My Suggestion: Don't Vote

October 27, 2008 12:03 PM by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. (Archive)

Written for the American Conservative, here is my short piece on the election:

The critical problem we face today is the same one all mankind has faced: the state, those monopolists who claim the right to break the laws that they make and enforce. How to restrain them is the critical problem of all sound political thinking. Making matters worse, this gang now has a monopoly on the money and the ability to print it, and they are abusing that power at our expense.

How does voting change the situation? Neither of the candidates for president wants to do anything about the problem. On the contrary, they want to make it worse. This is for a reason. The state owns the "democratic process" as surely as it owns the Departments of Labor and Defense and uses it in ways that benefit the state and no one else.

On the other hand, we do have the freedom not to vote. No one has yet drafted us into the voting booth. I suggest that we exercise this right not to participate. It is one of the few rights we have left. Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket they have cooked up for us, and we want no part of it.

You might say that this is ineffective. But what effect does voting have? It gives them what they need most: a mandate. Nonparticipation helps deny that to them. It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent. This is all to the good. The government should fear the people. Not voting is a good beginning toward instilling that fear.

This year especially there is no lesser of two evils. There is socialism or fascism. The true American spirit should guide every voter to have no part of either.

Bookmark/Share | Comments (123)

Comments (123)

alec

Classic George Carlin - "On Voting" (p.s. if offensive language offends you - don't watch it):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efKguI0NFek

i'm glad to say that i avoided contributing to the problems here in Canada a week or two ago by not voting myself...it feels damn good

Published: October 27, 2008 12:21 PM
Mike

I would agree that from the two party system we have no good choice, however I do not believe that nonpartisapation is something to fear.

For myself, I will pick a third party candidate and vote for them. If everyone who is fed up with the choices were to do this I believe the Goverment (read two parties) would be able to see what they need to fear. Nonparticipation is like sticking our colective head in the sand.

Published: October 27, 2008 12:28 PM
maera

What about write-ins or going through the process to vote for 3rd party candidates? I'm apathetic enough seems if I took that last step and didn't vote I might just disappear with no evidence that I was ever here at all. ; )

Published: October 27, 2008 12:30 PM
Michael A. Clem

I would willingly "waste" my vote on a third party candidate, but Oklahoma's excessive ballot access restrictions has ensured that, once again, no third party or independent presidential candidate will be on my ballot, and no third party candidates in any of the races. And Oklahoma doesn't allow write-ins.

Clearly, having the vote is not nearly as powerful as being able to control who is on the ballot in the first place.

Can any of us really trust a government that doesn't trust its voters? How can anyone expect the government to "level the playing field" in business and industry if they won't level their own playing field in electoral politics?

I may end up not voting this year, simply because any vote I make would be absolutely pointless!

Published: October 27, 2008 12:36 PM
William Rader

Rather than vote, I have decided simply to donate to those members of the House Financial Services Committee who will act to curb the unlimited powers of the Fed, who will continue to vote "nay" to any further bailouts, and will seek to restructure Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. Naturally, Ron Paul is at the top of this list.

Published: October 27, 2008 12:49 PM
J. Chris Folsom

Just think about all of the things you could accomplish if you didn't waste time with such a meaningless and hateful activity.

If you could produce one gallon of milk, a microgram of iron or a single tomato in the time it takes to.vote you will have done infinitely more for the world and yourself than anyone could ever accomplish though voting or any other aggressive act of violence.

Published: October 27, 2008 1:17 PM
Larry N. Martin

Just think about all of the things you could accomplish if you didn't waste time with such a meaningless and hateful activity.

Yes, indeed! You could watch another tv show, or surf the net instead! Or make a sandwich to eat. Infinitely more productive than voting!

Published: October 27, 2008 1:24 PM
Karlos

"It makes them, just on the margin, a bit more fearful that they are ruling us without our consent" - now this is really a bit naive. There are governments (or parliamentary houses) in Europe that are ruling the country with just 10 or 15 percent. Do you think they give a s...? On the contrary - with 10 % turnout only the "hardcore", staunchly partisan voters vote and that's exactly what the powers that be want. No, the solution is not to stay home - it's voting for the grassroots candidates or to form my own party or initiative or anything in that line.

Published: October 27, 2008 1:35 PM
John

I wasn't sure how the voting machines here in Texas would accomodate write-ins, but I found out in early voting on Saturday morning... I wrote in Ron Paul!

I know he has advocated against this, but it was the only way I could vote with a clean conscience. Anyone anywhere else doing this?

Published: October 27, 2008 1:39 PM
Lester Hunt

"Nonparticipation sends a message that we no longer believe in the racket they have cooked up for us, and we want no part of it." I guess the only remaining problem I have with non-voting (which I find increasingly attractive) is that it doesn't send as clear a message as voting for third party candidates does. Non-voters have been non-voting for many years, sometimes in huge numbers, and the establishment does not seem to interpret it as non-acceptance of their corrupt system. Better to vote for someone who opposes it.

Published: October 27, 2008 1:52 PM
Eric Sundwall

A third party vote sends a better message than a non-vote. It suggests opposition to the mandate theory that is not lumped in with the common perception of know-nothing non-participants. Non-voters are more easily ignored. The Shafer theory that a threshold of non-compliance can be reached seems absurd in real historical contexts.

Third parties provide the vital function of meaningful opposition, albeit often absurd, that may potentially drive an issue or two. Unfortunately, far too many participants of such parties are just as enamored by the possibility of ruling. Thus, such calls for voting only bolster the convictions of the think tank types.

Published: October 27, 2008 1:58 PM
redshirt

I agree a third party vote is better than no vote.

In fact, voting for the lesser of two evils is better than no vote. Voting apathy might just be contagious.

Better to encourage everyone and anyone who is breathing and allowed to vote to get out there and do their voting! The more people get involved, the more they will get in touch with the issues, and the more they will ultimately learn about liberty-- when and where government is failing us.

The more people are involved, the more politicians will realize that they actually have to convince more than a hard core group of cronies that they are the right choice.

Published: October 27, 2008 2:23 PM
John Galt

Many died for us have the right vote- please vote. Just don't vote for the problems. Let your vote for Dr. Paul be a protest vote against the machine.

ALSO: I believe your real vote is cast by... when, where and on what you spend your money on. Let your values guide your spending habits.

I think labor unions are evil = I buy Toyota vehicles
I think state income tax is evil = send money to help Mass. (http://www.smallgovernmentact.org/joomla/)

Published: October 27, 2008 2:26 PM
Ed

I think the establishment views non voting as apathetic approval of the status quo, rather than thoughtfull non participation. I will be voting for third party candidates and or just about any non incumbent. Also in Massachusetts this time around I get to vote to abolish the state income tax, and abolish criminal penalties for possession of marijuana. Who could pass that up? Not that I think voting will change much but I do enjoy trying to create a little mischief.

Published: October 27, 2008 2:33 PM
Beta Hater

John,

I wrote in Ron Paul. I had a really hard time deciding who to vote for this year. I was going to vote for Bob Barr, but I don't consider him a true libertarian. Although the Libertarian party is right party, Barr is not the right candidate. I can't stand Obama's health plan. If we socialize health care, we'll have poor health care and we'll never be able to get rid of it. Large socialist programs like public schooling, social security, and welfare are nearly impossible to terminate. This left me with McCain. However, I just couldn't do it. I agree with Ron Paul on every issue (except abortion), so writing-in Ron Paul was a perfect solution for me.

Published: October 27, 2008 2:39 PM
Axel Riemer

I'll take Lew's side on this. I went to a Rock the Vote meeting at a local college last week. I saw my US senator and several state representatives, both incument and challengers. There were perhaps 20 college students that showed up to this meeting (Weds night in the Student Center).

Every one made a nonpartisian speech, stressing how important it was for people to vote, and to be involved in the voting process. If we could only understand the sacrifices these people make to better serve our country. It made me nauseous. The very pustiferousness of the repitition hung in the air: please vote, it doesn't matter which side you are on, talk to your friends, volunteer for your candidate. The nattering of weasels.

After notrocking my nonvote, it was clear to me, at least, how much stock these pols put in the participation of you and I. They cannot comprehend those who don't get out their vote, least of all those who don't vote in principle. Their enemy is voter apathy, not rejection en masse. Would they even understand or comprehend if the voters boycotted? I think not - the view from inside the bubble is distorted.

Published: October 27, 2008 2:44 PM
Nick

For me, non-voting is the only answer.

Simply getting people to vote doesn't mean they'll get more involved. In most cases, it simply means they'll vote for whoever gives them the best promises. Case in point: mTV Rock the Vote! Absolute garbage.

Like a previous poster, I view a vote as an act of aggression - Not certain if he was being sarcastic, but I'm not.

Furthermore, most people who are running for office do so not to change anything for the better. They're running because they have a psychological need for something. Either they crave approval or they're a sociopath who likes the idea of using force with the approval of the mob. Even if I think the person may effect *real* change, I'd have a hard time throwing away over twenty years of principle to register and vote for them when there's an outside chance they're lying.

I have better things to do with my time even if it's just surfing the net or watching the tube with my hand in my pants like Al Bundy.

And - No one died for your right to vote (which is actually a power, not a right). They died for your right to choose your government. They're not the same thing.

Published: October 27, 2008 2:49 PM
C. Evans

I must agree with the strategy outlined by Etienne de la Boetie:
"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces."
I believe non-voting is the best way to achieve this.

Published: October 27, 2008 3:18 PM
jim

Nobody died for me. Plenty of people died, but I didn't ask them to. They did it on their own, for their own reasons. I won't help justify their actions.

Published: October 27, 2008 3:29 PM
Bill

I'll vote, but chances are - as usual - I'll leave quite a few races empty.

I still think it important to vote against any local/state tax or bond measures.

Published: October 27, 2008 3:29 PM
Scott Fox

I agree 100% re: the 'mandate' factor.

I see this is as why there so many establishment-funded "'Get out the vote." organizations. It maintains the illusion that the voting public has some say in policy (as if elections had anything to do with policy), and it allows the political powers to say, "Hey, we got X% of the vote, the people want these policies!"

I say withdraw your consent, your participation, and your support of this disgusting system.

Published: October 27, 2008 3:30 PM
Dwayne Davis

Although it sound quite interesting, I would rather vote for a third party candidate then not vote at all.
I do agree that the two party system is broken and unfair to all of us Americans overall.
I truly think if more people vote for a third party then a wake up call is being made.

Published: October 27, 2008 3:48 PM
Coco

Rock the vote, motor voter, etc are not about mandates or increasing general voter turnout.

They were originally created to increase voting among those who would likely vote Democrat (or as someone mentioned above - the one who promises the most goodies).

Published: October 27, 2008 3:57 PM
Mason Bane

I wanted Ron Paul but I knew a write in for him was a vote for Obama. So I cancelled out an Obama voter by voting McCain. McCain is terrible but not terrifying like Obama. Obama's 2001 radio interview where he shows a horrific disdain for the constitution in discussing wealth redistribution left me really scared.

Published: October 27, 2008 4:10 PM
Alan

Point taken; however, based on your analysis the majority of the American people are either socialist or facist in their political philosophy. We truly get that which represents the majority of our population.

You may complain about the choices provided. You have the freedom to refuse to play; but again our form of government allows for nonparticipation.

In many ways nonparticipants represent a large portion of the American people; however, the reason you do not participate and the reason most do not participate (apathy) cannot be distinguished by your inaction.

Published: October 27, 2008 4:57 PM
fephisto

"Just think about all of the things you could accomplish if you didn't waste time with such a meaningless and hateful activity.

Yes, indeed! You could watch another tv show, or surf the net instead! Or make a sandwich to eat. Infinitely more productive than voting!"

Why, you could-

Ah, caught myself, this site is supposed to be family-safe.

Published: October 27, 2008 4:58 PM
Sara L.

I will be at the polls casting my "wasted" vote next week. I'll make that vote to simply validate the existence of a third party. It's a joyless ordeal, but I wouldn't want the lines at the polls to be any shorter for all the people who are voting because they are somehow enthusiastic about their non-choice. So I'll write in Ron Paul or simply "a bear with chainsaw hands" (both would be a better choice). Election day won't mean anything to me because nothing will have changed, but I don't believe that a vote is a waste simply because it doesn't back a winner. Though I understand the point of this recommendation (and occasionally in a fit of apathy consider staying home myself) I don't see it being an effective statement unless there's massive noncompliance.

Published: October 27, 2008 5:02 PM
Jon Robinson

Tough question. I mailed in my ballot this morning. I wasted an hour googling 11 different props we have here in CA. I agree with the sentiment of not voting - but in practice I vote. I vote against any state prop that proposes to issue bonds or raise taxes. In some cases a vote might reduce aggression: I voted to make it less likely that a drug dealer gets thrown in jail. That way I don't have to pay for his incarceration.

For the federal vote: I wrote in Ron Paul as president and myself as VP. Hah!

When in the vote makes no difference, vote against the incumbent. That's what I did for the congressional race.

Published: October 27, 2008 5:38 PM
Brian Gladish

What you get from not voting is the peace of mind that comes from knowing that you were not complicit in the next inevitable disaster. That is no waste.

Published: October 27, 2008 5:45 PM
Mark

All things being equal (and they're not) I'm voting for the candidate who doesn't think aborting babies is an acceptable method of birth control. And I bet Ron Paul is doing the same.

Published: October 27, 2008 6:11 PM
Mark

C. Evans wrote:
I must agree with the strategy outlined by Etienne de la Boetie:
"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces."
I believe non-voting is the best way to achieve this.

Right. Doing nothing is really going to stop the federal government juggernaut. Nice logic.

Published: October 27, 2008 6:14 PM
Curtis Zwick

"Better to encourage everyone and anyone who is breathing and allowed to vote to get out there and do their voting! The more people get involved, the more they will get in touch with the issues, and the more they will ultimately learn about liberty-- when and where government is failing us."

Unfortunately I don't think this is supported by the evidence. The more "get out the vote" campaigns succeed the lower the average knowledge of the voters is, especially in the field of economics. Economic fallacies are the norm rather than the exception and few show much interest in unlearning those fallacies.
Economist Bryan Caplan in "The Myth of the Rational Voter" shows that voters (as a group) exhibit four systematic irrational biases: Antimarket bias, Antiforeign bias, Make-Work bias, and Pessimistic bias. Studies however show that education is the single biggest determinant of economic literacy, counteracting those fallacies, as well as the single biggest determinant of voting participation.
Things are bad enough as it is, if we had 100% voter turnout I cannot even imagine the horrible results.

Published: October 27, 2008 6:56 PM
J. Chris Folsom

Like a previous poster, I view a vote as an act of aggression - Not certain if he was being sarcastic, but I'm not.

No I wasn't. It's unquestionably an act of aggression and a fascistic expression of sexual impotence.

When you vote, all you are doing is justifying the existence of this dictatorial death regime. The only way out of this is for people to stop relying on the state to solve their problems. Voting is how we got into this mess to begin with, and you can't solve a problem with the same mentality that created it.

That doesn't mean that you don't do anything, it just means that you go out and do something positive.

Published: October 27, 2008 7:00 PM
Greg B

I generally respect most of the comments on this blog. You guys are pretty sharp tacks.

But I think this non-vote sentiment is completely misguided. It equates little more than voluntarily submitting to be shot in the back of the head by brutal aggressors.

A third party vote is better than a vain no vote. The government would surely prefer a no vote to a informed third party vote. What's the essential difference between a no vote from a cowardly nobody or a libertarian martyr? None. Exercise some gonads and vote intelligently.

Published: October 27, 2008 7:44 PM
Danny

I understand and respect the decision to "not vote." In my opinion, however, those in power don't care if 50% or 10% vote -- all that matters to them is that an acceptable candidate from an accepted party is the "winner."

I will write-in Ron Paul for president. For other offices, I will vote libertarian. For ballot measures I will vote no for every measure that requires a spending or bond increase.

In the end, whether or not those in power view that I am legitimizing their power over me doesn't matter -- they are going to do whatever they are going to do with or without my vote or with or without another 10 million votes. At least I can feel like I registered my discontent.

Published: October 27, 2008 8:01 PM
David Carlson

I strongly disagree with not voting. I believe that if you are not happy, you should at least go and place a vote for those in the running that you do support. I will be voting Chuck Baldwin for President, Dean Barkley for Senate, as well as Michelle Bachmann for house of representatives (she is endorsed by Ron Paul). Perhaps there are only a few million who vote their discontent, but perhaps in two years a few million more will join us? then in four years, tens of millions? Anyway, like I said, not voting is not an effective option i.m.o.

David Carlson
http://www.davidcarlsonpolitics.com

Published: October 27, 2008 8:48 PM
Kevin B.

I get why some people think voting for a third-party is a better option. I don't agree, but I get it.

However, if you lean towards the libertarian anarchist side of things, which I'd guess many people who frequent this site do, I cannot see how you could vote for the state in any fashion.

If the very concept of the state is evil, then it's evil no matter who is in control of it. To vote for the existence of the state in any function is to completely contradict yourself. How could anyone take your arguments against the state seriously from that point further?

Maybe it was Hoppe, but someone once said believing we could have limited government was as utopian as believing an all-powerful government could solve all of our problems. This attempt to fool yourself into believing the state can be limited or controlled is an argument that has been refuted. See the United States for proof.

Better to spend your time standing outside the polls handing out small cards with a Mises or Rothbard quote that points others to this website. At least then you could claim you actually tried to do some good.

Published: October 27, 2008 10:08 PM
Katie

your argument has legitimacy, but i still think it's fallacious--yes, it's a screwed up system, but that is politics, a system that organizes society. is choosing not to vote really standing up for your rights, or does it send a message of apathy? if you believe that hegemonic "political involvement" is a delusion, fine, but don't exercise your rights through your emphasis of their absense. does that make any sense at all?
just do your thing, and develop an alternative. it may take time and effort, but it's better than sitting, hoping, and wishing. cuz you're just helping the system in the end.

Published: October 27, 2008 10:17 PM
Bill McGonigle

I'm writing in Ron Paul because I want the Republicans to know exactly why I didn't vote McCain. Staying home leaves the matter nebulous.

Published: October 27, 2008 10:43 PM
RWW

Voting is almost always a small act of aggression, so I abstain. At bare minimum, voting for President would carry with it the implication that I believe that the office should exist.

On top of that, for goodness' sake, Chuck Baldwin is probably the most pro-freedom candidate, but he claims to want heightened anti-Hispanic aggression.

No thanks.

Published: October 27, 2008 10:49 PM
Cosmin

The virtue of non-voting is that you don't enable the illusion that elected officials are more capable of resolving problems than free individuals operating in their own interest.
The problem is that a non-vote is wrongly interpreted by those who count votes as an implicit endorsement of anyone who wins the election. To remedy that, you would have to explicitly reject the winner. You could do that by voting and writing in "noone", or "anarchy".

Published: October 27, 2008 11:05 PM
Jason Wilfong

State doesn't allow write-ins? Put a box or several labeled boxes in all of the voting areas in Oklahoma and write your name and information on a card and drop it in. At least then there will be some attention drawn to the fact that there are poor regulations and rights violations both for the candidates and the voters. Freedom of speech is still allowed for now.

Published: October 27, 2008 11:25 PM
Bennet Cecil

I always vote and this year it will be for Mr. Barr. I will tell everyone who complains about high taxes, inflation and unemployment that they are partly to blame for voting for OBama or McCain. Elect big government candidates and you will get more big government.

Published: October 27, 2008 11:33 PM
Brett

Not voting gives way to apathy, which is a huge reason why we are in this mess. Why not look up the candidate that best supports your ideas (there are more than 2 people running you know), and vote. Unless you aren't a "true American spirit" and believe our founding fathers never had it right in the first place.

Published: October 28, 2008 12:07 AM
Michael Green

A lot of the debate here seems to center around the message sent by your choice on election day. But is this something we should really be concerned with? Our entire political belief, the message we want the state to hear, cannot possibly be summed up by a D or R or L or C vote. The reasons you hear from voters nowadays confirms this: many are voting for McCain as a vote against Obama, many for Obama as a rejection of Bush and the Republicans. Avid anti-abortionists may vote for McCain, yet disagree with his foreign policy (they are pro-life, after all!) or economic plans. Only the most basic message can be sent through a vote, and people's reading of that message itself can vary! So should we really care about the message our one action on Nov 4 sends, considering it will inevitably be lost in translation? After all, as Bastiat pointed out, those of us who believe in freedom are burdened with preaching a far more intricate philosophy; a vote can't possibly sum it up.

I'm also not too persuaded by the argument that a third party vote is effective. We know the state will do what it must to remain in power, and the elected don't care about the votes going to the losers until the next election. Whether there's a 70% turnout with 10% of it going to third parties, or something ridiculous like a 30% turnout with the winner only getting the support of 15% of eligible voters, the result is the same: the status-quo. Our goal should be pointing out the illegitimacy of the system, and the latter situation makes that a lot easier.

For myself, I'm torn between not voting and casting a write-in vote. I'm becoming more and more convinced that not voting, unless you have someone you believe will strip DC of its power, is a fine choice; on the other hand, I like the idea of illustrating how corrupt our so-called democracy really is, when my vote is tossed aside as some joke. It will probably come down to whether I feel like waking up before noon and getting to the polls before my regular Tuesday duties. I guess I should also research the local races and any props on the ballot, but I just don't see getting much psychic profit from my one vote.

No matter what I, or any of us here, do, it's going to be a very depressing day.

Published: October 28, 2008 12:10 AM
Tomás

Of course non-voting is powerful, look at how desperate the state and their media are to get people to vote, they crave the legitimacy. Someone that is right part of the time is worth infinitely less than someone who is wrong all of the time. The State wants me to do what? Well crap, I'm certainly not going to do it now!

I'm unfortunately not going cold turkey, but am instead weaning myself off of The Vote. Last presidential election I voted 3rd party (BADBUSH, BADKERRY, BADNARIK FOR PRESIDENT! lol) and this year I am abstaining from it and only voting for federal congress/senate, state house/senate, local offices, and against all bonds. I'll probably eventually stop voting altogether considering how the political clime in this country is turning.

Either outcome this year though I will be burning some SOB pro-war socialist in effigy! Remember remember the 5th of November! :D

Published: October 28, 2008 12:20 AM
C. Evans

Mark wrote, "Right. Doing nothing is really going to stop the federal government juggernaut. Nice logic."

Clearly doing something has no effect either. This year thousands of people called Congress to voice their disapproval with the bailout bill. The House vetoed it. Congress then went back to the drawing board and created a bill exponetially worse than the original bill. It passed. In spite of the upcoming election which threatens the jobs of many members in the House, and all the phone calls and emails that were opposed to the bailout, Congress looked the American people dead in the face and said "*^(#() you!" So explain to me why you think voting or taking any action in a democracy will have any more effect than my suggestion. Communism fell when the people lost faith in it. Such could potentially happen here if the great masses would do the same.

Published: October 28, 2008 1:35 AM
Bryan Edds

Don't vote. Do one or all of the following instead -

Buy gold / silver / any other liquid commodity.
Buy and distribute Austrian economics literature.
Learn to use / buy a gun.

Buying liquid commodities will protect you from the empire's monetary collapse.

Buying and distributing Austrian economics literature will immunize the minds of your friends and family against the State's intellectual aggressions.

Knowing how to use / having a gun will protect you from criminals and act as a deterrent against further government aggression against the people.

Do all this, and you attain the three things that all of these politicians promise you but never deliver - greater financial security, sound education for those around you, and protection from criminals, badges or no.

The way I'm seeing it, voting is a way to avoid taking responsibility for yourself. Voting is relying on the government's machinations to improve your life. Instead of shirking personal responsibility by wasting your time voting, do one or all of these three things on election. And every election day thereafter.

Published: October 28, 2008 1:53 AM
Ireland

Economics is the virtue of considering all effects, which some action has on all the affected groups. I'd like to see such honest analysis of the above "Don't Vote" suggestion.

At the moment here's serious doubt if the suggested "let's show 'em by staying passive" really manages to instill anything.

Published: October 28, 2008 7:46 AM
Michael A. Clem

I don't consider voting in itself to be immoral or illegitimate: the results of the election will be forced upon you whether you voted or not. However, the effectiveness and power of voting or non-voting is certainly close to nil.

Vote, or don't vote. Either way, go do something else to change society, and try not to get so worked up about these elections.

Published: October 28, 2008 8:31 AM
act

Forget about voting.
You want something really effective?

Stop paying taxes.

That's what de la Boetie was talking about.

Too scared to do that? Just remember that a couple of hundred people acting together in this will quickly collapse the enforcement apparatus. They need 99.9% to comply, they simply don't have the resources to persecute more than a tiny fraction...

Published: October 28, 2008 8:35 AM
Upland

It is factually obvious that 'non-voting' or '3rd-party voting' has NO substantive effect on American governance.

We KNOW what does NOT work.

Avoiding non-productive tasks is quite rational !

However, the further motivation for any rational actor... would be to seek action that does achieve the objective (i.e., changing the current power relationship between people and the state).

What would favorably change things in our society (... short of violent revolt) ??

__________________

Americans' strong bias towards government will not change unless the coercive stranglehold of the 'public school indoctrination system' is broken.

Act on root causes, not symptoms of a problem.

Published: October 28, 2008 8:35 AM
act

"Act on root causes, not symptoms of a problem."

Hit their funding. Reap an immediate benefit.

Stop paying.

Published: October 28, 2008 8:40 AM
Mark

C.Evans

I won't bother answering your question, I'll let Pat Buchannan do it:

"With his tax cuts, defense buildup and rollback policy against the "Evil Empire," Reagan gave us some of the best years of our lives, culminating in America's epochal victory in the Cold War."

"With his tax cuts, defense buildup and rollback policy against the "Evil Empire," Reagan gave us some of the best years of our lives, culminating in America's epochal victory in the Cold War.

What does the triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid offer?

Rep. Barney Frank is calling for new tax hikes on the most successful and a 25 percent across-the-board slash in national defense. Sen. John Kerry is talking up new and massive federal spending, a la FDR's New Deal. Specifically, we can almost surely expect:

-- Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.

-- Border security will go on the backburner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.

-- Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.

-- Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes reimposed.

-- Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."

-- Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.

-- The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.

-- A "Freedom of Choice Act" nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.

-- Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.

-- Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.

-- A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.

-- The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.

Welcome to Obamaland! "

And, non-voters and third-party fans, thanks for bringing it to us! Thanks for standing by and doing nothing!

Published: October 28, 2008 9:01 AM
J. Chris Folsom

Has what is going on really hit home for everyone here? Sometimes I wonder....

It's all so terrible that it's surreal. We've been conditioned to watch things on a stage...

Published: October 28, 2008 9:22 AM
Larry N. Martin

Mark, get real. Much of that will happen under McCain, too. It's just that McCain will claim to oppose it while supporting similar but differently-worded proprosals instead.

Non-voters and third party voters won't bring this upon you--the Democrats and Republicans will be.

Published: October 28, 2008 9:44 AM
C. Evans

Mark,
Your reply doesn't address my point. Congress will do what it wants to do regardless of what we want. McCain will do whatever he wants regardless of what we want. Obama will do the same. If you believe that the Reagan years were the best years ever, then your definition of freedom is sad. The revolutionaries who believed in the Declaration of Independence would be saddened at what has transpired here today.
You and the rest of the Conservatives can continue with your unflinching faith in the State and democracy all you wish. Most of us who read this blog know better. While libertarians will continue to debate whether we should vote, we have no delusions as to the efficacy voting. Unfortunately, Conservatives and Liberals are still live this illusion.

Published: October 28, 2008 10:10 AM
Stanley Pinchak

Mark,
I am sorry to inform you but there is no such thing as a tax cut while the government deficit increases. America may have won the cold war, but we have not learned the lessons that it has to teach us. Whether a politician has an R or a D behind their name is of little consequence. What matters is where they stand on freedom. I see very few politicians calling for a reduction in the size and scope of the state. The system of democracy encourages the expansion of the state and the spreading of the plunder from a decreasing minority of taxpayers to an increasing majority of tax consumers. To believe that it could be any other way is what is truly utopian. Many in this country would claim to be upright and moral people, many of those would claim the appellation of Christian, but presented with an ill gotten gain, a majority of those who vote, ignore their conscience and vote for robbery. It is quite easy to gain support when you are buying it with stolen money. We need to marginalize and minimize the number of people who can live this lie, who can vote to fleece their neighbor. It is not the politicians that we can hope to effect, but our duplicitous neighbors and family members. We must reawaken their moral compass, revive their conscience. Since humans are social creatures, decreasing the size of the tribe with which one is affiliated encourages those remaining to look for a larger tribe. We would do well to work to reduce the tribe of redistributionist voters. We can start by encouraging voter abstinence.

Published: October 28, 2008 10:28 AM
RangerTurtle

I strongly disagree.
If more people had voted against GWBush for his first term or even his second term, several lives would have been saved from a bad war, lots of our money would NOT have been spent on war, AND we wouldn't have been in such a financial mess.

Not voting is irresponsible.

Published: October 28, 2008 10:46 AM
jp

"The government would surely prefer a no vote to a informed third party vote. What's the essential difference between a no vote from a cowardly nobody or a libertarian martyr? None. Exercise some gonads and vote intelligently."

I gotta disagree. If voter participation collapsed to say 20%, those in power would realize the precarious nature of their hold on power. This would compromise their ability to embark on wars and other large spending campaigns.

With just 20% turnout the public would take government less seriously. This perceived lack of legitimacy would open people to the most dangerous idea of all - tax avoidance. A crumbling of the tax base would lead to a collapse of the system.

That's why the non-vote is so powerful - it goes hand in hand with the nonpayment of taxes. Voting for the third party just legitimizes the whole political system and keeps it limping on.

Published: October 28, 2008 10:51 AM
Jon Cook

Freedom will not come about because you can select your own ruler. Picking the best canidate is like picking the best cancer, good luck. The ins and the outs just trade places as the plunder increases. If you vote you can't complain - you are getting what you asked for - more of the state.

Published: October 28, 2008 10:51 AM
Michael

Sorry Lew. I'm going to the polls after work. However, I'm going to do my part in our civil disobedience experiment by voting for third party candidates. They can't count the votes that weren't cast.

Published: October 28, 2008 11:27 AM
wuzacon

Bob Barr was prevented by Connecticut and the federal judiciary from being on the ballot. Call it malfeasance or poor performance or whatever you want, but I am now 100% against the establishment regime. I will, however, show up to the voting booth. Unless I can write in a suitable candidate, I will probably just show up and not place any vote. That way they will know that I intentionally did not vote for any of them.

Published: October 28, 2008 11:27 AM
Michael

wuzacon, I'm not familiar with Connecticut law, but will the voting authorities throw out incomplete ballots? If so, I suggest voting for a suitable third party. We have a few (e.g. Barr, Baldwin) or maybe a write-in for Dr. Ron Paul.

Published: October 28, 2008 11:31 AM
darjen

RangerTurtle,
There is no basis to say whether or not we would still be in a war or a financial crisis if another goon was in office instead of GWBush.

Published: October 28, 2008 11:55 AM
Sara L

I'm still not convinced that noncompliance (voting, taxes) works unless a large enough group of people do it...and are very loud about it. It might satisfy personal beliefs but what changes if you end up unheard and (in event of non-payment of taxes) with your wages garnished? For those of you who urge these actions, what's your solution to this problem? Getting free-thinkers to organize is like herding cats. I have enjoyed reading everyone's opinions (on both sides) but don't feel that attempts to validate a third party are damaging.

To Bryan above: I agree with all three of your suggestions. My husband and I are gun owners and I'm amazed at how many requests we've received from family and friends to advise them on which gun to buy and how to use it. We've always kept a stocked pantry (3 months of food) and stashed cash and supplies and now friends who used to think we were a bit wacko are following our lead. The more people that lose their trust in the system and become self-reliant, the better.

Published: October 28, 2008 12:07 PM
Michael A. Clem

President Al Gore or President John Kerry would have engaged in "humanitarian intervention" instead of war, sort of like Clinton and Bosnia.

Published: October 28, 2008 12:10 PM
*Paul S. Nofs

*Winning politicians are made in such a way that they believe that non-voters are satisfied or they would have used their vote to register displeasure.

*Losing politicians are made in such a way that they believe that non-voters would have voted for them if they had bothered to show up.

*The media is made in such a way that it will report a mandate to rule if their guy wins. They will just ignore all non-voters.

*Isn't our only Constitutional responsibility to make a vote?

*The bailout, paid for by an inflation tax is also redistribution of wealth. 74% of the Senate is guilty of that sin.

*I have a sinning Senator to replace and two sinning Presidential candidates to reject and a Congressman also because they all have failed to vote for a balanced budget in the past 7 years.

Vote 3rd Party 4 Principles
-unilaterally end international hostilities
-stop increasing the Federal debt
-rollback/repair attacks on Bill of Rights
-audit the Federal Reserve

*Ralph's economics is confused but he has put people before Party or Corporations for the last 50 years. I can vote for that.

*Besides, Dr. Paul trusts me to take my Constitutional responsibility seriously. Showing up to vote is my way of showing my support for the good Doctor.

*C'mon Lew! Vote for a change. It'll be payback for all the traffic Ron has sent to LRC and Mises. Just maybe we'll have something to laugh about later.

(Voting includes the “Right to Assemble.” Don’t bring any expectations and you won’t be disappointed.)

Published: October 28, 2008 12:13 PM
Paul S

Gore is not anti-war. Gore-Leiberman better the Bush-Cheney? Ha

Published: October 28, 2008 12:21 PM
Kevin

I find it interesting to not vote as a vote for what we don't want. I think that choosing to either not vote or to vote for a third person such as Ron Paul still says that as a citizen we are dissatisfied with the lack of rational choices.

I do agree that there is no choice but for socialism or facism by choosing one of the two dominant parties. Neither choice is good and they are pretty much the same with different labels, one Democrat and the other Republican. Hopefully the critical errors Bush and his predecessors have made will finally rally the thinking citizens to act until now the non-thinking citizens have been acting.

Published: October 28, 2008 12:54 PM
Enjoy Every Sandwich

Lately I have begun to think that the proximity of Election Day to Halloween is not a coincidence. Believing that voting exerts some sort of control over the State is much like believing in the Great Pumpkin.

In fact, when I hear politicians speechify, all I hear is Linus' voice: "...and every year the Great Pumpkin rises out of the pumpkin patch that is the most sincere, and he flies through the air bringing presents to all the good boys and girls..."

Published: October 28, 2008 1:09 PM
Mark

Larry: "Much of that will happen under McCain, too"

Right, Larry. Much. Not all. Something is indeed better than nothing. Someone in one of the comments said dismissivley that picking between the two candidates is like picking among types of cancer and said "good luck", as if there is no difference between any type of cancer. However, if I told you I was going to strike you with either prostate or pancreatic cancer, the first thing you'd do is research both and figure out which is the least bad, and then request that you get that one. You wouldn't be happy about getting cancer, but you'd be glad that you did whatever you could to even potentially reduce the suffering you'd experience. Or would you just sit around and talk about the horrors of cancer and do nothing as an external entity decided your fate? Is that the libertarian ideal? Just complain and congratulate yourself for knowing "the truth?"

Published: October 28, 2008 1:43 PM
Mark

Thanks, Non-voters!!! Your self-righteousness is going to cost you real money when Obama and Pelosi let the Bush Tax cuts expire.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/senator_obamas_four_tax_increa.html

When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.

Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.

No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.

For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.

Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspubs/ and pull up the 1040 instructions for 2000 and 2007 and go to the tax tables. Based on your 2007 income, check your taxes rates for 2000 and 2007, and apply them to your taxable income for 2007. In 2000 -- Senator Obama's benchmark year -- you would have paid significantly more taxes for the income you earned in 2007. The Bush Tax Cuts, which Senator Obama has said he will allow to lapse, saved you money, and without those cuts, your taxes will go back up to the 2000 level. Senator Obama doesn't call it a "tax increase," but your taxes under "President" Obama will increase -- significantly.

Published: October 28, 2008 1:47 PM
Enjoy Every Sandwich

Mark,
If the Congress permits the tax cuts to lapse (which I'm guessing a Democratic Congress will do), what can President McCain do about it?

Published: October 28, 2008 2:01 PM
eli cryderman

Mark,

If you pick between which cancers you want, you're still going to die. I'll vote third party or not vote at all, and live.

w/ regard to taxes, again, the differences between the two are minimal at best; I vote for no personal income taxes period, so they're both socialist pigs in my mind (not to mention they both agreed on $700 billion in socialism and $150 billion in extra pork). They've got you concerned with minutiae and have won the battle for your mind by convincing you that their brand of evil is less than the other guys.

Published: October 28, 2008 2:08 PM
Mark

Eli,

"They've got you concerned with minutiae "

Abortion is minutiae?

Published: October 28, 2008 2:10 PM
eli cryderman

bombing innocent persians is minutiae?

Published: October 28, 2008 2:13 PM
Mark

Enjoy,

I agree that the Dem congress would want the tax cuts to lapse. McCain would then have to politic in order to prevent it from happening or mitigate it. He at least would make an attempt versus Obama who would not.

Published: October 28, 2008 2:14 PM
Mark

Eli,

Neither are going to bring all troops home, so both candidates will get you dead Persians. We're looking at differences here. Abortion is a significant difference between the two. Not a big deal to you, huh? Liberty for you but not for a baby in the womb. Nice.

Published: October 28, 2008 2:20 PM
Enjoy Every Sandwich

Mark,
McCain isn't going to have sufficient leverage to "politic" this with. Congress has to take a positive action to keep the tax cuts in place; how will he force them to do that, or what incentive will he be able to offer?

And this assumes that he actually will make a good faith effort at it, which I think is an overly generous assumption.

Published: October 28, 2008 2:24 PM
Paul S.

*Dismal candidates were chosen by the MSM so that only hardcore Party members would bother to show up and vote. So 20% for Reps and 20% Dems leaves 20% for Nader and 20% for Baldwin. That leaves 20% for the professional sloths. Who could end up, if they dared to vote, winning the day.

*No amount of non-voting will shake the world. That's old news. And the world is watching to see if our state runs us or do we run our state. They are waiting to see if there is any hope at all for their children's children.

*If the state runs us then we better find out sooner rather than later so we can quit living in denial or get back to work.

*The R3volution is still on!

(Joe and John are the power players, Barack and Sarah are just pretty faces, face it.)

Published: October 28, 2008 2:28 PM
eli cryderman

mark,

i think my (and most others here) belief is that ANY personal income tax is abhorrent, unconstitutional and criminal at best; that the government has the right to the fruits of your labor is ridiculous. most 'conservatives' of today still think its okay for the government to forcibly take your money. that's why most of us see that neither candidate will make any significant change, since they both support this system of wealth confiscation.

but you are free to your thoughts, however you wish to justify them; i am free to mine and those are the complete removal of the state from my life, which I will attempt to justify as well.
regards

p.s. i'd say abortion is probably a bigger deal to me, since i value life in the womb and outside of it, american or persian. somehow the life of a grown persian is not as important as a domestic fetus in your view and will settle with the killing of people across the globe. again, there is no difference in the two candidates, so i will not vote or vote for somebody who values all life. and one las question, which candidate voted for the confirmation of the most 'liberal' supreme court justices, Ginsburg, Souder and Bryer? food for thought

Published: October 28, 2008 2:29 PM
C. Evans

Mark,
You may not have noticed this, but your fear mongering about how miserable life would be under Obama doesn't fly here. You can spill out of all the details you want about His Holiness' Plans, (Peace Be Upon Him), and contrast those with McCain's all day if you wish. Most of us here are concerned with dangerous liberty as opposed to negotiated slavery. Is McCain advocating an end to the bondage of the income tax? Is McCain advocating an end to the legal counterfeiting agency known as the Federal Reverse Bank? Is McCain advocating an end to all of these regulatory agencies which rob us of our economic freedom? Is McCain advocating an end to US hegemony in the world? Should I find joy in being able to sit at the table with slave masters, tyrants, and dictators euphemistically known as elected officials as we negotiate just how much of my money they will steal and how much of my liberty they will take and where they will send me around the world to kill people and how they will punish me if I fail to obey them? You call this freedom? Is this what the revolutionaries of 1776 fought for?
You worry about the justices on the Supreme Court, but a better question is Why are you so comfortable with the idea the nine people tell you what your liberties are and how you can exercise them?
You worry about taxation rates, but a better question is Why are you comfortable with the idea that the State claims all of your income from any source, including your savings, and then decides how much you get to keep?
You worry about a federal bailout of states and municipalities, but a better question is What is the institution that facilitates this robbery in the first place?
I have no problem with libertarians who wish to vote and truly a Ron Paul presidency would reverse our journey on the Road to Serfdom. But I have no faith in democracy; I have no faith in the State; and save Ron Paul, I have no faith in any elected official to do any thing morally right at any time, ever. I’m not about to let you or any one else scare me into violating my conscience so that you can feel better about democracy, for fear is THE foundation of all government power.
You wish to scare people into voting, go comment on Townhall. You wish to make some inroads on this site, I suggest you begin reading Albert J. Nock, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises, Frank Chodorov, and other authors you can find on the Mises’ literature link.

Published: October 28, 2008 2:30 PM
Michael

Do not "not-vote" it is a pointless act.

Pick a 3rd-party candidate who more closely matches your views, even if they're imperfect or incapable of winning this election.

If the winning candidate only got 25% of the vote, that would send a greater message than only 25% of the population voting

Published: October 28, 2008 2:40 PM
Mark

If you pick between which cancers you want, you're still going to die. I'll vote third party or not vote at all, and live.

You don't have a choice. You get either one or the other. It's either McCain or Obama. Your staying home is not a powerful statement. Neither is writing in a third party candidate. You think the Republicans take note of write-ins and think "Gosh, we better become more like xyz, because hundreds and hundreds of people wrote him in." Did that happen after Bush Sr. lost to Clinton because of Perot? Did the Republicans (or Dems) fall all over themselves in their effort to emulate the one who had gotten 19 million votes? Of course not. They went right on along as before. So, third parties don't have any effect at all. Well, maybe they make life more enjoyable for their members as they seem to give people hope in the future. But they don't do a whole lot in the real world. Consider Ron Paul's influence: in 1988, 432,179 votes. In 2008, as a Republican he raised enough money to drown a horse and he got way more attention. The jury's out as to whether that will influence the Republican party, or just the size of Paul's bank account.

Published: October 28, 2008 2:41 PM
Mark

C. Evans: "I have no faith in democracy; I have no faith in the State"

If you really meant that then you would try to mitigate it. You must not hate the state that badly...you worship Ron Paul who is presently a member of that state. How shocking! Shouldn't he sit on the sidelines and complain like you do?

Published: October 28, 2008 2:51 PM
Mark

Eli,

"which candidate voted for the confirmation of the most 'liberal' supreme court justices, Ginsburg, Souder and Bryer? food for thought"

He may have voted for the confirmation of the above, but he also fought hard for Bork, Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Scalia. Would a lib have done that?

Perfection is unavailable. Mitigation is not.

Published: October 28, 2008 2:57 PM
C. Evans

Mark,
I making the quite obvious conclusion that a Ron Paul presidency would be better for liberty, but he still isn't radical enough for me. I thought my dislike for voting was obvious. Second, I worship the Lord God only; don't go there with me. Please tell me that you are just bitter that we won't support the Republicans and you are writing out of fear, because I would hate to assume that you really don't engage in critical thought.
I don't vote. And yes, I hate the State with all my heart and all my soul and all mind and all my strength. My strategy to oppose the State is to educate myself as to its devices and teach whomever will listen. Given that most people, such as yourself, prefer the appearence of security rather than freedom, my job is a long shot. But such is the life in the Remnant.

Published: October 28, 2008 3:04 PM
Mark

C Evans
"I worship the Lord God only"

You do not. If you did you'd gladly put up with McCain if that would help defend the unborn.

"I hate the State with all my heart and all my soul and all mind and all my strength"
Where in scripture are you taught to hate the state with all your being? Do you pray for your leaders?

1 Timothy 2
1I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

1 Peter 2:17
17 Honor everyone. Keep on loving the community of believers, fearing God, and honoring the king.

Where's the hatred? Come, dear brother, show me the way!

Published: October 28, 2008 3:12 PM
eli cryderman

perfection may be unavailable, but the pursuit of perfection is no less noble. mitigation is merely captiulation with pseudo 'objections'

my rejection of the 'two party' system, through non-voting or voting 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th party, is my own pursuit and i will not compromise my integrity.

post script: stop harping on the unborn/abortion issue if you won't take a stand to defend all life; your blatent hypocrisy is sickening.

Published: October 28, 2008 3:20 PM
Paul S

C. Evans: "I have no faith in democracy; I have no faith in the State"

Sounds like Ron Paul or any of the founding fathers. Constitutional government is something that must be worked for and maintained. It is not a self-turning wheel. And human selfishness will always try to subvert its workings. Sometimes troublemakers succeed and it makes our task even harder. But imagine the winning of the American Revolution. It was the end of the war but the beginning of an even bigger task. Are we up to it? Dr. Paul believes we are. He believes in individual freedom and personal responsibility. We made believers of him when so many of us showed him that we believed in freedom also.

If you want to be a good musician or football player then you practice. Engineer, economist or physician, one studies and stays up to date. Anything worth while takes effort and dedication as well as a bit of luck or grace or magic.

One really ought to have faith or trust in the ineffable and necessary. That does not apply to the state or democracy.

Published: October 28, 2008 3:22 PM
C. Evans

Mark,
Let's go there then-
1 Sam 8:6-20
But when they said, "Give us a king to lead us," this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the LORD. And the LORD told him: "Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do." Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. He said, "This is what the king who will reign over you will do: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. Your menservants and maidservants and the best of your cattle and donkeys he will take for his own use. He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, and the LORD will not answer you in that day." But the people refused to listen to Samuel. "No!" they said. "We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles."

Luke 4:5-8 The devil led him up to a high place and showed him in an instant all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, "I will give you all their authority and splendor, for it has been given to me, and I can give it to anyone I want to. So if you worship me, it will all be yours." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"

1 John 2:15-17-Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world. The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

The power of the State is a rejection of God as King and Satan's power to give to whomever will worship him. Jesus rejected the power of this world because He knew to whom it belongs; we should do likewise.
If you believe that voting for McCain will help save the unborn, you have been deceived. If you apply those texts literally to your own life would you disobey God just because the king ordered you to do so? Would you steal because the king told you to or murder because you were ordered? Shall we obey man rather than God? Am I to vote for McCain for the remote possibility that he might do something for the unborn when he clearly thinks that there is nothing wrong with theft or murder or lying or ruling others through violence? Have you not thought through these things or have you decided that submitting to evil for the possibility of good is a fair trade? I pray for our rulers the same way I pray for my enemies, because they are in fact my enemies.

Republican politicians have no interest in reversing the Supreme Court decision on abortion because they know religious zealots will sell their souls to the party. They use your genuine concern of the unborn and your fear the Democrats to stay in power; they promise action but will do nothing because it's not in their long-term interest. This is how worldly power works. Jesus told us to be wise as serpents in this world: Wise up.

Published: October 28, 2008 3:45 PM
Joshua Park

I really don't see how not voting "sends a message". People infer that a non-voter is apathetic, not resistant to the one-party system. The better choice is to vote for an alternative party's candidate. If McCain gets 30% and Obama gets 34%, people may start to wonder where the rest of the voters went. If we simply stay home, we're just part of the "voter turnout" statistic, which cannot state WHY the non-voters didn't vote.

Published: October 28, 2008 3:47 PM
C. Evans

Mark,
Regarding my hatred of evil:
Psalm 97:10- Let those who love the Lord hate evil...
Proverbs 8:13-To fear the Lord is to hate evil...
Romans 12:9-Hate what is evil, cling to what is good...

Make no mistake about this: the State is evil.

To the Mises readers: I apologize for turning this into a Bible study. I do my best to focus on the topic at hand and the topic here is the efficacy of voting. But Mark went there...

Published: October 28, 2008 3:56 PM
Michael Green

Mark said:

"Thanks, Non-voters!!! Your self-righteousness is going to cost you real money when Obama and Pelosi let the Bush Tax cuts expire."

This is the moronic logic I see from statists. You're trying to assign responsibility to those who have done nothing at all. I am not responsible for what Obama does; those who voted for him do have some responsibility, though even then it is Obama and his people that are most responsible. Similarly, I am not responsible for a homeless man's sorry state, because I did not work to make him poor. But people like Obama and McCain say it is my responsibility and that I owe this person something, because I did not work to make his life better. If I do nothing, I am responsible for nothing.

Besides, I wouldn't vote for McCain anyway. Obama would still win.

Published: October 28, 2008 4:27 PM
C. Evans

Your exegesis is lacking. There are no commands in there to hate the state.

1 Sam 8:6-20 Israel rejects direct rule from God. God has not offered to do so for the USA. This doesn't apply.

Luke 4:5-8 "if you worship me, it will all be yours." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Worship the Lord your God and serve him only.'"
Satan's tempting Jesus to worship him, not the state. Try again.

1 John 2:15-17-Do not love the world or anything in the world....
You don't have to love the State to vote. Quite the contrary. Next passage, please.

How about Romans 13?

Romans 13
1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

Also, C. Evans, I'm sorry you feel the need to apologize to all the readers for discussing scripture. The founders surely wouldn't have been so embarrassed of the bible.

Published: October 28, 2008 4:42 PM
Mark

Joshua Park
I really don't see how not voting "sends a message". People infer that a non-voter is apathetic, not resistant to the one-party system. The better choice is to vote for an alternative party's candidate.

Joshua is right -- it's called the Badnarik effect. Baddy gets 0.34% of the popular vote causing GOP and Dem's to adopt exactly 0.34% of libertarian party's platform. Bravo!

Published: October 28, 2008 4:47 PM
Mark

Michael Green:

If I do nothing, I am responsible for nothing.

I think you've hit upon a slogan for this whole board! Great job!

Published: October 28, 2008 4:51 PM
C. Evans

Mark,
You wrote, "Your exegesis is lacking." I would say the same about yours. The Israelites wanted to be like the other nations, which had a king. And these kings led their people into idolatry. Some of the Israelites kings did so as well (see Solomon). Kings tend to substitute their own rules for God's rule; hence, the desire for a monarch being a rejection of God's rule. Presidents, Congress, the Supreme Court Justices do the same thing and lead the people into idolatry. Many Americans reject theft privately, but have no problem with taxation, which is robbery especially if they can receive the fruits of this theft. They reject covetousness, but if Obama or McCain complain that wealth is concentrated in the hands of too few people, the American people yield to their envy. It doesn't take a prophet to see this.
Regarding the Luke passage, Jesus is tempted to accept authority over the kingdoms, which is the power of the State. He rejects this because to do so would mean to worship Satan. In other words, if he would worship Satan, Satan would give him the power to rule kingdoms, which is what McCain and Obama are fighting over. The power is of Satan, and therefore evil and ought to be rejected.

Let's take the Romans passage. Ought we take this literally? Well, first to do so would make Paul a hypocrite for the Roman authorities told him to stop preaching the Gospel and he did not. If this text is to be taken literally, then whatever the State commands is de facto a command from God. Thus, whatever the State says is good or evil is therefore good or evil. If the State says "Stop preaching the Gospel," then to be obedient to his own teaching Paul should have stopped preaching the Gospel. But he did not, so there must be something else going on in this passage.
Moreover, this passage doesn't not even come close to describing the American State. Honestly, take this verse, "For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong." Do you really think that in a country which punishes savings and hard work through inflation and robbery, that these rulers hold no terror for those who do right? "But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing." Really, this American State which steals money from the working people to give to others? Theft is now a virture? Which uses its military might to force its way into foreign affairs? You also wrote "God has not offered to do so for the USA. This doesn't apply," regarding the 1 Sam 8 passage. So you then have apodictic proof that Rom 13 applies to this corrupt State? When did God come down and say that the American State is "the State of my choosing." You have a record of this? What about other States? Does Rom 13 apply to them? Would it apply to Germany in 1932 or the China in 1966? How about Iraq during Saddam's rule? How about North Korea? How should I determine whether the State is the agent of God or not? Just blindly assume it as you say? I would challenge you to prove why, if Rom 13 is to be taken literarlly, applies here and not in those other countries.

Yes, it is a challenge to reconcile some of these passages, but for the sake of all that is good and holy, open your eyes! These people whom you say we should obey use our own resources to destroy us, to rule our lives, and commit evil in our name. Am I to believe that God is so sadistic he would send people like Bush or Obama or McCain and compel us to obey them blindly?
If you genuinuely believe that the State is God's rule on earth, then you need to explain how it is Christians can participate in an entity which thrives on theft, lies, covetousness and violence, for every action of the State is one of violence or threats of violence. Moreover, one cannot even be elected to the presidency in this country unless one is willing to lie, steal, covet, and potentially murder.
If Obama is elected, then you need to explain just why his authority is not of God. It seems to me, based on your reasoning, that whoever is elected is God's agent on earth and we should obey him regardless. However, you do not follow the extent of your own logic and I infer from your writing is that since McCain is against abortion, he is God's Chosen One and all Christians should work fervently to elect him as if his warmongering or theft should mean nothing.
As I said before: Wise up.

Published: October 28, 2008 5:30 PM
Mark

C. Evans

"if he would worship Satan, Satan would give him the power to rule kingdoms"

Exactly. "If he would worship Satan." It was worship of Satan that was the problem, not the kingdoms he would inherit. The reply of Jesus only deals with the worship of Satan. You're twising scripture to suit your argument.

C. Evans: "So you then have apodictic proof that Rom 13 applies to this corrupt State?"

I use a grammatico-historical hermeneutic. The passage is a categorical imperative, written while Paul was a subject of Nero's Rome. Are you saying this passage only requires Christians to submit to non-corrupt - i.e., "holy" - states? There has never been one.

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

Reformed Theology has always held that God foreordains whatever comes to pass (from the Westminster Confession). So, yes, God uses evil rulers to accomplish his ends, and scripture says so directly:

Romans 9:17 "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth."

Acts 4:27 Indeed Herod and Pontius Pilate met together with the Gentiles and the people of Israel in this city to conspire against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed. 28 They did what your power and will had decided beforehand should happen.

Published: October 28, 2008 6:31 PM
Mark

C. Evans:

"Kings tend to substitute their own rules for God's rule; hence, the desire for a monarch being a rejection of God's rule. Presidents, Congress, the Supreme Court Justices do the same thing and lead the people into idolatry."

So our politicians should just quit and we should be ruled directly by God? You want a priesthood again or something?

Published: October 28, 2008 6:57 PM
Atlas

I wrote in Ron Paul for President and "None of the Above" for the other races.

Published: October 28, 2008 7:18 PM
Greg B

Mark is absolutely right that the LORD God is sovereign and in total control of this huge mess we call USA.

While the Lion of Judah is indeed in control, we Christians are duty bound by the dominion mandate in Genesis to subdue this creation. Non-voting hardly seems a wise or prudent means to subdue anything, accept perhaps one's own abdication of responsibility (which it doesn't).

I will be voting intelligently and STRATEGICALLY for Bob Barr. I do so because my home state of Mississippi historically goes red. If I resided elsewhere, I would be voting with Mark for McCain as the lesser of two evils.

This is the real world. We cannot simply hide our heads into Utopian sand hoping it all just somehow goes away.

Published: October 28, 2008 7:44 PM
C. Evans

Mark,
I had a feeling that you were Reformed. You sound very much like a Calvinist. Calvin's theology of the State is one of the reasons I don't particularly like him and this is why I am reassessing my Protestantism. It appears to me that you all are too willing to cop out and submit to evil with your theology of preordination.
I am not twisting anything. The power of the State belongs to Satan. Jesus doesn't dispute this. The power is Satan's to give away. Thus to accept this power is to accept Satan’s rule. You want to focus on the just the worship of Satan. I am focusing on what Satan gives you for worshipping him.

“Are you saying this passage only requires Christians to submit to non-corrupt - i.e., ‘holy’ - states? There has never been one.”
I am saying it is foolish to take this text literally as many Protestants in this country do (yet another reason I am reconsidering Protestantism). As I pointed out, Paul disobeyed the State when it told him not to preach to the Gospel. Many Christians were martyred because they did not obey the State when the Stat told them to worship it. Based on your literal understanding of the texts, these Christians were actually disobeying God by preaching the Gospel and living for Christ. Is this a conclusion you want to make because this is exactly where your logic leads? Moreover, in a democracy, supposedly we can shape our government. I believe the best way to shape it is to educate people about the true nature of the State and encourage them to withdraw their consent. Why do you find this so offensive? Why, in an ostensibly Christian nation, should we tolerate a method of selecting rulers which requires lying, covetousness, theft, and murder?

1 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
If you take this literally, why are you so afraid of Obama as president? If he is elected this would mean that God has chosen him agent on earth. So what’s the problem? How does my vote change anything? Are you saying I should vote as a matter of obedience? If Obama is elected, everything he does is God’s will. God is bringing his will to completion through Obama. So why are you so afraid of his presidency? Why should I be so concerned with McCain? Just because he says he is against abortion I should back him? You still haven’t addressed this. Again, based on your literal interpretation of this text, what can I do to change anything through voting? It seems to me that you believe that not voting for McCain is paramount to disobeying the Decalogue.

And you still haven’t addressed anything I mentioned about Christians who covet and lie to get such power, which is the only way one can get elected in this country. This does not seem to bother you. In fact, the only thing that appears to really bother you is abortion and you will swallow whatever poison McCain gives you to accomplish this. But, as I told you before, Wise Up! The Republicans are not going to address abortion as long as Reformed Congregants like you will vote for them regardless of their actual actions or in this case inaction on abortion. This is how worldly power works and you are deceiving yourself if you think that voting for him will defend the unborn. I say again to you, Wise Up!
Regarding my belief that the State is evil and my decision not to vote, “My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me. Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.” (2 Cor 4-5). You can believe in democracy all you wish and if you believe that voting is truly an act of obedience to God, do so. But my own conscience is clear and I refuse to support or lend any legitimacy to this Satanic power known as the as State. I have no problem standing before God on this issue and giving Him this account.

Published: October 28, 2008 7:46 PM
C. Evans

"While the Lion of Judah is indeed in control, we Christians are duty bound by the dominion mandate in Genesis to subdue this creation. Non-voting hardly seems a wise or prudent means to subdue anything, accept perhaps one's own abdication of responsibility (which it doesn't)."
Why don't Christians just use violence and subdue the earth? It's much more effective than voting and gives the psychic satisfaction of actually having real results. Mark doesn't seem to have a problem with lies, theft, and covetousness which is necessary to be elected at any high office in this country, especially the presidency. Let's just use our Second Amendment right (while we have it) and conquer the world. Clearly if we win and become the governing the authorities, God will favor us according to Rom 13. If He already approves of lies, covetousness, and theft to attain power, so He can't picky about murder.

"This is the real world. We cannot simply hide our heads into Utopian sand hoping it all just somehow goes away."
No one on this blog is hiding; some of us would like to find out how the world works as much as possible which is why we devote ourselves to study and learning. Given the amount of ignorance of economic theory, American history, and world history, and disdain of political philosophy among the masses, it's a worthwhile endeavor.

Published: October 28, 2008 8:06 PM
Greg B

Mr. Evans,

Because we are not commanded to do so, instead we are called increasingly conform our lives to that of Christ, who rebuked Peter for temporarily relieving that centurion of one of his ears.

I genuinely respect the wisdom and insight displayed by many on this blog. I do not accuse anyone of hiding from educating themselves or others or not being active in presenting the real changes we as a country needs. This positive real interchange between like-minded folks is exactly why I am encouraged to continue to visit this site. However, I do believe a non-vote is pragmatically non-effective and is equivalent to hiding one's head in sand in that, for all practical purposes, it accomplishes very little, besides personal satisfaction. I clearly understand that you disagree with this view. However, one beneficial purpose of this forum is to express our own genuine views on the issues, and hopefully inform, educate, and encourage others, who may be new in breaking away from the propaganda machine of those in power.

I am unwilling to engage in a tit-for-tat with you as Mark has. It is clear that you are in a somewhat combative mode. As a brother in Christ, I would encourage you to take a deep breath and reflect on the 2nd Commandment a bit.

Published: October 28, 2008 8:39 PM
Mark Z

I am very impressed with all the excellent arguments for and against voting that have been presented here, and I wish I had these things things to consider before I actually voted. It may have dissuaded me.

However, the one thing I am certain of when it comes to voting is this: My vote did not matter, it had no effect, it was a completely irrational act.

Yet I felt a certain uneasiness with the actions of government, which drove me to vote in protest against the democrats and the republicans.

Sometimes even irrational action can remove a little uneasiness.

Published: October 28, 2008 9:42 PM
Greg B

Mark Z,

I appears to me that you did, in fact, have clear rationale for your "irrational" voting. You state that you voted in protest to the duopoly parties and that it relieved a bit of your uneasiness with the powers in charge.

Kudos to you! An intelligent reasoned vote.

Let us all do the same.

Published: October 28, 2008 9:57 PM
C. Evans

"I am unwilling to engage in a tit-for-tat with you as Mark has. It is clear that you are in a somewhat combative mode. As a brother in Christ, I would encourage you to take a deep breath and reflect on the 2nd Commandment a bit."

Exodus 20:3-You shall not have any gods before me.
Yes, Greg B, I am combative because I genuinely believe that the State is an idol and Satan's power on Earth and it irks me that conservatives like Mark believe that it is my Christian duty to blindly obey it. I also have issues with Calvin and American Protestantism which fuel my fire; this is in part why I was trying not to go there regarding religion and the State. But Mark called my faith into question and I felt I had no choice but to defend myself.

If you want some insight into my soul, read The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude by Etienne de la Boetie.
Here's one of my favorite quotes,
"There are always a few, better endowed than others, who feel the weight of the yoke and cannot restrain themselves from attempting to shake it off: these are the men who never become tamed under subjection and who always, like Ulysses on land and sea constantly seeking the smoke of his chimney, cannot prevent themselves from peering about for their natural privileges and from remembering their ancestors and their former ways. These are in fact the men who, possessed of clear minds and far-sighted spirit, are not satisfied, like the brutish mass, to see only what is at their feet, but rather look about them, behind and before, and even recall the things of the past in order to judge those of the future, and compare both with their present condition. These are the ones who, having good minds of their own, have further trained them by study and learning. Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised."
Some of us are illequipped to suffer at the hands of others. We are deeply in touch with our natural rights and can't be still; such people were necessary to craft the Declaration of Independence and fight for their freedom.
I see democracy for the scam that it is, I see the State for the murderous criminal gang that it is, I see the entire political process as a drama designed to distract the masses from the real criminal activity. I have decided to educate myself to this truth and tell others, hoping that they may also withdraw their consent to be ruled like slaves.
If you genuinely feel that voting makes a difference and receive personal satisfaction for your participation in the democratic process, then do so. But to use your own words with one edit, "...I do believe [VOTING] is pragmatically non-effective and is equivalent to hiding one's head in sand in that, for all practical purposes, it accomplishes very little, besides personal satisfaction." We'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

Published: October 28, 2008 11:05 PM
J. Chris Folsom

All of our problems will be solved if we could just abandon agnosticism and vote for which ever candidate makes us feel better about the mythology that was brutally beaten into our heads as children.

Then we will have a moral and decent government just like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Published: October 28, 2008 11:31 PM
Mark

C. Evans

"Satanic power known as the as State"

I was going to write more, but this really takes the cake. If you really think the State in and of itself is satanic, then how is it you admire Ron Paul? He's part of the "the murderous criminal gang" as you call it. Dude, you need to find an island somewhere so you won't have to be subject to anyone, and you won't contribute in any way to Satan's minions here in the US of A. You're not one of the brutish mass. You deserve the best!

Published: October 29, 2008 12:08 AM
martin

i believe politics is the most important thing in your life because it defines the framework wherein you get to live your life.

also don't be so afraid of a little socialism.

http://www.progressive-economics.ca/2007/01/04/the-danish-model/

it's a lot to read but paints a picture of how things work where i come from.

Published: October 29, 2008 2:23 AM
Michael

Martin,

"Don't be so afraid of a little socialism"? How about "don't be so afraid of a little lead in your food? Socialism is an affront to liberty. Socialism paves the way for the highway to economic slavery. We should all be afraid of socialism, in any form, in any dosage.

Published: October 29, 2008 7:33 AM
Ireland

Interesting what kinds of "doesn't follows" can get packed behind a simple idea of not voting. Two that caught me:

Sending a signal: What is the general situation? Most votes are divided between two main parties, small sample goes to alternatives, and a substantial portion doesn't vote. Well then, which message has a better signal-to-noise ratio: adding to the non-vote, increasing it by a third or perhaps half? Or steering the same amount to 3rd parties, making that piece double or triple? If you want to send a message, this is the choice.

Non-voting as prerequisity for tax avoidance: there's no reasonable connection between the two acts. Send a message via voting, then send another via taxes if you're brave enough.

Published: October 29, 2008 8:09 AM
Enjoy Every Sandwich

Acknowledging that my vote has no effect is not "sticking my head in the sand". It is acceptance of reality.

I'm not speaking in a theoretical sense. I've been voting since 1980. I've voted for the "major" parties and for 3rd parties. The effect has fallen between zero and zip-point-nada.

So, this time will be different? How?

Published: October 29, 2008 8:32 AM
Michael

Remember, Enjoy Every Sandwich, Clarence Darrow's famous words, "Lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for." Vote accordingly.

Published: October 29, 2008 8:40 AM
Michael A. Clem

Actually, Ireland, since you have to register with your state in order to vote, I can see being non-registered (and thus not voting) as part of a plan to "go underground" and minimize the paper trail to yourself. Voter registration requires your name and address (and date of birth, iirc).

Published: October 29, 2008 9:23 AM
Enjoy Every Sandwich

Michael, there is a difference between fighting for a cause and stubbornly continuing a game of three card monte in the hope that "this time I really will win".

Published: October 29, 2008 9:45 AM
C. Evans

Mark,
This is the last time I will respond to your comments on this topic for am I weary of this sectarian debate. It is quite unusual for someone such as you to appear on this blog given that most of us are either anti-State libertarians or limited government libertarians. I expect most debates to be an exchange of ideas. This exchange may be heated sometimes, but I have yet to see it become personal as our exchange has become. I care not for your fear mongering about how miserable life would be under Obama nor your tacit belief that not voting for McCain is synonymous with heresy nor for your Reformed Theology.

Cleary you are a committed conservative and if you feel that McCain will save the unborn, knock on every door you wish and stump all you want. You are also committed to your Reformed Theology; again, good for you. I don't like Calvin and meeting you has helped me along in my discernment process. I think the idea that Christians should endure tyrants and blindly obey their dictates is ridiculous; it is a product of unsound theological reflection and I'm glad that Thomas Jefferson among other revolutionaries did not agree with Calvin. You will not persuade me to vote for McCain or adopt Reformed Theology.

I admire Ron Paul because he is the only member of Congress or the entire government for that matter who understands economics, he is the only one who believes in limited government, and he has access to the mainstream through CNN and MSNBC to educate the public. Given no one else in government, especially your dear McCain, adheres to any principles at all other than the lust for power, I see no reason why I can't like a man that defends sound money, nonaggression, and freedom. He still is not radical enough for me and he is still a member of Congress, and I still wouldn't vote for him. But as I told Greg B, we'll just have to agree to disagree on this matter.

No, I do not consider myself one of the masses; I study as much as I can about economics, history, and political theory and much of what I have learned recently I was never exposed to at any time in public school or college. I believe that my decision to do so is already paying dividends for I can now see the State and its agents for what they are. I talk about this with anyone who will listen, but as Robert Higgs has pointed out, people need to be in a certain mindset to receive such challenging information. Clearly you are not so this exchange has to end on my part.

No, I do not consider myself one of the brutish masses

Published: October 29, 2008 12:53 PM
Xavier

I think Mark epitomizes the classic case of a statist who just can't seem to understand the simple statement of "Live and let live." He, like all other statists who believe in controlling what other people think or do, believes in telling people what to think or do, and when they don't agree with the thoughts in his prism, he feels the need to compensate for it by resorting to personal attacks.

If you are that die-hard on voting for McCain, then go vote for him. But if you are trying to convince a bunch of anti-state/ limited government libertarians on mises.org to vote for McCain over Obama, you are playing a fools game.

And kindly, please disappear. Your presence is ruining the coherence and serenity of these boards.

Published: October 29, 2008 3:56 PM
Bruce Koerber

I will go to the voting site and if I see any alternative that meets the standard of principled classical liberalism then I will vote, only in that instance.

I will leave after either finding a glimmer of hope or none.

Either way I will be very willing to express my opinion to anyone who asks that voting is becoming increasingly an unethical act.

Published: October 29, 2008 6:21 PM
Chad Rushing

Would anyone change their voting behavior if every office listed on ballots included a "None of the Above" option?

That would allow individuals to explicitly express their dissatisfaction with all candidates offered rather than assume it will somehow be registered through their lack of participation which will almost certainly be characterized as either apathy or outright laziness by political analysts and pundits.

Published: October 31, 2008 6:25 AM
Lisa

To Mike (who commented on October 27, 2008 12:28 PM),

You said exactly what I was about to. There are other choices besides "Neither of the (two) candidates." And if a candidate that I like didn't make it onto the ballot... there's always a good old fashioned write in. The choices are only limited if we roll over and play dead.

Published: November 2, 2008 9:29 PM

Ludwig von Mises Institute

My Suggestion: Don't Vote

Comments (123)

Blog Search

Blog Archives

Salamanca Live Blog

LvMI on Facebook

Inside Links

Students

Journals

Outside Links

More Aids

The Quotable Mises

Ludwig von Mises Institute

My Suggestion: Don't Vote

Comments (123)

Blog Search

Subscribe

Blog Archives

Salamanca Live Blog

LvMI on Facebook

Inside Links

Students

Journals

Outside Links

More Aids

The Quotable Mises