Was It Immoral to Vote for Ron Paul?

The following email exchange took place between Walter Block and Nathan Fryzek,  a high school senior.
>
>
 Nathan Fryzek - I had a question when it comes to
> politics, I know your belief is that there is
>  nothing wrong with voting for a
> representative that commits less aggression.
>  However, do you consider politicians who
>  vote for aggression to be immoral, or do you
>  only consider the police who enforce the law
> s to be immoral. If you consider politicians
>  to be immoral wouldn't anyone who voted for
>  politicians be immoral too (even if one step
>  removed). In that case wouldn't voting for
> Ron Paul be immoral even if it's practical
> for reducing aggression? Would a Ron Paul
> supporter be like the corrupt Nazi who lets
> a few prisoners go? They would be heros but
> also would be immoral by the standards of the
>  non-aggression principle. Thanks for your
> time as always, Nathan Fryzek.
>
Walter Block - https://www.google.com/search?> site=&source=hp&q=%22overseer+goodie%22&oq> =%22overseer+goodie%22&gs_l=hp.12...1919.> 8410.0.10268.20.18.1.0.0.0.412.2990.0j9j3> j1j1.14.0.ckpsrh...0...1.1.64.hp..11.9.20> 03.0.FjEYZVKLuRI
>
Nathan Fryzek - I have heard you talk about
> overseer goodie before, but in that scenario
>  you are voting for the police, not the
>  politicians who make decisions pertaining to
>  the police. If you consider statist
>  politicians immoral then you must consider a
> ll who vote for them to be immoral since they
>  are simply one step removed. Do you consider
>  that statist politicians aren't violating
> the non-aggression principle? If they are the
> n whoever is voting for them is as well.
>
Walter Block - I don't see any relevant difference
>  between "voting for the police, (and) the
> politicians who make decisions pertaining to
>  the police."
>
Nathan Fryzek - If a politician is immoral then
> whoever votes for him is immoral since voters
>  are simply one step removed. I'm asking you
>  whether only the police are evil or if
> politicians are also. All politicians do is
>  vote for policies, the same as the average
>  voter.

>
Walter Block  - You say: "If a politician is immoral
>  then whoever votes for him is immoral." By
>  your logic, the slaves who vote for overseer
>  goody are immoral. Do you really believe
>  that?

> How's about, if you support the state in any
>  way, apart from voting, you're a bad guy.
> For example, using US$, using the roads,
> eating food (since the govt supports farming)
> . Are you a bad guy?
>
Nathan Fryzek - Hmm, all I am trying to explain is
>  that voters are no more or less immoral then
>  politicians. Politicians don't initiate
> aggression themselves. In your example voters
>  choose the police, in my example voters
> choose voters who choose the police. To put
>  it in the context of your example, would you
>  consider a slave immoral if he votes for
> more beatings? Obviously the master is
> immoral, but if you vote for a worse master a
> re you immoral as well?
>
Walter Block   - I finally see your point. Sorry.
> Yes, I agree with you. Not only are police
> guilty, say, of jailing victimless criminals,
>  but so are legislators who prohibited these
>  actions, and so are people who voted for the
> se politicians.
>
Nathan Fryzek - If you consider politicians to be
> violators of the NAP then do you consider
>  voters to be violators as well? Politicians
>  vote to pay police, and voters vote for
>  politicians to vote to pay police.
>
Walter Block - Not all politicians are guilty. Ron
>  Paul for one.
> But yes, I consider voters who support evil
>  politicians to be evil too unless they are
>  just voting for overseer goodie.
> What are your views on all of this?
>
Nathan Fryzek - I have a historical question for you
> , do you think the Confederacy or the Union
> had the moral high ground in the civil war?
> Both violated the N.A.P. some would argue
> that slavery is much worse then not allowing
>  states to secede, while others say that the
>  Union was in fact enslaved every Confederate
>  by not allowing them free association.
> About voting, how does voting for a statist
>  violate the N.A.P? Paying the police
> voluntarily violates it, but how exactly
> would voting? I know you standard position of
>  overseer goodie, but you do believe voting
>  for a statist is immoral, wouldn't voting
>  for a overseer be immoral?
> I'm not totally sure about view on overseer
>  goodie. The problem is that you can always
>  vote for someone better, you could write in
>  yourself for instance. In a way you are
> never voting for overseer goodie.
>
Walter Block - When and if you become my student, I
> 'll answer all your questions, both in my
> office and via e mail. But, I get about 100
> emails per day, and I can't answer all of you
> r very brilliant and important questions and
>  challenges. I usually cut people off at one,
>  but, since you're my agent, I've done, so
>  far,, about a half dozen. How's about
> limiting this to say no more than one per
>  month.
> The south. Both sides had slavery. Read Tom
>  DiLorenzo on Lincoln, who only wanted to
>  preserve the union, not end slavery.
>
Nathan Fryzek- Absolutely, I will send one a month
> I am back with another question, I watched on
> e of your videos about children homesteading
>  their bodies as they grow up so a parent
>  doesn't need the consent of their baby to
>  kiss him/her. I also heard you say that
>  pedophilia should be stay illegal because
>  the child cannot consent to the activity. I
>  was wondering why sex should be treated any
>  differently then kissing or hugging when it
>  comes to babies, the baby wouldn't object,
>  and if he/she did you could stop. You also
>  have stated in the past that parental
>  guardians have a responsibility to care for
>  their child, if that is so and a family is
>  poor wouldn't it be fine for them to
>  prostitute their baby as long as the baby do
> esn't feel any pain or discomfort?
>
>Walter Block  - https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-> blog/libertarian-baby-theory/
>
Nathan Fryzek- - How is the baby being abused if
> he/she is done no harm? Just because it is
> gross and repulsive doesn't mean the baby is
>  being abused.
>
>Walter Block - hey, next month
> I get about 100 e mails a day, and it's hard
>  for me to keep up.
>
Nathan Fryzek - A period joke, please forgive me.
> Anyways I read you thoughts on Rand Paul and
>  how we should support him because he is over
> seer goodie. Why then have you also
> criticized Milton Friedman for making
> government more efficient? It seems to me
>  that in order to be consistent with you
> criticism of Milton Friedman you should also
>  support Bernie Sanders since he would make
>  the government extremely inefficient.
>
>Walter Block  - An economist was asked, "How is your
>  wife?" The answer: "Compared to what?"
> Rand Paul is great, compared to Donald Trump,
>  Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Hillary, Bernie, etc.
> Milton Friedman is lousy, compared to
>  Rothbard, Mises. Compared to Donald Trump,
>  Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Hillary, Bernie, etc.,
>  he's great. I usually compare him, though,
>  to Rothbard and Mises, fellow scholars.
>
Nathan Fryzek - I was wondering about inflation and
>  its relationship to the monetary base, we
>  had a lot of inflation around 1980-1981
> even though the US monetary base had been
> fairly steady for a long time before that.
> Ron Paul recently put out this television ad,
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgYSn0ip5hY
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._
> Monetary_base.png
> The second link is to a graph of the US
> monetary base,
> Do you see hyper-inflation in the near future
>  or is Ron Paul just selling out?
> Thank you for your time as always.
>
>Walter Block - In my understanding of Austrian
> economics, all we say is that if there is
> inflation in, an increase in, the stock of
>  money, the rate of price rises will be
>  higher than it otherwise would have been.
> But, there is no necessary connection between
>  a rise in the money supply and increased
>  prices (although this is the usual result).
>  For example, the demand to hold money might
>  have also risen during the quantitative
> easing, which would dampen, or even reverse,
>  the price boosts that would otherwise occur.
>
Nathan Fryzek - Hi Walter, if I steal a dollar from
>  you I must pay you back 1 dollar, plus 1
> dollar in retaliation, plus the costs of
> apprehending me. I believe that is the
> libertarian theory of justice. I think that
>  I may have found a way that involuntary
>  democracy can be valid. Imagine I pinch
>  you, you then get to pinch me twice and
> make me pay the costs of my apprehension.
> Imagine though, that a few hundred people
> all hate you, and they all stab you with a
> toothpick, once each, until you eventually
>  die. Wouldn't each person involved in the
>  murder be punished by being stabbed twice
>  with a toothpick? People would be more than
>  willing to suffer a few pokes if it meant
>  killing someone they hated. It wouldn't be
>  proportional to execute hundreds or even
>  thousands of people for the murder of one,
>  how would this problem be solved in a free
>  society?
>
>Walter Block  - Nice try. But, your objection fails
>  because there is one more element to
> libertarian punishment theory you forgot:
> all criminals must play Russian Roulette
> with themselves with the number of bullets
>  and chanbers proportionate to the severity
>  of the criminal offense. For a bibliography
>  on this, see below. True, there will be
>  few bullets and many chambers for toothpick
> sticking, but that ought to put paid to the
>  incentive for anyone to commit this sort
>  of assault and battery on me. But we don't
>  even need this radical defense of
>  libertarianism against your challenge.
> There is an aphorism in law: "you take your
>  victim as you find him." Well, the first
>  few toothpick stickers are in no great
>  danger of being convicted of murder, but
>  the last few, when I am in a weakened
> condition and one more poke may kill me,
>  certainly are in this danger.
>
Nathan Fryzek - (Message Lost)
>
>Walter Block - Dyke, Jeremiah and Walter E.
> Block. 2011. "Explorations in Property
> Rights: Conjoined Twins." Libertarian
> Papers, Vol. 3, Art. 38;
> http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/
> 2011/lp-3-38.pdf
>
Nathan Fryzek - I heard in a radio show you were in
>  that you have a list of Defending the
>  Undefendable suggestions from fans. I was
>  wondering if you still have it.
>
>Walter Block - Eugenicist; no govt compulsion
> Euthanasiaist
> The hater
> Gold and silver rule denier
> Polygamy, group marriage (Heinlein)
> Gay (straight) conversion therapist
> The porn addict
> The materialist
> The individual racist (possibly as long as government doesn't do it)
> Murder memorabilia seller
> The alcoholic (because you defended the drug pusher and drug addict)
> Predatory lender
> Derivatives Trader
>
Nathan Fryzek  -  When it comes to the subject of
>  pedophilia, however, no one has been able
>  to give me a answer that I deem
> satisfactory. Could you write a short list
>  of why you think pedophilia violates the
> NAP? So far I have heard the following,
> No ability to consent
> Not in the child's best interest
>
>Walter Block - I think pedohilia (unless it is
> needed to save a child's life) is child
> abuse. So is verbal abuse child abuse. I
> think both should be crimes. I think
> children are different to adults. If you
>  have (voluntary) sex with an adult, or
>  verbally abuse her, that's no crime. But
> it is for a kid, in my view. Why do you
> disagree?
>
Nathan Fryzek - I would say pedophilia itself is
> not inherently harmful. Just because someone
>  has sex at a very young age doesn't mean
>  they will necessarily be mentally scarred.
>  The media only covers pedophilia when it
> is harmful and horrible, not when it is
>  mutually beneficial. In ancient Sparta
> and Rome it was said that the best companion
>  for a young boy was a older man. If you
>  believe that pedophilia violates the NAP
>  because it is harmful I think you are
> absolutely incorrect. It may be harmful
> in some circumstances, but not most.
>
>Walter Block - I agree with you it is not
> "inherently" harmful. I'm an economist,
> not a psychologist, so I don't know for
> sure, I've not done any research on this,
> but my belief is that it would not be
> harmful for, oh, 1% or fewer of kids.
> What evidence can you supply that
> demonstrates I'm wildly off in this
>  statistical assessment of mine?
> I'm glad my kids were not brought up
> in ancient Rome or Sparta
>
Nathan Fryzek  - I will do research and then email
> you later
>
>Walter Block- Ok
>
Nathan Fryzek - With your argument with private
> roads that you could build over a holdout,
> what if they are using the sun for crops or
>  solar panels? Can you still build over them
>  and block their sunlight?
>
>Walter Block- - http://www.walterblock.com/wp-c> ontent/uploads/publications/block_roads> -bridges-sunlight-reply-tullock-1998.pdf
>
Nathan Fryzek - This is similar to the toothpick
> murder question.
> When someone is executed six people must
> press a button to poison the person to
>  death. In the case that an innocent person
>  is kidnapped and killed in this manner who
>  should be held responsible?
> Another thing I thought up.
> Murder is in essence the theft of years of
>  life. So if we stipulate that every person
>  lives to exactly 75, if I kill a 70 year
>  old I should be punished for "stealing"
> 5 years and should lose 10 years myself,
>  so I should be executed at age 65 or
> enslaved for 10 years now. Doesn't it make
> sense that the punishment be different for
>  killing someone that is about to die in 10
>  minutes versus a child who has many decades
>  to live? Shouldn't we treat each murder
>  trial by determining about how many years
> the victim had left and punishing the
>  criminal accordingly?
> Should a business owner be punished for
>  selling cigarettes to a child? Isn't it the
>  guardian(s) responsibility to have control
> of their child not the owner of the business?
>  How is selling something to a minor an act
> of aggression?
>
Nathan Fryzek just watched a documentary in which a Amazonian tribe puts fire ants
> >> all over their male children when they turn 10 for religious reasons.
> >> Doesn't the government or dispute resolution company have to either be
> >> officially atheist or religious? If they are atheists they would say it
> >> isn't in the best interest of the child and therefore is child abuse
> where
> >> the religious group would say it isn't since pleasing God to get into
> >> heaven in the after life is in the child's best interest.
> >>
> >> What is your opinion on religious matters such as this? If you think it
> >> is okay wouldn't you also have to say child use of tobacco is okay as
> well
> >> if their parents think it is in their best interest?
> >>
> >> Thanks for your time as always!
>Walter Block In my view, all of this is child abuse. Certainly, fire ants qualify as
> child abuse. Tobacco too, although less so. I have the same view on the
> Jehovah's Witnesses who won't allow blood transfusions to their kids. I
> think those children should be taken away from their parents since they are
> horrid guardians. Here are my views on circumcision:
>
> Testa, Pat and Walter E. Block. 2014. “Libertarianism and circumcision”
> International Journal of Health Policy and Management; Article 8, Volume 3,
> Issue 1, June, Page 33-40; http://www.ijhpm.com/;
> http://www.ijhpm.com/?_action=press&issue=-1&_is=Articles in Press;
> http://www.ijhpm.com/article_2849_607.html;
> http://ijhpm.com/article_2849_607; http://ijhpm.com/article_2849_607.html;
> http://www.lewrockwell.com/?post_type=article&p=497650&preview=true.
>
>