My understanding is that his reasoning on why voting is not worthwhile is from more of an econ standpoint.
ie: If you're more likely to die in a car crash driving to a polling station than influence the outcome of the election...
I also don't think that he cares if you want to go vote for Ron Paul etc. He just doesn't see it as accomplishing anything...
ie: Why waste your time voting for your local libertarian candidate who WILL NOT WIN when you could spend your time with your children etc
An analysis of opportunity cost mostly.
When you're talking about voting for crap over slightly worse crap, I agree.
But if you aren't voting for a real libertarian, you are part of the problem. The bottom line is that if enough people voted with conviction, Ron Paul would be President right now. I don't give a crap about his pathetic excuses for not doing so.
If you can't vote for someone on principle, that's one thing. I can understand why some people have issues with Rand Paul (Even though I would vote for him), and Ted Cruz actually is too much of a compromise for me. Everyone has their line in the sand. Its the unwillingness to vote under ANY circumstance that irks me. I'm fine with his anarcho-capitalism, I don't agree, but I can understand it. But to refuse to vote for a principled minarchist on miniscule issues or, worse, "Opportunity Cost" (The ethical system of utilitarians, not libertarians*) is just ridiculous. I can understand if you can't vote for an otherwise good candidate because of a substantial issue like foreign policy or the war on drugs, but on anarchist theory? I guess I just feel like that's ridiculous. I can't even imagine an anarcho-capitalist actually running the country any differently than Ron Paul, even if he did have a slightly different view as to the theoretical endgame.
In short, I'm sticking with my statement. If Ron Paul was the Republican candidate, and libertarians listened to this moron, Obama would be in office again. Now, I get that that sounds like the scaremongering used by Mitt drones, but a person who can't see the difference between Ron Paul and Romney in this regard isn't worth my time to begin with.
I consider the absolute "Lesser of two evils" people to be just as dumb as the "Don't vote ever" people...
If he had his way, Ron Paul and Rand Paul would not be in office.
I'm glad Rand is where he is, but I do have a few issues with him, and wouldn't absolutely discredit someone for not voting for Rand because of those substantial issues. His foreign policy isn't quite what Ron Paul's is, and he doesn't want to legalize drugs. That said, I still do support him, and I do think libertarians should support him, but as he's not a libertarian himself (At least not openly), I can understand having a strict enough line in the sand that counts Rand out. Even still, people who do that should still be glad that Rand has that particular senate seat rather than another Lindsey Graham or something.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, is a perfectly principled candidate, and the only things I disagree with him on are minor issues that really just aren't that big a deal. The biggest disagreement I have with him is the one we don't have real control over anyway, and that is how quickly to implement libertarianism (Ron Paul wants to phase things out, I want to get rid of the bad things as quickly as possible, but am aware of the ugly consequences of that stance). To not vote for a candiadate because of tiny issues I consider to be stupid, and the mark of an unintelligent strategist. To not trust Ron Paul I would also view as dumb.
If he had his way there wouldn't be an office to be in.
That's a great ideal, but let's live in the real world. I think roads should be privatized but I'm not going to refuse to pull over a reckless driver just because government shouldn't own the roads. I think schools should be privatized but that doesn't mean that I'm not going to put any effort into making the public schools contain as little indoctrination and as much good edcuation as I can just because my ideal is privatization. I think taxes should be at 5% or less but if there was a bill to set a flat tax rate of 10%, I'd still support it as long as there weren't any drawbacks, exc.
I'll admit I'm not an anarchist. So my end goal isn't a 100% stateless society. However, even if that is your goal, you should be willing to take steps to get closer to that. The reality is, the offices exist so getting good people into them is the best you can do.
Republicanism falls under his definition of democracy. The election of representatives is, after all, democratic. Besides, most of the legal and theoretical safeguards against democracy are gone now. You really wouldn't want to live in a republic generally if you're concerned with liberty. Weimar and Soviet Russia were republics, after all.
The American Republic =/= the Soviet one. I get that we're more of an empire now but we didn't start that way.
This has already been addressed a million times on these forums and by Stef. Unless you have an original argument or counter-argument, posts like this are a waste of your (and everyone's) time.
That its been answered doesn't necessarily mean we agree with the answers or that they are workable.
You're on a Ron Paul forum advocating for Fascism or Monarchism?
Monarchism itself is actually decent in theory. I'd argue it breaks apaart in practice, but in theory, a monarchist minarchy could work. Not all of us are anarchists and neither is Ron.
Fascism, on the other hand... That I cannot justify.
Hoppe would agree that Monarchism is less bad (as opposed to "good") than republicanism or democracy-and I do too.
Why would you argue that, BTW? I'd argue that rapid decentralization is a better idea. Consolidating a lot of power in one man seems even worse than spreading it out amongst a congress. I guess I agree with Lew Rockwell on that one..
). Fundamentally, a monarch/sovereign, as primary owner/executive of a given place, has all the incentive to make sure the place is taken care of (this includes keeping people in good condition, as they are necessary in the scheme of things). He also has incentive to not go to war, as this puts his resources at tremendous risk. 
