[tolbiny]

Gotta get to this before Boro does [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

This post is about self defense from a libertarian perspective, the assumptions underlying are based upon individual liberty, disagreements on those principles are probably best served under a different thread.

Most libertarians clearly believe that self defense is a legitimate concept, that when a person unjustly attacks you or your property they are forgoing their own right to their body and property. If Mr Hatfield (to steal Rothbard's examples) shoots at Mr McCoy, Mr McCoy is within his rights to shoot Mr Hatfield back. However these actions of self defense are limited to action against the aggressor. If Mr H shoots, Mr M is not justified in pulling the woman to his left in front of him to stop the bullet, even in the name of self defense. If he does so he has aggressed against that woman, and is liable for her injuries.

How does this pertain to voting? If, as a libertarian thinking individual, you view voting as an immoral use of coercive violence, can you justify using voting as a means of self defense? Our definition of self defense gives us a guide in solving this issue. While we may be fully justified in defending ourselves against those whose votes attempt to strip us of our rights, we are not justified to injure those who don't vote for things that strip us of our rights, or who don't vote.

Who, as libertarians, can we vote for then? Clearly we can vote for a person who is a reductionist, one who we believe will only work to reduce the coercion a state would be an acceptable vote in the name of self defense. Can we morally vote for a candidate who we believe would reduce the overall coercion of the state, but would do so by reducing it in area X and increasing it in area Y but with an overall diminished effect? The answer here is clearly that to vote for such an individual is to use Groups A's aggression to justify our own against group B, which is not allowable, so the only way that voting for such an individual would be permissible is if we were willing to offer restitution to group B for those aggressive actions which we supported.