-
Unpopular
-
Waste of time
-
Dangerous
-
Immoral
-
Violates human rights (Isn’t this the same thing as immoral?)
One Reason to Vote:
Stop the killing
“Human” rights do not exist. Only property rights exist. I do vote because it is an attempt to legitimize an illegitimite institution.
“The ballot… is a mere subsitute for a bullet.” -Lysander Spooner
I’m not sure I understand the semantic. Property rights are human rights.
While I loath democracy, the State won’t ignore you just because you ignore it. Democracy is not legitimate, me voting does not legitimize it. If I was asked to choose the next president, would I say “No thanks, I’m an anarchists”? No way.
Another reason not to vote, participating in an election is touted by the establishment as a sign that you approve of the system if not the winning candidate. With that in mind, what is the general consensus among the American members of this site about Ron Paul’s candidacy? Do many of you plan to vote for him? I wish him well, as I believe his campaign is helping to spread important ideas, but I won’t be voting for him (or anyone else).
I believe that Spooner was making the comparison of elections to a soldier conscripted to war, meaning we use a ballot to defend ourself against coercion like we use bullets when we are drafted. They are immoral, but we are forced.
This is why I do not vote and advice others not to vote as well. Voting (except for boosting a candidate) has an legitimizing effect on the foundations an order is supposed to stand on. And I don’t wish to legitimize something that has come into being via fraud, treason, deception and neither having any customary grounds as well. This is the way I view the New South Africa. Nevertheless do I obey laws and officials doing their jobs, pay taxes and the like. Even, if I don’t like it, I try to operate within the many contradictory regulations that exist. For me this is rather about helping people to improve the situation not about embracing governmental institutions or ideology. It must be noted that both the National Party and the ANC were highly interventionist organizations. They believed in the possibility of planning a society at least roughly. This had implications for example in contractual freedoms. They did however work from different assumptions. While the NP believed that South Africa consists of distinguished social entitities, the ANC claims to believe that South Africa consists only of one social group: South Africans. They however don’t act like that in practice as interventions like Affirmative Action and Black Economic Empowerment show.,
That is demonstratively false. If you had the ability to vote in a moral system of governance (or lack thereof), how would that be immoral? Similarly, if the cost of voting to an individual is zero, voting in a way the individual feels will produce the most moral outcome is moral, while other actions are not. Not voting in such a scenario is an action as well, although I know in practice voting does take time, effort, and doesn’t really do much good in most cases.
The opportunity cost (in some imaginary morality quotient) of each choice on a ballot is only zero if they are all equally moral choices. It can’t be negative, i.e. immoral, to the voter who votes with his conscience. The cost of not voting is the same as the cost of voting for the winner.
While I do understand the anti-voting folks–and often live by that same rule–I think that to completely write off voting is troublesome. While the system itself is bad, do we not have some moral obligation to try to fix it IF (and only if) a serious possibility of that change presents itself? I for one will vote for Ron Paul if given the chance next year because if I believe in any form of government (BIG if) he is as close to an advocate as I’ll ever see in America. With the current system in place, an anarchic system is miles away, shouldn’t we aim to take steps in the right direction?
That’s not a rhetorical question, by the way, I’m curious as to your responses.
… Voting gives people the illusion that they have a say about how things are run in a country. That’s why it is dealt out so easily to as many people as possible in a country. The power of the individual is actually eroded that way and the winning side is the establishment in media and civil society. Any party new or old has to work in accordance with the established (hegemonial) ideas that are prevalent in a society. It’s like selling clothes. You’ve to offer what is already fashionable. Changing the fashion would work differently. This can only be done by an elite group of designers and publishers. That’s how one must go about, getting people together that can think and organize to change the public mind step by step.
Voting or campaigning I see only as an instrument, for whatever is needed. Campaigning itself is very expensive and may demand concessions. The funds may have been more useful elsewhere, while the concessions will undermine credibility.
If you carried your argument to its logical end, you would have to say no to anything tax funded, or anything having to do with government. You couldn’t go to tax funded universities, drive on tax funded roads, or participate in anything connected to taxes. You could not go to the library, or eat foods whose companies have been propped up by subsidies. I’m sure, using your logic, someone could say these actions “legitimize” these things.
Voting is immoral because it violates property rights, so saying voting is immoral and voting violates human rights is redundant.
You have to draw the line somewhere. I avoid participation in activities heavily subsidized by the state such as driving.
If you say voting is moral, then surely the state must be moral also.
Is your 1 vote going to stop the killing? Definately not.
See also My Son: Klan Reformer
I suppose the issue I take here is that an alternative to voting is not being offered. Absention from voting doesn’t give us any edge that voting takes away; a systemic upheaval is of course what we and most Austrians would be hoping for, but the more rooted a country the more complicated it becomes to achieve that upheaval. How can we achieve this within the confines of a democracy without participation? If there was a fascist running against an Austrian, shouldn’t we at least make a good-faith effort to place the Austrian in “power” (an Austrian, of course, would flip the “power” aspect of an executive role upside down if in office!)?
On the whole, I agree with you, but I believe if there is an evil vs a good, we owe it to ourselves to participate in the victory of the good.
How do you know what someone will do once in power? Surely this is impossible, unless you’re God. What if the “Austrian” is simply the next Adolf Hitler?
JSH–I see your point, and I like it. It has made me rethink my position a bit… still, should we not try to scale back evil if we cannot eliminate it altogether?
You must have the right ends and the right means in order to truely scale back evil. If enuf Austrians voted, you might win a temporary victory, but this compromises your position in the long run, because what happens when Austrians aren’t the majority anymore? Surely you cannot complain when the vote goes in the other direction in the next election. If voting is right, then it must be right for the person who gets the most votes to win. If voting is wrong, then voting cannot be used to a good end, just as if the state steals then gives the money to the poor, the state is still wrong.
Can any government be moral? Not according to Thoreau. "That government is best which governs not at all;”
See the Klan Reformer link a few posts back, also.
It’s rather stupid in my opinion not to vote. Let’s use this upcoming election as an example.
Ron Paul is by far the best candidate out of all parties. Why would you not vote for him? He is many times better than everyone else and follows the Austrian school of economics! Would you rather have another George Bush/Bill Clinton or a Ron Paul?
Your 1 vote will not change anything for the better. You endorse democracy and the winnner by voting. You endorse statism by voting. If you vote for Ron Paul, how can you complain when Hillary is elected? How can you complain when the state stomps on your property rights? Surely you endorsed the state, and are a statist yourself. Are you not the KKK reformer?
Your vote will be like Ron Paul’s votes in Congress. Have his votes resulted in different policy?
To vote for Ron Paul is to fight statism with statism. This makes no moral sense whatsoever. If voting is right, statism is right. If voting is wrong, statism is wrong. If you vote, then you’re saying statism is right
Oh ok, I guess I’d rather sit around and complain about voting then actually try to get someone who is a good man elected.
You’re not going to change anything in the near future. This is the one chance where people in the US can actually change things for a better, less statist direction. It’s a golden opportunity that no one should pass up because there isn’t going to be another person like Ron Paul running for president in a long time.
Using your definition of statist we could lump Ludwig von Mises right along with them. You sound like a communist labelling everyone a “reactionary.” There is no need to do that, I’m on your side!
So Mises believed in democracy? Mises voted?
Your vote will not change the outcome of the election. It will be a waste of time. Plus, you endorse democracy, which is how the US gov’t ended up in this situation in the first place.