An anarchist is a person who recognizes that he or she has the right to rule only himself, nobody else; for he sees that self-ownership by everyone is an axiom, a premise that cannot be denied. For that reason he sees also that to vote is one of the most immoral things a person can do since casting it always, expressly tries to rule someone else.
Accordingly the entire business of electing people to rule other people is a sick charade, such that nobody with such high principles will take part.
Even so, that business is sometimes entertaining to watch, and that's more true this year than I can remember. I'm not sure that it has much true significance for liberty, though it may, but there seems to be a big realignment going on; a great deck-chair shuffle.
Notice first that the ascendancy of Mr Trump has shattered the illusion that voters have been deciding much. As we libertarians have long pointed out, voting is a choice among candidates who have been pre-approved by a shadowy ruling élite; whether that élite is called a "dark state" or a cabal of "crony capitalists" or the "military-industrial complex" or simply just "Wall Street" doesn't matter much; that faceless group of banksters and others that dominates both the ruling parties picks the top rulers.
This year, though, on the Republican wing of the R/D duopoly, that Establishment has been caught unawares; a self-funded tycoon has successfully tapped in to a well of resentment by a large minority (at least) who "feel disenfranchised" to use the term for which the media have been searching. Patriots, Tea-Partygoers, hardworking Middle Americans and some Libertarians have responded to The Donald and upset the applecart. It's about time.
So much so that some of the (R) Establishment have actually said they will propose a vote for Hillary if Trump should be nominated! Notice: not just a vote for the hated Democrats, still less for Bernie, see below, but for HRC Herself. She is the one anointed by the (D) Establishment, and this extraordinary proposal says clearly that the (R) Establishment has much more in common with the (D) Establishment than with whomever the (R) party members wish to choose. The mask has come off, at last; the pretense is exposed.
If that results in the end of the Republican Party, so be it; I predicted four years ago for a comparable reason that the RP was between a rock and a hard place, and it's nice to find that ZG Blog prediction coming true, albeit a bit delayed.
Bernie Sanders shows another aspect of the great realignment; he's supposed to be the anti-Establishment rebel on the (D) side of the duopoly, but unless Barry gets religion and orders Loretta to indict Hillary for the high crimes and misdemeanors of which she is almost certainly guilty, he isn't likely to get their nod. Even so, he has a large and enthusiastic following; like Trump, his support is from the bottom up. But for Ms Lynch's reluctance to rise from her rump and de-rail the Chosen One, he would be romping home, greatly discomforting the (D) Establishment as well. The rout would be complete.
Does this augur, then, a Trump-Sanders Unity Ticket? A huge turning of the pair of worms? Do they have so much in common as to unite and overturn both Establishments for ever?
Probably not, for Sanders is a Marxist ideolog while Trump is a practising capitalist (though no Libertarian, as I showed here); but you never know. Such an alliance would certainly rack up the Summer's entertainment another notch. Stay tuned, and meanwhile remember that a zero government society can never be brought about by political means, however amusing.