sign in sign up
<<
Home , Frank Chodorov, Walter Block

Walter E. Block Loyola University New Orleans,

Voting: Rejoinder to Casey, McElroy, Ward, Pugsley, Konkin and Barnett

24/2018 Political Dialogues DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/DP.2018.002

Abstract: part in the political process be reconciled There is a debate within the libertarian with the non-aggression principle (NAP) intellectual community regarding the of , given that from a lib- legitimacy of voting in democratic elec- ertarian anarchist point of view, the gov- tions. Critics say that such behavior is ernment necessarily violates rights? incompatible with this doctrine. The If I had to radically shorten my argu- present paper defends voting from a lib- ment in favor of political voting, I could ertarian perspective. It is an attempted do so in two words: “.” Indeed, refutation of the views on this matter of I am sorely tempted to merely list the Casey, McElroy, Ward, Pugsley, Konkin cases made by all libertarian opponents and Barnett. of voting, respond to each with these two words, over and over again, and thereby Key words: Voting, , justice, rest my case. Why? Well, Dr. Paul has libertarianism had three careers. The first was as a doc- tor. How many people did he convert to libertarianism during his life as a physi- I. Introduction cian? I am not sure. I doubt records were The only legitimate democratic vote oc- kept. My best estimate? He promoted curs when all those concerned agree to our philosophy to a few dozen people, be bound by the results of the election. mostly through force of will, and osmo- For example, the chess club is divided sis. In this third and present career, he as to whether they should meet on Tues- has taken on the role of President of the days or Wednesdays. They all agree to Institute for Peace and Prosperity. How be bound by the ballots of the entirety of many have come to our banner as a re- the membership. That type of election is sult of this initiative of his? Again, I do entirely compatible with libertarianism. not know. I am unacquainted with any But, are there any others? For example, statistical records in this regard. My what about the political vote, in a de- guess would be a few tens of thousands, mocracy such as the U.S.? Can taking perhaps a few hundreds of thousands.

23 But it was in his second career as a poli- the latter capacity, as to whether an act tician that my estimate is that he intro- should be legal or not. But as a matter duced not millions of people to of pure , I fi nd it hard to dismiss and good (Austrian) economics, not tens a process that brought libertarianism to of millions, but hundreds of millions. maybe billions of people. Yes, of course Maybe even a billion souls have heard of I disapprove of “institutionalized coer- the freedom philosophy due to his mag- cion and force.” But if the goal of the vote nifi cent and herculean efforts as a con- is to reduce or eliminate these scourges, gressman and later candidate for the it is not clear to me why this should be Presidency of the U.S. Had he succeeded considered unethical. in this latter goal of his, my expectation is that within the fi rst fi ve minutes of his 2. “Voting compromises your priva- term of offi ce who would have begun the cy. It gets your name in another govern- process of bringing all U.S. troops home, ment computer database.” where they belong, and thus saved countless numbers of innocent lives. So, Yes, this is a valid liability to entering yes, in response to each and every argu- the ballot box. But we1 are already in so ment against voting, against the political many, many governmental data bases, it process itself, I am sorely tempted to of- seems that one more would be only mar- fer this two word response: “Ron Paul.” ginally harmful. We already have driver’s But, with my gift of gab, I fi nd I cannot licenses, passports, educational records, so restrain myself. Let us then consider, we are enrolled in social security and all and reject, a whole host of arguments in sorts of medical programs. It seems dif- behalf of the non-voting stance. fi cult to believe that this can be the straw We consider, and reject, the perspec- that breaks the camel’s back.2 tive of voting from a libertarian point of view, of Casey (section II), McElroy (sec- 1 Those of us who are not hippies, or hermits tion III), Ward (section IV), Pugsley (sec- alone in the woods. 2 Also, contrary to the opinion of even some tion V), Konkin (section VI) and Barnett libertarians, there is no such thing as a “right to (section VII). We conclude in section VIII. privacy.” This, rather, is an element of wealth, or command over goods and services. See on this: Block, 1991, 2012, 2013A, 2013B, ch. 18, 2016, II. Casey 2017A, 2017B; Block, Kinsella and Whitehead, 2006; Bonneau, 2012; Rothbard, 1998, Wenzel, Casey (2017) offers these fi ve reasons; 2017. States Rothbard (1998, ch. 16) “But is there my comments on each are interspersed really such a right to privacy? How can there be? How can there be a right to prevent Smith by force with them: from disseminating knowledge which he possess- es? Surely there can be no such right. Smith owns 1. “Voting in a political election is his own body and therefore has the property right to own the knowledge he has inside his head, in- unethical. The political process is one cluding his knowledge about Jones. And therefore of institutionalized coercion and force. he has the corollary right to print and disseminate If you disapprove of those things, then that knowledge. In short, as in the case of the ‘hu- you shouldn’t participate in them, even man right’ to free speech, there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one’s indirectly.” property from invasion. The only right ‘to privacy’ is the right to protect one’s property from being in- Ethics is beyond the purview of lib- vaded by someone else. In brief, no one has the right to burgle someone else’s home, or to wiretap ertarianism. We are only interested, in someone’s phone lines. Wiretapping is properly

24 3. “Voting, as well as registering, en- a busybody mode. But, statistically, one tails hanging around government offi ces vote in scores of millions makes no more and dealing with petty bureaucrats. Most difference than a single grain of sand on people can fi nd something more enjoy- a beach. That’s entirely apart from the able or productive to do with their time.” fact that offi cials manifestly do what they want, not what you want, once they are Happily, at least some people, the in offi ce.” ones who supported You Know Who (hint, his initials are RP), found entering Yes, unless there is an otherwise tie the political process “more enjoyable or vote, your single ballot will have no ef- productive” than engaging in other activ- fect on the actual winner. However, if ities. Otherwise, there would be far fewer the Libertarian Party can attain 5% of libertarians around at present. Hey, if we the vote, so they do not have to spend want to change things, one of the sine money merely to get on the ballot, this qua nons will be to swell our numbers. will mark an important gain in public- ity for freedom. There was one occasion 4. “Voting encourages politicians. when Ron Paul ran for President, and A vote against one candidate—a major, came in second in a state ballot, and and quite understandable, reason why they announced those who came in fi rst, many people vote—is always interpret- third, fourth and fi fth. If this did not give ed as a vote for his opponent. And even a boost to libertarianism, then nothing though you may be voting for the lesser ever did or ever will. of two evils, the lesser of two evils is still evil. It amounts to giving the candidate II. McElroy. a tacit mandate to impose his will on so- ciety.” Let us now begin our analysis of McEl- roy’s (1996) views on the matter. She It cannot be denied this is a risk. But starts off on a very strong note, dealing suppose virtually no one voted; say, less with the following objection made to her: than 5% of those eligible. What would “‘If you could have cast the deciding vote be the likely government reaction? They against Hitler, would you have done so?’ would either make it compulsory, fi ning I replied, ‘No, but I would have no moral those who refused, or would offer a sub- objection to putting a bullet through his sidy for this practice, higher and higher skull.’ In essence, I adopted a stronger until they reached the level they wished. line -- a “plumb-line” as Benjamin Tuck- Those, while a low vote might hearten er phrased it -- on eliminating Hitler as the hearts of many, would not likely have a threat.” any lasting value. With all due respect, this author did 5. “Your vote doesn’t count. Politi- no such thing. Instead, she evaded the cians like to say it counts because it is question put to her; she changed the to their advantage to get everyone into subject, entirely. The objection made no mention of alternatives to voting; it a crime not because of some vague and woolly ‘in- implicitly maintained that unless McEl- vasion of a “right to privacy”,’ but because it is an roy voted against Hitler, he would be in invasion of the property right of the person being wiretapped.” charge of our lives; that if she did violate

25 her own precepts, we would have a much more and more people. Are you responsi- better ruler; perhaps someone on the or- ble for these subsequent crimes? Surely der of Ludwig Erhard, the father of the not. And yet, according to the logic of this German economic miracle. I fi nd it high- author’s remarks, you are. In the view ly problematic that she would not conde- of McElroy (2013), voting “would be akin scend to vote under these circumstanc- to providing bullets to a person I knew es. By doing so, she could save millions would use his gun in a robbery.” But this of innocent lives. McElroy, suppose, just is precisely3 what the victim of the mug- suppose, arguendo, that putting a bul- ger does when he hands over his money let in Hitler’s head was not an option. to that worthy. Among other things, this That the only choice you had was voting criminal will purchase bullets with his for Erhard; if not, Hitler takes power. Do ill-gotten gains. you mean to sit there, stand there, and tell me you would seriously refrain from States Bradford (1996) in this re- voting under these circumstances? If so, gard: I applaud your adherence to your princi- ples, but I am having a bit of diffi culty in “For McElroy, if a candidate is elected, all thinking they are libertarian principles. who have voted for him become guilty of any crimes he might commit. This logic, McElroy continues: “I consider such it seems to me, would lead in very strange a bullet to be an act of self-defense in directions if it were applied to a voluntary a manner that a ballot could never be. association or corporation. By McElroy’s The difference is that a bullet can be argument, if she voted for someone to be narrowly aimed at a deserving target; chair of, say, her local Association of Vo- a ballot attacks innocent third parties luntaryists, she would share guilt for any who must endure the consequences of evil that might do in office, the politician I have assisted into a po- up to and including encouraging people sition of unjust power over their lives. to vote in political elections. Of course, Whoever puts a man into a position of such thinking, if adhered to by members unjust power -- that is, a position of po- of voluntary organizations, would simply litical power -- must share responsibility eliminate any such association not run by for every right he violates thereafter.” administrative fiat.”

Yes, if she voted for Erhard, McEl- Then, there is the dollar “vote.” If roy would in some small, poetic sense we continue with the logic put forth by be responsible for his misdeeds, and, to McElroy, we may not only not vote in be sure, there would be some. But, they the political sphere, we may not do so would pale into insignifi cance compared in the economic one either, since those to the atrocities which Hitler committed. with who we engage in commercial activ- But we can dig deeper here. If placing ities might not be pure, either. Bradford someone in a position of unjust power (1996) puts paid to this view as well: makes you responsible for all his ac- tions, what about giving up your wallet “If one must investigate the antecedents to the holdup man? When you do so, you of everything one buys and verify that it enable him to purchase a bigger, better gun, which empowers him to prey on 3 Well, loosely.

26 was produced in accordance with one’s osophical an enterprise as I am asking ethical values, trade will halt and society of her. will cease to exist.” This author offers yet another criti- McElroy, nothing loath, rejects my in cism of voting: it strengthens “the struc- effect attempt to shove Erhard down her ture of state power by accepting its au- throat: thority…” She continues: “Good men acting through the state will strengthen “The question then shifted: ‘If there had its legitimacy and institutional frame- been no other strategies possible, would work. They will weaken the social condi- you have voted against Hitler?’ This po- tions that allow social power to surge.” stulated a fantasy world which canceled Here, I must allow, she has a valid point. out one of the basic realities of existen- Participating in statist elections does in- ce: the constant presence of alternatives. deed give an imprimatur to this hateful In essence, the question became ‘if the institution. However, her argument is fabric of reality were rewoven into a dif- only an empirical one. Yes, that is a deb- ferent pattern, would you still take the it, a cost, of entering the voting booth. same moral stand.’ (sic) Since my morals But there are offsetting benefi ts, too. For are derived from the nature of man and example, if we are ever to peacefully rid reality, it is not possible for me to answer ourselves of statism, we need more liber- this question. But my first response was tarians. How better to attract people to to wonder what I would have been doing our banner than by such participation. for the months and years that led to the Every four years, the public shifts its fo- momentous dilemma of scratching an cus from beer, pizza, bowling and other ‘X’ beside Adolph’s name, or not. Or did such interests and actually pays atten- I have no alternatives then either? I can tion to politics. This is a splendid oppor- only address the reality in which I live tunity to spread our message, and must and, in a world replete with alternatives, be counted on the positive side of this I would not vote for or against Hitler.” empirical judgement. McElroy’s pruden- tial judgement leads her in one direction In other words, the challenge I pose on this issue; mine in the other. to her is too theoretical for her tastes. This is somewhat surprising, since McEl- We now turn to a further considera- roy is a philosopher of no small skill. Yet, tion of the views on voting of McElroy this discipline positively thrives on con- (2013). She begins this essay of hers as trary to fact conditionals, even weirder follows: ones4 than the Hitler example that she herself poses. McElroy knows few equals “I oppose electoral voting on both moral in the entire fi eld of philosophy, in my and strategic grounds. In presenting the opinion; methinks it more than pass- Voluntaryist case against electoral voting, ing curious that in this one instance she however, I commonly encounter the slave- would shrink from engaging in so phil- ry analogy as a counterargument in sup- port of defensive voting. A classic formu- lation of it comes from who 4 One need not read too far into the output of argues, ‘Suppose we were slaves, and the Nozick to come up with all sorts of examples. See Nozick () for example. master offered us a vote for either Over-

27 seer Baddy, who beat the crap out of us fully maintains, the non-libertarian poli- all the time, or Overseer Goody, who only tician is indeed akin to the slave owner: beat us once in a while, and then more both violate the NAP. But how do we get gently.’ Block concludes that voting for from this undoubted truth to the conclu- Goody would be an act of self-defense and sion that voting for the lesser of two evils, not an endorsement; voting is morally ju- Goody instead of Baddy, is not a justifi ed stified…. defensive maneuver? We simply do not.

“My disagreement: the slave analogy McElroy (2013) continues: “The sec- focuses incorrectly on two issues. First, ond incorrect focus: I may have a moral electoral voting is wrong only because right to vote for a lesser evil within my the position being facilitated is unjust; own life but I have no similar right to fa- by contrast, electing a clubhouse Presi- cilitate the presence of that evil within dent is a neutral act. The focus should be someone else’s life. I have no right to on the offi ce of politician or slave-master knowingly harm innocent others in the because that is what gives moral mean- name of self-defense. And that’s what ing to the vote. In other words, the key voting does. The elected politician holds question is whether a libertarian could authority over everyone within a given hold either position. If the answer is ‘no’, jurisdiction, not just over me or over as I believe it is, then neither can a lib- those who voted for him.” ertarian properly assist the politician or slave-master into an unjust position by But this too is problematic. Presum- voting for him. The offi ce for which the ably, all the slaves will prefer Goody to vote is cast is the key moral question, Baddy.6 Thus, their vote will not at all and it should be the very beginning of “harm innocent others.” The very oppo- any discussion on voting. site will be the case. Electoral support for Goody will do the very opposite of “Indeed, the most interesting aspect “harm(ing) innocent others.” of the analogy for me is that it likens the libertarian politician to a slave-master. McElroy (2013) has other arrows in It implicitly concedes that political offi ce her quiver: is the moral equivalent of slave owning. This makes “voting for a libertarian” into “Other problems quickly arise with the an impossibility because no libertarian slavery analogy. Block and others postu- could run for political offi ce any more late situations in which the ‘voter’ con- than he could own slaves.” fronts real physical violence depending on how he votes or if he does not vote. (Block One must heartily agree with McEl- follows up the slavery analogy with “Now roy that no libertarian “could own posit that a mugger held us at gun point, slaves.”5 And, yes, as McElroy insight- and demanded either our watch or our

5 In making this statement, I abstract from the 6 The only exception would be masochis- possibility of voluntary slavery. On this see Anders- tic slaves. They are probably few in number, but son, 2007; Block, 2001, 2002A, 2003, 2006; Fred- with regard to them, and to them alone, McElroy’s erick, 2014; Kershnar, 2003; Lester, 2000; Mos- point is valid. In supporting Baddie, these folks do quito, 2014, 2015; Nozick, 1974, pp. 58, 283, 331; indeed worsen the situation of the normal slaves. Steiner, 1994, pp. 232; Thomson, 1990, pp. 283–84. Happily, they will likely lose out in this “election.”

28 wallet, and we gave him our time piece.” discipline can be readily defi ned as the Again, real physical violence is in play.) study of the use of violence. Electoral voters do not confront that si- tuation. I have never voted and I have Next up in the batter’s box for McEl- never been punished or even threatened roy is this statement: “Equally, the argu- with violence for abstaining. If I had ment of self-defense itself seems to indi- been, if someone held a gun to my head, cate that the politician (or the aspiring then I would prudently cast a ballot. In one) is committing an act of aggression other words, the fact that I voted as a sla- against you. That’s what self-defense ve who was under threat of imminent vio- means. Again, this concedes that there lence says nothing about whether or not is something fundamentally wrong with I would or should cast a voluntary ballot a libertarian or anyone else running for for which I would bear no real consequ- political offi ce or else the self-defense ences if I tore it up. Frankly, I find the argument would not arise. And if there framework of violence within the slavery is something wrong with seeking politi- analogy to be peculiar. If voting is a mo- cal offi ce, then there is something wrong rally neutral act, as the analogy wishes to with facilitating the rent-seeker. In the argue, then why even introduce the atmo- end, the slavery analogy also fails be- sphere of violence to justify it? You don’t cause it provides an unrealistically lim- justify the commission of other morally ited set of alternatives. In the analogy, neutral acts, such as cheering one football the slave has no other means to ease his team as opposed to another, by creating oppression other than by casting a vote. a framework of fear as the reason for do- The slavery analogy never envisions or ing so. Justifying the act of voting in the permits the possibility of a slave revolt presence of violence seems to concede that on the spot or an escape attempt. The there would be something wrong with the choice is always restricted to voting for act sans such a threat.” Baddy or Goody, and this is simply unre- alistic even in conditions of slavery.” But this author just got fi nished tell- ing us that she would not have voted There are diffi culties here. Yes, this against Hitler, presumably, even if Lud- author and I agree that, apart from the wig Erhard was the alternative. If I had libertarian politician, all those of this ilk to create a synonym for Hitler, surely it are “committing an act of aggression.” would be “violence, the initiation there- But McElroy has yet to demonstrate that of.” Indeed, her opposition to all politi- a would-be or actual offi ce holder must cians7 is that they initiate (legal) vio- necessarily violate the NAP. What if he lence, that is, violate the NAP. It comes just votes against everything the govern- with particular ill grace on her part to at ment does? Suppose he never votes in this point object to the importation into the legislature at all, but merely uses his this discussion of violence. This concept position in order to promote the freedom is part and parcel of all politics. This philosophy. It is unclear in the extreme why that would be a per se violation of the NAP.8 Nor is she correct in her asser-

7 She makes no exception for libertarian poli- ticians such as You Know Who. For an alternative 8 For a critique of her use of the “rent seeker” view, see Block (2012A). see the following: Block, 2002B, 2015

29 tion that “the slave has no other means to to do so, membership in the hated group ease his oppression other than by cast- is an all but requirement. For another, ing a vote.” He could commit suicide, he the better to utilize such a position as could run away, he could involve himself a megaphone; to be more able to broad- in an entirely justifi ed slave rebellion. cast one’s anti-government message from within the bowels of that particular Let this be the last quote of hers with beast. which I will quarrel: The present paper is animated by “Marginally free human beings, as North a libertarian, or anarcho-capitalist point Americans still are, have a myriad of other of view. Ward (1987), in contrast, analy- strategies available through which to fi- ses the position of various anarchist phi- ght for their rights and freedom. I prefer losophies greatly at variance from this non-violent resistance and the construc- one. For example, Marxist-anarchists,9 tion of parallel institutions that provide anarcho-syndicalists, and “Anarchist- free-market alternatives to government communists of the school of Kropotkin.” ‘services’.” Ward says of all of these: “Parliamenta- ry elections were not merely irrelevant, I support McElroy in this. Indeed, they were a ruling-class conspiracy to I think her one of the pre-eminent con- divert workers’ attention from the real tributors to the libertarian movement’s struggle.” “non-violent resistance” to statism. We part company only when politics, too, is That all depends. It is based upon considered in this repertoire. just how much time, effort and limited funds are allocated to such activities as the general strike, and how much to IV. Ward politics. There is an optimal allocation of In the view of Ward (1987): “But it is resources, and Ward does not demon- the anarchists who, for well over a cen- strate that the ideal percentage to devote tury, have been the most consistent ad- to politics should be zero. Perhaps some vocates of conscientiously staying away small amount should be allocated to this from the poll. Since implies means. an aspiration for a decentralised non- Ward also addresses the libertarian governmental society, it makes no sense anarchist, or anarcho-capitalist: “Final- from an anarchist point of view to elect ly, there is pro- representatives to form a central govern- claiming that it is absurd for individual ment.” people to surrender their right to run their own lives to an outside body. Ob- Not so, not so. There are several jectors see 1his as absurd selfi shness good and suffi cient reasons why those and maintain that government is neces- who oppose government should yet want sary to restrain our anti-social natures. to take part in such an institution. For Anarchists of all varieties respond with one, to become a fi fth column; to under- mine a hated organization from within. 9 Do not warring countries, fi rms, clubs, They posit the “withering away of the state.” Thus this is not the contradiction in terms that attempt to spy upon one another? But, otherwise it would appear to be.

30 William Morris’s warning that no man even if you didn’t win, reaching voters is good enough to be another man’s with the truth might exert tremendous master.” pressure on politicians in the other par- Yes, yes, of course, from this vantage ties, leading them to change the direc- point to ultimate goal is to say good rid- tion of government.” dance, entirely, to the hated state. But, True, very true indeed. Why, then, what about as a means toward that end? not support this effort? Pugsley con- We have given reasons, supra, to think tinues: “ As I said, this is emotionally that this, too, might be an effi cient in- compelling. However, I ask you and all termediate step. None of them have been of our libertarian friends to re-examine refuted by Ward. the premises on which political action is Ward (1987) ends his essay on this founded before succumbing to its viscer- note: “The non-voters will watch cyni- al appeal. Your charisma and persuasive cally as the politicians’ lies and prom- power will attract the best and brightest ises mount and the government good- minds of the libertarian world onto the news machine rolls into action, quietly political battlefi eld. If you are wrong, the repeating the anarchist slogan: ‘If voting potential injury to the cause of freedom changed anything they’d make it illegal.’” could take a century to heal.” Not so, not so. Ron Paul certainly I don’t know about “a century” but, changed at least some things. There have yes, such a campaign is fraught with been bad presidents of the U.S., and rel- danger. But all acts, whether in politics atively speaking, non-bad ones.10 Surely, or any other area of endeavor, come with this has made more than just a little bit risks. We continually live with uncer- of difference. tainty. However, the Libertarian Party (LP) has run in any number of presiden- tial elections, and the sky has yet to fall V. Pugsley in on this account.11 Pugsley (1995) is an open letter to his Every person in the lynch mob is as friend Harry Browne, asking the latter guilty as the person who pulls the rope. not to run for president on the Libertar- This author then avers about the ian Party ticket. quest for liberty: “The most popular This author starts off by conceding strategy is to use the political process that “such a campaign would bring the to take control of the state apparatus. free-market argument to hundreds of Those who choose this strategy believe thousands of disenchanted , that through education, political cam- spreading the truth that big government paigning, and the voting booth, politi- is their enemy and the sole source of cal power can be wrested from special America’s social decay. And yes, it would interests, spendthrift politicians can be be an extreme long-shot, but with luck, excised from government, and the state the Libertarians might actually win. If can be subdued. The Libertarian Party you became president, it would appear was founded to pursue such an agenda.” that you’d be positioned to strike a po- tentially mortal blow to the state. And

11 The LP has run candidates in presidential 10 At least from a libertarian point of view, elections since 1972, and for governor, mayor, con- there have been no good ones. gress, local offi ces even before that time.

31 There is some truth in this state- yet, they did attract signifi cant support ment but it is exaggerated. To be sure, it from the electorate, and the two major would be a gigantic step in the direction parties eventually adopted virtually all of of freedom if the LP were to succeed in their policy planks. This cannot yet be being elected, and on a massive basis. said for the LP,14 but there always hope. However, most members of this political Here is the next sally of this author: party do not expect any such occurrence “The voter implicitly agrees that ‘whoever to take place. By my own personal esti- wins the election is entitled to regulate, mate, 99% of the hopes of members in tax, imprison, and kill.’” That is a bit this organization, such as me, the pre- of a stretch for “implicit” agreements. sent author, is that the educational initi- One might as well say, The purchaser of ative is paramount: through this vehicle, a ticket implicitly agrees that the team we can reach more people than in any he roots for is entitled to win. There is other way. a non sequitur in play in this statement In contrast, says Pugsley (1995) the of his. “non-political road is one some libertar- He continues: “In a political democ- ians and all pure anarchists have fol- racy or republic, voting appoints a can- lowed.” This is untrue. There is no more didate to be your agent and implicitly “pure anarchist” than . sanctions him to aggress against oth- Yet, for many years he was a leader, no, ers in the community. It is equivalent pretty much the leader12 of the LP. There to saying that you have the right to give are dozens, no, scores, no, hundreds of A permission to aggress against B. The other anarcho-capitalist libertarian who anarchist argues that no individual, in- have been and are still, members of this cluding you, has the right to give anyone organization. else permission to aggress. According to Then, there is the old saw that “one the natural rights hypothesis, voting is vote doesn’t matter.” True, it is rare that an immoral act.” there is an absolute tie, apart from votes The best antidote to this claim has for dog-catcher in small towns, and even long ago been provided by Spooner there this is exceedingly rare. But this (1870): misses the educational point, entire. If focuses on the estimated 1% of the LP “The Constitution has no inherent au- program: to actually be elected to offi ce.13 thority or obligation. It has no authority Pugsley does concede that “a large or obligation at all, unless as a contract voter turnout for a Libertarian candidate between man and man. And it does not so will send a message to the Democrat much as even purport to be a contract be- or Republican who does win.” No truer tween persons now existing. It purports, words were ever said. At the beginning at most, to be only a contract between of the last century, the Socialist parties persons living eighty years ago. [This es- never won any election; none at all. And, say was written in 1869.] …

“… actual voting is not to be taken 12 Unoffi cial. 13 Do not get me wrong. That would be nice. as proof of consent, even for the time No, it would be magnifi cent. And the LP has in- deed had some small successes in this direction. But most people, all rational persons, do not expect 14 With the exception of marijuana legaliza- actual victory of the LP in any given election. tion.

32 being. On the contrary, it is to be con- You have betrayed us, and broken faith sidered that, without his consent having with us. even been asked a man fi nds himself en- “It would be a suffi cient answer for vironed by a government that he cannot him to say to them: resist; a government that forces him to “I never knew you. You never made pay money, render service, and forego yourselves individually known to me. the exercise of many of his natural rights, I never game by oath to you, as individu- under peril of weighty punishments. He als. You may, or you may not, be mem- sees, too, that other men practice this bers of that secret band, who appoint tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. agents to rob and other people; He sees further, that, if he will but use but who are cautious not to make them- the ballot himself, he has some chance selves individually known, either to such of relieving himself from this tyranny of agents, or to those whom their agents are others, by subjecting them to his own. In commissioned to rob. If you are mem- short, he fi nds himself, without his con- bers of that band, you have given me no sent, so situated that, if he use the bal- proof that you ever commissioned me to lot, he may become a master; if he does rob others for your benefi t. I never knew not use it, he must become a slave.” you, as individuals, and of course never In short, contrary to Pugsley, the promised you that I would pay over to voter is not necessarily giving anyone you the proceeds of my robberies. I com- permission to do anything. mitted my robberies on my own account, Next, opines this author: “If you are and for my own profi t.” elected, you’ll be required to swear an Our author also maintains that “All oath to carry out the duties of the presi- political action ultimately enhances state dency and uphold the law, as specifi ed in power… (It) gives a patina of respect to the Constitution. You and the voter don’t the very system of coercion and force that set the contract, but your participation has enslaved the people.” Here, Pugsley is your agreement to abide by its rules.” is onto something. Marking off the bal- Again Spooner (1867) rides to the lot is, and will be widely interpreted as, rescue in his refutation of Pugsley: deference to government, something no “… the oaths of all the other pretend- self-respecting laissez faire anarchist ed agents of this secret band of robbers can contemplate happily. But the same and murderers are, on general principles is true for walking on a government side- of law and reason, equally destitute of walk, driving on one of its roads, using obligation. They are given to nobody; but its post offi ce or currency, even eating only to the winds. The oaths of the tax- food, since most of it is subsidized by the gatherers and treasurers of the band, state. But libertarianism is not a suicide are, on general principles of law and rea- pact. We are not required to not show son, of no validity. If any tax gatherer, reverence for government. As libertar- for example, should put the money he ians, our only requirement, the only one, receives into his own pocket, and refuse is to refrain from violating the NAP. Vot- to part with it, the members of this band ing does not do this. Therefore, it is com- could not say to him: You collected that patible with this philosophy.15 money as our agent, and for our uses; and you swore to pay it over to us, or 15 For another critique of Puglsey (1995), see to those we should appoint to receive it. Prechter (1995).

33 VI. Konkin ry.16 But there are so many other ways of Konkin (1995) is an attempt to under- giving the imprimatur to the statist rul- mine the contribution to this debate of ing class, mentioned supra. The only is- Bradford (1995). I side completely with sue for the libertarian is, Does this con- the latter in this dispute between them. stitute a per se violation of the NAP. It is What are the specifi cs? He starts out on diffi cult to see how it does, particularly the wrong foot, with an argument from when it supports a certain medical doc- authority: tor from Texas. “Politics and voting have had no place Konkin next launches a gratuitous in Libertarian history for a century; to and unfair attack on the LP: “What is list every major fi gure in the Libertarian a ‘Libertarian’ Party’s function? To join Movement between and the feeding trough dividing up the spoils ---and I will: Lysander of taxation, infl ation and tariff protec- Spooner, , Albert J. tion, and to assist the rulers in deciding Nock, H.L. Mencken, , who is most fi t to serve them. Why would , and ---is any real libertarian devote an iota of his to list anti-voters. There were exceptions, or her resources to that goal?” of course … But the major fi gures, the Lord knows, the LP is not perfect. It ‘hard-core’ ones we remember, the ones has nominated presidential candidates whom others rallied around for a century whose adherence to the tenets of this and a half, opposed voting and running philosophy are virtually non-existent. candidates. Thus, not voting is the norm, For example, Bob Barr. The member- the standard, the orthodoxy which, if it ship of this political party are imperfect is to be challenged, a compelling argu- human beings. On the other hand, the ment must be mounted. libertarian credentials of Harry Brown Konkin continues: “…voting is stat- and Ron Paul are beyond reproach. To ist (evil, to continue our ecclesiastical say that the LP wants to “join the feeding metaphor) and should be fought. Burn trough” cannot be sustained, nor does the polls ye sons of freedom! It is neither Konkin offer any evidence for so unwar- accident nor unideological spite that rev- ranted a contention. olutionaries in the jungles and forests of Konkin next quotes Bradford as fol- the Third World actively oppose ballot- lows: “In our society, there are many ing to the extent of leading raids against means of convincing our fellows to polls and voters themselves… (The vote) change their opinions. We can try to ed- … still serves the function in aggregate ucate them. We can try to stimulate oth- of assisting the ruling class in selecting ers to educate them. We can set good ex- their representatives (not yours) to sort amples by trying to live exemplary lives. out the high-level confl icts they have We can organize debating societies. We not been able to settle like gentlemen (or can write book about feminism, or pub- ladies).” lish magazines. We can do research or This author is at least partially cor- explore the frontiers of social thinking. rect. Marking a ballot can indeed be rea- And, if we choose, we can run for offi ce, sonably interpreted as helping the stat- using our campaign to spread the propo- ists. This is demonstrated by the fact sition that liberty is good. that when there are too few people who do so, it is sometimes made compulso- 16 Aly, 2017.

34 Here is Konkin’s response: “No, Edi- they might benefi t. By voting, they are tor Bradford, we cannot, whether or not also sanctioning theft of we chose. An election campaign is not at the point of a gun, and the redistribu- an educational endeavour, it is the op- tion of that property to those who did not posite. Candidates cash in on the prior earn it.” education done by activists, and then distort and dilute it to pick up a few mar- But what about when the vote, ginal votes. No one who voted Libertarian whether for an offi ce holder such as you ever was educated into Libertarianism know who, or a plebiscite, is to reduce via a political campaign.” taxes or unwarranted wealth-destroying Sorry, I can’t resist. I have a two regulations? Why is this “an unmitigated word refutation of Konkin on this point: failure.” To cast a ballot in this direction is “Ron Paul.” the very opposite of “sanctioning theft of private property.” Barnett vouchsafes us no answers to these important challenges. VII. Barnett According to Barnett (2012): “Voting (po- Nor is it true, as this author asserts, litically speaking) on its very face is im- that “those who vote legitimize all that moral. Men of character cannot argue governments do.” Dr. No voted against this, for voting pits one against another; hordes of illicit bills when he was in con- this the desired effect sought by those gress. Thus, he did the very opposite of who seek power. Voting allows for some legitimizing the evil that governments do. to determine the fate of others, a fate that He lessened this. Those who argue to the can only be accomplished by the use of contrary, such as Barnett, are in effect force. Because of this truth, voting is the increasing government depredations, at destroyer of freedom and liberty, not the least in this admittedly few cases. The protector of it.” correct analysis, it would appear is that good votes violate rights, while good ones Except for the last sentence, there do not at all. is not a single fallacy in any of these claims. They are all true. However, the The last contribution from this au- last sentence simply does not logically thor we shall consider is this: “The follow from these correct premises. Yes, problem in this country today is that all sometimes voting does indeed destroy elections have winners and losers, but freedom. But, as we have seen, supra, it in every election, the politicians always can also promote this value. For exam- win, and all the rest of us always lose. ple, when it is done in self defense. Obviously, voting guarantees that one or another politician wins.” Barnett (2012) continues: “Even in the very best of situations, voting is still But while, indeed, most politicians an unmitigated failure. The fact that any vote to reduce , there simple majority of individuals (mob) can are some who’s acts increase it. Not all determine an outcome that adversely af- politicians are evil. Only the overwhelm- fects the minority (mob rule) is against ing majority. Thus, Barnett overgeneral- all natural rights. In the United State izes in this condemnation of the entire today, all who vote harm others so that category.

35 VIII. Conclusion Block, Walter E. 2001. “Alienability, In- alienability, Paternalism and the Law: There are many roads to liberty. Casey, Reply to Kronman,” American Journal of McElroy, Ward, Pugsley, Konkin and Criminal Law, Vol. 28, No. 3, Summer, Barnett to the contrary notwithstanding, pp. 351–371; http://www.walterblock. politics is one of them. It is a valid one. com/publications/reply_to_kronman. It may or may not be the best one. That pdf is a mere empirical issue, although the magnifi cent success of Ron Paul neces- Block, Walter E. 2002A. “A Libertarian sarily tips the balance in that direc- Theory of Secession and Slavery,” June tion. In this paper, however, I have not 10; http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/ block15.html; http://libertariantruth. been concerned with that issue. Rather, wordpress.com/2006/12/08/a-liber- I maintain that the ballot box vote does tarian-theory-of-secession-and-slavery/ not violate any libertarian principle. Block, Walter E. 2002B. “All Government References: is Excessive: A Rejoinder to ‘In Defense of Excessive Government’ by Dwight Lee,” Aly, Waleed. 2017. “Voting Should Be Man- Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 16, datory.” Times. January 19 No. 3, pp. 35–82. http://www.mises. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/ org/journals/jls/16_3/16_3_3.pdf 19/opinion/voting-should-be-mandato- ry.html Block, Walter E. 2003. “Toward a Liber- tarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique Andersson, Anna-Karin. 2007. “An alle- of Rothbard, Barnett, Gordon, Smith, ged contradiction in Nozick’s entitlement Kinsella and Epstein,” Journal of Liber- theory.” Journal of Libertarian Studies, tarian Studies, Vol.17, No. 2, Spring, pp. Vol. 21, No. 3, Fall: 43–63; http://mises. 39–85; http://www.mises.org/journals/ org/journals/jls/21_3/21_3_3.pdf jls/17_2/17_2_3.pdf

Barnett, Gary D. 2012. “Voting: A Fool’s Block, Walter E. 2006. “Epstein on alie- Game!” October 16; https://www.lew- nation: a rejoinder” International Jour- rockwell.com/2012/10/gary-d-barnett/ nal of Social Economics; Vol. 33, Nos. voting-a-fools-game/ 3–4, pp. 241–260

Block, Walter E. 1991. “Old Letters and Block, Walter E. 2012. “Rozeff on Priva- Old Buildings,” Ideas on cy: A Defense of Rothbard.” December Liberty, March, pp. 96, http://www.fee. 13; https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc- org/the_freeman/detail/old-letters-and- -blog/rozeff-on-privacy-a-defense-of-ro- -old-buildings/#axzz2Txojgrts; https:// thbard/ fee.org/articles/old-letters-and-old-buil- dings-2/ Block, Walter E. 2012A. Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty. New York: Ishi Press; http:// Block, Walter E. 1999. “Market Inaliena- www.amazon.com/dp/4871873234; bility Once Again: Reply to Radin,” Tho- http://libertycrier.com/education/ mas Jefferson Law Journal, Vol. 22, No. 1, walter-blocks-new-book-on-ron-paul/; Fall, pp. 37–88; http://www.walter- http://libertyunbound.com/node/862 block.com/publications/market_inalie- Block, Walter E. 2013A. “There Is No nability.pdf Right to Privacy.” July 13; There Is No Right to Privacy http://archive.lewroc-

36 kwell.com/2013/07/walter-block/the- Casey, Doug. 2017. “Top Five Reasons re-is-no-right-to-privacy/ Not to Vote.” December 25; https:// www.lewrockwell.com/2017/12/doug- Block, Walter E. 2013B. Defending the -casey/top-fi ve-reasons-not-to-vote/ Undefendable II: Freedom in all realms; Terra Libertas Publishing House. Frederick, Danny. 2014. “Voluntary Slavery,” Las Torres de Lucca 4: 115– Block, Walter E. 2015. “The rent se- 37, http://www.lastorresdelucca.org/ eker.” Romanian Economic and Busi- index.php?option=com_k2&view ness Review, Vol. 10, No. 3, pp. 7–14, =item&id=145:laesclavi-tud-voluntaria Fall; http://www.rebe.rau.ro/REBE_10_ &Itemid=24&lang=en 3_2015.pdf Kershnar, Stephen. 2003. “A Liberal Ar- Block, Walter E. 2016. “So-called Pri- gument for Slavery,” Journal of Social vacy Rights Are Incompatible with our Philosophy, 34 Libertarian Philosophy.” September 23; (4): 510–36. https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/ called-privacy-rights-incompatible- Konkin, Sam. 1995. “Damnation of Bill libertarian-philosophy/ Bradford.” March; http://www.liberty- unbound.com/sites/fi les/printarchive/ Block, Walter E. 2017A. “Privacy Rights? Liberty_Magazine_March_1995.pdf No.” May 1; https://www.lewrockwell. com/lrc-blog/privacy-rights-no/ Lester, Jan Clifford. 2000. Escape from Leviathan. St. Martin’s Press. Block, Walter E. 2017B. “Privacy rights? http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ A Non-Response to Rozeff and Wenzel.” ASIN/0312234163/q-d%3D98 May 6; 9845939/107-8070279-6411737 https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/ privacy-rights-non-response-rozeff-wen- McElroy. Wendy. 1996. “Why I Would zel/ Not Vote Against Hitler.” May; http://voluntaryist.com/articles/085b. Block, Walter, and Roy html#.WkL57FWnG70 Whitehead. 2006. “The duty to defend ad- http://www.wendymcelroy.com/hitler. vertising injuries caused by junk faxes: htm an analysis of privacy, spam, detection and blackmail.” Whittier Law Review, McElroy. Wendy. 2013. “The Faux Slave- Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. 925–949; http://www. ry Analogy to Voting.” https://dailyanar- walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/ chist.com/2013/07/31/the-faux-slave- publications/block-etal_spam_whit- ry-analogy-to-voting/ tier-2006.pdf; http://www.walterblock. com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/fa- Mosquito, Bionic. 2014. “The Sanctity of xesduty.pdf Contract.” April 19; http://bionicmosqu- ito.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-sanctity- Bonneau, Paul. 2012. “The privacy co- -of-contract.html nundrum.” December 17. http://strike- -the-root.com/privacy-conundrum Mosquito, Bionic. 2015. “Walter Block, Specifi c Performance Contracts, and Bradford, R.W. 1996. “Voting Is No Sin.” Abortion.” July 12; http://bionicmo- Liberty, November. http://www.wen- squito.blogspot.com/2015/07/walter- dymcelroy.com/56bradfo.htm -block-specifi c-performance.html

37 Nozick, Robert. 1974. , State and Steiner, Hillel. 1994. An Essay on Rights, Utopia, New York: Basic Books, http:// Oxford: Blackwell Publishers www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Uto- pia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465097200 Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1990. The Re- alm of Rights, Cambridge, MA, Harvard Prechter, Robert. 1995. “Anti-Politics in University Action.” March; http://www.libertyun- Press bound.com/sites/fi les/printarchive/Li- berty_Magazine_March_1995.pdf Ward, Colin. 1987. “The Case Against Pugsley, John. 1995. “Voting.” Liberty. Voting.” May 15; https://theanarchistli- March; http://www.libertyunbound. brary.org/library/colin-ward-the-case- com/sites/files/printarchive/Liberty_ -against-voting Magazine_March_1995.pdf Wenzel, Robert. 2017. “The Privacy Rights Rothbard, Murray N. 1998 [1982]. The of a Girl in Shower: The Private Proper- Ethics of Liberty, New York: New York ty Society to the Rescue.” May 3; http:// University Press. http://www.mises. www.targetliberty.com/2017/05/ org/rothbard/ethics/ethics.asp the-privacy-rights-of-girl-in-shower. html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_ Spooner, Lysander. 1966[1870]. No Tre- medium=email&utm_campaign=Fe- ason: The Constitution of No Authority ed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liber- and A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard, Lark- ty%29 spur, Colorado: ; http:// jim.com/treason.htm