Very well-written article! (usually the first words someone says before ripping apart said article :^) )

I would say that people like Denis do a good job of arguing that both civil disobedience and political activity are necessary to enact change. He sees CD as a weapon to win the political game. I spent a day at the state house, and I don't plan on going back. The bravado and subtle aggression in the committee meeting made me sick. I don't have the stomach to deal with those people. The CD people are fun to hang around with.

You talked in the article about the slavishness the politicos have toward the issue of the day or the political process. I agree. I also think the CD people have that same slavishness; after all, how many nights have Lauren Canario and Russell Kanning spent in jail, away from the people they love?

Thanks for the compliment, though if you meant to tear my article to shreds, I think you were far too kind. ;)

I haven't seen much of Denis' actual arguments, only a few grumblings here and there. And, ever since I've been ignoring the Politics boards, I have seen far less of that sort of thing overall.

The most fundamental problem with the argument that both civil disobedience and political activity are necessary to enact change is it presupposes the necessity of the existence of the state. They are in violation of the principles of self-ownership from the very start.

The means by which one achieves an end matter. They cannot be separated from each other.

I admit that I may have been a little too eager to provide "balance" in my article--I didn't want to make it sound like the FSP is filled with politicholics, although they most certainly consist a large portion of the organization. And, to me, the activities of the CD crowd are shining points of light. It takes a certain kind of character to buck all the rules and say, "No."

Now, what of slavishness? I don't know. Jim Davies had an interesting article very recently on STR (Anyone for Sacrifice?).

I can't seem to speak to the political aspect directly, so allow me an analogy to religion. I am an atheist of the sort that does not have an active disbelief in God. That is to say, I don't walk around saying to myself (much less to others), "God does not exist!" To me, engaging in the argument is a waste of my time and energy. If I am asked if I believe (or do not believe) in God, I should ask, "Why do you want to know that?"

Therefore, it seems to me that if the state is the same sort of fiction as God--it only continues to exist because it exists in the minds of those who support it and those who strenuously claim to not support it--then the appropriate action is not to support the state nor to actively work against it. That is, do not allow it to be legitimized by railing against it.

I think that's what "Beyond Ballots or Bullets" is supposed to be getting at, really.

Could you explain a little more: "it only continues to exist because it exists in the minds of those who support it and those who strenuously claim to not support it--then the appropriate action is not to support the state nor to actively work against it."

Would that mean not doing planned protests (hanging Lincoln in effigy, holding anti-Claremont-Decision signs), CD (The Outlaw Manicurist), printing anti-government papers (Keene Free Press), or talking about the evils of the government at all?

If it's not apparent, I'm still working out the bugs. :)

I read something by another market anarchist/atheist recently that expresses a bit better what I'm getting at.

It's not the State or Religion that is evil. They are manifestations of what lies at the root of both, which is anti-individualism. Essentially, denials of the individual to make decisions are the greatest moral evil. So it's not the government that is evil, per se. It definitely commits evil acts, and there are definitely evil people in government. But what is at the root of that is the denial of individual choice, whether that be through external or internal coercion (i.e. being locked in a jail cell vs. facing the possibility of losing all of your "friends").

Protests that expose evil are a part of it, but they do not go deep enough. One has to be brave enough to develop relationships with people, one-on-one, and work to unwarp their minds.

For example, if you are of the mind that "God does not exist!" you still hold that concept in your mind and become defined by it. But what lies beyond the question of whether God exists? Why would somebody care about an imaginary concept?

It's one of the many anti-individualist marks of "identification," which basically says that you either belong to "us" or you belong to "them."

I have made it clear where I stand, but as I proceed in life, it becomes more and more evident that it should not matter to anybody what it is I believe.