Morality, Democracy and the Voting Process

Today I noticed a billboard that had the following: “Does your vote reflect your morals?” At first glance it might seem reasonable that an individual should vote according to their moral principles. At second glance you might think—that could be dangerous to the liberty and freedom of someone who lives by a different moral code.

How do we determine if a system of morality is conducive to the needs of a rational individual—or if it is based on myths, illusions and faulty principles?

There is only one way to determine if a moral principle is correct or incorrect. It must correspond to the following:

a. Natural Law
b. Economic Law

If a moral belief violates either one of these laws—it is invalid.

We can make a case that Economic Law is derived from Natural Law. Natural Law starts its reasoning from axiomatic concepts such as identity, consciousness and existence. Economic Law’s starting point in a chain of reasoning is—a priori categories such as time, change and causality. Both use deductive reasoning.

The Problem

Unfortunately we live in a society that is called a “democracy.” The voting process has turned into a predatory means of extracting wealth from one group and giving it to another—and (or) forcing the moral beliefs of a majority on the rest of the populace. Of course, the smallest minority of all—the individual—has his life, liberty and freedom sold out wholesale. Government consistently violates his property through taxes, inflation, prohibitions and regulations. This apparatus of violent compulsion and coercion even tells him what he can or cannot consume.

Unknown to most is the fact that our founding fathers considered the United States of America a Republic. They believed they had created a Republic. They understood democracy was doomed to failure because it always resulted in mob rule—the tyranny of the majority.

If they could hear the promises of the candidates for office in modern times—they would be appalled. Politicians make big spending promises they can only keep—by stealing from others through taxes and inflation. In many cases they end up pilfering the money from the very same voters that supported them. H.L. Mencken’s description of an election is “an advanced auction of stolen goods.”

Natural Law

An individual has a right to his life, liberty and freedom. He also has the right to own property without anyone infringing on it—and that includes government infringement. Since all individuals own their bodies— they can consume anything they desire.

All moral pronunciations about the so-called evils of drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, gambling, and prostitution are irrelevant and downright dangerous. It may true that a rational individual could decide to avoid these “vices”. However since an individual owns his life, which includes his body, mind and soul, he has every right to indulge in these activities without the interference of absolute moralists and governments. And the voters have no right to deprive him of these through the voting process.

Economic Law

Many people support a system of morality that completely violates the laws of economics. Once these faulty moral systems become law—and governments start enforcing them—nobody’s life, liberty and property are safe. Wars, atrocities, economic crisis, mass liberty violations etc. permeate world affairs. The lone individual is crucified on a cross of myth and drowned in a sea of illusion.

The war on drugs has been taking place for decades. Over half of million Americans have been incarcerated in a “place of rehabilitation” called prison for drug offenses. Let’s decide if drug use is moral or immoral—and whether it should be legal or illegal.

Voluntary and Involuntary Exchange

First you have to distinguish the difference between voluntary and involuntary exchange. You must realize it is individuals who are involved in exchanges. In any two person exchange, one sells (gives) and the other buys (receives). "Society can not take part in an exchange—only individuals can."

A voluntary exchange takes place when two or more individuals agree to become involved with one another. Each participates of his own free will. The exchange could involve anything from giving and receiving love to buying and selling commodities. All believe they will benefit.

An involuntary exchange takes place when at least one party to the transaction is in it against his (her) will. Examples of this type of exchange are robbery, rape, assault and murder. Only this type of exchange can be defined as criminal. All voluntary exchanges are legitimate and non- criminal—no matter what the Absolute Moralist and governments declare.

Since drug exchanges are voluntary they should be legal—which means that all drug use is perfectly moral behavior and of course, should be legal

Conclusion

As you can see—a morality that is in violation of Natural and Economic Law is faulty and destructive. Just because someone feels something is immoral or bad doesn’t give him (her) the right to force their subjectivity on others. And voting on this belief is immoral—which demonstrates this individual is descending to the gutters of hypocrisy. A person must first subject their belief(s) to Natural and Economic Law.

The Libertarian Way is a system of morality that corresponds to these laws. And what makes this so delightful is that all the Libertarian Pleasures correspond to Natural and Economic law.