First of all, voter participation has actually increased a bit recently, but it is still fairly low compared to historic standards. Regardless, as I have been trying to explain endlessly, it is entirely expected that voter participation will be low. What is unexpected is that voter participation is as high as it is. It is next to impossible to convince a large number of people to do something that is irrational. Voting is irrational in that the benefits do not outweigh the costs. Even the most competent and honest politicians would not be able to get people to act irrationally.
I couldn't disagree more. It is entirely rational to consider that if every person currently practicing the apathy that you are promoting were to vote for someone besides the big two, there WOULD be change.
My point is that education, unlike voting, is something that we can do can change the actions and beliefs of other people. My vote has no significance on the outcome of an election; my ability to spread ideas and knowledge can effect people other than myself and help create institutions and memes that promote liberty.
But without working and voting to put into office people who either feel the same as you about liberty or that you have taught or learned from, you aren't any freer.
So you admit that your strategy of voting has been entirely useless. As much as you wish it were not so, there is absolutely nothing you can do to change the fact that voting from the point of view of the individual is irrational.
I admit only that it has not accomplished th egoal as of this point. But change will not occur if I and everyone else surrendur. Change will only occur if MORE people start taking responsibility for their country and voting, not less.
This is false. There are more than simply two options. I already mentioned two: education and entrepreneurship. Cultural change is another.
Neither of these have any affect on freedom if the government is left in control of those who seek to hold and exert power on all of us. In fact, both can be severly limited, or even eliminated by those in power should they ever decide that they represent a threat. You want policy change? yo must change the government. This can only be accomplished through voting or armed insurrection.
But you have already admitted that the alternative to apathy has failed. Voting has not accomplished the goals that you seek.
Yet. I think what really needs to happen is a combination of both the education you seek to use for change and the vote. Problem is, your arguments against trying to get people to learn about those they are voting for works against your education theory too. If the people are too lazy to learn about politicians whose faces they see on TV every day, how much effort do you expect them to put into educating themselves on libertarian principles in general?
I don't understand your hostility to the idea that one day we may no longer need state monopoly control over a military. Assuming the circumstances permitted, why would you object to such an arrangement? I accept that you believe this is unrealistic, but do you have any principled objection?
Human nature. There are mercenaries working all over the world, and I have yet to see one nation anywhere that has created the utopian environment you speak of through private armies. This is another conversation that I thought was finished. Look at Somalia and the Balkans. Warlords and private armies. Hardly a free society.
