Most with zero chance of winning. You know this to be true. So how is voting for them helpful? We already saw how the election commission rigged things last time to prevent the libertarian party from even being part of the debates.
For example, your argument about the recent arms deal with Saudi Arabia is against the Military Industrial.

Five months ago the Obama Administration shot this down and canceled our dealings with Saudi Arabia due to fear of civilian causualties. And Trump turned around and supported the sale of even more.

A different choice, lead to a different outcome. Now is it fair that it's become the lesser of to evils? no.

But again, this is why we need to be more involved. We will change nothing sitting at home trying to stay out of it.

Because of the Bretton Woods agreement where we basically shafted everyone else. At least, that's my perception of things. We hold the world reserve currency along with the largest military budget (by far) so everyone else has to fall in line or else.

I'm not familiar with it, but I will do some research. I understand it was dissolved, so would you care to elaborate?

I'm not sure empirical evidence supports this claim. The youth of today are more connected with the rest of the world via the Internet than any human generation in history.

What I mean by, "They see everything through a filter and fail to understand the state of the world."

We are not teaching our younger generation what they need to know. They can see what's happening across the world instantly, but how are they interpreting the information? How are they going to apply Shakespeare to world hunger? How are they going to tackle environmental issues with algebra? Ted Dintersmith does a Ted Talk on education today that's fascinating.

Also, there is this disconnect in education today that, creativity is undervalued. Ken Robinson has an excellent talk about it.

Sorry, no. Those claiming to be "anarchists" who you've pictured here have been throughly disowned by every voluntaryist and anarchist group I've ever associated with. Sure, there are some fringe group of losers living in their mom's basements who just want to watch the world burn, but that's not the style of anarchist I'm talking about. When I think anarchist, I'm thinking more along the lines of Jeffrey_Tucker or Larken Rose. Most anarchists follow the NAP (non-aggression principle) and many believe in the philosophy of liberty. Putting on a mask, waving a flag, and calling oneself an "anarchist" doesn't make someone an anarchist any more than getting a Marine tattoo and yelling "Oorah!" makes someone a Marine. Yes, some fringe groups of anarchism have practiced the propaganda of the deed, but mostly I've seen that perspective discredited as not only ineffective, but immoral.

Exactly, their actions are not a representation of the entire organization. And I understand this, but that's not what the American public sees or relates Anarchy too. If Anarcho-Capitalism, as Jeffery Tucker would have it, was you're ultimate goal for America. How do you plan to change this stereotype? How, can you change the public perception that leads to a positive outcome?

I understand that the whole point is not to support it, but if you cannot do it from within the system, what do you want? Civil war?

The best I can come up with so far is is Kokesh2020. His goal is to peacefully dismantle the Federal Government, and he's a veteran as well. Not the best candidate possible, I'll grant you, but at least someone who understands the "no rulers" perspective I'm coming from.

We don't have any "Rulers" running around telling us what to do all day. In fact, if there are any real "Rulers" out there, it's Disney, Apple, or Google... Maybe Boeing.. but not the Senate, the Congress, the 15 cabinet members, the VP, and Trump...

( Also, please explain how Anarcho-Capitalism is going to prevent companies like Disney or Apple from becoming rulers should they just buy up everything)

Thanks for the Bill Maher video. It was funny, and he makes some good points, but it reminds me of the meme I can't seem to find right now showing Kim Jong Un voting while we make fun of North Koreans for only having one choice while we're so enlightened because we have two choices. Most of Maher's argument goes something like, "Yeah, it is what it is, do your duty and put up with it." I think many people are seeing this as a false dichotomy and wanting to select no rulers instead of picking pre-selected candidates who essentially give us the same old same old, regardless of which party they come from. Being forced to pick the lesser of two evils is still a choice for evil.

I totally agree that our presidential candidates are usually shit choices. We ultimately vote for them anyway though... I mean there are tons of other candidates, and we still vote for the shit choices... People just do, because the think it's the only way to be part of the process. My vote won't count if I don't vote for a possible outcome.

Also, we live in a new digital age. Americans can fund any candidate of their choice through crowdfunding. The issue is that no one likes what politics have become, and thus chose not to participate. I get it, but why the hell should we let a bunch of old rich guys vote for us without contesting it?

Technological solutions such as blockchains and smart contracts make much of government backed by violent force irrelevant today. We don't need rulers if we can set up voluntary contracts which are automatically enforced without violence.

Blockchains technology is fantastic and will change the course of humanity, but it will not remove the most fundamental elements of structured organizations. There will always be a ruler of something, and removing government just means CEOs are going to step up their game and run the country.

I still have this nagging question: If a mafia family also does really good things in their neighborhood, does that justify their existence?

Nope.

At the same time, I recognize that every generation that set out to change the status quo was seen as crazy by the generation the preceded it. Voluntaryism, the NAP, and non-violent communication do seem crazy by those who have only ever known war as the answer. That doesn't mean new solutions aren't possible.

It's not about seeming crazy, that's not what I am arguing at all. How do you plan to change things, if you refuse to get involved? How are you going to change how the U.S. uses its military?

Although I am no advocator of anarchy or any similar philosophy, I am an advocator of free will and speech. (it's my constitutional right)

This guys hears what I'm saying about voting: Paddy Vipond

"With anarchists choosing to abstain from voting, and large numbers of the population deciding against voting anyway, the task of getting re-elected is made considerably easier for the government in power."

There are many things in life that are unfair, but when faced with such a situation, we as anarchists strive to improve it, not to ignore it. Improvement cannot come without participation.

Let’s use the system against itself. Let’s make governments fearful of a large anarchist voting presence at elections, rather than comfortable with the knowledge that anarchists will fail to show up.