Question for AC'ers who refuse to vote. . .

[VarlosZ]

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?

[ConstantineX]

The real cost-effectiveness of organizing and possible political implications of that organizing is lower than you might think. First of all, there are very few libertarians or ACers, and particularly regarding the nature of the ideology that group, they are hardly expected to agree on an ideal strategy or candidate. Even after this organization, there is considerable time-lag between this small voting bloc and implementable policy. Just by the very nature of the American political system, a libertarian voting would be investing in a powerful central executive branch to somehow promote liberty. An ACer paradoxically would be voting for a liberty-reducing organization (the government) to promote liberty, trying to vote out of gerrymandered districts lead by powerful Senators, in league with a uniquely powerful President, to effect real changes. By that virtue, those individuals have far too much power over their vision.

Indeed, the government is traditionally conservative - not in the political sense - until some exogenous shock, economically or socially, presents itself. They twiddle a minimum wage law here, some appropriation funding there, but until some crisis or BIG problem arises, it's much of the same. The most recent shock for Bush was September 11th, and it geared his Administration's outlook. Perhaps some neo-con voters believe if he had take more swift action earlier versus Iraq, he may have been able to prevent it. I doubt any amount of democratic fundamentalism amongst libertarians and ACers to effectuate change would have done anything; populism amongst the "citizen-minded" is most often mere theatrics and meaningless showmanship.

So there we have it. A great deal of collective effort expended by individualist-minded peple to invest in a strategy headed by powerful leaders who respond to exogenous shocks rather than democratic pressure for the abstract ideals of liberty that have distributed long-term benefits rather than immediate short-term goals. And you're surprised that many people don't vote?

[ojc02]

Walter Block talks about that here...

[VarlosZ]

[ QUOTE ]
So there we have it. A great deal of collective effort expended by individualist-minded peple to invest in a strategy headed by powerful leaders who respond to exogenous shocks rather than democratic pressure for the abstract ideals of liberty that have distributed long-term benefits rather than immediate short-term goals. And you're surprised that many people don't vote?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not that I'm surprised. I'm genuinely curious: what method of change do these people envision? A simultaneous, worldwide anarchist revolution?

[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.

[Paragon]

Another possibility for promoting AC is by supporting the right of secession. It would be a dream if a U.S. city could peacefully separate itself from the government, and become its own city state or something vaguely similar to Singapore, Monaco, and Hong Kong pre 1997. You can then continue the process from a city all the way down to households and individuals. If the first experiment were successful, it would encourage others to follow by example.

[GoodCallYouWin]

Personally, I think if everyone stops voting and paying their taxes, A/C happens; so the quickest way to get A/C to happen is to get everyone to stop voting and paying their taxes.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think if everyone stops voting and paying their taxes, A/C happens; so the quickest way to get A/C to happen is to get everyone to stop voting and paying their taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]


I agree.

Apathy and disgust is the way.

[GoodCallYouWin]

And excessive red baiting.

[Dane S]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I think if everyone stops voting and paying their taxes, A/C happens; so the quickest way to get A/C to happen is to get everyone to stop voting and paying their taxes.

[/ QUOTE ]

If everyone stops paying taxes, there is no government. AC would come about just as quickly if everyone stopped paying but kept voting. I don't think the voting really matters one way or the other.

Personally, I think it makes sense to vote with pure cynicism. Voting is power, even if all but insignificant. I don't think there is any sort of implied recognition of legitimacy inherent to the act of voting. I can vote and say I in no way respect the institution of voting or government, I'm only trying to opportunistically use the system against itself with what little ability the system grants me to do so.

That said, it really just doesn't matter. All this "but what if a million people voted" sounds nice but ignores probability. Even if those million people DID vote, YOU still wouldn't matter in 99.999% of scenarios or whatever it is. Also, we aren't talking about INFLUENCING people to vote, we are talking about the in-a-vacuum solitary act of voting. If millions of people vote the way you tell them to, that is serious power, but your single vote still don't mean [censored].