Can Voting Be Justified Along Self-Defense Lines? Yes

Dear S:

In my view, voting can be justified along self-defense lines; here are some readings on this:

Pro: Block, 2012; Block and Fryzek, 2015; Rothbard, 1972A, 1972B; Spooner, 1870; con: McElroy, 2013; Watner, 2000

Block, Walter E. 2012. Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty. New York: Ishi Press; http://www.amazon.com/dp/4871873234;

http://libertycrier.com/education/walter-blocks-new-book-on-ron-paul/;

http://libertyunbound.com/node/862

Block, Walter and Nathan Fryzek. 2015. “Was It Immoral to Vote for Ron Paul? And other libertarian questions and answers.” November 26;  http://www.targetliberty.com/2015/11/was-it-immoral-to-vote-for-ron-paul.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TargetLiberty+%28Target+Liberty%29

Rothbard, Murray N. 1972A. “Should Libertarians Vote?”  Outlook, April, p. 6.

Rothbard, Murray N. 1972B. “Interview.” February 25;

https://mises.org/blog/voting-immoral; https://mises.org/library/new-banner-interview-murray-n-rothbard-0

Spooner, Lysander. 1966[1870]. No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority and A Letter to Thomas F. Bayard, Larkspur, Colorado: Rampart College; http://jim.com/treason.htm

McElroy, Wendy. 2013. “The Faux Slavery Analogy to Voting.” July 31;

http://dailyanarchist.com/2013/07/31/the-faux-slavery-analogy-to-voting/

criticizes Walter E. Block

Watner, Carl. 2000. “Is Voting an Act of Violence?” April, The Voluntaryist. No. 103

http://voluntaryist.com/articles/103.html#.VzDxM0n2Y5s

Vegetarian, anti https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63NNuG-6-hQ

Best regards,

Walter

(read from the bottom up)

From: S

Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 10:30 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Libertarian Theory

Dear Professor Block,

Interesting question. And thank you very much on that evidence you sent, that is an interesting study and I’m glad you agree on that premise of the argument.

To your question: I suppose what I am getting at in this argument is that it is limiting to think of Libertarianism and the conclusions of the NAP as a strictly political/legal ideology. I am not sure the conundrum can be solved, both options “cutting taxes” and “raising government deficit” is anti-Libertarian and therefore we have no way of answering this question in an economically efficient manner.  I see the conclusions of Libertarianism as a philosophy guiding personal choice, almost an ethical ideology as much as a political one. My argument being, if States loose hold of their nation as it grows more wealthy, and if people acting in a non-aggressive way moves the economy forward, then acting in a non-aggressive way in life can be seen as a political act. All people who act peacefully in society are contributing to the eventuality of anarchy. People who vote, either to lower taxes and increase the deficit, or raise taxes to the lower deficit are only contributing to the violent nature of statehood and therefore are really only furthering non-NAP actions.  I know in Mises’s “Human Action” he states Praxeology is a non-ethical philosophy, that it only concludes what the nature of human action is, not what it should do. But I feel that the further conclusions that lead to the NAP being the fundamental rule and guiding structure of Libertarianism show that this is a rule base that if followed progresses society, and the contrary if not followed. That is to say, the angry anarchistic kid shouldn’t go around breaking windows, as he is only making the society poorer and prolonging the existence of the state.

Does that make sense?

S

On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 11:01 AM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear S:

An excellent start of an important paper.

You say this:

“The wealthier societies are, the weaker a State’s hold on the society is.”

I think this is correct. Here is some empirical evidence to support that:

Gwartney, James, Robert Lawson and Walter E. Block. 1996. Economic Freedom of the World, 1975-1995, Vancouver, B.C.: The Fraser Institute

But, how does this solve the conundrum of favoring lower taxes even though it will increase the govt budget deficit?

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: S

Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2018 1:07 PM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Re: Libertarian Theory

Dear Professor Block,

Here is a document outlining my idea. I am sure you are busy with the new school year, and so even though my idea is large and complicated I tried to keep this argument short and compact. I am certainty not as good as a writer as you, so I hope it makes sense given the complexity of the subject. If you have any questions, clarifications, or disagreements please let me know. Thank you very much for taking the time to hear out my argument.

S

On Tue, Sep 25, 2018 at 3:40 PM Walter Block <wblock@loyno.edu> wrote:

Dear S:

Sure, please send me your idea via return e mail. I’ll take a peek at it.

Best regards,

Walter

Walter E. Block, Ph.D.

Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics

Loyola University New Orleans

6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller Hall 318

New Orleans, LA 70118

wblock@loyno.edu

Skype: Walter.Block4

tel: (504) 864-7934

From: S

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2018 11:45 AM

To: wblock@loyno.edu

Subject: Libertarian Theory

Dear Professor Block,

I am unsure if you remember me, but four years ago when I was in High School we spoke a couple times over skype with my friend M, my teacher Mr. L and D. Though going to college for Human Physiology at the University of XYZ, I have stayed very active in thinking about Austrian economic theory, and Libertarian conclusions. I mostly have been attempting to solve what I find to be the limitations of current Libertarian literature. More specifically, the disconnect between how efficient a free market or anarchy would be, and the fact that it seems impossible to ever achieve such a system. If I recall correctly, you feel strongly about that conclusion. Even though not all believe it is impossible, I feel there is little to no conclusions to date, that outline a concrete logical understanding of how anarchy could/would be achieved. I believe I have something of a remedy for this hole in Libertarian literature and would be delighted to bounce my ideas off of you if you were at all interested. I also feel my idea may be beneficial in aiding the discussion Austrian economist have with the outside intellectual community. I would be willing to do talk over Skype like we did before or simply correspond over email. I extremely enjoyed our talks back then, and hope for more in the future. Please let me know if this topic interests you, and if you would wish to discuss it some more.

S

Share

2:35 am on April 21, 2019