Only a pretentious, overpaid, windbag quotes himself in the third person. Or, does someone else write this crap for you, David?

All persons should have the rights and opportunity to benefit equally from the resources afforded us by society and the environment.

What does it really mean, after all, for all persons to have"the rights... to benefit equally... from the resources afforded us... by the environment?" It means constant, massive redistribution of resources. It means an enormous and intrusive state to do the dirty work. It means the end of the free market and the beginning of socialism. Whether you're a libertarian by way of Rothbard, Nozick, Rand, Friedman, or anyone else for that matter, it's hard to see how this economic egalitarianism is at all a defensible value. And even if you see the worth of voting strategically for Democrats -- as many libertarians have lately done to achieve gridlock -- it's hard to see the strategic benefits to voting Green.

A practical illustration may help. Consider Maryland Libertarian Party Senate candidate Kevin Zeese, who appeared on the state ballot under the Green Party's name while receiving the LP's endorsement. Zeese supported single-payer healthcare and defaulted altogether on the question of property rights and regulatory takings. A candidates' questionnaire asked him,"Would you favor having the Congress restore protection for such bodies of water as headwaters streams, isolated wetlands, and prairie potholes?" His answer?"Yes," to which his only qualifiers were examples of how he would further expand the power of Congress. It wasn't merely that he disagreed with the standard libertarian position on environmental issues and private property -- no, he seemed utterly ignorant that libertarians even had a position here. Yet for the past several years, regulatory takings have been one of most important concerns in libertarian policymaking.

The most obvious libertarian answer to this question would simply be"no." Just no. Not even yes. No.

Other plausible answers might include"Yes, but only provided that the government is held to very strict rules that give due compensation for the lost value of the property." Or, if we're feeling really wonkish, we could make some reference to the work of Ronald Coase, which provides a free-market solution to this very problem, one in which the government only adjudicates and protects a newly created market in land use rights that might not otherwise exist.

So anyway... If Kevin Zeese shows what we'd get from a libertarian-Green alliance, I have to say I'm not interested. Pot legalization is great; ending the war is great. If I were a legislator, I'd happily vote with the Greens -- on those issues. But I can't go further than that. The underlying economic egalitarianism just ruins the whole deal for me, and this recent all-too-local example shows that it's not just an abstract or a theoretical concern.

[Crossposted at Positive Liberty.]

[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]

I say “sort of” because I don’t really think voting is terribly important. And I certainly don’t think there’s a duty to vote – Athena forfend! Moreover, the usual arguments in favour of voting (like “if you don’t vote, you can’t complain” – which Spencer nicely disposed of in 1851) are generally much worse than the arguments against. Still, there are some common (in libertarian circles) arguments against voting that don’t convince me. Let me briefly say why.

The voluntaryist argument is that by voting one immorally and imprudently lends one’s sanction to the state. I’ve responded to this argument a decade ago (see here and here), and don’t have much to add.

Another common argument, especially popular with economists, is that voting is irrational, because (barring the overwhelmingly unlikely possibility of the election’s being decided by a single vote) the outcome will be the same however, or whether, one votes. Even if one’s aim in voting is not to get one’s candidate elected but merely to increase the candidate’s vote totals for strategic reasons, still whether that result happens is independent of whether one personally votes or not – so why vote?

But if that were a good argument against voting, it would be an equally good argument against contributing to any cooperative effort whose success depends on other people’s cooperating also. And so, for example, it would be an equally good argument against being a libertarian activist of any sort – since no one libertarian activist’s contribution is likely to make the crucial difference as to whether libertarianism triumphs or not.

I would even say that we have a duty to make a contribution to public goods. But it’s an “imperfect” duty in Kant’s sense, meaning that we need only contribute reasonably often to a reasonable number of public goods; we’re not obligated to contribute to every public good on every possible occasion. Hence one has no duty to vote (despite Peikoff’s bizarre assertion – which I’d love to see him try to make to Howard Roark – that “anyone who ... abstains from voting in this election has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life”), since it’s a matter of choice which goods one contributes to and when; but one is certainly free to pick voting as one of the occasions for the exercise of this duty.

In response to this reply John T. Kennedy writes that my comparison between voting and other forms of libertarian activism, such as blogging, would be correct only “if the expressive power of your vote were equal to the expressive power of your writing.” But in fact, he argues, “[t]he difference in leverage between the two actions is so overwhelming that it would clearly be counter-productive to waste time voting when that time could be better employed improving your next blog entry.” I would note, however, that this response is a retreat from the standard economic argument against voting to a weaker position, namely that voting makes a smaller contribution to the ultimate triumph of libertarianism than other forms of activism (though participating those other forms probably won’t make the decisive difference either). Well, then, should I specialise in whichever one form of activism I think will make the greatest overall contribution? Should I focus on scholarly articles and forget blogging? Or should I focus on blogging and forget scholarly articles? It seems to me to make more sense to diversify.

A third objection to voting, the agorist objection, is one I have more sympathy with. On this view, the best strategy for achieving a libertarian society lies not with an attempt to seize the reins of power (whether by electoral or revolutionary means) but rather with an attempt to encourage people to withdraw consent to the state through mass disobedience, and this strategy involves education and building alternative institutions, but not necessarily electoral politics. Indeed, so runs this argument, trying to get people to vote is counter-productive, since we should be discouraging rather than encouraging people’s attachment to the rituals of the state.

Now I certainly agree that as libertarian strategies go, education and building alternative institutions are much more important than electoral politics. And I also agree that the danger of reinforcing people’s attachment to the state is a count against urging people to vote libertarian. (I say “vote libertarian” rather than “vote Libertarian” because the Libertarian candidate is not always the most libertarian candidate – especially in light of the recent unpleasantness in Portland. On the other hand, I don’t think the “don’t waste your vote” argument against voting Libertarian is any good; see once again here.) But I also think voting can be useful as a means of self-defense in the short run; and while the ultimate revolution will be preimarily from the bottom up, it will certainly go more smoothly, and with less danger of a violent crackdown from a government desperate to maintain power, if we’ve got some support on the inside too.

[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]

Yesterday’s election brought high points and low. It was a relief to see the unbearable Rick Santorum go down to defeat in Pennsylvania, but not so delightful to see the despicable Elliot Spitzer gain the governorship in New York. On the whole, though, I’m glad to see the Republicans get trounced as they deserve. And divided government is one step closer to no government.

The real question now is whether the newly empowered Democrats will stand up to Bush on questions of war and civil liberties, or whether they will merely take the opportunity to indulge in their usual programs of job destruction (a.k.a. “minimum wage laws”), victim disarmament (a.k.a. “gun control”), etc.

One reason for pessimism is the way the Democrats abjectly rolled over for Bush in the wake of 9/11. Another is the way they’ve been endlessly coy about whether they want to end the war or just fight it better. Still another is this observation that “[m]any of the newly elected Democrats come from the moderate to conservative wing of the party. They are national security hawks in the main and most do not favour a quick withdrawal from Iraq. Many of them are social conservatives and protectionists ....” Oh, goody.

On the other hand, one reason for optimism is that antiwar sentiment nonetheless clearly played a central role in bringing about yesterday’s Democratic victories. Thus the Democrats may have to throw some sort of antiwar bone to their constituents. We’ll see.

In longer-term electoral politics, what I’d really like to see is a Green/Libertarian coalition. The Greens’ ten values are perfectly consistent with libertarianism, though the means chosen to achieve them may not always be. I’m largely in agreement with this piece by Dan Sullivan, though I favour a different solution to the land question – and I also think making agreement on any one solution to the land question a precondition for Green/Libertarian cooperation is strategically self-defeating. (In practical terms the best solution for disagreements over land policy is decentralisation. Kick the disagreement downstairs and tussle over it at the local level; that way no one solution gets imposed on everybody else.) For some other Green/Libertarian proposals see here, here, here, and here. (One approach to Green/Libertarian cooperation that I don’t favour is this one, which I initially thought was a joke – but apparently not.)

Consider this post by David Frum at National Review Online about the Ted Haggard affair (HT: Andrew Sullivan). The key bit is this:

Consider the hypothetical case of two men. Both are inclined toward homosexuality. Both from time to time hire the services of male prostitutes. Both have occasionally succumbed to drug abuse.

One of them marries, raises a family, preaches Christian principles, and tries generally to encourage people to lead stable lives.

The other publicly reveals his homosexuality, vilifies traditional moral principles, and urges the legalization of drugs and prostitution.

Which man is leading the more moral life? It seems to me that the answer is the first one. Instead of suggesting that his bad acts overwhelm his good ones, could it not be said that the good influence of his preaching at least mitigates the bad effect of his misconduct? Instead of regarding hypocrisy as the ultimate sin, could it not be regarded as a kind of virtue - or at least as a mitigation of his offense?

After all, the first man may well see his family and church life as his"real" life; and regard his other life as an occasional uncontrollable deviation, sin, and error, which he condemns in his judgment and for which he sincerely seeks to atone by his prayer, preaching, and Christian works.

Yet it is the first man who will if exposed be held up to the execration of the media, while the second can become a noted public character - and can even hope to get away with presenting himself as an exemplar of ethics and morality.

How does this make moral sense?

NRO's Kathryn Lopez called Frum's argument"excellent."

When mainstream conservativism not only countenances but gives a moral standing ovation to a man who threw his own family under the bus while loudly proclaiming his moral and political opposition to all the consensual behaviors he was engaging in, it's time to wonder whether people like Frum and Lopez have, literally, lost their minds, not to mention libertarians who have any patience for people who make arguments like this.

Haggard has wrecked the lives of his wife and 5 kids, risked giving her any number of STDs by fooling around with a drug-using prostitute, and lied to and abandoned thousands of parishoners he had an obligation to serve. Yet because he toes the party line on the evils of homosexuality and drugs in his public pronouncements, he is more moral than the man who lives an openly gay life and who supports drug legalization, never harming a loved one or anyone to whom he is legally or morally obligated?

Why in heaven's name would ANY libertarian want ANYTHING to do with these people? Frum and Lopez are not little-known extremists - they are major columnists for, arguably, the central voice of modern conservatism.

Can someone please explain to me why a libertarian should even think about voting Republican?

(And if you want to read something worse, check out the fellow pastor who suggests that Haggard's wife bears some blame for what he did because she, like many other pastors' wives,"is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about." Thus though she"is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.")

Like Andrew Sullivan, my jaw remains on the floor.