5 Reasons Not to Vote

Vote for Ron Paul. A vote for Paul is a vote against the establishment,

 

JFedako:

Vote for Ron Paul. A vote for Paul is a vote against the establishment,

Hey, he made me start voting again. 

The problem is not so much our republican form of government, but rather that it has been hijacked by power hungary facists.  We no longer have sound money, although the Constitution calls for it.  We have an income tax that is, according to Supreme Court rulings, unconstitutional.  We have property taxes, excise taxes and estate taxes all violating our property rights.  We have ballots being intentionally "miscounted".  The Constitution of the U.S.A.  has its flaws but it is nevertheless great.  If elected officials simply honored their oaths of office, our country would be much better off.

 Vote for Ron Paul.  http://ronpaul2008.com 

jsh:

A small government advocate is still a statist. If a small government is justified, so is a big government.

That would depend on what someone considers justified. There can be gradual differences between types of governments and they way they are intruding in the lives of members of society.

What you are arguing is that having no government is better then having any government. But then government is only a label for an institution in society that has specific features and functions. Perhaps we should have a look at historical examples of "stateless societies" and how they did function. One should also ask oneself how the modern state did actually come into being.

As for the voting question. It also needs to consider what kind of an office one is voting someone or something for. If one is the voluntary member of any association be it an industry federation, club or company one would have a vote for offices or decision as well. So it has also to do how one views the institution relating to the voting. The question here is legitimacy.  

 

 

 

Someone made remarks like: "A vote for XYZ is a vote against ABC (i.e. the establishment)" That statement is nonsense. There is no option to vote against a specific candidate, party or somehow defined institution. Any vote in an election is a vote for the system these elections are part of.

Corrections:

 Hungary should be hungry.  Facists should be fascists.

 

Note to admin: 

Editing posts should be allowed. 

Jeremiah:

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).

 

How many people *can* actually vote for Ron Paul? Unless you're a registered Republican and have a primary election in your state then it doesn't matter. As I don't qualify under either conditions and don't happen to reside in his Texas(?) district I, for one, will be abstaining from voting for him...well, unless by some miracle he actually wins the Republican nomination... 

Torsten:

Someone made remarks like: "A vote for XYZ is a vote against ABC (i.e. the establishment)" That statement is nonsense. There is no option to vote against a specific candidate, party or somehow defined institution. Any vote in an election is a vote for the system these elections are part of.

Sure, except when its not. At least in America elected officials have the power to change the government through the amendment process. While this has historically been rare, it has happened with the elections of senators and vice presidents. Relative to voting, not voting is an action which supports the candidates the voter would not have voted for. In the case where those candidates are part of undesired institutions and the candidate who would be voted for is not, not voting supports those institutions. I'll agree that in most cases the differences between the candidates are so slim that any vote is effectively useless, however this does not mean that voting will always be incapable of reducing democratic power.

I am of course not talking about the ethics of the situation, only the positive facts of it.

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?

 

 

Mises himself was fond of reminding us that we make choices with imperfect information available to us. We take our chances and act. Sometimes we fail badly, but that doesn't change the overall benefit of humans making decisions and acting on them.

 I see voting as just another venue in which I make a choice. I've chosen badly more than once, but I still keep doing my best.

 When the pollsters call to ask my opinions, they always want to know whether I'm an active voter. They don't tend to care about the opinions of people not likely to vote in the next election. That means my voting makes it more likely for political decision makers to know that people with my opinions exist.  That's unrelated to the fact that I rarely see candidates on the ballot that I like.

Scott 

Voting being the only way to change the political process (which is untrue) does not make it any more moral.

 

In any case, I feel the reason why one should not vote is because it IS a waste of time and a waste of money and an indication of your existence to the state.

 

I think my grandfather voted for Berlusconi, that was the only time he's ever voted. 

Niccolò:

Voting being the only way to change the political process (which is untrue) does not make it any more moral.

 

The act of voting is not immoral. It is associated with the State, but the two are not inseperable. Voting on a matter that is not a moral issue is neutral, like on where to go for dinner. And voting against State violence is moral. If you vote against War in Iraq is that immoral? Would it be more moral to abstain?

I feel silly plugging my own blog, but I would feel worse block quoting Rothbard.

In Defense of Ron Paul. 

 

jsh:

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?) 

 

Anyone thinking voting is to be avoided should read this through a few times: http://www.mises.org/story/2651, paying close attention to what the author calls left secterianism.

It's not as if only 2% of the population voted, the people with the guns would all of sudden say, "You know, I guess people just don't think this government stuff is legitmate, so I guess we will hand all our stuff over to private individuals and give this anarcho-capitalism stuff a try."

 No one cares that you aren't voting, so you might as well vote and campaign for smalll government principles anyway. It's better to vote and get Ron Paul than be stubborn and get Hillary Clinton.

5 Reasons to Vote:

Ron Paul could win with at little as 15,000 votes. Opinion polls are inaccurate. Mainstream media censors ron Paul. Only 15% voted in 2000. Many Democrats support Paul.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/pitkaniemi1.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/sabrin5.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/bock4.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/ajjan3.html

 

Anthony Comegna:

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.

This simply isn't true in the positive since. A vote is an action, and actions are described quite well by praxeology. Actions demonstrate ordinal preference, but not absolute value. For example, a vote for Paul is a vote in favor of him over the other possible candidates. It in no way indicates one likes Paul, believes he is a moral person, or is in favor of government at all. The only way to show a preference for government over none is if there was an "anarchy" option on the ballets, which there isn't.

A vote does not support the system. It does not support government. It does not support anything except one candidate over the other available options. Thats it, and nothing more. Now you may think voting is immoral for some reason of your own, and praxeology can't challenge that. But I can say for certain than voting in no way demonstrates support for government. 

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.

Maybe, but the government isn't going to call it quits just because no one is voting. They'd still have to be ousted. And besides, plenty of elections have very little voter turnout in the US, such as the last presidential primaries (at something like 15-20%).

Anthony Comegna:

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.

Even in anarchy, individuals have power over others. There is no monopoly of power, but power still exists, and where power exists rent can be extracted. You'll always have to choose between the best oppressor in some sense.

Qui Tacet Consentit.

Voting for Ron Paul is the most moral thing I can think of.

In a land of falsehood, the truth-teller is a revolutionary.

"No theory, no ready-made system, no book that has ever been written will save the world. I cleave to no system. I am a true seeker." - Mikhail Bakunin