lesliemangus
August 13
My views always seem to be at odds with everyone else’s, but nonetheless I am going to say what I think.
Some people think that by not voting they are sending a message about the illegitimacy of government. That may be their intent. But I don’t think that is message that is received. The message received, like it or not, is that you can live with whatever the majority votes for. If 20% of potential voters don’t vote, 40% vote for A and 30% vote for B, then A gets elected even if the 20% who didn’t vote would have preferred B. For this reason I always vote. I am well aware that my one vote will not make much difference. However, if enough people vote against the majority, that does send a message.
As for the legitimacy of government, I view it as an inevitable evil. All somewhat libertarian states are thinly populated, where of course there is less need for rules and restrictions, that is, government. It is a never ending chore to keep government limited to it proper functions, but there is no alternative if you are going to live in a densely populated society. Socialism can work fairly well in states with thin density like the Scandinavian countries or New Hampshire and Idaho. In more dense or diverse societies it becomes a vehicle for one group to plunder and pillage other groups.
Les Mangus
Starchild
August 13 |
To elaborate a bit further on my comments below…
When it comes to government elections, they are going to be spending the money and holding them regardless of whether any Libertarians vote or not. One extra Libertarian voter will not make any meaningful difference in election costs.
There is a little bit stronger argument against Libertarians running candidates, putting forward ballot initiatives, etc., because that actually may actually result in marginally more government spending (and thus burden on the taxpayers) than would have occurred otherwise. Even here I think the criticism falls short though, because I am confident that Libertarian participation in elections pushes the needle toward a lower overall cost and burden of government, even if some marginal increases in government spending are occasionally involved.
As a philosophical matter, and one of basic fairness, I think moreover that when governments are involved with doing things they should not really be doing at all, of which there is a very long list – operating libraries, maintaining roads, licensing marriages, providing food stamps, giving out college grants and loans, operating a postal system, etc., etc., – it is not wrong for (L)ibertarians, who after all are being taxed along with everyone else, to likewise take advantage of the services offered along with everyone else. Nor indeed is it wrong for anyone to simply take advantage of these services, especially in cases where government laws and policies effectively preclude voluntary sector alternatives. If only statists took advantage of government programs, then they would be that much more likely to support the theft that funds those programs continuing, since they would be disproportionately benefiting from them.
Where participation in government crosses the line and becomes wrong, in my opinion, is when someone crosses the line from merely using an illegitimate government service already in place, to becoming an advocate for some new service that would increase the burden of government being added, or advocating for an existing service to continue or expand, either by voting or simply by expressing opinions in the community. Exceptions again would be in situations where a marginal increase in the size, cost, etc., of government would mean an overall reduction in the burden or harm of government (for instance, spending more money to provide basic medical care for people who are in jail and unable to obtain care on their own, many of whom are innocent of committing any real crime that violated the Non-Aggression Principle).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
··· (click for more details)
Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
If you were forwarded this email and want to subscribe, click here.
··· (click for more details)
Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
In Reply To
RickySpeed
August 13
Hi everyone, Something I’ve been thinking about for a while and wanted to get your thoughts on: It is often asserted that those who participate in electoral politics agree to be bound by the results even if, or especially if, their preferred candidate loses. This argument is further extended to …
Previous Replies
Starchild
August 13
To elaborate a bit further on my comments below…
When it comes to government elections, they are going to be spending the money and holding them regardless of whether any Libertarians vote or not. One extra Libertarian voter will not make any meaningful difference in election costs.
There is a little bit stronger argument against Libertarians running candidates, putting forward ballot initiatives, etc., because that actually may actually result in marginally more government spending (and thus burden on the taxpayers) than would have occurred otherwise. Even here I think the criticism falls short though, because I am confident that Libertarian participation in elections pushes the needle toward a lower overall cost and burden of government, even if some marginal increases in government spending are occasionally involved.
As a philosophical matter, and one of basic fairness, I think moreover that when governments are involved with doing things they should not really be doing at all, of which there is a very long list – operating libraries, maintaining roads, licensing marriages, providing food stamps, giving out college grants and loans, operating a postal system, etc., etc., – it is not wrong for (L)ibertarians, who after all are being taxed along with everyone else, to likewise take advantage of the services offered along with everyone else. Nor indeed is it wrong for anyone to simply take advantage of these services, especially in cases where government laws and policies effectively preclude voluntary sector alternatives. If only statists took advantage of government programs, then they would be that much more likely to support the theft that funds those programs continuing, since they would be disproportionately benefiting from them.
Where participation in government crosses the line and becomes wrong, in my opinion, is when someone crosses the line from merely using an illegitimate government service already in place, to becoming an advocate for some new service that would increase the burden of government being added, or advocating for an existing service to continue or expand, either by voting or simply by expressing opinions in the community. Exceptions again would be in situations where a marginal increase in the size, cost, etc., of government would mean an overall reduction in the burden or harm of government (for instance, spending more money to provide basic medical care for people who are in jail and unable to obtain care on their own, many of whom are innocent of committing any real crime that violated the Non-Aggression Principle).
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
··· (click for more details)
Starchild
August 13
Richard,
This is indeed a longstanding argument used by both non-libertarians, and by libertarians who oppose voting.
My view is that voting does not constitute agreement to anything. Even when voting for candidates, if you’re voting for a more libertarian candidate over a less libertarian one, this can be seen as a form of harm reduction or damage control. Seeking to reduce the harm done by government in circumstances where eliminating that harm is not an option you can realistically choose does not strike me as hypocritical at all.
Imagine that you are mugged, and after taking your money the mugger offers you the choice of whether they first use it to buy beer, or food for their kid. Or imagine that you are about to be violently raped, and the intended rapist asks whether you want him to wear a condom or not.
If you express a preference that the mugger will spend their loot on food for their child rather than beer, or that the rapist will wear a condom, does this mean you have somehow consented to the theft or the rape?
My response in both cases is, of course not. You are simply offering an opinion, and engaging in this free speech does not necessarily imply any agreement with any actions or prospective actions that led to you voicing that opinion.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
··· (click for more details)
dennz
August 13
Richard….thank you for bringing this up. It is an on-going discussion. Personally, I don’t feel bound by any particular opinion or worry too much about Libertarian dogma.
Freedom is the North Star…it’s a pretty personal path.
Mike
··· (click for more details)
RickySpeed
August 13
Hi everyone,
Something I’ve been thinking about for a while and wanted to get your
thoughts on: It is often asserted that those who participate in electoral
politics agree to be bound by the results even if, or especially if, their
preferred candidate loses. This argument is further extended to the
argument that it is hypocritical for self-identified anarchists to vote.
However, prominent libertarians, such as Walter Block, say not so, that
anarchists can vote in self-defense, maybe not for candidates, but for
recalls and against tax increases for example. Do you agree? Libertarians
vote and run for office, does that mean they buy into the legitimacy of the
state and consent to what happens if their opponent wins instead? This is a
philosophical question, more than practicality (we are after all a
political party, a means to an end).
Best,
Richard
Visit Topic or reply to this email to respond.
You are receiving this because you enabled mailing list mode.
To unsubscribe from these emails, click here.
If you were forwarded this email and want to subscribe, click here.
