In the upcoming elections, is it worth voting to help make positive changes, or is that just supporting the system? There are some good candidates in Georgia where I am, some of whom have links to Mises on their websites, but would an Anarchist like Rothbard actually go out and vote? What should one do in this situation? ( I personally believe large scale elections like for President are set up; I bet they already know the next president, but I think we do have some say in regional elections ).
Vote if you want someone making your decisions.
Austrian Economics is value free 
As for rothbardianism, probably not. But you do whatever the frick you want, yo
If one allows candidates to get voted in that make government bigger and bigger and take away more and more freedoms, then how do you expect people to be able to make their own decisions? The only way to get to make more of your own decisions is to help make it so that is possible. In voting for candidates like the one I mentioned who follows Austrian economics, can’t one expect to be able to make more and more decisions himself without the government doing it for them, and can’t one expect the decision he makes to carry more weight?
And by voting, you are knowingly allowing someone the opportunity of making decisions for you. So in that sense, in making that decision, you are really making your own decision considering you decided to let them make them, correct?
In voting for a candidate, you are knowingly allowing them the opportunity to make decisions for you. So in making that decision to vote, aren’t you basically making the decision to let that person have your say in things? In that sense, you are making your own decisions because you decided that person has similar views as you and you decided to give them the chance to have your say in the bigger scale, but it is your decision to let them do so.
Before I go read an 80 page document, can’t you respond to what I said in brief, general terms?
Voting for the lesser of two evils as far as government growth is concerned, is still voting for an evil. The only way to abolish the oppression of the State, is to take matters into your own hands. A slave that is allowed a bunk and a book is still a slave so long as he is not allowed be free to make his own decisions in their entirety.
So long as you continue to vote for the system, the system will continue to have it’s place. The only way of toppling the system, is to not use the system. Instead, find free market alternatives that operate outside of the system. The more we get in the habit of using alternate means to our end, rather than any government program, the less relavent the government sponsored program will become and so too will the relavence of funding said program.
A vote of apathy at the ballot, is a vote against the system.
I’m going to vote. Don’t ask me why.
What good can come from not voting, you ask?:
"Remember that the proposal to quit voting is basically revolutionary; it amounts to a shifting of power from one group to another, which is the essence of revolution. As soon as the nonvoting movement got up steam, the politicians would most assuredly start a counterrevolution. Measures to enforce voting would be instituted; fines would be imposed for violations, and prison sentences would be meted out to repeaters.
It is a necessity for political power, no matter how gained, to have the moral support of public approval, and suffrage is the most efficient scheme for registering it; notice how Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin insisted on having ballots cast.
…The answer lies, as it always has, in the judicious use of private artillery."
In other words, when you exersize your right to not vote, have a rifle ready for when they come to force you to do it, for their end is nigh at hand.
Rothbard on voting:
NEW BANNER: Some libertarians have recommended anti-voting activities during the 1972 election. Do you agree with this tactic?
ROTHBARD: I’m interested to talk about that. This is the classical anarchist position, there is no doubt about that. The classical anarchist position is that nobody should vote, because if you vote you are participating in a state apparatus. Or if you do vote you should write in your own name, I don’t think that there is anything wrong with this tactic in the sense that if there really were a nationwide movement – if five million people, let’s say, pledged not to vote. I think it would be very useful. On the other hand, I don’t think voting is a real problem. I don’t think it’s immoral to vote, in contrast to the anti-voting people.
Lysander Spooner, the patron saint of individualist anarchism, had a very effective attack on this idea. The thing is, if you really believe that by voting you are giving your sanction to the state, then you see you are really adopting the democratic theorist’s position. You would be adopting the position of the democratic enemy, so to speak, who says that the state is really voluntary because the masses are supporting it by participating in elections. In other words, you’re really the other side of the coin of supporting the policy of democracy – that the public is really behind it and that it is all voluntary. And so the anti-voting people are really saying the same thing.
I don’t think this is true, because as Spooner said, people are being placed in a coercive position. They are surrounded by a coercive system; they are surrounded by the state. The state, however, allows you a limited choice – there’s no question about the fact that the choice is limited. Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn’t try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can’t say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public. It’s not a fully voluntary situation. It’s a situation where you are surrounded by the whole state which you can’t vote out of existence. For example, we can’t vote the Presidency out of existence – unfortunately, it would be great if we could – but since we can’t why not make use of the vote if there is a difference at all between the two people. And it is almost inevitable that there will be a difference, incidentally, because just praxeologically or in a natural law sense, every two persons or every two groups of people will be slightly different, at least. So in that case why not make use of it. I don’t see that it’s immoral to participate in the election provided that you go into it with your eyes open – provided that you don’t think that either Nixon or Muskie is the greatest libertarian since Richard Cobden! – which many people, of course, talk themselves into before they go out and vote,
The second part of my answer is that I don’t think that voting is really the question. I really don’t care about whether people vote or not. To me the important thing is, who do you support. Who do you hope will win the election? You can be a non-voter and say “I don’t want to sanction the state” and not vote, but on election night who do you hope the rest of the voters, the rest of the suckers out there who are voting, who do you hope they’ll elect. And it’s important, because I think that there is a difference. The Presidency, unfortunately, is of extreme importance. It will be running or directing our lives greatly for four years. So, I see no reason why we shouldn’t endorse, or support, or attack one candidate more than the other candidate. I really don’t agree at all with the non-voting position in that sense, because the non-voter is not only saying we shouldn’t vote: he is also saying that we shouldn’t endorse anybody. Will Robert LeFevre, one of the spokesmen of the non-voting approach, will he deep in his heart on election night have any kind of preference at all as the votes come in. Will he cheer slightly or groan more as whoever wins? I don’t see how anybody could fail to have a preference, because it will affect all of us.
I don’t think there is a whole lot to gain from not voting.
By all means, don’t vote for anyone you don’t want governing you, but there’s no reason not to at least vote on local measures and propositions.
I know many here will disagree on the grounds that voting provides implicit consent to be governed, but the fact of the matter is that government will be forced upon us either way. If there is an opportunity to effect change toward a freer society, then it should be taken. It does not preclude taking further or future action against governance.
Voting doesn’t give your consent to be governed any more than paying taxes (income or sales) implies consenting to be taxed, or handing your wallet to an armed mugger gives consent to be robbed.
Government isn’t really able to force itself upon us. It is only able to be forced upon us because the vast majority consent to being governed. The private sector owns all of the productive capacity and most of the guns. If even a relatively small percentage of the population withdrew consent, stopped paying taxes and voting, the government would collapse like the house of cards it is. The state simply doesn’t have the resources to physically compel more than a tiny handful of uncooperatives to submit. So it’s wrong to say that government will necessarily be forced upon us, because it’s actually us (most of us) who are cooperating with it.
By not voting, you are walking the walk, and taking a principled stance against government that gives you more credibility when attempting to urge others to withdraw their consent. While that may not seem like much, the costs are tiny. All you surrender is a 1-in-a-million chance to swing an election between 2 politicians who probably agree on most of the important issues anyway. Plus you gain a couple hours of your Tuesday to do something more productive.
“Since you are in this coercive situation, there is no reason why you shouldn’t try to make use of it if you think it will make a difference to your liberty or possessions. So by voting you can’t say that this is a moral choice, a fully voluntary choice, on the part of the public.”
This is the reason I would vote. I don’t know if I am going to vote in this election. I haven’t registered. I would vote for Ron Paul
Why are you going to vote?
You asked for it…
I’d disagree. You could be spending time doing any number of desirable activities. You could be making money, making love, you could be spending time with your children.
What about voting places it above most or all other choices of activity in the day?
Not voting is taboo. So its a conversation starter, which is good
Well said, LS. Many voters forget this subjectivity. I think it’s kinda similar to broken window fallacy.
I suppose you’ve stopped paying taxes then? Income, sales, and property, yes? Do you stop the government waste management employee from collecting your garbage weekly? Reject the government subsidized utilities (electricity and water)? When a cop tries to pull you over for some petty traffic penalty, do you pull over or speed right along as though nothing has happened?
Voting or not voting is up to you, of course, but government is most certainly forced upon us.
The bulk of my argument was to vote on propositions and such. I don’t plan on voting for any Republicans or Democrats.
Couple hours? Voting takes like 15 minutes.