Voting, Ron Paul, and self defense

[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.

[andyfox]

So then voting is not a waste of time, provided it is done for the right candidate for the right reason?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
So then voting is not a waste of time, provided it is done for the right candidate for the right reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

This post appears to only address the question of whether voting defensively is immoral, and not that of whether it is worthwhile.

[owsley]

First of all, tolbiny is talking about whether or not the practice of voting is fundamentally or theoretically consistent with libertarian or ACist beliefs, not whether it is worth the time or effort to do so in terms of getting the result that you want.

And second, with regards to voting being a waste of time or not, the decision of an individual to spend the time it takes to cast one vote is much different than the decision of spending time trying to get hundreds or thousands of people to vote. I think that is the question your post relates to, which is a seperate issue from what tolbiny is talking about.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
So then voting is not a waste of time, provided it is done for the right candidate for the right reason?

[/ QUOTE ]

This post was specifically about the morality of voting, it says nothing of the efficiency of voting.

[andyfox]

"the decision of an individual to spend the time it takes to cast one vote is much different than the decision of spending time trying to get hundreds or thousands of people to vote."

I guess this is the part I don't understand. Each individual voter decides on whether or not to take the time to cast his or her vote. One cannot get hundreds or thousands or people to vote other than one at a time.

[Brainwalter]

you are trying to convince other people to waste their time. This may or may not be a waste of your own time.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
"the decision of an individual to spend the time it takes to cast one vote is much different than the decision of spending time trying to get hundreds or thousands of people to vote."

I guess this is the part I don't understand. Each individual voter decides on whether or not to take the time to cast his or her vote. One cannot get hundreds or thousands or people to vote other than one at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Last time I checked it was in fact possibly to communicate to people in parallel. I only have to type this once, yet probably two dozen people will read it. Ron Paul gave two speeches yesterday, yet was heard by a couple thousand.

I am told by reliable sources that television shows air a single time and are viewed by millions.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
"the decision of an individual to spend the time it takes to cast one vote is much different than the decision of spending time trying to get hundreds or thousands of people to vote."

I guess this is the part I don't understand. Each individual voter decides on whether or not to take the time to cast his or her vote. One cannot get hundreds or thousands or people to vote other than one at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is a waste of time for each of them. They are losing so that I can benefit.

EDIT: Although they may not be losing, because presumably they get some joy or satisfaction out of voting that Boro does not get. Their vote may strictly be a 'waste of time' but as long as they get value from it, its win-win.

[owsley]

[ QUOTE ]
One cannot get hundreds or thousands or people to vote other than one at a time.

[/ QUOTE ]

Television commericals perhaps?

If I say "It is not worth my time to vote because there are 10 million other voters in my state, and the odds of my vote ever changing the election are so infitesmal that I would be better off spending my 6 hours reading a book at home", that does not mean that it might not be worth my time to campaign for my candidate and convince large groups of other people to vote for him. Do you understand how they are not the same thing?

What does your first reply have to do with the OP? He is not talking about whether voting is worth his time or not, he is talking about whether it is theoretically consistent with his other anti-state and anti-coercion beliefs.