Why Not Kokesh?
Many people that identify as anarchists have asked the question "As anarchists, would you vote for Kokesh?"
Now, I won't engage in a 'no true Scotsman' type of rant for many reasons.
Not least of which is that, like the Bible tells Christians, it is not my place to judge the 'heart' of other 'anarchists'. Being an anarchist doesn't mean you will always be reasonable, rational, logical, ethical or principled. We are all human.
We are all learning to be better.
THAT is the cornerstone of being an anarchist: learning, seeking truth, seeking to be better than we were the day before. Without that, we don't achieve our own freedom, much less help others achieve theirs.
That said, when asked would I vote for anyone, I have a three questions that I believe answer this quite simply:
**1. Why would I attempt to pose my alleged wishes upon others with the inherent threat of force that is government?
Why would I want to validate government by participating in its processes?
Why would I want to BEG for a master, no matter what he APPEARS to stand for?**
The answer is, if I am already a free man(and I am, freedom is not a state of society but a state of individual existence), I wouldn't.
1. I would feel no need to impose my freedom on others through a proxy(that's a ridiculous thought to begin with.
2. I wouldn't want to validate the system through its processes(even in trying to 'game' it somehow: use it against itself).
3. I would never beg to be ruled or beg the current masters for a new, preferred master, even someone who I truly believed would abide by the principles of anarchism while somehow simultaneously holding office.
Furthermore, in the case of Kokesh(or any 'freedom' candidate ever, to include, in retrospect, Ron Paul)...
1. There's no way to know that they really stand for what they campaign on(Ron Paul had 30+ years of record to show that he likely believed what he campaigned about...), it could all be bluster to get in office(or distract us from something).
B. If I accept that we don't really elect our masters(due to the Electoral College or because they are selected, not elected), then it's unlikely that they would both be truly about freedom AND get into office.
3. Even if, by some insane series of bizarre circumstances they did get elected AND were true to their 'cause', I'd be counting the seconds until they were dead(see Andrew Jackson and JFK and even Garfield and Lincoln for examples of what happens when you buck the system too much in office).
Finally, if you want a collective evolution/enlightenment/cognitive shift in order to see the masses accept and embrace their freedom(presumably this is why you would advocate for a 'freedom' oriented candidate), and even if you could place such a person in the office, and even if they were truly about freedom, and even if they survived long enough to do some good while there, you don't make it easy for the slaves to remain slaves.
By installing such a mythological figure in that office, you won't see a change from believing the state is a necessary or acceptable system for society. You'll simply breed that belief and complacency and faith that it can be 'fixed'.
If you wish dawn to break, you wait for it to be the darkest part of the night.
The paradox of our current paradigm is that if we wish to do away with tyranny, we need more tyranny, NOW, to push the masses to levels of dissatisfaction not seen in decades, even centuries, not low hanging fruit to placate the masses for a few more years.
This kind of idiocy is the reason why the Libertarians are not running a voluntaryist candidate this year, the year when doing so could have made a big difference. By the way, you meant to write "impose," not "pose" above. I stopped reading after that, because I've read enough uninformed Konkinist gibberish to last twenty lifetimes.