Modern states have the ability to operate without tax money longer than you have the ability to stay out of jail. Besides, most people keep their money in a bank where a state can seize it without resistance. More currency can be printed as needed.

If you jail half the population you'd have to pay for extra prisons, guards and policemen and you're gonna have to get these money out of someone else's pockets. Whose pockets? Modern states are certainly powerful, but not to the extent when they can operate with half the population not paying.

Also, if you simply seize the money from the bank accounts, it's gonna be worthless the next day, as no one will think it's worth using the currency that can evaporate at your master's will.

If you have the influence to get half the population to stop paying their taxes, you probably have easier ways of grinding society to a halt. (See: General Strike)

The US has a deficit that's ~35% of the budget in the last few years, and most of the budget is spent on healthcare, fighting wars and other things that can easily be scaled back if needed (even though politicians say they can't).

As they say, the markets can stay irrational much longer than you can stay solvent.

None of this will happen because it is mutually assured destruction. Only unhappy men volunteer for war.

Voting is not useless; by spreading this meme you are playing right into the hands of people you claim to be fighting.

How is that? Voting is beginning your masters for changes (and, why should they listen? Where are the incentives?). You can only vote with your money. If you stop paying your ISP because your connection is crappy, and all your neighbors do the same - it goes bankrupt. Plain simple.

If you don't vote for someone, and all your neighbors do the same--that person can stay in office as long as they vote for themselves.

But if you vote against someone, and all your neighbors do the same--that person will get voted out of office.

Thus the value of voting is illustrated.

It might require adding yourself as alternative to the ballot (using the defined processes, not by writing yourself on the paper, which merely invalidates it).

I was considering getting myself on the ballot for some local elections if only to be able to vote for someone else but the two politicians that, from experience, are equally bad.

In the UK (probably other countries too) you have to put up a deposit, designed to prevent frivolous candidatures. I suppose if you can afford to lose your deposit it's not a bad way to protest; even better if you get more votes than the threshold amount!

In Germany you have to collect signatures from a certain sample of the electorate (typically 0.1%) with which they affirm that they want to see you on the ballot.

For municipal elections that's possible to achieve for an individual.

You should start with the question of why do you need someone to be in an office in the first place. And if the position is indeed so valuable and necessary, why can't you just hire and pay this person, instead of voting for him and asking him to take money out of you and others by force?

I would happily hire the leader of my choice, it's just that I don't have enough to pay him or her. Other people have money I could use, but they want to hire different people than I do. How to resolve all these differences? Voting.

You might also be shocked to learn that boards of directors, when considering candidates for CEO, usually resolve their differences by voting.

Douglas Adams illustrated this beautifully [1].

[1] http://wso.williams.edu/~rcarson/lizards.html