Five Reasons Not to Vote
1. Unpopular
2. Waste of time
3. Dangerous
4. Immoral
5. Violates human rights (Isn't this the same thing as immoral?)
One Reason to Vote:
Stop the killing
Peace
"Human" rights do not exist. Only property rights exist. I do vote because it is an attempt to legitimize an illegitimite institution.
"The ballot... is a mere subsitute for a bullet." -Lysander Spooner
I'm not sure I understand the semantic. Property rights are human rights.
While I loath democracy, the State won't ignore you just because you ignore it. Democracy is not legitimate, me voting does not legitimize it. If I was asked to choose the next president, would I say "No thanks, I'm an anarchists"? No way.
Another reason not to vote, participating in an election is touted by the establishment as a sign that you approve of the system if not the winning candidate. With that in mind, what is the general consensus among the American members of this site about Ron Paul's candidacy? Do many of you plan to vote for him? I wish him well, as I believe his campaign is helping to spread important ideas, but I won't be voting for him (or anyone else).
DSnead:"The ballot... is a mere subsitute for a bullet." -Lysander Spooner
Jeremiah:Another reason not to vote, participating in an election is touted by the establishment as a sign that you approve of the system if not the winning candidate. With that in mind, what is the general consensus among the American members of this site about Ron Paul's candidacy? Do many of you plan to vote for him? I wish him well, as I believe his campaign is helping to spread important ideas, but I won't be voting for him (or anyone else).
jsh:4. Immoral 5. Violates human rights (Isn't this the same thing as immoral?)
That is demonstratively false. If you had the ability to vote in a moral system of governance (or lack thereof), how would that be immoral? Similarly, if the cost of voting to an individual is zero, voting in a way the individual feels will produce the most moral outcome is moral, while other actions are not. Not voting in such a scenario is an action as well, although I know in practice voting does take time, effort, and doesn't really do much good in most cases.
The opportunity cost (in some imaginary morality quotient) of each choice on a ballot is only zero if they are all equally moral choices. It can't be negative, i.e. immoral, to the voter who votes with his conscience. The cost of not voting is the same as the cost of voting for the winner.
While I do understand the anti-voting folks--and often live by that same rule--I think that to completely write off voting is troublesome. While the system itself is bad, do we not have some moral obligation to try to fix it IF (and only if) a serious possibility of that change presents itself? I for one will vote for Ron Paul if given the chance next year because if I believe in any form of government (BIG if) he is as close to an advocate as I'll ever see in America. With the current system in place, an anarchic system is miles away, shouldn't we aim to take steps in the right direction?
That's not a rhetorical question, by the way, I'm curious as to your responses.
csullivan:While I do understand the anti-voting folks--and often live by that same rule--I think that to completely write off voting is troublesome. While the system itself is bad, do we not have some moral obligation to try to fix it IF (and only if) a serious possibility of that change presents itself? I for one will vote for Ron Paul if given the chance next year because if I believe in any form of government (BIG if) he is as close to an advocate as I'll ever see in America. With the current system in place, an anarchic system is miles away, shouldn't we aim to take steps in the right direction?
Voting or campaigning I see only as an instrument, for whatever is needed. Campaigning itself is very expensive and may demand concessions. The funds may have been more useful elsewhere, while the concessions will undermine credibility.
If you carried your argument to its logical end, you would have to say no to anything tax funded, or anything having to do with government. You couldn't go to tax funded universities, drive on tax funded roads, or participate in anything connected to taxes. You could not go to the library, or eat foods whose companies have been propped up by subsidies. I'm sure, using your logic, someone could say these actions "legitimize" these things.
Voting is immoral because it violates property rights, so saying voting is immoral and voting violates human rights is redundant.
You have to draw the line somewhere. I avoid participation in activities heavily subsidized by the state such as driving.
If you say voting is moral, then surely the state must be moral also.
Is your 1 vote going to stop the killing? Definately not.
See also My Son: Klan Reformer
Torsten:Voting gives people the illusion that they have a say about how things are run in a country. That's why it is dealt out so easily to as many people as possible in a country. The power of the individual is actually eroded that way and the winning side is the establishment in media and civil society. Any party new or old has to work in accordance with the established (hegemonial) ideas that are prevalent in a society. It's like selling clothes. You've to offer what is already fashionable. Changing the fashion would work differently. This can only be done by an elite group of designers and publishers. That's how one must go about, getting people together that can think and organize to change the public mind step by step. Voting or campaigning I see only as an instrument, for whatever is needed. Campaigning itself is very expensive and may demand concessions. The funds may have been more useful elsewhere, while the concessions will undermine credibility.
Voting gives people the illusion that they have a say about how things are run in a country. That's why it is dealt out so easily to as many people as possible in a country. The power of the individual is actually eroded that way and the winning side is the establishment in media and civil society. Any party new or old has to work in accordance with the established (hegemonial) ideas that are prevalent in a society. It's like selling clothes. You've to offer what is already fashionable. Changing the fashion would work differently. This can only be done by an elite group of designers and publishers. That's how one must go about, getting people together that can think and organize to change the public mind step by step.
I suppose the issue I take here is that an alternative to voting is not being offered. Absention from voting doesn't give us any edge that voting takes away; a systemic upheaval is of course what we and most Austrians would be hoping for, but the more rooted a country the more complicated it becomes to achieve that upheaval. How can we achieve this within the confines of a democracy without participation? If there was a fascist running against an Austrian, shouldn't we at least make a good-faith effort to place the Austrian in "power" (an Austrian, of course, would flip the "power" aspect of an executive role upside down if in office!)?
On the whole, I agree with you, but I believe if there is an evil vs a good, we owe it to ourselves to participate in the victory of the good.
How do you know what someone will do once in power? Surely this is impossible, unless you're God. What if the "Austrian" is simply the next Adolf Hitler?
JSH--I see your point, and I like it. It has made me rethink my position a bit... still, should we not try to scale back evil if we cannot eliminate it altogether?
You must have the right ends and the right means in order to truely scale back evil. If enuf Austrians voted, you might win a temporary victory, but this compromises your position in the long run, because what happens when Austrians aren't the majority anymore? Surely you cannot complain when the vote goes in the other direction in the next election. If voting is right, then it must be right for the person who gets the most votes to win. If voting is wrong, then voting cannot be used to a good end, just as if the state steals then gives the money to the poor, the state is still wrong.
Can any government be moral? Not according to Thoreau. "That government is best which governs not at all;”
See the Klan Reformer link a few posts back, also.
It's rather stupid in my opinion not to vote. Let's use this upcoming election as an example.
Ron Paul is by far the best candidate out of all parties. Why would you not vote for him? He is many times better than everyone else and follows the Austrian school of economics! Would you rather have another George Bush/Bill Clinton or a Ron Paul?
Your 1 vote will not change anything for the better. You endorse democracy and the winnner by voting. You endorse statism by voting. If you vote for Ron Paul, how can you complain when Hillary is elected? How can you complain when the state stomps on your property rights? Surely you endorsed the state, and are a statist yourself. Are you not the KKK reformer?
Your vote will be like Ron Paul's votes in Congress. Have his votes resulted in different policy?
To vote for Ron Paul is to fight statism with statism. This makes no moral sense whatsoever. If voting is right, statism is right. If voting is wrong, statism is wrong. If you vote, then you're saying statism is right
Oh ok, I guess I'd rather sit around and complain about voting then actually try to get someone who is a good man elected.
You're not going to change anything in the near future. This is the one chance where people in the US can actually change things for a better, less statist direction. It's a golden opportunity that no one should pass up because there isn't going to be another person like Ron Paul running for president in a long time.
Using your definition of statist we could lump Ludwig von Mises right along with them. You sound like a communist labelling everyone a "reactionary." There is no need to do that, I'm on your side!
So Mises believed in democracy? Mises voted?
Your vote will not change the outcome of the election. It will be a waste of time. Plus, you endorse democracy, which is how the US gov't ended up in this situation in the first place.
Mises was a minarchist.
Mises even served as an economic advisor to the Austrian government!
Minarchists are statists too. Surely a small government advocate cannot say he is not for government.
So you're calling Ludwig von Mises a statist.
And you're saying he wasn't?
A small government advocate is still a statist. If a small government is justified, so is a big government.
Yes.
I see nothing wrong with a government that just protects property rights.
Why? What is your definition of statist that somehow allows a small state?
How can the government protect property rights? The government by its very existance tramples on property rights.
How can you say that, then say no to national defense? Or feeding the poor? What an intellectually compromised position.
Minarchism was tried and it failed. It's called the US gov't.
Statism is the state intervening in voluntary interaction. If a government protected property rights and that was it then there is nothing you can complain about.
I can say no to all those things easily because they involve theft and murder.
But someone who wishes to live under the authority of a government (read: voluntarily) that just protects property rights has nothing to do with statism.
jsh:Surely you endorsed the state, and are a statist yourself.
Well, contractually speaking, a vote is not consent to the states power. From the view of contract law, contracts cannot be entered anonymously. As a vote is an anonymous thing, no one can take the list of those who voted and say "Here, these are the people who consented to the rule of government."
Interestingly, Spooner pointed out that neither paying taxes or voting are consent, but defense. And neither make the Constitution legally binding on any of us.
jsh:If you vote, then you're saying statism is right
You are actually just trying to excercise the privledge given to you by the statists in having even the smallest say as to what is done with your property after it is stolen from you. This is a purely defensive act. Just as a conscripted soldier is forced to shoot at those he wouldn't voluntarily shoot, we are forced into the legislation process against others who would not like their stolen goods used in such a way.
jsh:how can you complain when Hillary is elected?
If you choose not to vote, how can you complain about anything that the government that rules over you does?
I did not say it was a contract. But surely a vote is not anyoymous when it requires photo ID.
By cooperating with the state in doing something entirely voluntary that endorses the state, you vote for more theft. And more statism.
I did not vote, so I did not endorse the winner. By voting, you have said majority rules is the right way to determine the winner. So you're the one who cannot complain.
jsh:How can the government protect property rights? The government by its very existance tramples on property rights.
John Locke advocated a minimalist state to enforce Natural Law, which is directly related to Natural Rights. Essentially, we have a right under Natural to defend ourselves and others from force used against us, and the purpose of government for Locke was that this was the only right we could give to another entity. In fact, it was preferrable to have an objective third party to help in the securing of property without overreaction.
Now I fully understand that this is not the case in practice, but this seems to be because the people do not hold the government accountable, and honestly have no proper means to do so. This is one place I would like to see the Constitution Amended, though in honesty I would love to bring back the Articles.
If I have a right to defend myself, I don't need a monopoly on the use of force (the state) in order to do so. In fact, such a monopoly necessarily violates my right to defend myself, because only the state is allowed to use force.
I'd love to see the US break up into the disunited states, but that's not going to happen. I'd love to see Ron Paul win, but he ain't going to, and if he does he probably will be assinated. Lincoln and JFK were assinated for planning/attempting to remove power from the central banks.
What I'd love most is if there was an election, and nobody voted. If nobody believed in government, even using government to kill government.
In a private organization it often makes sense to vote. If I purchasing shares in a corporation, I am also (usually) purchasing the right to vote on matters determined by the board, in addition to my ownership of the capital. Likewise, my vote counts in proportion to the number of shares (property) I own. There is nothing immoral about that. Now, if my local town were arranged as a corporation and not some "public" entity, I could see purchasing a share of the the town, under some contractual obligation to pay the town money for shared services (in lieu of taxes) I could then exercise a vote to elect a board to represent my interests. There is nothing inherently immoral about that. Now blow that up into an entire country or world (UN) to vote or elect somebody to represent me is not really immoral, but absurd.
We've basically got two ways to replace the current governmet in the USA or one of its states:
1) Peaceful means, which in a democracy is voting.
2) A violent revolution.
I know which one I'd rather have. The first method gets a government the majority wants, while the second gets a government based on who is left standing at the end of some sort of conflict. Even if the US goes completely broke tomarrow and its government disolves, it is likely that voting will still be used to establish a successor. Democracy is far from perfect, but it beats selecting leaders via violence. It allows people to peacefully remove some from power and replace them, something that, prior to democracy, was unheard of.
Also, I think its incorrect to call Mises a 'statist'. He was a minarchist yes, but he also believe in the allowance secession, which means that taxation is effectively no longer compulsory.
if everything around me is a compulsory state, then i cannot secede as a person, even if i had the 'right to secession'.
how much is a vote worth? not much. but campaigning - that's another question. Hell, if it's rational to kill the tyrant, why not try to vote him away?
Grant: We've basically got two ways to replace the current governmet in the USA or one of its states: 1) Peaceful means, which in a democracy is voting.2) A violent revolution. I know which one I'd rather have. The first method gets a government the majority wants, while the second gets a government based on who is left standing at the end of some sort of conflict. Even if the US goes completely broke tomarrow and its government disolves, it is likely that voting will still be used to establish a successor. Democracy is far from perfect, but it beats selecting leaders via violence. It allows people to peacefully remove some from power and replace them
I know which one I'd rather have. The first method gets a government the majority wants, while the second gets a government based on who is left standing at the end of some sort of conflict. Even if the US goes completely broke tomarrow and its government disolves, it is likely that voting will still be used to establish a successor. Democracy is far from perfect, but it beats selecting leaders via violence. It allows people to peacefully remove some from power and replace them
I would prefer if peace were not defined as the lack of physical violence, but rather it be defined as the lack of coercion. Simple math tells us that government=coercion, so to give the politicians the claim that you support them by touting your vote around would be folly. Recently my county voted on whether to allow the local horse racing track and casino to host table games. I refused to vote because a "yes" or a "no" would imply that I have a right to tell them how to run their business in the first place. I of course do not believe this, so I did not vote.
In regards to Ron Paul, his victory would be one of the best things possible for the country short of an anarcho-capitalist revolution. However, every vote for a politician is a vote in favor of goverment. I am constantly encouraging those people who "vote for voting's sake" to vote for Ron Paul though I will not do so myself, nor will I donate money or time for his campaign.
I certainly think that a voter turn-out of 10% or less would indicate the impossibility of our government remaining intact. It would mean that people are tired of the oppression enough to begin resisting and trying out a new way.
I would most like to see the Libertarian party convert to anarcho-capitalism and open more institutions like the Mises Institute, which has a much greater effect on the populace than the Libertarian Party...after all, no one in politics seems to be adopting their ideas, which is usually what we see happen with significant third parties.
In short, Ron Paul is the best would-be oppressor, but as an agent of government and an enforcer of coercion, he would be an oppressor nonetheless, and so he'll get no support from me.
jsh: How do you know what someone will do once in power? Surely this is impossible, unless you're God. What if the "Austrian" is simply the next Adolf Hitler?
Thats broken logic. There will be a president whether you vote or not.
You voting does not increase the chance of there being a next Hitler, it can do nothing but decrease it(if only slightly).
Jeremiah:participating in an election is touted by the establishment as a sign that you approve of the system if not the winning candidate.
participating in an election is touted by the establishment as a sign that you approve of the system if not the winning candidate.
Are the people who say that democracy is legitmate because people vote correct? Of course not.
If anything, voting against the establishment reduces their ability to claim a "mandate."
Anthony Comegna:I would prefer if peace were not defined as the lack of physical violence, but rather it be defined as the lack of coercion.
Revolutions are messy things, and certainly not lacking in coercion. Most people who support bad governments do so out of good motives, and do not deserve the indiscriminate violence of a revolution.
Anthony Comegna:Simple math tells us that government=coercion, so to give the politicians the claim that you support them by touting your vote around would be folly. Recently my county voted on whether to allow the local horse racing track and casino to host table games. I refused to vote because a "yes" or a "no" would imply that I have a right to tell them how to run their business in the first place. I of course do not believe this, so I did not vote.
Voting is an action, not an implication. Not voting is also an action. You may think voting or not implies something, but thats irrelevant to the actual effects of voting. The fact of the matter is that, through voting, you can decrease the injustice done by government. If a ballot option was to break the government up into your ideal state of anarchy, would you not vote for that? Of course, no vote is perfect, and no candidate is either. You will never have an option to vote for or work towards something you consider totally just. All options have drawbacks.
Anthony Comegna:In regards to Ron Paul, his victory would be one of the best things possible for the country short of an anarcho-capitalist revolution. However, every vote for a politician is a vote in favor of goverment.
It is (unless the ballot includes an anarchy option, which is unlikely), but not voting is an action in favor of more government, since Dr. Paul is clearly the smallest government person who is running. Not voting gives a boost to the candidates you would not have voted for.
Anthony Comegna:I certainly think that a voter turn-out of 10% or less would indicate the impossibility of our government remaining intact. It would mean that people are tired of the oppression enough to begin resisting and trying out a new way.
Then by what means would they try this "new way"? Would they just stop paying taxes? That would be nice, but there are other ways of going about it too. Violence of any sort would be my last choice.
Grant:Then by what means would they try this "new way"? Would they just stop paying taxes? That would be nice, but there are other ways of going about it too. Violence of any sort would be my last choice.
If enough people embraced anarcho-capitalism in a small area, they could secede by refusing to obey the US government any longer and declaring independence. I seriously doubt that if something like the Free State Project for anarcho-capitalists was successful in this regard, the US would roll in the tanks. However, we've seen it before.