No, voting, as a single act, does not affect an election.
Good. Which means that voting is irrational for the individual.
But unless people vote for candidates that support liberty, only politicians who take liberty away will hold power.
And that is precisely what is happening already, which is a great reason to start looking at other alternatives and to stop wasting time focusing on the political system.
But isn;'t that the entire poing of political parties>? GROUPS of peopel acting in concert?
Nope. People do not act in concert. People act as individuals. Without a commitment device or the use of force, I can only cause myself to act, not others.
Then offer another option.
I already did. Education. Social change. Here are two more, albeit less respectible solutions: tax evasion and a participating in an underground economy.
Even if we realize that voting is a waste of time, we must also realize that many people disagree, for whatever reason, and will continue to vote. We can influence the votes of this large group through education, social change, and demonstrating that the private market is able to solve problems that the public sector isn't.
Again, I could not disagree more. There is not REQUIREMENT to vote, but there certainly is a responsibility to do so.
Where does this responsibility come from? I never agreed to any social contract that would require me to vote. You claim that there is a responsibility to vote with no other argument but simply saying it is so. I can equally claim that there is a responsibility to abstain from voting.
You argued that people do not have the desire to spend the time to learn about candidates, and I'm asking why you think they will be more interested in learning about ideologies.
I didn't say they will be more interested in learning about ideologies. People are only willing to spend time acquiring information that is of use to them. Political information is not of use to them because their vote doesn't matter. However, the information that this is so - that voting is a waste of time and that they should look elsewhere for solutions to their problems - may be of use to them because it benefits them by allowing them to avoid the costs of voting.
That's the great thing about the private market. There is much less of a need for people to acquire information than in the public market for politicians. I can simply benefit from the purchases and transactions of other consumers. If I purchase a product once and it does not satisfy me, I don't need to wait 4 years to purchase a replacement. And so on.
That's the point - anarchy does not promote stable society.
That is precisely not the point. These countries reached the state of anarchy through violent revolution, not gradual change. I am not advocating that all of sudden, one day, we just pull the carpet out from under the government. Rather, I am advocating that we gradual lessen the role of government bit by bit until it no longer exists.
And if someone decides to walk over them? Then what?
And if another country decides to build a larger army then us, then what? If the European Union decides that it doesn't like US hegemony anymore, then what? Another cold war? What if they have better production capabilities than us? Then what?
If the govermnment has no standing federal army, then how is it supposed to prevent such collusion? You don't need a federal army to prevent collusion. You only need an army large enough to counter the largest current private organization.
Your own sentence here undoes your argumetn - "the power to enforce it". That means a standing army stronger than the combined forces of those who would collude.
Correct, but that does not imply a federal army. And if we assume that collusion is a valid risk, which many economists do not because of the difficulties of maintaining a cartel, that should be the only role of the state.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
