--- In LibertarianEnterprise@yahoogroups.com, Wraith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Zack, due to the majoritarian nature of voting, participation is a form > of delegated initiation. Thus, it could hardly be termed libertarian. > I'm all too painfully aware of those who make different "lessor evils" > arguments. But isn't following that approach how we ended up in > our current sorry state? >
I certainly agree that that is usually the case. However, there are times when Voting IS justified. For example, suppose there is a Referendum on a proposed Law to make Blasphemy a Crime, or some other new Victimless Crime. Against whom would I be Initiating Force by Voting against that Law? Similarly, it is never wrong to vote for a real libertarian. He will, where he is able, reduce the Initiated Force of Government. In the case of Ron Paul, I admit this is getting dicey. There are several things he will do that are UN_Libertarian (notably Immigration Control). But he is so much more libertarian than any of his opponents that I don't see how a vote for him could have a bad result - that is, the result would not be an increase in Initiation of Force compared to not voting for him. When you vote for a candidate who has NO chance of winning (this might apply to Ron Paul, but it has always applied to LP national candidates), you are not Initiating Force, even by Proxy or by Delegation. The only Result of your Vote is that some people have their attention directed toward that candidate, and they just might wonder what the fuss is about. No Initiation of Force there. When you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are voting AGAINST the more evil candidate. This does not apply to ordinary Democratic/Republican choices, since both are Very Evil. But often there Is a candidate distinctly less Evil than the Top Two. The danger here is that he might win big, and will use your Vote as part of what he calls a Mandate; so I agree that that might contribute to Initiation of Force. Judgment call. As of now, I'm still pushing for Ron Paul.