Ok, one more thing
comments powered by Disqus
Otto M. Kerner - 9/30/2004
I certainly agree that campaigning to get other people to vote could theoretically affect the real world. Perhaps a spirited libertarian campaign might have elected Ludwig von Mises (another Austrian) as chancellor of Germany instead of Hitler. Furthermore, a campaign to have other people simply ignore the results of elections would also have desireable effects if successful. However, you yourself voting or not voting is still useless.
By the way, unless I am mistaken, the Nazis never got anywhere near 50% of the vote, even if you only look at the people who actually bothered to vote. The problem in the 1932 election was that the Nazis and the Communists combined got a little over 50% of the vote, making it impossible for the other parties to form a government without including one or the other.
Max Schwing - 9/30/2004
Oh, but the voting Germany went wrong, because people felt like you, that voting doesn't change anything :)
The rise of Hitler really took place under certain circumstances and only 50 % of the German population voted in 1933. Among those 50 % were the radical facists that supported the NSDAP (and who were bound to vote by their party), while the rest were the core-supporters of the other parties (Zentrum, socialist party etc.). so, if mor people had voted, the NSDAP and her allies would have never reached the overwhelming majority.
On the other side, today voting is merchandised in a way that takes the usefulness out of it: You have to vote, even if you have no idea what it is about. That's nonesense and should be changed into: We are showing you reasons why you should think about voting.
Roderick T. Long - 9/29/2004
Wendy McElroy, as I understand her position, accepts the "voluntaryist" argument that voting, even for a libertarian candidate, is an act of aggression. I disagree. I've written on this at the link below:
Otto M. Kerner - 9/29/2004
Voting is useless. If it's Germany in 1932 and Hitler is running (for the sake of argument, let's say that the Nazis actually won that election outright), you can either vote against him or not vote, but he's getting elected either way. You could go ahead and vote for him, for all the difference it would make. So voting is a symbolic, demonstrative, or emotional act. That being the case, I think that it's hard to say that anyone is wrong or right about how to do it. Long prefers to symbolically send a message that he wants a more libertarian society. McElry prefers to symbolically send a message that she denies the legitimacy of the whole proces.
- Trump Holds Wide Lead in South Carolina
- An All-or-Nothing Fight for the Supreme Court
- Did Trump Really Lose the Debate?
- Scalia’s Death Sets Off Epic Battle
- Democrats See Gift in GOP Blocking Court Nominee
- Quote of the Day
- The Nastiest GOP Debate
- Reaction to the Republican Debate
- The GOP Presidential Debate
- How Clinton Could Respond on Supreme Court Vacancy
- Trump and Clinton Way Ahead in South Carolina
- McConnell Says Senate Will Wait to Replace Scalia
- Antonin Scalia Is Dead
- Clinton Says Sanders Would Be Threat to Obama Legacy
- Internal Tracker Shows Trump Leading in South Carolina
- Ben Carson used an apparently fake Joseph Stalin quote — and the Internet loved it
- Rubio exaggerates in saying it's been 80 years since a 'lame duck' made a Supreme Court nomination
- Humans Hard-Wired to Teach, Anthropologist Says
- Parents outraged after students shown ‘white guilt’ cartoon for Black History Month
- Maryland is once again considering retiring its state song
- Historian at the center of Sanders-Clinton debate
- James Loewen Says Additional Baltimore Confederate Statues Should be Removed
- NYT History Book Reviews: Who Got Noticed this Week?
- A historian’s advice to students thinking of getting a PhD in a tough economic climate
- German historian Heinz Richter cleared of charges