In discussions of politics I notice that people sometimes try to soften their disagreements over candidates, party platforms, or philosophies with the cheery aside: “Well, that’s what’s great about living in a democracy – we can all vote for whoever we want.” Forgetting for a moment the extremely limited selection of third-party (non-Democrat or -Republican) candidates from which voters can actually choose and the near impossibility of electing them, the notion that in a democracy “everybody wins” – that our freedom is evidenced solely by the fact that we can each vote for the least awful candidate available, with the winning gang making the rules for everyone else – is absurd. Only the political condition of individual liberty – and not consensus of a majority – will ensure that all citizens remain truly free.
According to the philosophies of individualism and objectivism, society is a highly complex and dynamic association of unique and rational individuals, and not, as collectivists maintain, a separate higher entity with its own needs or values that trump those of each of its members. Indeed, as Ayn Rand made clear, “A group can have no rights other than the rights of its individual members.” In a political system that recognizes natural law each person is free to enjoy his inalienable (meaning absolute and indisputable) rights to his life, liberty, and pursuit of his happiness. Moreover, only a free individual (unrestricted by use or threat of force) can correctly evaluate what is important to him (his values), assess how best to attain these values, and then act accordingly.
As a rational being, I hold my existence to be natural (meaning I am undeniably entitled to my life) and moral (recognizing that my pursuit for rational self-interest is the highest moral purpose of my life). So long as I do not infringe upon the lives, liberty, or property of any other, I reserve the right to conduct my life as I see fit. No government or majority can justly deprive me of these rights. My life is my own.
In a political system that respects individual life, property, and actions above all else, every individual can live according to his own values regardless of who wins a political election. He is not constrained by how others – regardless of whether they constitute a majority – think or vote that he should live his life. Democracy, on the other hand, basically amounts to two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for supper.
If I choose to vote for a political candidate who reflects my respect for individual liberty (for the sake of convenience I will designate a candidate from the Libertarian Party, since their views closely represent this ideal and they are arguably the best-known of independent liberty-based political parties) – and supposing this candidate wins and actually keeps his promise to defend individual liberty without compromise – then every Republican, Democrat, and non-Libertarian who subscribes to a different political philosophy will nevertheless remain entirely free to continue practicing his or her beliefs the same as before, regardless of his own candidate’s defeat. The election of a Libertarian (or any other legitimate defender of individual liberty) would make them no less free; they would lose nothing but the power to force others to follow their rules, a privilege they would have otherwise gained had their own party or candidate won.
If a Libertarian is elected to office, every Democrat, Republican, or Other will remain completely free to choose whether to keep or give away their wealth, practice religion or atheism, hire or fire employees for any reason they consider economical, “go green” or buy an SUV, homeschool their children, select their doctor, conduct voluntary business exchanges with whoever they please, have as many children as they like, put whatever substances they want into their bodies, buy guns or contraceptives, marry whoever or however many they choose, travel when and where they want, enter or leave a profession, chew gum while walking or don’t – essentially, live their lives as they see fit. They would not be constrained by the wants, beliefs, or plans of Libertarians or anyone else. They alone would be entitled to the fruits of their successes and responsible for the consequences of their failures.
Conversely, if a Democrat is elected to power, the Libertarian (and every citizen) risks losing his natural rights to his property, to hire employees he judges most valuable, or to design his own healthcare or retirement plan. If, on the other hand, a Republican wins, then the Libertarian will likely be equally less free to marry who he desires, do with his body as he pleases, or avoid having his property confiscated to finance wars abroad. These are only a very few general examples of the contradictions masked by the assertion that “voting for whoever we want” constitutes “being free.” Besides, “Republikrats” typically overlap or agree in their support for each others’ interventionist policies anyway; neither truly defends the liberty of the individual – only the particular special interests of his constituency.
Electing a legitimate defender of individual liberty – versus choosing a Democrat/Republican or liberal/conservative – represents a vote for liberty over “tyranny of the majority” (no matter the degree of tyranny – be it a “milder” interventionism or full-blown totalitarianism). The following dichotomy pinpoints the fallacy of the assertion that democracy/majority-rule somehow constitutes a political system of individual liberty: when a Libertarian is elected, no Democrat or Republican risks losing any of his liberties; when a Democrat or Republican (interventionists by the very policies that define their party platforms) wins, every American is necessarily less free.
© 2009 myrationalreality.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is granted, provided full credit is given.
One Response
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Continuing the Discussion