[AWoodside]

[ QUOTE ]
I remember a lot of posts here last November from AC'ers about why they don't vote. They basically fell into two camps, with lots of overlap: some said it was immoral to impose your will on others politically and/or to legitimize the current statist system, while others maintained that it was just a waste of time since one vote is so unlikely to change anything. I guess my question applies to both groups equally.

How do you propose to advance (rather than merely honor) your ideals if you abandon the incrementalist approach that voting allows? While your one vote is unlikely ever to make a difference, if one million AC'ers/libertarians who find voting distasteful for one reason or another suddenly decided to vote in every election, government would immediately be less onerous, and the ideal system you have in mind would be nearer and more attainable.

1,000,000 new anti-statist voters is a worthwhile goal, yes? Or, at least, it would have good consequences. Ethically speaking, ought you not subject yourself to the seemingly pointless task of voting so that the thing can come off? Is all collective decision-making too distasteful (or illegitimate) for you to participate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I consider myself an ACist, although some more hardline ACist might doubt it because of my position on voting. In principle I don't have a problem with voting if I think my vote will bring the world closer to ACism. I'm seriously considering registering to vote for Ron Paul this election cycle for that reason. While I do disagree with him on a lot of points, he's much much much more pro freedom than anybody else, and has pretty long and consistent voting history to back it up. If his popularity continues to increase, I doubt he'll ever win the Republican primary, but he may get close enough to make people that would otherwise support third parties but are too jaded and indoctrinated right now change their tune next time. This would be +EV for the freedom issue imo.

I'm more sympathetic to the waste of time argument. While I do think that my vote could be +EV for freedom in some cases (not a lot), its definitely a pretty pithy amount. So small in most cases that it's probably more +EV for freedom for me to sleep in so I'm refreshed when I have political conversations with my friends later, or work a little so I can get closer to having enough wealth to influence people.

Anyway, I think this is an issue where a lot of ACers are mistaken, at least in principle. Pragmatically I probably always agree with them, but to refuse to be involved with the current government, even in cases where your involvement would reduce it's scope, seems a little self-defeating to me.