Voting would be logical if a "None of the above" option was listed with the candidates. There would also be a rule that if NOTA wins, that particular office is abolished until at least the next election cycle.
I agree with pretty much all the arguments for not voting. I typically don't. This year I decided to vote as a purely symbolic gesture. Not because I thought my vote would matter or anything like that. It was simply a rare opportunity to cast a vote against what seems to be the entire establishment. I considered the idea that by voting I would be condoning or would feel some responsibility for the actions of the victor. But that's nonsense. As Ryan McMaken pointed out in his talk, the implementation of Democracy is silly and inconsistent. Sometimes it feels good to just flip the bird. Great and timely set of talks Mises.
Good talk as usual from Dr. Murphy. However, at 22:12 he makes a critical logical error. "If it were correct that in totalitarian states it's all about how many guns they have and it's not about public opinion, then in those totalitarian states they would have open media... the ruler wouldn't care.. because it's in those societies in particular where most people have to not know how bad it is, otherwise the regime would fall..." This does not necessarily follow. Maybe the dictators simply want to hear how wonderful they are, and therefore suppress any dissent. Maybe they do it out of personal vanity, not because they've calculated it's necessary. Do you know anyone who likes to hear unpleasant truths? I often think that this idea that every state rests on the consent of the governed is a western idea. I do not believe most people in history have ever ideologically consented to their state. Instead, they have resigned themselves to it. Not saying I disagree with Dr. Murphy that the ideological fight is very important.
When your nation is in a slow death, it's best to vote for the worst possible candidate. That way you speed up the demise and rebuild instead of living through it.
If you know people who have lived through that you know better than to ever accelerate that process. Better to go slow and hope against hope for a turn around even if it is unlikely.
Mr. Murphy, I have a hard time believing that you would have abstained from voting had Joe Blow running against Ron Paul. While it is true that your individual vote will have no clear effect on the outcome of the election; your public support for him, however, could very well be decisive. Thankfully many Austrian/libertarians did publicly support Donald Trump; this support changed minds all across the country. Would you be happier with Hillary Clinton in the White House?
don't buy the argument. you could feel good about voting against someone you hate. this just sounds like a fishy argument for third party voting that even you don't seem to agree with
You nailed it, Bob. It's always "vote harder!" No logic whatsoever.
Voting would be logical if a "None of the above" option was listed with the candidates. There would also be a rule that if NOTA wins, that particular office is abolished until at least the next election cycle.
By voting you are giving the system/ritual legitimacy.
I agree with pretty much all the arguments for not voting. I typically don't.
This year I decided to vote as a purely symbolic gesture. Not because I thought my vote would matter or anything like that. It was simply a rare opportunity to cast a vote against what seems to be the entire establishment. I considered the idea that by voting I would be condoning or would feel some responsibility for the actions of the victor. But that's nonsense. As Ryan McMaken pointed out in his talk, the implementation of Democracy is silly and inconsistent. Sometimes it feels good to just flip the bird.
Great and timely set of talks Mises.
According to the median voter theorem, it's not smart to vote period.
Good talk as usual from Dr. Murphy. However, at 22:12 he makes a critical logical error.
"If it were correct that in totalitarian states it's all about how many guns they have and it's not about public opinion, then in those totalitarian states they would have open media... the ruler wouldn't care.. because it's in those societies in particular where most people have to not know how bad it is, otherwise the regime would fall..."
This does not necessarily follow. Maybe the dictators simply want to hear how wonderful they are, and therefore suppress any dissent. Maybe they do it out of personal vanity, not because they've calculated it's necessary. Do you know anyone who likes to hear unpleasant truths?
I often think that this idea that every state rests on the consent of the governed is a western idea. I do not believe most people in history have ever ideologically consented to their state. Instead, they have resigned themselves to it.
Not saying I disagree with Dr. Murphy that the ideological fight is very important.
When economists analyse the logic of voting is that an example of praxeological game theory rather than catallactics?
When your nation is in a slow death, it's best to vote for the worst possible candidate. That way you speed up the demise and rebuild instead of living through it.
If you know people who have lived through that you know better than to ever accelerate that process. Better to go slow and hope against hope for a turn around even if it is unlikely.
If enough people follow your advice, elections can turn. Why do you think they emphasize turnout so much.
Mr. Murphy, I have a hard time believing that you would have abstained from voting had Joe Blow running against Ron Paul. While it is true that your individual vote will have no clear effect on the outcome of the election; your public support for him, however, could very well be decisive. Thankfully many Austrian/libertarians did publicly support Donald Trump; this support changed minds all across the country. Would you be happier with Hillary Clinton in the White House?
I mean we know for a fact voter participation does have an effect according to every form of evidence available.
don't buy the argument. you could feel good about voting against someone you hate. this just sounds like a fishy argument for third party voting that even you don't seem to agree with