby voters may exercise a line-
item veto over all legislation signed by the governor. A one-
third vote in favor of vetoing a line item shall prevent it from
becoming law, with no override available.
SECTION II. The Constitution of the State of California is
hereby amended as follows:
Within one year from the passage of this Act:
A. 1. The State of California shall register any California voter
who wishes to enroll for Citizen's Line Item Veto participation.
Such enrollment shall identify these voters in a manner not
invasive to their personal privacy, but with a level of security
equivalent to that used by the commercial banking industry for
telephone banking transactions.
2. The State of California shall establish a state-wide voice-
mail telephone system, operated by touch-tone telephones using an
(800) area code telephone number or other free-to-caller area
code. All California voters enrolled for Citizen's Line Item
Veto participation shall be entitled to vote on this system.
3. Each line item in all legislation signed by the governor the
previous week shall be placed before the enrolled voters on this
voice mail system. Each voter on the system shall be given one
vote per line item of legislation signed by the governor, YES or
NO.
4. A count shall be made each week of all votes on each line-
item. If a line-item gains one-third or more NO votes, it shall
fail to have been passed into law, and no appeal to any
legislative, executive, or judicial authority may override this
veto.
B. The State of California shall provide a weekly line-item
summary of all legislation which has been signed into law by the
governor the previous week. Such summary shall be in a form
understandable to any resident of the State of California with a
high school diploma issued by a California public school, and
shall be made publicly available.
C. To compensate voters in the Line Item Veto for the time and
effort of reading the legislation and registering their vote, all
voters enrolled in the Line Item Veto who vote on the system at
least eight times per year shall be exempt at point of sale on
all purchases from the California Sales Tax for the next year.
D. No line-item vetoed by the voters of the Line Item Veto may
be reintroduced into legislation for a period of three years.
E. No tax or other method of public funding, including all usage
fees, shall pass into effect without being subject to the
Citizen's Line Item Veto, nor shall any tax or other method of
funding, including all usage fees, remain in effect two years
from the passage of this proposition unless it is placed before
the enrolled voters of the Citizen's Line Item Veto.
F. Any California legislator, judge, or elected or appointed
public office-holder, state, country, municipal, or local, who
attempts to obstruct the enactment of this Article or who
otherwise fails to honor the intent of this Article, shall be
immediately removed from office, and hereafter be forbidden to
hold any office of honor or trust under the State of California,
or any county or municipality. This disability may only be
removed by a proposition enacted by the people.
ARTICLE II. JURIES.
SECTION I. PURPOSE OF ARTICLE: CONSTRUCTION
The purpose of this Act is to assure that jurors are made aware
of:
(a) The jurors' inherent right to judge whether the law
or laws applicable to the case being tried are unjust or
misapplied.
(b) The jurors' traditional right to vote according to
conscience.
To this end, juries affected by this Act shall be allowed to hear
evidence concerning the defendant's motives. This Act shall be
construed liberally to effect its purposes.
SECTION II. Article I of the Constitution of the State of
California is amended by adding a Section 29 that reads:
"JURY RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES SECTION 29
Whenever state or local government is one of the parties in any
trial by jury, the court must inform the jurors that in addition
to their responsibility to judge the facts of the case, they have
the inherent right to judge the law itself."
SECTION III. Any trial included under Section II. of this Article
for which the jury has not been properly informed of its inherent
right to judge the law itself shall be declared a mistrial.
SECTION IV. Any judge who exhibits a pattern of failing to
inform juries of their inherent right to judge the law itself, or
who otherwise fails to honor the intent of this Article, shall be
immediately removed from office, and hereafter be forbidden to
hold any office of honor or trust under the State of California,
or any county or municipality. This disability may only be
removed by a proposition enacted by the people.
ARTICLE III. EQUAL PROTECTION.
SECTION I. PURPOSE OF ARTICLE: CONSTRUCTION
The purpose of this article is to provide adequate means of
protection against violent crime to those who are most
victimized by it: women, the elderly, minorities, the physically
handicapped, children, residents of neighborhoods where there is
persistent gang presence or drug-related violence, or anyone who
lives or works in a municipality where city, county, state, or
federal police presence is inadequate to prevent or protect the
citizenry beforehand from any of the following crimes: rape,
child molestation, mugging, hate crimes, murder, attempted
murder, assault, mayhem, armed or unarmed robbery, burglary
(including automobile burglary), grand theft (including grand
theft, auto), extortion, drive-by shootings, purse snatching, or
any other attack or threat of attack against the persons or
personal property of peaceful citizens.
SECTION II. The Constitution of the State of California is
hereby amended as follows:
Anyone who satisfies the following criteria:
A. A citizen or legal resident of the United States and of the
State of California; and who is
B. Eighteen years or older (unless a member of the armed forces,
or a cadet training for the armed forces,in which case the age
requirement is waived); and who has
C. Never been convicted of a violent crime or never pleaded
not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity to a violent crime, or has never
been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for having
committed a violent crime;
D. And can satisfy being in one or more of the following
categories:
1. A woman;
2. A member of any race, religious group, sect, nationality,
or other minority for which there is a history of hate
crimes;
3. Over 50 years of age (the minimum membership age for the
American Association of Retired Persons);
4. Physically handicapped, or suffering from any physical
condition which would tend to make one a target for
criminal assault, attack, robbery, or violence;
5. The parent or legal guardian of a minor child, or a
person \in loco parentis\ for a minor child;
6. A person who has ever been the victim of any of the
following crimes: rape, child molestation, mugging, hate
crimes, attempted murder, assault, mayhem, armed
or unarmed robbery, burglary (including automobile
burglary), grand theft (including grand theft, auto),
extortion, drive-by shooting, purse snatching, or any
other attack or threat of attack against one's person or
personal property;
7. A person whose residency or work places them in a
municipality where there is persistent gang presence or
drug-related violence, or anyone who lives or works in a
municipality where city, county, state, or federal police
presence is inadequate to prevent or protect the
citizenry beforehand from any of the following crimes:
rape, child molestation, mugging, hate crimes, murder,
attempted murder, assault, mayhem, armed or unarmed
robbery, burglary (including automobile burglary), grand
theft (including grand theft, auto), extortion, drive-by
shootings, purse snatching,or any other attack or threat
of attack against one's person or personal property;
8. Can demonstrate circumstances in which one is escorting
or otherwise responsible for the safety of anyone in the
previous categories;
will hereafter be granted an unlimited license to carry,
concealed or unconcealed, loaded firearms, of any sort legally
carried by any police officer, sheriff, judge or justice of the
peace, elected or appointed public official, civil servant,
government employee, or member of the organized or unorganized
militia.
SECTION III.
A. Nothing in this article shall be construed to deny or limit
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as recognized
by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and
in other law.
B. In the event this article is held to infringe the right of the
people to keep and bear arms by unconstitutionally limiting the
license to carry firearms to certain limited categories of the
people, then Section II. D. is hereby omitted, and the remainder
of this article shall continue in full force as if Section II. D.
had never been a part of it.
SECTION IV.
The use of a firearm or other weapon in protection of one's own
life, safety from bodily injury, or in defense of property, or in
defense of the life, safety from bodily injury, or property of
another, or in an attempt by a citizen to prevent or bring to an
end the commission of a violent crime, unless such use is
otherwise part of the commission of a felony or proven beyond a
reasonable doubt to be negligent of the safety of others, shall
be deemed a legal defense from all criminal charges
and civil liability.
SECTION V.
Any California legislator, judge, or elected or appointed public
office-holder, state, country, municipal, or local, who attempts
to obstruct the enactment of this Article or who otherwise fails
to honor the intent of this Article, shall be immediately removed
from office, and hereafter be forbidden to hold any office of
honor or trust under the State of California, or any county or
municipality. This disability may only be removed by a
proposition enacted by the people.
Copyright © 1991 by J. Neil Schulman
Logoright (L) 1991 by J. Neil Schulman
ABOUT J. NEIL SCHULMAN
J. NEIL SCHULMAN is the award-winning author of novels endorsed
by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer
of the CBS' \Twilight Zone\ episode in which a time-travelling
historian prevents the JFK assassination; he's also the founder
and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company
to distribute "paperless books" via personal computers and modems.
Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce
the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the
individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a
constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the first,
fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments.
|