Showing posts with label consent. Show all posts
Showing posts with label consent. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 6, 2018

A libertarian case for voting

The Libertarian Case for Voting - Reason.com - Ed Krayewski:

November 30, 2014 - "Tomorrow I'll be voting in my 39th consecutive election. When I vote for candidates, they rarely win. The ones that do have without exception disappointed. Many elections don't have any candidates I want to vote for. So I spoil my ballot.

"There are a lot of [bad] reasons to vote.... Ultimately your vote matters very little. It's almost certainly never going to tip an election. Many elections (think 2012) don't really have a plausible conclusion that doesn't suck for the American people. Nevertheless voting is important, because in a democratic system the absence of a vote enforces the illusion of the consent of the governed.

"Most people don't vote. The U.S. population is about 316 million. About 235 million are adults.... About 130 million Americans voted in the 2012 presidential election, nearly 66 million for President Obama.... Almost all of the 49 percent of voting Americans who didn't vote for Obama voted for the Republican, Mitt Romney. That still leaves at least 78 million Americans eligible to vote who didn't vote for Obama or Romney, more than the vote total either major party candidate received....

"It's impossible to say how many of those 78 million Americans, pressed to vote, would vote Democrat or Republican..... Millions of Americans ... may never vote precisely because they don't like Democrats or Republicans. A lot of people don't know they're libertarians. A lot of libertarians don't believe in voting. And not every Libertarian candidate will appeal to all libertarians. Certainly not every adult eligible to vote will have a candidate that matches up even imperfectly with their own views....

"No one person's decision to purchase or not purchase an Apple phone over an Android phone will make or break Apple.... Yet, in the aggregate, market participants set prices. Even the non-participants, those who decide not to buy, help set the price.... Not purchasing a smartphone deprives no one of anything but you of a smartphone....

"In politics, on the other hand, not voting becomes part of the illusion of consent. After all, non-voters aren't starting insurgencies or calling for revolutions.... The consent required for government to exert more control over you is far less robust than, say, the consent demanded of college students in California, or, actually, in any other situation where consent is required.

"Voting is a right, not a privilege. It's also not something you have to exercise. Not voting doesn't diminish anyone's credibility in criticizing the system, because voting doesn't ensure a specific result. But the regularity of not-voting helps promote the idea that the system is acceptable, just as much as the regularity of voting for the major parties does. Breaking that cycle can help break politics' control over us."

Read more: https://reason.com/archives/2014/11/03/the-libertarian-case-for-voting
'via Blog this'

Saturday, January 14, 2017

Does the 'social contract' mandate paying taxes?

Social Contract: The myth - George J. Dance, Nolan Chart:

January 12, 2017 - "For a long time, libertarian thought was mainly ignored. Then came a period of articles making fun of those silly libertarians wanting to ‘privatize sidewalks’ and the like. Now it seems that we are definitely in the ‘fight’ stage. Not a week goes by without some article on the Web bitterly assailing libertarians and libertarian ideas.

"Normally I ignore; but a while ago I read a most remarkable article that calls for comment: “The Libertarian Delusion” by a Mr. James Luko. What is remarkable is not that Luko dislikes libertarian ideas – his biography does identify him as a career bureaucrat, after all – but how he argues against them.

"Luko takes umbrage with an earlier article,'The Delusion of Consent' by libertarian James Goodfellow, who argues that the power to tax is illegitimate because it is based on coercion; to which Luko responds:
this does not make it true just because Libertarians say so. There is a big difference in what libertarians assert as government being coercive and having a government which uses force legitimately…. If the government’s use of force was NOT legitimate – the author would be correct, but since it is legitimate then the author is incorrect.
"What makes government’s use of force legitimate, according to Luko, is something called the 'social contract':
“The Delusion of Consent” soundly ignores the theory of Social Contract, whereas the author asserts that collection of taxes is plunder, stealing, illegitimate coercion…. where coercive action is taken in relation to taxes, and the implicit threat of its use by the state, is NOT plunder nor illegitimate delegation of power – but rather “enforcement of a contract” that in return for government goods and services – one pays taxes…. The author’s argument ignores the theory of social contract, yet, that is what the author himself participates in.
"Indeed, if it were true that Goodfellow and other libertarians have all agreed to pay taxes, and even made a contract to do so, then they should just shut up and pay up. But, of course, a claim is not true just because Luko says so, either. So, since Luko urges us to 'separate rationalism from empiricism,' and since his claims that this 'social contract' exists and that we all participate in it are undoubtedly empirical, let us see what empirical evidence he offers for them. Before we do that, though, it may be useful to take a look at what exactly that 'contract' is supposed to be."

Read more: https://www.nolanchart.com/social-contract-the-myth
'via Blog this'