That's a good philosophical question. Some like Walter Block say no. You're being aggressed upon because other people vote regardless of whether or not you do, and the outcomes impact you. Voting may prevent a bad impact to you. Other's say that voting is initiation of force against others and not a defensive maneuver.
When you vote you are requesting that a certain person be a NAP violator. You can't claim that this is self-defense, because one doesn't protect themselves by advocating that innocent people be harmed.
I seem to recall Block making the argument that if your choice is aggressor #1 that does less NAP violating than #2 that you have the moral high ground to try to lesson the damage.
I believed he argued a form of this via his Nazi camp guard scenario, can't remember where/which book off hand.
Anyway, I'm not sure myself but I'm just giving you another view from my understanding of his position.
I haven't thought about it much further because I think voting is joke/waste of time in addition to the process being fully controlled by a corrupted system...so I haven't devoted much brain power to it beyond deciding to no longer participate after the last Ron Paul debacle.
This is where I part ways with voting is always a NAP violation. Eg. Primary to put Ron Paul on the ballot? How is that advocating force? Voting against a tax increase? Ditto. These are not an initiation of force at all.
There is another argument that is aside from the non-agression principle that voting either way conveys consent of the outcome regardless. Again I feel that argument falls short. Voting "no" and corresponding disenfranchisement due to loss by majority rule is a logical fallacy that does not equate to consent of the outcome. We have no method of redress for disenfranchisement. Hence, an attempt to stop theft and other uses of force by voting against measures does not have any bearing that you're consenting to the use of the system that we have in place, only that you're trying to prevent an outcome from happening that you may be able to prevent and would be forced upon you even without your vote.
What if i vote for someone who advocates against violations of the NAP? Someone who does what he can to stop the government from violating the NAP. Then you'd be voting in self defense because your NAP adhering representative would try to protect you from the non NAP adhering representatives.
Suppose Lake Ontario belonged to a private person, and I decided to take a piss in it. Will it be a violation of the NAP - yes. Does it really make a difference to the party aggressed against - most likely not. Could it potentially make me feel better to be able to express myself in this very physical fashion - possibly. Robert Higgs talks about this flaw in the rational ignorance theory - we are incented to identify politically because it strokes our egos, even if material benefits are nonexistent. We are all chimpanzees at the core.
Anarcho-capitalism has crippled the liberty movement. If you subscribe to Misesian minarchism, you'll realize that we need to take control of the state and change the laws to achieve laissez-faire capitalism.
Does voting violate the NAP?
ReplyDeleteThat's a good philosophical question. Some like Walter Block say no. You're being aggressed upon because other people vote regardless of whether or not you do, and the outcomes impact you. Voting may prevent a bad impact to you. Other's say that voting is initiation of force against others and not a defensive maneuver.
DeleteWhen you vote you are requesting that a certain person be a NAP violator. You can't claim that this is self-defense, because one doesn't protect themselves by advocating that innocent people be harmed.
Delete@limelemon
DeleteI seem to recall Block making the argument that if your choice is aggressor #1 that does less NAP violating than #2 that you have the moral high ground to try to lesson the damage.
I believed he argued a form of this via his Nazi camp guard scenario, can't remember where/which book off hand.
Anyway, I'm not sure myself but I'm just giving you another view from my understanding of his position.
I haven't thought about it much further because I think voting is joke/waste of time in addition to the process being fully controlled by a corrupted system...so I haven't devoted much brain power to it beyond deciding to no longer participate after the last Ron Paul debacle.
This is where I part ways with voting is always a NAP violation. Eg. Primary to put Ron Paul on the ballot? How is that advocating force? Voting against a tax increase? Ditto. These are not an initiation of force at all.
DeleteThere is another argument that is aside from the non-agression principle that voting either way conveys consent of the outcome regardless. Again I feel that argument falls short. Voting "no" and corresponding disenfranchisement due to loss by majority rule is a logical fallacy that does not equate to consent of the outcome. We have no method of redress for disenfranchisement. Hence, an attempt to stop theft and other uses of force by voting against measures does not have any bearing that you're consenting to the use of the system that we have in place, only that you're trying to prevent an outcome from happening that you may be able to prevent and would be forced upon you even without your vote.
What if i vote for someone who advocates against violations of the NAP? Someone who does what he can to stop the government from violating the NAP. Then you'd be voting in self defense because your NAP adhering representative would try to protect you from the non NAP adhering representatives.
DeleteI don't believe it does. Neither, amongst others, did Murray Rothbard apparently.
DeleteHere is an excerpt of an exchange between him and Wendy McElroy:
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/print.php?news.2524
Substitute "lessen" for "lesson" and that's your lesson for today.
Delete:)
Last time I voted was in the 2012 primary for Ron Paul, haven't voted ever since.
ReplyDeleteSuppose Lake Ontario belonged to a private person, and I decided to take a piss in it. Will it be a violation of the NAP - yes. Does it really make a difference to the party aggressed against - most likely not. Could it potentially make me feel better to be able to express myself in this very physical fashion - possibly. Robert Higgs talks about this flaw in the rational ignorance theory - we are incented to identify politically because it strokes our egos, even if material benefits are nonexistent. We are all chimpanzees at the core.
ReplyDeleteAnarcho-capitalism has crippled the liberty movement. If you subscribe to Misesian minarchism, you'll realize that we need to take control of the state and change the laws to achieve laissez-faire capitalism.
ReplyDelete"Anarcho-capitalism has crippled the liberty movement."
DeleteProof?