Why I Don't Vote
The basic reason is that I see no reason to engage in a morally dubious practice when it doesn't even yield any pragmatic benefits. For example, if I take the wheel of a runaway bus, and I can swerve to kill 3 people instead of the 30 in the path of the bus, then maybe I go ahead and do it. Sure, I feel bad about killing 3 people who otherwise would have lived, but I understandably could "pick the lesser of two evils."
Yet that's not what happens if you vote for someone you think will violate property rights and order the deaths of innocent foreigners. Here, your vote is not reducing the number of people killed (unlike in the bus story). Whether or not you vote for the "lesser evil," the same person will become president and will go about doing a whole bunch of evil. So there is no practical reason for you to join in, and thus you might as well save yourself the inconvenience of waiting in line at the polling booth.
I deal with the obvious retorts here.
Comments (68)
coyote
I would agree with you except for one thing: Ballot Propositions. Like you, I have no desire to choose between the Coke brand of statism and the Pepsi brand. Voting is often too much like a prisoner being offered his choice of tortures.
But, while there is often no "pro-freedom" choice among those running for office, there is often a right "pro-freedom" vote in the ballot initiatives.
Published: November 3, 2008 11:59 PM
gooddebate
For some reason my common sense violation meter is going off. I usually have to read about 5 or 6 versions of a subject before I form an opinion on it so maybe I don't understand it yet. But, it seems that your argument is that we should build a society based on indifference? Is that really a good plan?
I'm wondering, why is Ron Paul a republican? Lets get real here, it's because libertarians marginalize themselves and if you want to have any possibility of changing anything you've got join one of the two parties. Do you see how this could be a little frustrating for those who have seen the light but the attitudes of the scholars guarantees it's not going to mean anything?
So your plan is to build a brilliant plan for economics the way it really is but not try to influence anyone to adopt it? I guess I just don't get it (yes, I read your reasons).
BTW, I'm still a big fan.
Published: November 4, 2008 12:57 AM
Justin
Thanks for the article. I also find no moral or practical reasons to engage in this ridiculous spectacle. I don't vote for the same reason I don't dig nine-foot-deep holes in my back yard; it serves no utility whatsoever.
What I don't understand is the people who criticize your article (and others like it) on the grounds that it lacks a plan or alternative to voting. To me, it is simply a statement of the obvious. I doubt that anyone would challenge my claim that digging holes in my back yard is pointless, much less reject my argument because I provide no suggestions for how to better spend your time.
Published: November 4, 2008 2:40 AM
Ireland
Here we go yet again. The presented argument only considers picking one of the two top candidates, and concludes it's not worth it.
What kind of reasoning is behind this? Aren't we supposed to consider all known alternatives, and all the effects to all groups? This short blog falls short of Bob's usual high standard.
I agree that voting for Dumb or Dumber makes little difference. What are the other options? Vote 3rd party for Baldwin, or do a Ron Paul write in. These will not have either of them become president. But is the fact who's elected the only thing that counts? Come on, it's never that simple.
We understand that signals sent by picking one good over another in the store, based on the quality and price, are also very faint, yet in the end they sum up and work.
Similarly there are these alternatives in the voting booth that do send a message through the system, different from both the signal sent by those too lazy to be bothered, and those willing to pick one of two disgusting top choices.
I for one do see a rational reason to send that signal. And am surprised by smart people advocating to pass on the opportunity, when the price for it is negligible.
Looking forward to hear honest retorts on this.
Published: November 4, 2008 3:43 AM
maera
I decided not to vote for un-philosophical reasons but was surprised that I felt relieved at deciding not to participate. I think of this as the Bartleby Effect.
I did vote 3rd party last time, Ireland, but you must be as aware of the futility of it all as I am. The system isn't working and can't be improved from within.
Published: November 4, 2008 4:22 AM
Craig
First, that's an emotional rather than rational response because after the bus kills 30, it keeps rolling and more victims are down the road. Unless you take the wheel, get in the conversation, you have no possibility of effecting the outcome down the road.
Sending the analogy to Abu Ghraib, both trying to seize the wheel are dangerous, one from ignorance, the other by purpose. The ignorant may learn and evil should be resisted.
Published: November 4, 2008 6:10 AM
Craig
First, that's an emotional rather than rational response because after the bus kills 30, it keeps rolling and more victims are down the road. Unless you take the wheel, get in the conversation, you have no possibility of effecting the outcome down the road.
Sending the analogy to Abu Ghraib, both trying to seize the wheel are dangerous, one from ignorance, the other by purpose. The ignorant may learn and evil should be resisted.
Published: November 4, 2008 6:11 AM
Dick Fox
Robert Murphy,
I am always anxious to read your articles becasue they are some of the best, but you have revealed a side I did not expect.
Let us look at the alternatives to changing a society. Let us say that we can change a society through education including economic and political articles. Does this preclude voting? Obviously no; one can do both. So this is not an alternative to voting.
At its very basic level we have very few alternative to change a society politically. Doing nothing is the existentialist alternative of allowing others to rule over us. We have the alternative of violent revolution in its many forms: terrorism, assassination, civil war. Then there is the ballot.
Of these alternatives the ballot is the only method of change that is not either capitualtion or violence. If one seeks exercise his voice in a peaceful transition of power then the only alternative is voting.
Sadly, it appears that you have chosen the root of least influence.
Published: November 4, 2008 7:41 AM
Enjoy Every Sandwich
The pro-voting folks never answer my question: why should this time be different? Third party voting was not invented last week. I've been trying it for 20 years and have nothing to show for it but a lot of wasted time.
Published: November 4, 2008 7:43 AM
Mike
Why would anyone who doesn't support arbitrary power over others give a wit about the peaceful transfer of that power from one band of thugs to another?
Published: November 4, 2008 7:52 AM
lewis
If you don't vote, they will just assume you are apathetic. I suggest you send a protest vote by voting third party. Wasted time? Please. I can't imagine you would be doing anything productive anyway. ;)
Published: November 4, 2008 7:58 AM
redshirt
Wow, here we go again! Thank you Ireland, Justin and others for joining in ... I am bewildered by these blogs like you.
Write ins, referendums, propositions, close elections for constitutional and libertarian candidates; all good reasons to vote. Being involved in a group process that brings information to people that they wouldn't otherwise look at (like mises.org); another good reason.
Folks in Massachusetts may be looking at a $3500 bonus if they vote! And you are telling them to NOT VOTE. That seems to fly in the face of what these other essays espouse.
And the constant use of "someone" we are voting for.. ONE. We aren't voting for one person... we vote for many as well as on issues. These non-vote blogs are a gross intellectual indulgence and distortion of reality. Yes often we do things that don't have a result in our favor. Welcome to the real world. But on occasion, something comes and works and things go our way. That's why we participate.
Imagine if one person votes one way all the time and never sees a difference. That's a statistic not a universal law of nature. It happens like that sometimes.
And then the bland arguments that democracy is flawed and horrible. Yawn. Let's ignore reality yet again. There will be government. Get used to it. Better to have a government that can morph and grow in a way that can be influenced with education and intellectualism and essays and so
on.
I come here for the excellent essays on the economy and free market ideas, but these bring out the apathy non-vote blogs are a drag.
Are you trying to kill the internet traffic to the site because the server is getting too hot? ;-)
-r
Published: November 4, 2008 8:36 AM
Enjoy Every Sandwich
And when I do vote, they assume that I'm a kook. No gain there.
Again I ask: what is different about this election?
Published: November 4, 2008 8:37 AM
Brent
Yeah, I voted in order to support a ballot measure to cut the income tax in half.
Published: November 4, 2008 9:04 AM
Bobby
Actually, Ron Paul decided to join the republican party because there are greater regulations and media blockades on 3rd parties. The system is set up to discourage anyone other than Replican or Democratic eligibility. He wanted his message heard by many more than what would have been possible if he were to run as libertarian because, lets be honest, if you want to hear the views of Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin, you have to search for them yourself. People already know which "team" they are pulling for and already figure that these 3rd parties views are "out there in left field" so dont look for themselves.
Published: November 4, 2008 9:05 AM
Speedmaster
I'm really starting to come around on this, you make some solid points.
Published: November 4, 2008 9:07 AM
gooddebate
redshirt, very well said. It's almost as if there's this great intellectual discussion with substance going on but when it comes to having the opportunity to influence anybody, oh, we can't do that.
EES, actually, the libertarian community is seen as a bunch of kooks. And it's usually for stuff like this where we take the issue too far to an extreme. Don't vote because it doesn't make a difference? Tell me what moral imperative is violated by voting, really. It strikes me as a bit pompous to say 'well you can do it but I'm not participating.'
I think that there are only two ways that the society could change significantly; revolution or revival.
In keeping with the spirit of the motto of this site I'd rather participate in revival rather than wait for revolution.
Published: November 4, 2008 9:20 AM
redshirt
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5364.html
Published: November 4, 2008 9:23 AM
redshirt
another...
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5365.html
gooddebate... ty... I'm all in for revival!
I actually wrote to my state reps regarding the bailout and got responses. Maybe one will actually read what I wrote. Lots of mentioning of mises.org ... maybe one will actually follow the link.
-r
Published: November 4, 2008 9:29 AM
Dennis
I live in New Jersey and have the opportunity to write-in the candidate of my choice. As a result, I will be writing in Ron Paul for president and Murray Sabrin for the senate.
If New Jersey did not have the write-in option, I do not know if I would have voted for president for Bob Barr (Libertarian Party) or Chuck Baldwin (Constitution Party), or not voted at all.
I absolutely will not vote for the likes of either Obama or McCain!!!!!!!!
Published: November 4, 2008 9:37 AM
Stanley Pinchak
By voting, even on a tax referendum, one sanctions the actions of the state. Basically by voting on that item, you are saying that the state had the power and the right to tax you at X percent previously, and tacitly you permit them to do so again in the future when inevitably, the need arises. This is the most preposterous aspect of Democracy. The fact that one is essentially forced to vote to protect oneself from the predations of the majority (of duplicitous voters), should clue everyone in that there is something wrong.
It is not as is the case in the market, where one must protect himself from the bandit and the thief, who do not claim to be upstanding members of society. No, one must fend off the attacks of people who claim to be moral and upright, often claiming to be Christian, yet violaiting both the Ten Commandments and Jesus's Second New Commandment.
To participate in democracy is to reject any morality in favor of material gain. It is counterproductive because even if one comes out on top, there is no guarantee that you will not be overthrown and become the fleeced minority next time. It is like playing Russian Roulette with your property and liberty. It is time that we stop the madness.
Democracy is a failure and like the state as a whole, based on false assumptions and utterly unsalvageable. It is based on principles which when examined with a critical mind can not stand on their own. Its status is ingrained not because of its positive aspects, but because of fear and indoctrination.
Democracy is a horrible perversion of true market choice. It is about as effective at registering the desires of the people as pure socialism is at delivering bread. The one saving grace of Democracy and the state in general is that bribery still exists. Thankfully there are still some places where the market works.
Published: November 4, 2008 9:41 AM
Ralph H
Like others here I have voted for 3rd parties for years and have been disappointed. The big difference this year as we do get Ron Paul on all the major networks, we do have a small but growing Campaign for Liberty organization, and we do have an economic crisis brewing which will overwhelm the establishment. The opportunity to see a move to liberty by 2010 is small but the movement is growing.
The Obama presidency will be a disaster. Will we be here to pick up the pieces. I believe it is possible.
Published: November 4, 2008 9:42 AM
Michael A. Clem
The simple truth is that voting is an insignificant and ineffective way of influencing people and changing electoral politics. By all means vote third party or independent or write-in if you're allowed to (I don't have that option this year)--the more votes against the status quo the better. But if we're going to be realistic, recognize that merely voting (or even merely non-voting) isn't going to make any significant changes to the system. You have to take other actions to make a difference.
Published: November 4, 2008 9:44 AM
Ireland
EES: why should this time be different?
As an argument in support of the non-voting decision the above question is among the poorest. A limited set of results from previous elections do say nothing about the neccessary outcomes of future events.
Is there a chance of an unexpected result? Like someone not even on the ballot scoring several percents, or 3rd party candidates rising to previously unseen levels? Yes here it is. And what's the price? A small bit of time.
The only thing that's asured by non-voting is that one doesn't add to the strength of such message.
EES: have nothing to show for it but a lot of wasted time.
When someone doesn't see it, it doesn't also mean there was no effect in the past, and neither it shows that there will be no effect from alternative voting now or in the future.
Just consider: If there were NO 3rd party votes like those of yours in the past, singaling a demand for alternative, do you think we'd have Ron Paul and C4L? Or do you think that these activies are irrelevant and futile, too? Sure, in the long run we're all dead, but I refuse to buy that kind of philosophy.
Published: November 4, 2008 9:55 AM
Lester Hunt
As Thoreau pointed out long ago, to vote for X is not to do X or to choose to do X. It is simply to express a preference that X be done, no more but also no less. If you want to express your preference in this way, it makes rational sense to vote, otherwise not.
Published: November 4, 2008 10:03 AM
Ed
How about when ballot question 1 in Massachusetts passes and the State Legislature refuses to implement it as they did when we passed the tax rollback years ago. Will you people still make the argument that voting counts and can make a difference. What difference does it make if they count the votes and then ignore the people or take the ballots out back and use them for a bonfire? If you knew they weren't going to count your vote would you still vote? How about if you knew they'd count it but ignore you anyway? Whats the difference?
Published: November 4, 2008 10:26 AM
George
I would urge all of you to go vote. Often.
But not in a booth. Vote with your feet/bank account.
Get out of the dollar...
This will have more of an effect then voting...
Published: November 4, 2008 10:32 AM
Cuzmaydak
I couldn't agree more, however I am voting.
But not because I've been brainwashed by the media into choosing between two major party evils. Rather, I'm casting a vote against the system by voting for Ron Paul. Not voting at all would suggest apathy, while a vote for neither says something stronger.
Also, the local initiative questions are a pro-liberty vote.
Published: November 4, 2008 10:45 AM
Michael
Ed, the ballot questions are important. That's what drew me to the polling station this morning. The Electoral College effectively discounts my vote, being a politically unaffiliated Massachusetts voter. Please note, that unlike previous efforts to reduce or abolish the income tax, this one is Constitutionally binding. Previous questions were not binding.
Published: November 4, 2008 10:52 AM
John
The only two good reasons I know of to vote in a State election are to spread publicity and awareness for a little-known candidate/platform (basically, a non-Republocrat with whom you agree in principle), and to vote against further government predation in ballot proposals.
The non-vote is considered by many libertarians to be the best protest-vote or anti-vote. Perhaps actively voting for a third-party candidate is also a good way to send a message to "the establishment," but I think that only applies if that candidate is very, very principled, which is very, very rare these days.
Shameless plug: I wrote about my thoughts on libertarianism and voting here, which several readers seem to appreciate and find insightful.
Published: November 4, 2008 11:05 AM
Alexander
There is no reason that this election will be any different. The truth of the matter is that we vote every day, with every thing we do, and one morning of frenzied activity cannot override the hours and weeks and months of useless twitching and hand wringing that we engage in. We vote when we decide not to write letters to the editor of the local paper, we vote when we capitulate to family members rather than upset the pleasant holiday small talk. We vote when we choose a career, and an employer. We vote when at 10pm on a rainy evening we're not organizing and teaching ourselves and others about this. Don't fool yourselves. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. I respect the efforts of third parties, but having met my local libertarians, I am deeply troubled by their lack of exposure to Austrian economic theory and I am very confident they would do as poor a job at representing my views as anyone else. You don't get to "take the wheel" of the bus. You get a fishline that runs from your seat to the wheel, along with everyone else. And for the life of you, nobody can convince everyone else to coordinate their pull in order to steer.
The real question you should ask is "Why on Earth did I get on this bus?!"
That isn't to say all is lost. Whether we find it pleasant or not, the market IS correct, and impartial and just, along with the laws of nature that govern it. This country needs to learn the hard way, and I feel our future is best served if we stick to our core principles and continue to organize and educate ourselves and anyone else who will listen. I have a profound faith that good will come of all of this.
Published: November 4, 2008 11:18 AM
Brent
"By voting, even on a tax referendum, one sanctions the actions of the state. Basically by voting on that item, you are saying that the state had the power and the right to tax you at X percent previously, and tacitly you permit them to do so again in the future when inevitably, the need arises." -- Stanley Pinchak
I don't think that is a logical argument. It is not legitimate to tax people, regardless of whether I vote to lower everyone's income tax. Voting to lower everyone's income tax is solely a defensive move in the face of aggression. The aggression is still wrong, but it is completely within my rights to defend myself against aggression. To claim otherwise is to tantamount to claiming the property owner is committing rights-infringing aggression when defending his property from the aggressive acts of a criminal.
Published: November 4, 2008 11:41 AM
Ron
Here's my reason to not vote:
Voting cannot possibly bring about what I consider a positive outcome.
It's as plain and simple as that. The game is far too rigged against anyone but the D & R crowd for any other vote to "send a message". Hundreds of thousands of us attempted to send a message by supporting Ron Paul...an effort which went nowhere. Write-in votes are, in all likelihood, completely ignored.
If you truly believe that your write-in vote, or your vote for any other third-party candidate "sends a message" to anyone, I challenge you to find a single news outlet that tracks write-in votes, or that covers any candidate who has received less than 5% of the vote. The fact is, they're ignored. The masses don't take them seriously, and neither do those in power. Nobody in D.C. will be looking at the voting figures tomorrow, and thinking, "Wow, Ron Paul got almost 50,000 write-in votes. We should really start listening to what that guy has to say." Don't kid yourselves...they don't care.
Also, it's a mistake to confuse a principled choice to not vote with mere apathy. Apathy would be not bothering to get out of bed a few minutes early, extend your lunch break, or give up a few minutes of your favorite prime-time show to go vote. But that is not the case with those of us who choose not to participate. The fact is that many of us struggle with the this choice before coming to the decision to not vote. We take a lot of grief from friends, family, co-workers, and people like RedShirt over the decision. Our decision to not vote comes at a much greater personal cost to us than your decision to take a few minutes to go cast your vote for a third party, believe me. It would honestly be a lot easier to just suck it up, go to the polls, and wear our "I Voted" stickers to the office, rather than having to spend the next week defending our decision. But we do it because it's what we feel is right. And defending that decision is what we're doing instead of voting. If in defending my decision I can get one other person thinking critically about the sham that is our political system today, then I will have accomplished a great deal more than casting my vote ever could.
Published: November 4, 2008 12:27 PM
Stanley Pinchak
Brent,
I never said that the state is logical, and it certainly is not just. I only attempt to point out that by participating in the system, the system uses your participation as sanction for its heinous acts. Period. You can accept this fact, or not. However, ignoring it will not change how the state operates. Think of voting as aiding and abetting a criminal.
With fiat money and a central bank, overt taxation is an anachronism anyway. Your defensive move is turned against you. The state is a master of distortion and redirection. Until your Judo matches its own and you realize that attempting to overthrow it through its greatest strength, political action (which will inevitably be turned against you), is futile, you will only hasten your own subjugation.
Education, non participation, removal of consent and political non action will prove far more effective than mass Democratic participation, which can with unprincipled and uneducated masses lead only to greater injustice and a more powerful state. One need not the ability to read the tea leaves to see history's lesson.
Published: November 4, 2008 12:59 PM
Brent
But think about what you are saying. You are claiming that the property owner defending his property is legitimizing the criminal's actions by engaging in defensive behavior.
Published: November 4, 2008 1:03 PM
redshirt
Ron
Who is "they" again? There are people in the government and people who want to get into the government to fight the good fight. Writing everyone off because it meets one philosophical bend is wrong.
I really don't care if you don't vote. I just want to put enough positives in these blogs for those who might not want to vote to encourage them to do so.
Claiming something you don't agree with is a sham doesn't indicate that you have a better notion of how to make things better than anyone else. It's a pointless circular argument to claim some political system is horrible and terrible when no one has been able to demonstrate a long term successful government that one could recommend now.
It makes no sense.
Principled for principled sake just ends up being some selfish proclamation. I am so principled about how I feel I won't vote. I appreciate you and the others have a reason, but it is irrelevant and don't believe that you know so certainly how the world works that you can presume to honestly suggest to others that voting is bad for someone else. It is disingenuous.
This is cathartic for many people this time around. It isn't just about you.
Sometimes inaction is very important. Inaction in voting is not one of them in my opinion. It represents building momentum; an opportunity for injecting new ideas into the system and hopefully building a revival of better decision making.
-r
Published: November 4, 2008 1:06 PM
Justin
I agree with Ron. My decision to abstain from voting is not apathetic; on the contrary, I have spent far more time considering the issue than I believe most people spend choosing a candidate. And I have voted for specific propositions on those rare occasions when I felt my vote for liberty could genuinely affect the outcome. In those cases, I sacrificed my principles for utility. I am not particularly proud of such action.
But let's not be intellectually dishonest with ourselves. Writing in a third party candidate or similar action taken to "send a message" is about as effectual as a child pouting in the corner. His principled demonstration is a waste concerning the authoritative rule of his parents. In my humble opinion, those who suggest otherwise are the ones who distort reality.
I believe there are many actions one can take to effect change. I will not be voting today, however.
Published: November 4, 2008 1:11 PM
Stanley Pinchak
Brent think of a farmer defending his crop from birds and beasts. He is well within his rights to hire someone to do so in a manner which does not violate the property of others. Voting is like the farmer resorting to wild and indiscriminate blasts from a shotgun without regard for the pellets which transgress upon his neighbor. Sure he has rid himself of the plague on his own field for a time, but at what cost? Is he not responsible for the errant pellets? With his disregard for his neighbors property, should he not expect a repayment in kind in the future? Was it worth giving the shotgun to an irresponsible and unaccountable third party?
Published: November 4, 2008 1:31 PM
Ron
RS,
I'm sure there are plenty of people trying to get into government to "fight the good fight", but they are swimming up the waterfall. One or two of them may get through, but the machinery will continue to turn, and it nearly always converts even the most noble-minded into cogs in the machine.
It's not that I merely "disagree" with the system...it's that the many hours of research and study I've done about the system overwhelmingly show that the system is incompatible with freedom. There is plenty of material on this site to support that conclusion.
Also included on this site are tons of "notions" of how things could be better, and nearly all of them involve to some degree the elimination of the State. In fact, this entire site is dedicated to understanding how the world works, and to determining the best actions and ideas to make it better through freedom.
Published: November 4, 2008 1:35 PM
J-No
I admit I didn't read all the comments but I wanted to add something here:
The reason you should vote is because of me. Hear me out...
Approximately 10 years ago I was an apathetic citizen. I didn't vote and didn't care to. But as I grew and had children I began to take an interest. I realized that things weren't as they should be as dictated by the constitution (to put it mildly). After wasting a vote on a Republican president and following the results of the race thereafter I happened upon news stories that mentioned 3rd party candidates. Although their numbers were low, it opened my eyes to the fact that there were actually more than 2 choices. And the Constitution Party has added one to their ranks.
I also now take the time to vote in the elections that affect me locally. One state legislator and one senator and congressperson at a time and I believe that I can make things a little better.
So, one reason to vote is to vote 3rd party and help enlighten someone that there are other options.
(p.s. Roll Tide.)
Published: November 4, 2008 1:45 PM
Brent
Voting to get rid or halve the income tax you are subjected to is not an aggressive action. It gives no consent to any behavior on the part of the state - quite the opposite, it is a whimper of protest - and it does nothing to harm others, so the shotgun analogy doesn't work.
Just like non-voting doesn't necessarily mean apathy, voting doesn't necessarily mean consent. That's why this argument persists -- neither conclusion is justified.
Published: November 4, 2008 2:03 PM
David Spellman
Voting is even worse than you paint the picture. If you vote for any candidate, you are taking personal responsibility for the actions of that person. If they steal through taxation, then you are also a thief. If they murder innocent people in unjust wars then you are also a murderer.
There is no such thing as minimizing damage by voting for the lesser of two evils. You vote for any evil and you are evil. We have a moral obligation to NOT vote if we have no good choice. Otherwise, we give our assent and support to evil.
Published: November 4, 2008 2:16 PM
Christopher Peters
Stanley Pinchak provides a beautiful comment hear. Search for his name on this page and you'll find that comment.
Published: November 4, 2008 2:44 PM
gooddebate
Today is the day that I hope my friends who I've told about the great information and debate here don't get on line. I hope I'm not the only one who sees much of the no vote reasoning to be very cynical.
The real problem with the current status quo is that it's building toward collapse. Each economic bubble is a microcosm of where the system is going. For instance housing; the Keynesian's have come up with the brilliant plan that they'll get everyone into a house. Who would be against that!? So, they create a situation where a new group of buyers comes into the market. Eventually, this new group of buyers runs dry and they find they have to make new rules to bring in a new group of buyers. Eventually, a group of buyers is encouraged to buy that can't sustain the system and it crashes. I see this as where the whole system is going because it's all based on emotion rather than sound principle.
You can continue to say that you're fighting the evil by allowing it to crash but I don't think that's a great plan. There will be a lot of victims when that happens. Personally, I'm going to promote good ideas and try to extend the game any way that I can. If that means voting for the side that will crash the system less fast then so be it.
David S. - This is the kind of thing that you say when you want to brand the opposition of your position in an argument as something nobody could be for. The media is teaching you well. 'Ohhh I don't want to be called evil.' Besides, what you're saying is patently false. If you want to get into a discussion about evil then let me point out that evil must be killed, it usually doesn't leave on it's own.
"You vote for any evil and you are evil." You really must explain this statement.
Published: November 4, 2008 3:01 PM
Brad
Epistles about voting can be looked at through a long term prism or the election at hand.
Taking this election, it is irrelevant who wins. Neither mainstream candidate has said a word about how to unravel our $54 TRILLION accrual basis debt. Since personal wealth BEFORE the crash was estimated at about $52 TRILLION and so has gone down some TRILLIONS since that last estimate we are effectively bankrupt RIGHT NOW. If neither candidate has any desire to undo this Socialist disorder, what's the difference? It can be safely assumed both would not only would not undo what we already have, but add more, the difference being how much more poison and misallocation will be added before the collapse, and by whom.
Notions of picking a side in our two party system and working from within is naive. It is too late. That call to action needed to happen ten years ago. No one listened then, too busy falling perfectly into line in the 1984-ish Double Speak created landscape. Socialist education and empty mainstream media has done its job all too well.
So economic collapse is coming. The only way to avoid it, or at least begin to mitigate it, starts now. After another 5-8 years it won't matter anymore. And, again, neither is going to lift a finger to dismantle the bomb, so who gives a rip? Our destiny is before us either way, and I fully believe dark days filled with social disorder are before us. I can only hope it comes early enough, I survive it, and have some ability to rebuild personal equity for my infirm years.
So pardon me if I don't have the mental energy to stand in line with a bunch of superstition ridden, economically illiterate bozos believing their vote means a damn.
Published: November 4, 2008 3:03 PM
Nick
@gooddebate
It's simple really - If you wander into a voting booth and pull the lever for someone, helping to elect them to office, you have a share of responsibility in the decisions that person makes while there.
If they, under color of law and in the course of their elected duties commit criminal acts (like theft, or murder, or invading another country without cause...etc), all those voting for them have an equal amount of culpability for those acts.
You can't help elect a government and then later absolve yourself of responsibility for actions that government takes - It doesn't work that way.
If you pull the lever saying you're voting for "the lesser of two evils" that means you are *willingly* voting for some amount of evil. What does that make you? Hint: It isn't "good".
In point of fact, I would go David one better - Anyone who votes *at all* casts their lot in as one who consents to whomever wins - Not just *their* pick. And therefore, even if you vote for the loser, you hold some responsibility for the elected government's actions.
This is "...of the people, by the people, and for the people..."
It's why I don't vote and never have - not even in self defense.
Published: November 4, 2008 3:13 PM
Troy
How will things ever change if all the people that know the right way never let their opinions be known?
I understand the argument that voting makes no difference, and in the present election you are right, it wont. Either way, McBama will win.
But look 4 years down the road. What will entice good, freedom loving individuals to run for office? The knowledge that there will be someone there to vote for them. We show that by supporting 3rd party candidates. If third party candidates get enough votes some people will wake up and realize the growing discontent in our two main parties.
6 months ago I supported Romney or Thompson for president. I bought into the media created myth that Ron Paul was a kook. If all those Ron Paul supporters had not had the passion to continually fight then I would never have come to be convinced that he was preaching the only medicine that could fix our country. I believe this completely now.
Passion will always beat apathy in the long run. Just because todays vote does not determine todays winners, it very well may determine tomorrows statesmen.
Don't promote apathy, it always visits before death.
Published: November 4, 2008 3:30 PM
Ohhh Henry
It is laughable to read political opinions made here and there by ordinary people, e.g. in random blog comments, on web bulletin boards and in the occasional youtube "man in the street" interview. The lefties are *horrified* by Sarah Palin and everything they think she represents - blue collar bourgeois values, evangelical Christianity, small town ignorance, whatever (strangely they say almost nothing about McCain as if they've already written him off as a lame duck or a walking stiff). The righties are horrified by what they think Obama represents - Islamism, "pro terrorist" foreign policy, marxism, whatever. The poor ignorant fools are like sheep in a circular stampede, bleating and chasing each others tails. Meanwhile they're going to get virtually the same policies implemented no matter which one they elect.
Published: November 4, 2008 3:36 PM
(8?»
Wow, sure are a lot of confused statists around here who seem convinced that tinkering with a broken machine is a productive use of time.
Can't we keep this at a moral level?
You, as a living person, have every right to follow any leader of your choosing
However, you have no right to choose mine, regardless of how big of a mob you can assemble that agrees.
As for ballot inititives, pardon me if I laugh at the idea of voting for "please don't steal from me."
One can invent any number of reasons why you should vote. They are all fiction. My favorite? "It's your duty to vote."
I instantly remind them that slavery is supposedly illegal, and that this sort of coercion is destructive to a free society, which I spent 6 years "defending" as a US Marine.
Then I wipe the drool off of their chin.
Published: November 4, 2008 4:49 PM
Bruce Koerber
In the past I did not vote except in 1988 for Ron Paul for President!
This year was different and I will tell you why. I dressed as if going to a nice reception, dress shoes and dress pants but a nice shirt with no tie. I then attached a "Ron Paul 2008" button to my shirt at chest level.
If there had been a long line more people would have seen the button (and the education process would have stirred in their hearts) but instead the persons processing me at each of the two stages got to see the name of the champion of the Constitution again.
Like everyone else they were probably sick and tired of anything bearing the names of the candidates who are about to force the will of the UnConstitutional coup upon them.
I voted - to be like a soft-flowing breeze to all the parched and scorched souls. Thanks again to Ron Paul for laying the foundation for uplifting an oppressed people!
Published: November 4, 2008 5:31 PM
Bob Murphy
Hi everyone,
Thanks for all of the good back-and-forth. I just wanted to pop in and explain two things.
First, of course I am not advocating a position of "doing nothing." I spent more time writing my blog post on not voting, than it would have taken me to vote (possibly).
What I am trying to get people to see is that you don't need to buy into this ridiculous system that the government foists on us. Don't you find it the least bit suspicious that we are told from all quarters that we need to go vote, that our brave soldiers are right now defending our right to pull a lever for two candidates who were backed by Wall Street and the media, blah blah blah? The government wants you to believe that because you vote for one of two candidates it chooses every four years, that you are "in charge."
Second, I realize now that I should have mentioned the issue of third parties. Yes, yes, I am definitely rooting for the third party candidates. I would be ecstatic if Barr got 15% of the popular vote; that would be a wonderful sign.
But again, the same logic applies. Whether or not I vote for Barr (or write in Ron Paul or whatever), that is not going to make a whit of difference. If Barr has 15.000232% without my vote, he will have 15.000233% with it, and no news outlet is reporting to that many decimal places. So again, my vote means absolutely nothing.
And to repeat, you can't say, "But why are you sitting back and hoping other people do something you yourself are too lazy to do?!"
I don't want people to vote for Barr, I'm just saying it would be great if people voted for him instead of McBama. What would really make my day is if the news media reported that only 10% of the eligible voters turned out. Then the government wouldn't have its "mandate," and it would have less ability to order people around.
So that is really my long-run desire, that more and more people reject politics as an acceptable means for accomplishing objectives. If voter turnout dwindled to 5%, the politicians would still go through the motions etc., but the government would be a lot more careful in how far it stepped, because it would know that most people had woken up to the con.
Whatever you think the best strategy is for gaining liberty, a necessary ingredient is an educated population. So that's why I focus my efforts on writing articles, rather than pulling a lever in a symbolic ritual setup by the government to fool people into thinking they are free.
I don't hold it against you if you go vote for a 3rd party candidate; I used to do that myself. But even then, my purpose was so that if someone asked me, "Who'd you vote for?" I could start talking about libertarians.
But a few years ago, I realized that it was much more fundamental to say, "I don't vote, and if you're interested, I'll tell you why."
Published: November 4, 2008 8:30 PM
Franklin
There is a long standing philosophy (I think of Lysander Spooner among others) against voting and I appreciate the ethical dilemma, and the opinions of both sides.
Nevertheless, there is a larger group out there that believes in voting. And you are witnessing one of the largest election turnouts in modern times.
The huge Chicago party will start within a couple of hours and there will be joyous bedlam by the "agents of change." Lots of wine and song for tonight. Some statists throughout the world will hail this historic moment because somehow skin color means something to them. And the last eight years of "economic deregulation" and warmongering will be referenced as shameful.
I am glad the Republicans are getting trounced. They deserve it. They are bereft of free market credibility, and are hypocrites, championing small government yet building a bigger one. I seek a sliver lining in tonight. The only one I can find is perhaps a rejection of the ill-begotten war. This is all I have to grab onto: a denunciation of our worldwide and violent meddling. But I am not consoled for long. Because sadly, "McCain loses because of Iraq" is NOT what the electorate is saying. Sure, maybe Iraq has them pissed off, but that is not what is driving the election of Obama. The electorate is saying that government is NOT doing ENOUGH. They want government to do more -- to fix healthcare, provide jobs, reduce oil prices, give it "affordable" housing, and "free" education. That is what the electorate wants. And the electorate does NOT mean via a market solution.
By the way, when Clinton was about to be elected, the Right warned of the "end of days," of socialism, of less freedom, blah, blah, blah. Sure, he characterized himself as a "New" Democrat, but this didn't stop the Republicans from demonizing him. A decade later? Most folks think Clinton was okay, reduced the deficit, had a strong economy. Thus, Obama will fumble along, he'll feign cross-the-aisle compromises, with a complicit media, and not much will change. More and more government spending will be the order of the day. As it always was. The economy is not going to implode, in spite of the thoughtfull and well-grounded comments I've seen. Those warnings remind me of the leftists who said Reagan would bring us a nuclear war. Yes, the economy will become further regulated, but those who want to prosper will still find ways to innovate and win, either through playing the public sector game, or playing the corporatism game. The economic cycle will repeat, and things may even "improve" as far as the "average" American is concerned (Do I have a job and can I heat my house?). And the Left will sell the "we ended the deregulation nightmare."
So I'm optimistic??? Well, yeah, because it's not going to be the end of the world and we will find ways to be happy and thrive. I will find a way to better myself, no matter what.
Politically, things will just be more of the same --- more socialized democracy, more marginalizing of my politics. But so what. My ideas have been considered kooky for decades. My biggest challenge will be to fend off the arguments/accusations that Bush was a laissez-faire kind of guy.
My Republican friend said, "I don't mind. We needed Carter in order to get Reagan." But under Reagan, government got bigger too. The voting dilemma is really not clear.
Regards,
F.
Published: November 4, 2008 8:42 PM
Ian
There's the saying that "If you don't vote, you lose the right to complain." I disagree with that.
There are plenty of ways to affect the vote other than voting, and a main one is persuasion. One can participate in political discussion, keep up with the candidates and issues, and simply decide that nothing is there.
An intelligent non-vote can be the withholding of a mandate.
Published: November 4, 2008 8:52 PM
Franklin
A footnote:
The residents of Massachusetts... check that --
The residents of Massachusetts, WHO DECIDED TO GO TO THE POLLS AND VOTE TONIGHT, were faced with a Ballot Question:
Should the State of Massachusetts
- Keep the current state income tax?
or...
- Cut and then Eliminate the state income tax?
Those residents who decided to vote spoke loud and clear:
Keep the Income Tax.
And by a 70 to 30 margin.
So the government apologists have this to say:
"As a resident of Massachusetts, shut your mouth and keep forking over 5.3% of your income. And this also goes for you residents who didn't vote."
Regards,
F.
Published: November 4, 2008 9:02 PM
redshirt
Ron
Sorry to go heavy on you. Low blood sugar, running backups and doing a couple other things at the same time :)
Cheers!
-r
Published: November 4, 2008 9:30 PM
NewToThe Cause
There are some very well spoken and thoughtful comments on this blog.
As a relative newcomer to this site, let me commend you fellows for discussing a contentious and important subject without degenerating into a firestorm of unproductive emotional finger pointing.
THIS is why I continue to visit these blogs, and continue to benefit greatly from them. You all are actively helping to expand my economic and political views, and setting the stage for, hopefully, a grassroots return to sensibilities with respect to out of control government. This type of impact in the lone outlook of a single individual is eminently more important than whether I cast my single vote today or not.
Published: November 4, 2008 9:58 PM
Ron Kaufmann
OK, many of the facts are on this blog already, but never all in one post nor logically explained. FTR: I have great respect for those who post here and for those who seek to understand the wisdom of the Austrian school. OK, now that the bonafides are satisfied:
1) The US has a 2 party system... get used to it. To say it is rigged is quite beside the point. And forget arguing about the Whigs and the Tories; as many even on this post have already lamented, 3rd parties in this day get no traction. It is true that the other two parties have rigged the fight, but again I say... we actually have to deal with the conditions on the ground, not our high-minded concept of what is right.
2) Perfection is not humanly possible so why spend so much energy pretending that only perfection is useful. I'd bet that only a precious few who visit this site find perfection even in their own modest worlds.
3) Political power is obtainable, but not by those who are too good to join the fray. Ron Paul is half right; he comes much closer than the traditional libertarian. He made the usual crucial mistake of libertairians by keeping his feet in both camps thereby minimizing and marginalizing his efforts. Much was made of his lack of committment to the Republican party; think what you might, but it only makes sense that the party would deny him a higher stage. Paul has other problems as a candidate but even those coud be overcome with perserverance and committment.
4) One vote isn't enough; it takes work. Consider Ronald Reagan: He was a man (like Obama I might add) who thought long and hard about what it would take to become the President of the US. He started small, began by reading his hand-written position papers on his weekly radio program. He caught the attention of some Republicans and they 'sponsored' him for Governor of California. He learned to speak well in the rubber chicken circuit; he worked long and hard and managed to continually stay ahead in the political game by leading, not by following. He had setbacks, of course, but he perservered and after his third attempt won the Republican nomination.
5) I'd venture that many who contribute to Mises.org have the wherewithal to engage in the political process... or is only Ron Paul whocapable? Imagine a world where the top 200 Austrian Economists actually became involved in the 'real' political process, not the Libertarian party. Not marginalized but part of the process, part of the POWER STRUCTURE which forms the policies of this country.... would the world be a better place? Of course it would. Now image that 20,000 of the top libertarians got together and formed a third party... hypothetically we'll call it the Libertarian Party. Would the 200 or the 20,000 have the greater impact? I think you all know the answer.
Published: November 4, 2008 11:05 PM
josh m
The scene on the street tonight in my city was pretty sickening: kids driving up and down, cheering and waving their savior's signs. In my house I heard cheering in the distance well into the night. I've never seen such enthusiasm for a candidate after a presidential election, and it's so depressing. This calls for drastic measures, so I say fuck the scam that's voting, the notion that the state does anything useful, or that it's worthy of participation by anyone who knows anything about what's decent .
Published: November 5, 2008 4:03 AM
David C
Where voting is paper-based with an actual wirting instrument, there is a third option that has its uses:, and I myself used it in the dying days of Apartheid in South Africa. This was when th eruling party called a referendum ( among whites only) on some mild 'reforms'. The 'no' camp of diehard racists considered these reforms were going too far, and the 'yes' camp of soft but comfortable liberals loudly supported what amounted to tinkering on the edges of apartheid machine.
Those who believed the proposed reforms didnt go FAR ENOUGH, had no way of opposing the proposal without being lumped with the white fascists. SO this grouping elected to go to the polls, signifying a greater interest than absentee apathy, submitted spoiled papers, sending the message that NEITHER option was palatable.
INdividually, a spoilt paper is indistinguishable from stupidity, but with a proper campaign, and sufficient support, a significant number of spoilt papers in a poll sends a powerful message: Here's a bunch of people who are not happy with what any of these parties are selling, and they are still interested enough to jump through the polling hoops to make that point.
Published: November 5, 2008 6:18 AM
Ron
No worries, redshirt. :-)
We're all here to learn and figure stuff out, and considering different viewpoints is an important part of the process. We may disagree with each other, but it's all in the interest of getting to the truth.
~ Ron
Published: November 5, 2008 9:10 AM
Alex
It's a pitty to read. I doubt the next President will be a president all 4 years. I think we'll see how he takes responsibility for all mistakes of previous governments. Somebody should.
Published: November 5, 2008 12:11 PM
TokyoTom
My unique brand of obnoxious and twisted thinking regarding voting appears on the related thread at Bob Murphy's blog: http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2008/11/why-i-dont-vote.html.
Hint: voting exhibits signs of ritualistic behavior (which of course politicians love to tap into and manipulate).
Published: November 6, 2008 11:48 PM
buy thyroid online
Where I can take prednison online ? There? - [u=http://www.pillsstock.com]buy thyroid online[/u] . Please give me a link if u know it.
Published: January 26, 2009 7:19 AM
buy thyroid online
Where I can take prednison online ? There? - [u=http://www.pillsstock.com]buy thyroid online[/u] . Please give me a link if u know it.
Published: January 26, 2009 7:29 AM
thyroid products pricelist
Where I can take prednison online ? There? - [u=http://www.pillprovide.info/]aldactone spironolactone spirotone [/u] . Please give me a link if u know it. There [url=http://www.pillprovide.info/]what is aldactone[/url] produced by Boehringer Ingelheim.
Published: February 1, 2009 4:37 AM
thyroid products pricelist
Where I can take prednison online ? There? - [u=http://www.dosestock.info/]employment drug testing aldactone [/u] . Please give me a link if u know it. There [url=http://www.dosestock.info/]medication aldactone[/url] produced by Boehringer Ingelheim.
Published: February 1, 2009 6:48 AM
thyroid products pricelist
Where I can take prednison online ? There? - [u=http://www.pillsstockonline.info/]double dose aldactone by accident [/u] . Please give me a link if u know it. There [url=http://www.pillsstockonline.info/]does aldactone cause depression[/url] produced by Boehringer Ingelheim.
Published: February 1, 2009 3:48 PM
Vladimir
Where you find this template for blog? Please send me to email link to this site with free templates . )
Published: February 27, 2009 7:41 AM