Congratulations to Jeff Daiell, who won the Essay Contest I sponsored earlier this month. Jeff won a copy of Buchanan and Tullock's The Calculus of Consent, and I learned a lot. Thanks for all the entries (a few dozen or so). And for people who are interested, I did vote (and then chose a winner after the fact). Jeff's winning essay is below the fold.

Refuting The Arguments Against Libertarians Voting

Copyright 2004 by Jeff Daiell. All Rights Reserved.

I have heard two major arguments against libertarians
voting, even for explicitly and uncompromisingly
libertarian candidates. I offer these rebuttals.

Argument A. "Voting Is Immoral, As It Gives Sanction
To The System"

Rebuttals:

1. You have just received a visit from thugs
representing the neighborhood gang, who told you that
if you do not pay a certain amount each week, your
business would be firebombed. You hire a private
investigator, who infiltrates the mob, brings them
down, and saves you from their extortion.

Have you, or the investigator, "given sanction" to the
mob? Of course not. And voting for libertarian
candidates (and/or being one yourself) who will
infiltrate the ultimate gang -- The State -- does not
give sanction to the system.

2. Majority rule does not justify violating Rights
and, therefore, is not a valid way to decide what
Government will do. However, the mere fact of an
individual holding any given public office -- even if
one believes, as I do, that such offices should not
exist -- does not, -in and of itself-, violate Rights;
therefore, the use of majority (or plurality) decision
to determine who will hold any given office is morally
acceptable.

Argument B. "Don't Vote - It Only Encourages Them"

This makes for a cute bumper-sticker, but that's about
all.

Rebuttals:

1. When have you ever heard a politician -- or
Establishment pundit -- point to a *high* voter
turnout as a sign of contentment? You haven't. Low
voter turnouts, however, are often cited as evidence
the public is happy with the statist quo.

2. If statists want libertarians to vote, why do they
make it so hard for the Libertarian Party to even get
on the ballot?

3. Most laws and regulations supposedly designed to
make registration and voting easier do *not*
facilitate either process for legitimate voters, but
rather for voters not eligible (said ineligibility
being for a variety of reasons, such as having died
years before). Reforms which might well encourage
more eligible voters to go to the polls (such as
weekend elections or longer voting hours on Election
Day itself) are rarely even proposed, let alone
adopted.

Argument C. "Your Vote Doesn't Matter"

Rebuttal:

The odds that a single vote will determine who
finishes first in an election are indeed tiny. But
politicians and their handlers read the election
returns. If they think changing a policy -- or
policies -- will bring them more votes at the next
election, they'll make that change (or those changes).

This is especially true when a third-place finisher
garners a number of votes greater than the number
separating the winner from the runner-up. This is so
often true that the examples are too numerous to cite.

So, libertarians: vote! In good conscience, go vote!