Navigating the path to a good life in the realm of politics …
The good life is one where the individual pursues her self-awareness without the encumbrance of mass tyranny. An individual anarchist that places personal liberty above all else will have as a goal near non-existent contact with government. She will do what is practical to keep government off of her back. She will, for example, file her tax returns and pay her taxes, taking advantage, of course, of any means of reducing her tax obligation that keeps her at the same time off of the government’s radar. She should keep herself in a position to keep government at bay.
Does this mean that the individual anarchist must involve herself in politics? That may depend on how you define politics.
The politics of human interaction …
I am a realist. I acknowledge that 245 years ago, a bunch of well-financed strong men wrestled control of this jurisdiction from a strong man sitting in England. I acknowledge that these strong men created a government for the day-to-day exercise of administration of this jurisdiction’s resources, and that if I am to navigate this environment in order to maintain myself and my family, then there will be some minimal exchange of information or currency between me and this government and the people who exercise non-thinking obedience to its policies.
Does this mean that I have to engage in the institutional practice of the administration of public affairs? Does this mean that I have to vote in an election or run for public office? Does this mean that I have to fund political campaigns and take bets on a better candidate?
The answer to the above is no. Acknowledging the State’s existence creates no requirement that you feed the Beast. Rather you should call the Beast out through constant critique. To borrow from Emile Armand, “the work of the anarchist is above all a work of critique.” The individual-anarchist, in order to enhance her chances of optimizing individual liberty, must live and need be agitate from the outside. What “political” mechanism, then, should she use?
Political ‘string theory’ ….
The relationship between elected officials and the electorate is based on an exchange of a politician’s position and and a voter’s perception. This exchange creates an equilibrium that is maintained where a politician conveys to a voter necessary and sufficient information that meets or guides a voter’s perception as to how well the environment of the political economy is doing. For example, Donald Trump conveys to his constituency that his policies are leading to job growth. His base, after consuming available data, continue to perceive that things are going well.
But the individual-anarchist may see Mr Trump’s policies as impeding her ability to, say, develop and use her own private energy resources. At this point she may have two alternatives. She can be silent and allow Mr Trump’s policies and the electorate’s erroneous perception to crush her, or she can engage in a temporary strategic partnership with like-minded individuals to critique Mr Trump’s policies. This is where the political string theory comes in.
Under this theory, the equilibrium between elected official position and voter perception lies on a fabric of data flow between both parties. Warp the fabric by introducing surprise; by introducing information, and this relationship changes. The goal of the temporary, strategic partnership of individual anarchists should be to publish accurate, data rich “surprise” that disrupts the inertia in the political system.
This type of agitation cannot occur from inside the system for two reasons. First, the system’s core has in place editorial roadblocks that will dilute, eviscerate, eliminate the messaging. Instead, the messaging should aim to pick off elements of the mass electorate who may be more susceptible to independent thought, those who may be sitting on the fence. Those who doubt the efficacy of the political elite.
The second reason for agitating from the outside is to ensure that the messengers are not co-opted. Take for example the Libertarian Party. Their policies or positions have yet to take hold with a significant amount of the American population. By operating within the mechanics of the electoral system, they have morphed into nothing but closet Republicans.
“Political” engagement for the individual anarchist must be temporary and purposeful. Prolonged engagement runs the risk of creating organizations that eventually exist for the sole purpose of maintaining existence. Prolonged engagement means diluting your individuality. To be the effective critic, the new data introduced must be a surprise, truly new information that makes disruption all the more effective.