From: G
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 7:08 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Voting
Good morning Dr. Block,
I will have to respectfully disagree with your stance on voting. Although, if there could be an exception, Ron Paul would qualify. The problem with voting is that it is in and if itself an acceptance of the political system, and as so, requires one who votes to accept the outcome, regardless of the “winner.” This fact I think negates any justification. As I recall, you made this same argument during Trump’s election, and many have done the same, saying that voting for the lesser of evils is warranted. I have said many times that voting is a fool’s game, as regardless of the outcome, the same rotten underlying system is still in place with its “majority” (actually minority) rule mentality. Anytime one can vote for another to have power over others, then corruption is imminent. That is why a peaceful anarchical system is better. As a realist, I do fully realize the current impossibility of this kind of system due to centuries of brainwashing common citizens to believe the idiocy of democracy, but we are talking in the abstract. If no one voted however, no one would be elected, and that would make a much better world.
Respectfully, G
From: Walter Block [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2019 8:01 AM
To: G
Subject: RE: Voting
Dear G:
The claim that “voting is a fool’s game” is not incompatible with my view that it is compatible with libertarianism. I think that prostitution, addictive drugs, etc. are also fool’s games, but they do not violate the NAP. Neither does voting. This is the best thing I have ever read on voting:
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
Best regards,
Walter
9:15 pm on August 16, 2019