In the broad liberty movement, within its niche subcommunities, it’s almost inevitable that you’ll encounter infighting, especially when debates arise about using political means to achieve liberty. These discussions tend to flare up online around election season, as the topic of voting becomes more prominent in the public discourse. Generally, two camps emerge in these debates: what we might call the “purist” camp and the “practical” camp. By highlighting the often-overlooked nuances within these arguments, we can step back and see the bigger picture—understanding how liberty-minded individuals can make informed voting choices that align with their principles.
The “Purists”
Let’s begin by examining the purist camp. When the topic of voting or political engagement arises, they often rally around statements such as: “A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years,” “To support the lesser of two evils is still to support evil,” or “If voting changed anything, they’d make it illegal.” These expressions reflect a central tenet of libertarian philosophy—that political action is inherently coercive. Using political means to advance liberty is viewed as contradictory, violating the non-aggression principle. For the purist camp, consenting to this core violation is unacceptable. Instead of engaging in politics, they focus their efforts on “waking up” the public to the coercive nature of the state and highlighting the potential of a truly free market. As Hans-Hermann Hoppe points out:
Without the erroneous public perception and judgment of the state as just and necessary, and without the public’s voluntary cooperation, even the most powerful government would implode, and its power would evaporate.
The Practicals
The practical camp responds with familiar sentiments like: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing,” “Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you,” or “The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.” These quotes reflect a pragmatic approach to our reality—that we are subject to the authority of the state. As such, efforts should be made to navigate and mitigate this unavoidable circumstance, even if that requires political participation. However, it is crucial to clarify that participation does not equal consent. Rather, it should be viewed as a form of self-defense, which does not violate the non-aggression principle. Lysander Spooner captures this sentiment eloquently:
In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without his consent having even been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments. He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he uses the ballot, he may become a master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two.
“The Most Important Election”
How can we determine the best course of action as we approach the “most important election of our lifetimes”? The practical camp offers a compelling argument: engaging in political means doesn’t imply consent; rather, it can be viewed as a form of self-defense and preservation. However, the purist camp presents a valid counterpoint: relying on political processes will never achieve true liberty in our lifetimes. In my view, the key to identifying a better path lies in recognizing that there are alternative ways to vote for liberty outside the realm of politics. As Mises insightfully notes:
The market is a democracy in which every penny gives a right to vote. It is true that the various individuals have not the same power to vote. The richer man casts more ballots than the poorer fellow. But to be rich and to earn a higher income is, in the market economy, already the outcome of the previous election. The only means to acquire wealth and to preserve it, in a market economy not adulterated by government-made privileges and restrictions, is to serve the consumers in the best and cheapest way. Capitalists and landowners who fail in this regard suffer losses. If they do not change their procedure, they lose their wealth and become poor. It is the consumers who make poor people rich and rich people poor.
In this passage, Mises examines economic voting within a free market, where consumers cast “votes” through their spending, with each unit of currency acting as a ballot. This system reflects a democratic process, shaping economic outcomes based on individual preferences. Mises highlights an inherent inequality: wealthier individuals possess more market voting power, a result of past interactions where they have successfully met consumer needs. He argues that in a truly free market, devoid of government interference or cronyism, wealth accumulation is directly tied to the ability to satisfy consumer demands. Thus, the flow of wealth is subject to consumer votes, rewarding those who excel in serving societal needs while penalizing those who do not. Ultimately, Mises depicts the market as self-regulating, with consumer preferences continually redistributing wealth.
Expanding on Mises’s observation, we must recognize that our influence in the market extends beyond monetary transactions. How we allocate our time can be understood as a profound form of voting, with each choice reflecting our values and priorities, wielding significant power in shaping our communities and broader society. When we consciously dedicate our time to local initiatives, we not only strengthen social networks but also foster a sense of belonging and purpose. This engagement allows us to promote liberty and self-governance while creating alternatives to state-controlled systems. By participating in community-building activities or volunteering for causes we believe in, we cast votes for a more vibrant and resilient society. In this framework, our time becomes a ballot, signaling our commitment to the world we want to cultivate. Each hour invested in meaningful pursuits contributes to a collective movement that challenges the status quo and encourages innovation. By choosing to invest our time wisely, we lay the foundation for a future where liberty, self-determination, and respect for property rights thrive. Viewing our time as a form of voting harnesses its transformative potential, driving positive change, and empowering ourselves and our communities.
Coming full circle, it becomes clear that the fight for liberty is waged on many fronts. As libertarians, we should honor our commitment to the division of labor and specialization by allowing individuals to determine where their unique contributions can be most effective. Political action can serve as a defensive measure, helping to preserve liberty by slowing or thwarting the state’s encroachments. On the other hand, market-based efforts, through the strategic use of our money and time, offer an offensive approach—fostering the development of parallel systems and networks that make state-controlled services increasingly irrelevant.
The most important political election of our lifetime is fast approaching, but regardless of who wins, the state will continue its relentless encroachment on our liberties in one form or another. Our response cannot be limited to defensive voting at the ballot box—we must also take the offensive by leveraging our resources to build voluntary, decentralized networks of liberty. Each small act in our daily lives contributes to the dismantling of centralized power and the creation of a free and brighter future.
To conclude, I’d like to paraphrase a quote often misattributed to, but definitely in the spirit of, one of my favorite anarchists, J.R.R. Tolkien, for reflection:
Some believe it is only [state] power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found. It is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love.
