The best form of organization, Samuel Edward Konkin wrote in  1980’s New Libertarian Manifesto, “is a Libertarian Alliance in which you steer the members from political activity (where they have blindly gone seeking relief from oppression) and focus on education, publicity, recruitment and perhaps some anti-political campaigning (i.e. ‘Vote For Nobody,’ ‘None of the Above,’ ‘Boycott the Ballot,’ ‘Don’t Vote, It Only Encourages Them!’  etc.) to publicize the libertarian alternative.”

But wait, replied Murray Rothbard: “Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master was a monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one was kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or whatever. It would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master but idiotic if we failed to do so.”

SEK3: Poppycock! “Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the ‘underground railway?'”

That debate — can voting be an effective activity in pursuit of liberty? Is it even morally acceptable? — outlived Rothbard and Konkin, continuing among libertarians to this day.

Thomas Paine thought “it would be strange indeed if so celestial article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated,” but it’s just not on offer in the electoral marketplace. We may never get it, and if we do get it, we won’t get it by voting for it.

On the other hand, history irrefutably demonstrates that most people will indeed “[sit] around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates” rather than risk the overseer’s whip by attempting to flee the state’s plantation.

Voting’s not really good for much if freedom is the criterion, and not even especially effective at lightening our burdens — we’re each more likely to win the lottery than to cast the deciding vote in any sizable election.

But that doesn’t make voting immoral.

Voting is the expression of a preference among limited options within a political system shaped and constrained by force.

The system is immoral.

The options within that system are usually mostly immoral (though voting against a new tax might not be).

Your preferences from among those options may be immoral too.

But stating your preferences (even between equally immoral options) is not, as such, immoral. It’s just … speech!

If I hold a gun to your head and a knife to your throat and ask you how you want to die, the immorality is mine for forcing that choice on you, not yours for choosing.

Vote, Or don’t. Your call. I support your right to express your preferences (and maybe “send a message” with a third party vote), or remain silent. But either way, don’t fantasize that you’re really accomplishing much.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Ryan Wesley Routh “believed the rhetoric of Biden and Harris, and he acted on it,” Donald Trump said in a Fox News interview after Routh was caught apparently lying in wait for, and with ill intentions toward, the former president.  “Their rhetoric is causing me to be shot at …”

Well, no, for two reasons.

The less important reason is that neither Biden nor Harris have ever publicly incited the murder of opposing domestic political candidates and have, in fact, inveighed against Trump’s would-be assassins.

Even if you don’t believe Biden and Harris possess strong moral fiber, that still makes sense. Our masters find the idea of being hunted by mere serfs horrifying, and that horror expresses as a protective attitude even toward their opponents within the ruling class. Cabin-dwelling “patriot” bumpkins and dirty hippie street protesters? Fair game! But touch not the elite! They don’t want to let THAT genie out of the bottle.

The more important reason is that words have neither eyes to look through a scope with nor fingers to squeeze a trigger with. That takes a person with the freedom/agency to make decisions.

While actual incitement — as opposed to mean tweets or snarky references — might rise to the level of plausible conspiratorial involvement, an assassination attempt requires overt acts — acquiring a weapon, learning to use it, seeking out or lying in wait for the target, aiming the weapon, firing it.

So far as we know, Joe Biden didn’t play straw buyer to procure a weapon for Routh, nor did Harris give the man a lift in her limo, dropping him off near Trump’s golf course, nor have either of them ever spoken with or directly to him.

All this blather about “civility” and “lowering the temperature” and Person A’s political speechification somehow making Person A responsible for Person B’s actions, even if Person A doesn’t know Person B from Adam is just that: Blather.

Sticks and stones may break our bones, but words can’t, for the most part, buy a gun for someone else or force that someone else to aim and fire it.

We’re all responsible for our own actions. If we let ourselves become obsessed with or deranged by political rhetoric such that we engage in counter-productive violence (hint: If Routh  or Thomas Matthew Crooks had succeeded in killing Trump, the MAGA cult would have become stronger, not weaker), that’s on us.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

“We’re effectively run in this country,” J.D. Vance told Tucker Carlson in 2021, “be it the Democrats, be it our corporate oligarchs, by a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.”

It’s a wonder that remark, made a few days after he announced his candidacy for US Senate, didn’t cost him the election. It didn’t really surface in the public consciousness until after his selection as Donald Trump’s 2024 running mate.

There’s oh so much to unpack about Vance’s expressed attitude, but this is an election year, so let’s talk nuts and bolts.

A time-tested rule tells us that politics is about addition, not subtraction. There are exceptions, but for the most part, you win an election by getting more people to like you; getting more people to hate your opponent is your opponent’s job.

Since 2016, Republicans and Democrats alike have worked to reverse that approach, relentlessly attacking their opponents and hoping the “hate vote” goes their way.

Among Americans over 50 years old, 16.5% are childless according to the US Census Bureau. Vance told them he doesn’t like them. Why would they vote for him?

Childlessness among Americans under 50 is a moving target (because there’s still a chance), but in that demographic, a Pew Center survey found that 47% say they’re probably going to remain that way. Why would they believe Vance respects their interests or opinions?

Oh, and 29% of American households own cats.

Dude: Do NOT piss off pet owners.

While Mitt Romney was probably never set to win the 2012 election, the story of a 12-hour family trip taken with his dog, Seamus, locked in a carrier on the car’s roof and suffering from diarrhea certainly didn’t boost his prospects.

This election looks a lot tighter than that one, and Vance stomped right in a puddle of Seamus’s excrement with the “childless cat ladies” remark.

Which may explain the Trump/Vance campaign’s new… let’s call it “pro-pet” … strategy:

“Blame the Haitians! They’re eating your cats, and Harris is the one letting them do it!”

Aside from not being true, that approach is defective in that it’s at odds with Vance’s emphasis on fertility. Haitian women currently give birth at a rate of 2.7 per 100,000 versus American women’s 1.8 births per 100,000. More immigration from Haiti means more kids being born in America.

But hey, maybe the Trump camp’s anti-cat to pro-cat switcharoo is a bellwether, and we can expect politicians to start moving away from the “hate voting” strategy and toward “addition, not subtraction.”

Unfortunately, that would represent an improvement of style, not substance.

Political “addition” usually comes down to promising various constituencies a bigger cut of everyone else’s stuff and hoping the additions prove more noticeable than their accompanying subtractions.

Sure, that puts off a more “civil” vibe, but it’s still about making voters feel like they’re members of the in-group while promising to screw the out-group.

Politics really is a litter box.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter:@thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY