Walter E. Block Loyola University New Orleans,United States 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 libertarianism, 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: “Ron Paul.” 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, democracy, 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 liberty of pure ethics, 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.