Why should I not vote Republican?

[jpahmad]

I need help working through an issue that I have been rolling around in my head lately.  I'm not a statist, I consider myself an anarcho-capitalist, however, pragmatically speaking, if I want to see society move closer to freedom faster, why not vote republican for the simple reason that Conservatives tend to remove legislation, support family values, and work to disassemble the welfare state. 

 

I know, I know, war mongering, gun slinging, and holy wars are a  part of your traditional conservative agenda, along with printing and "borrowing" money, but, at least they don't aim to destroy the family unit.  If we lose the family, we will never be able to recover.  After all, kids can't be raised peacefully if their home is broken.  

[WasatchMan]

If your goal in supporting the republican party is to better your immediate situation, then I don't see a problem with it. 

 

I don't know why you would be concerned about your particular vote since I don't understand why you think it has any real world consequence, but as long as you are not expecting the solution to statism to come through republicans there is no issue with trying to improve your situation when options are limited.

[jpahmad]

 I don't understand why you think it has any real world consequence

 

Don't you think the welfare state and destruction of the family through the liberal agenda has real world consequences?  I'm of course assuming that the republican party is really against the welfare state.  I know that "statist gonna state", but, I think we should pick our battles.

[WasatchMan]

Don't you think the welfare state and destruction of the family through the liberal agenda has real world consequences?  I'm of course assuming that the republican party is really against the welfare state.  I know that "statist gonna state", but, I think we should pick our battles.

 

I get that. My point was, why do you expect your single vote to change any of that?

[jpahmad]

 but as long as you are not expecting the solution to statism to come through republicans 

 

I'm not.  I just think that it might be a stepping stone on the way to getting rid of the state, in the distant future.

I get that. My point was, why do you expect your single vote to change any of that?

 

I don't really

But what if I could influence 2,000 people to vote republican?  Hypothetically.  Would it be better for them to vote republican or not vote at all.  Do we really want Hillary Clinton in a position of power?

[WasatchMan]

I'm not.  I just think that it might be a stepping stone on the way to getting rid of the state, in the distant future.

 

I don't really

 

I think the best point to be made in this situation would be one Stef has made, and that is not whether or not you should or should not be do something, but what is the best something you could be spending your time on doing.

 

I would recommend looking up the discussions about the efficacy of supporting Ron Paul (objectively the best republican of our time) that Stef did back during those times.

[snapdragon]

f

[jpahmad]

I think the best point to be made in this situation would be one Stef has made, and that is not whether or not you should or should not be do something, but what is the best something you could be spending your time on doing.

 

I would recommend looking up the discussions about the efficacy of supporting Ron Paul (objectively the best republican of our time) that Stef did back during those times.

 

Thanks

[thebeardslastcall]

Are you not concerned that you're validating voting for everyone? Validating that voting is an acceptable means to an ends. Is this not what everyone else who votes is doing that props the system up and gives it credibility?

If I eat in McDonald's it makes it easier for others to eat there as well, does it not? Your actions are not just affecting you, they're affecting everyone.

If we want to move to a healthier system, if we want others to eat healthy, should we not make it as hard as possible for them to eat junk food? Doesn't it make it harder for someone to eat at a McDonald's if they are the only customer? What about if no one is there to ring them up? Or how do you think the cashier will feel if no one ever comes into the store? When you enter the store you validate the employees and the system and make it easier to be a customer as well. The system only stands because people participate in it and validate it. Is that what you want to continue doing?

This is in addition to the fact that your vote is highly unlikely to change the outcome and the direct personal costs of voting. Perhaps an alternate method to reach your objective would be to get less people to vote Clinton?

[AustinJames]

I live in Utah, so the answer is quite clear to me.  There is no point in taking part in national elections,  even if I believed the outcome makes a difference.  Moreover, it would be immoral of me to use the power of the state to implement anything, even if it was a moral ideal, because the use of state power is not moral.  In other words, there's no way for me to vote morally, even if I agree with the supposed outcome.  It is still an unjust use of force based on the NAP.

[J-William]

I have the most severe doubts that the time you spend in political action could really have large benefits.

[J. D. Stembal]

AJ has it. There is no way to vote morally in political elections. Every vote increases the power of the state, so there is no point in ever casting it. Americans will be free when everyone stops voting, and not one moment sooner.

 

What makes you think that the outcome of an election isn't already decided before people go to the polls?

 

Your thesis is that voting Republican is better for the family (or at least won't destroy the family, whatever that means). Whose family are you talking about? Will all families benefit from this outcome? Where is the evidence that Republicanism supports the family, removes legislation and abolishes the welfare state? You might want to take a closer look at your thesis and see if it holds up to the scrutiny of probing questions.

[shirgall]

As a libertarian that got himself inserted into local county politics, specifically as a Republican, I can solidly state that the reward for your efforts is minimal. It is far better to spend the time making good friends and spreading the word than it is to try to move the needle by attempted to exert control.

 

The initiative process, maybe, is more rewarding if your state or local area has them. Town halls that take all questions might have some merit, but a very small portion of the population goes to those. Small issue or service organizations with clear purposes may be more satisfying, but over time get taken over by process/control wonks.

[jpahmad]

AJ has it. There is no way to vote morally in political elections. Every vote increases the power of the state, so there is no point in ever casting it. Americans will be free when everyone stops voting, and not one moment sooner.

 

.

 

I'm having a hard time understanding how things would change if everyone stopped voting.  Someone would still be "elected" or appointed to use the power of the state ans as long as there was force to be used, i.e, the military and police, we would still be subject to their whims.  

 

We would have to take away the force available to the these people first.  That means we would have to eliminate the police force and the military.  Only then, could we just ignore politics.  Stefan claims, and I agree, that we must raise children peacefully before anything changes.  In this way, no one will want to join the military or police force and those institutions would perish naturally.  That's how I'm looking at it.

 

The progressive party has single-handedly destroyed the black family through welfare legislation.  They also have been decimating all families through feminism and single mother "empowerment" programs.  Broken families produce violent kids.  Violent kids become bullies.  Bullies join the police force and military.  Police force and military enforce political agendas.

 

Now, I suppose you could have a point about both parties being identical and in that case my point is moot.  But, find that hard to believe.  They both use force, they both violate the NAP, however, one party is definitely more in-line with Christian values and the protestant work-ethic.  I think we need to go back there first before we can move forward.  

[Romulox]

I'm having a hard time understanding how things would change if everyone stopped voting.  Someone would still be "elected" or appointed to use the power of the state ans as long as there was force to be used, i.e, the military and police, we would still be subject to their whims.  

 

When people cast a vote, it's reasonable to believe that they are doing so because they believe that they have some measure of control over the state, or that it represents them in some way.  Every vote then perpetuates the mythology of "government by the people" or "the government is us", or (insert 3rd grade social studies slogan here).

 

If no one were to vote, then it would be clear that no one consents to be governed by the ruling party, and any myth that government is a voluntary institution would disappear.  The gun in the room would then fully revealed; the only basis for rule at this point is that the state controls the police and military.  Therefore, every person who decides not to vote is one small step closer to revealing the gun in the room, and will make the violent nature of the state that much more apparent.  Though we may still be subject to their whims, the first step to eliminating the police and military would be to identify what their true purpose is; that is, to impose the will of the rulers over the domestic population.

 

A withdraw of consent seems to me to be far more effective at achieving this goal than voting in a party who basically worships the police and military, and relentlessly perpetuates the story that they are selfless crusaders for justice whose only interest is protecting the citizens from the evildoers plotting to destroy America. 

[jpahmad]

When people cast a vote, it's reasonable to believe that they are doing so because they believe that they have some measure of control over the state, or that it represents them in some way.  Every vote then perpetuates the mythology of "government by the people" or "the government is us", or (insert 3rd grade social studies slogan here).

 

If no one were to vote, then it would be clear that no one consents to be governed by the ruling party, and any myth that government is a voluntary institution would disappear.  The gun in the room would then fully revealed; the only basis for rule at this point is that the state controls the police and military.  Therefore, every person who decides not to vote is one small step closer to revealing the gun in the room, and will make the violent nature of the state that much more apparent.  Though we may still be subject to their whims, the first step to eliminating the police and military would be to identify what their true purpose is; that is, to impose the will of the rulers over the domestic population.

 

A withdraw of consent seems to me to be far more effective at achieving this goal than voting in a party who basically worships the police and military, and relentlessly perpetuates the story that they are selfless crusaders for justice whose only interest is protecting the citizens from the evildoers plotting to destroy America. 

 

Thank you.  This makes sense.

[J. D. Stembal]

Now, I suppose you could have a point about both parties being identical and in that case my point is moot.  But, find that hard to believe.  They both use force, they both violate the NAP, however, one party is definitely more in-line with Christian values and the protestant work-ethic.  I think we need to go back there first before we can move forward.  

 

What Christian values do you mean? How is the Protestant work ethic superior to other philosophies, Chinese Confucianism or rational egoism, for instance? It appears that you are affirming that religion has inherent values or benefits, but you aren't offering any proof.

 

This report seems to indicate that Catholics and Mainline Protestants are somewhat equally divided within the Left-Right political spectrum. http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-into-party-affiliation/

 

Evangelical Christians tend to be more conservative, while Jews tend to lean toward the Left. It doesn't indicate it, but I imagine most Black Protestants vote Democrat.

 

Ah, here I found the goods: http://www.people-press.org/2015/04/07/2014-party-identification-detailed-tables/       

 

R=Republican

D=Democrat

I=Independent

O=Other or I Don't Know

 

RELIGIOUS TRADITION     R   D   I   O

 

Nothing in particular 12 31 52 6

Agnostic 8 39 49 4

Atheist 6 42 47 5

Total Unaffiliated 10 34 50 6

Jewish 16 47 33 4

Mormon 49 12 35 3

Hispanic Catholic 12 38 41 9

White Non-Hispanic Catholic 31 30 36 3

Total Catholic 24 33 37 6

Black Protestant 5 68 22 4

White Non-Hisp Mainline Protestant 30 26 38 6

White Non-Hisp Evangelical Protestant 46 14 34 5

 

 

I'm not arguing that both parties are the same or that all parties are the same. I'm arguing that every vote is the same; it is a ringing endorsement for more government. That's all a vote can ever be because it can't do anything else. A vote does not decide an election. A vote does not make you more free. It is a figment of the collective imagination. I would be interested to see what you think about voting when it is compulsory, like jury duty and taxes.

[Better Future]

I believe that I was able to vote morally recently. I voted for a classical libertarian party. Their sole reason for being in parliament is to reduce government and regulation. They only received 0.7% of the vote but are now in coalition with government. 

 

Although I do think that the most effective way to eliminate statism would be for the state to implode continuously in a country that has a reasonably educated population. I'm thinking that a lot of anarchists will be created after the coming global financial collapse.

[luxfelix]

Another element to consider with regards to unveiling the man behind the curtain, when politicians and psychopaths have masks of apparent legitimacy to hide behind, they have one hand busy holding up the facade, and have thus one hand left to work the levers of government; remove the need to uphold the narrative and they can now bring the other hand to bear. (Or, an alternate narrative is designed like a new key for the enigma cipher machine.)

 

As for the pilgrims of the state, it could be that the unveiling removes the compulsion to vote, whom then realize how ineffective prayers for the gifts of government gods are, rather than the non-participation leading to an unveiling. (Chicken and egg?)

[thebeardslastcall]

I believe that I was able to vote morally recently. I voted for a classical libertarian party. Their sole reason for being in parliament is to reduce government and regulation. They only received 0.7% of the vote but are now in coalition with government. 

 

Although I do think that the most effective way to eliminate statism would be for the state to implode continuously in a country that has a reasonably educated population. I'm thinking that a lot of anarchists will be created after the coming global financial collapse.

 

So it is your conclusion that there are good ways to take part in voting? This to me sounds like the McSalad argument. This is the argument that if you take your family to McDonalds and one person gets a McSalad that was going to get a burger then you've helped. But you've also given additional business to McDonalds and credibility to their establishment and eaten some of their food. Meanwhile it's possible that the restaurant across the street lost just enough business by this action that they went out of business and it is now harder for you to get healthy food later when you can convince people to eat healthy instead of eating the less unhealthy option of McDonalds. Likewise, even if the restaurant across the different street didn't go out of business, you've suggested to people that McDonalds is the preferable choice and influenced their future decisions and reinforced the views of the people already eating McDonalds. They may even see you as healthy and think this backs up the idea that McDonalds food can be a healthy choice.

 

You say you are for the implosion of the state, but your actions and suggestion of a collapse and its results being viewed as positive (creating more anarchists) suggests you think explosion is a more achievable and worthwhile means to anarchistic ends. Why do you think the collapse will produce more anarchists instead of making even more people back additional regulations as frequently occurs after each previous crash? Have you ever seen a crash that didn't then lead to more injustices and state presence? If a collapse comes do you think people will be more interested in immediate survival or learning about philosophy in a way that will lead them to take up kinder and more principled views for how society should operate? The U.S. as I see it is the result of a idealistic revolution, not a crash. How is the state going away in the event of a crash in your view? Taking into consideration that most of the people who believed in a state before may still believe in it after the crash, possibly even more strongly.

 

[Better Future]

if you take your family to McDonalds and one person gets a McSalad that was going to get a burger then you've helped

 

Yes, I would say that is true. I have convinced many of my family and friends to vote for a party that intends to reduce government. Many would otherwise have voted for socialists. 

 

Although I have thought that maybe we should all vote for extreme socialists in order to collapse the system and speed the process up. If people want government then maybe we should really let them have it, until they can take no more.

 

I vote to reduce government but I'm also a member of an Anarchist group that works to eliminate it completely. Win-win?

 

Have you ever seen a crash that didn't then lead to more injustices and state presence? 

 

Yes. My country (New Zealand) almost went bankrupt in the 80's due to extreme statist/socialist policies. The country had been declining for 30 years due to over-regulation. The population then voted for a new direction and now the country is one of the most economically free in the world. I'm quite sure that a similar process has occurred in Poland and Chile. Even China, the communist dictatorship has gone capitalist. The truth has just become that clear over time.

 

How is the state going away in the event of a crash in your view?

 

I never said it would happen overnight. I'm just thinking that the species will eventually learn over time as places like Greece continue to implode and places like Switzerland continue to enjoy relatively higher living standards.

 

It is entirely possible that Americans will vote for an even more socialist police state after the coming collapse. The country may even split in two. One socialist part and one capitalist part. Kind of like North and South Korea. After a few generations, the socialist Americans will be trying to get into the capitalist part of course.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

I saw shirgall mention it before, but if anyone is going to bother with voting, voting for gridlock and anythkng that's pro-gun rights vaguely makes sense.

 

Frank Herbert wrote two books that took pace in a sci-fi universe called The Whipping Star and the Dosadi Experiment. Both had a protagonist that worked for a Bureau of Sabotage which held the principle that government, no matter what flavor, will always buold momentum and increase the speed at which it makes laws (and thus becomes more arbitrary and tyrannical). The job of the bureau was to slow government down through sabotage.

 

So to juxtapose that with voting, I could sympathize with someone who votes simply for gridlock--SLOW IT DOWN.

[Romulox]

So to juxtapose that with voting, I could sympathize with someone who votes simply for gridlock--SLOW IT DOWN.

 

I might agree with you if we were able to directly vote against individual policies; then one would be able to vote against government policies as a matter of self defense.  Unfortunately, I am not able to vote for "gridlock" in this system; only a Republican or Democrat.  I may only vote for politicians who SAY they will vote against certain policies, are not in any way obligated to do so, and may enact or vote for other policies that were not known to the voters at the time of the election. 

 

Though you may be voting for Republicans to gridlock the Democrats to fight Obamacare, what happens when Jeb Bush gets into office in 2016, has a Republican house and senate, and decides that Iran would make a nice parking lot?  I'm sure that the Iranian refugees will be comfortable in knowing that Obamacare was reversed for 4 years or less.

 

Voting for a politician in the current US system is an implicit consent for any action that politician is able to carry out using the force of the US military and police agencies.  These actions include the murder of thousands of innocent people, which the Republicans have consistently voted for in the recent past and show every reason to believe they will continue the future. 

 

So if you are thinking about voting Republican for gridlock now, please consider the consequences of when that gridlock finally breaks in their favor. 

[green banana]

Political parties cater for different demographics to get power. That's their only difference. They don't have a specific profile or a philosphy. How many Republican politicians live 'their' values? How many send their kids to fight in wars? How many of them live in monogamous relationships? The enemy of your enemy may be a friend. He or she might be a sociopath as well.

[thebeardslastcall]

Yes, I would say that is true. I have convinced many of my family and friends to vote for a party that intends to reduce government. Many would otherwise have voted for socialists. 

 

Although I have thought that maybe we should all vote for extreme socialists in order to collapse the system and speed the process up. If people want government then maybe we should really let them have it, until they can take no more.

 

I vote to reduce government but I'm also a member of an Anarchist group that works to eliminate it completely. Win-win?

 

 

Yes. My country (New Zealand) almost went bankrupt in the 80's due to extreme statist/socialist policies. The country had been declining for 30 years due to over-regulation. The population then voted for a new direction and now the country is one of the most economically free in the world. I'm quite sure that a similar process has occurred in Poland and Chile. Even China, the communist dictatorship has gone capitalist. The truth has just become that clear over time.

 

It sounds like you swung the pendulum back, but are back right where states begin, starting small and then fighting inevitable expansion of the state. Which is why you're back where you were before in a way fighting against the expansion of your state and at the same time recognizing it's headed for much less freedom that will eventually cause another collapse. You seem divided in that you want to slow the pendulum down and also want to speed it up to get back to the higher freedom state. How fast does the pendulum have to swing to actually break free after a crash instead of just rolling back the state and starting the swing over again?

 

I think the argument by many here is that by convincing your family to vote better you are just slowing the swing of the pendulum while at the same time strengthening and reinforcing the system making it harder for the ball to ever break free. When you make things better within a state system you just deprive people of their motivation to truly break free and think a small state is good enough, ignoring the inevitable increase of the size of the state. It makes the social contract ideas that much more appealing when they seem good enough and gives those anti-freedom ways more power. Perhaps I worded my question poorly, in that I meant to imply the credibility and overall participation in the system and a desire for an anti-state system was had by a crash, but it sounds like you actually didn't get that, but possibly even the opposite, since now people feel happier about the government they've got. I guess from your perspective you think it's easier now to convince people of an anarchy approach? Have you converted anyone in or outside of your family that was shortly before the crash highly resistant? What about the people who were somewhat against the system, but were relieved by the pendulum swing and now find they support the state again?What of the children now growing up in these new conditions under a state, how will they view it?

 

I'm taking part in this debate to understand the other side of the argument and to refine my debating skills on the topic so I appreciate your answers!

[J. D. Stembal]

I believe that I was able to vote morally recently. I voted for a classical libertarian party. Their sole reason for being in parliament is to reduce government and regulation. They only received 0.7% of the vote but are now in coalition with government.

 

I voted for Harry Browne in 2000. How did this reduce government, regulations, taxes, national debt, etc...? How is your vote going to work out?

[NotDarkYet]

The logic could easily work the other way.  For example....

 

Vote Democrat, and speed up the self-destruction of the state.

What if Republican rule manages to extend the life of the state 50 years past its current life-cycle?

 

 

Maybe we WANT this thing to self-destruct.

[kenshikenji]

if youre truly free market then vote for the candidate that puts the most fiscal pressure on the government since this is its greatest weakness. in other words, vote for the biggest statist since they put pressure on the expenditure side.  it arguable if a libertarian candidate can affect anything from the revenue side.  but give the statists what they want good and hard.

[Better Future]

It sounds like you swung the pendulum back, but are back right where states begin, starting small and then fighting inevitable expansion of the state.

 

Correct. The anarchist group I'm a part of is also in favour of existing peacefully alongside the state. Nothing wrong with a state if people can choose not to be governed by it.

 

It may be that the state will expand and then collapse but I don't see why it has to. The party that I voted for is a very strong advocate for freedom of choice.  It is currently in coalition with government.

 

I guess from your perspective you think it's easier now to convince people of an anarchy approach?

 

Yeah, I don't see why that couldn't work. Then if that fails I may change my tactic and vote for extreme socialists lol.

 

Have you converted anyone in or outside of your family that was shortly before the crash highly resistant?

 

I was only a toddler at the time. So I wasn't discussing anarchy with people.

 

I don't actively try to convert people, I just talk about the benefits of freedom and the failures and immorality of the state. The things I say are relevant to the persons life at the time, so I get strong agreement a lot of the time.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

So if you are thinking about voting Republican for gridlock now, please consider the consequences of when that gridlock finally breaks in their favor.

 

Who said I was voting? I just said I could sympathize with those who do for the purpose of gridlock.

[Better Future]

I voted for Harry Browne in 2000. How did this reduce government, regulations, taxes, national debt, etc...? How is your vote going to work out?

 

Did Harry Browne make it into congress? Did your government rely on him in order to have the numbers to form a government? Was he able to get his message out regularly in the media?

 

The guy I voted for is doing all of these things.

[J. D. Stembal]

Did Harry Browne make it into congress? Did your government rely on him in order to have the numbers to form a government? Was he able to get his message out regularly in the media?

 

The guy I voted for is doing all of these things.

 

Well, he's now deceased, but he was campaigning for POTUS. He did not get elected, but I found out about his campaign via the internet so it is safe to say that his message was making it out onto alternative forms of media. No one mentioned him on television, of course.

 

I don't see how any of the above actually removes regulations, laws, and erodes the power of the Leviathan. Do you have any credible evidence that this Libertarian will act against his own self-interest? Every politician has the incentive to retain his post once elected.

 

If you have organized an anarchist interest group, what is the point of actually voting in a government election? What will it gain you except benefits extorted by force? Vote with your money and use your ingenuity to make your own lives better. You could start an anarchist collective, or whatever your dreams desire. Declare yourselves an anarchist sovereign nation and podcast about it. I'm spit-balling, but anything would be better than trying to convince people to vote.

[Better Future]

I don't see how any of the above actually removes regulations, laws, and erodes the power of the Leviathan.

 

The power of the leviathan was actually greatly reduced in the 1980's by the founder of the political party that I currently vote for. He saved the country from bankruptcy and is the reason for New Zealand's relative prosperity today.

 

Do you have any credible evidence that this Libertarian will act against his own self-interest? 

 

It is in his interest to speak out against the government. That is how he gets his votes. He does it consistently.

 

http://www.act.org.nz/posts/national-looks-after-everyone-but-taxpayers

http://www.act.org.nz/posts/national-needs-to-stop-acting-casual-about-rma-reform

http://www.act.org.nz/posts/national%E2%80%99s-budget-ignores-elephant-in-the-room

http://www.act.org.nz/posts/budget-could-have-cut-company-tax

 

what is the point of actually voting in a government election? 

 

I would rather not have my country turn into Greece any time soon. If I can vote to maintain and increase prosperity then I will do so.

 

Declare yourselves an anarchist sovereign nation and podcast about it

 

We are going to.

 

anything would be better than trying to convince people to vote.

 

I don't encourage people to vote. I convince them to vote Libertarian if they must.

[J. D. Stembal]

Thank you for the clarifications, Better Future. I'm still confused, however.

 

Through which means do you think support of this conservative political party will eliminate the state completely? That is your group's stated goal, as I understand it.

 

Are you arguing that endorsing the guy who steals from you less is a better choice than endorsing the guy who steals more? Is less rape better than more rape, and less murder better than more murder?

 

How much money is your party not stealing exactly, and does it really matter? How many fewer tax slaves will there be? Can we quantify the number of unborn slaves that will liberated from impossible tax burdens?

 

No single vote will ever decide an election outcome, assuming that elections are not rigged from the outset. Refusing to vote is much more effective at sending the anarchist message. Eventually, we will be forced to vote. What happens if we still refuse?

 

On a long enough timeline, every country with a government is going to be like Greece, or worse. Will we live to see it or does the generation after us get stuck with the hot potato?

[PatrickC]

JP, I say go for it, if that's what you really want to do. Not my thing, but hell, not like it will stop you from doing other productive things as well!  It's not a moral issue either.

 

You can rethink your decision to do so at a later date.