The 2024 election is right around the corner, and libertarians have a choice to make. There are many legitimate options; libertarians have historically taken a number of stances, such as abstention, write-ins, voting for principled candidates or the lesser of two evils. Considerations usually fall into two columns: principled and practical. Those who vote on principle vote for a libertarian-oriented candidate. Those who vote based on practicality care more about outcomes than not having blood on their hands, so-to-speak.
If we are to take the non-aggression principle seriously, then all our actions must be consistent with it, not just the policies we espouse. The act of voting must be primarily concerned with adhering to the principle of non-aggression rather than simply promoting a more libertarian-looking outcome.
Voting will not be defended in depth in this article. This has already been done elsewhere, and it seems perfectly reasonable to justify voting on the grounds of self defense. Given that voting can be done, it must be done by principle. What principled voting means is up for debate. Are libertarians doomed to abstain from voting or vote for a candidate who has no shot at winning? Not quite.
First of all, it is important to acknowledge that the non-aggression principle implies that we are obligated to abstain from all aggressive action, but it does not require intervening and preventing an aggression from occurring or to come to the aid of a victim. A bystander of an aggression has no obligation to step in when an injustice is occurring; it may be morally upright to intervene, but intervention is by no means a principle derived from non-aggression.
To say that a bystander is obligated to intervene is equivalent to saying that the victim acquires a right to the bystander’s labor by the simple act of being aggressed against. Essentially, an uninvolved third party is punished for the actions taken by another—the aggressor. This is not consistent with libertarian ethics.
What’s the point? Regarding elections, a candidate who advocates for the status quo is nothing but an uninvolved bystander. They take no action to prevent aggression and they take no action to expand the present level of aggression. Consequently, a principled libertarian can justifiably vote for this candidate given that the voter is by extension acting as bystanders as well.
This makes voting decisions easier. If a candidate representing the status quo is running against a socialist candidate, then voting for the status quo candidate is justifiable despite the candidate representing a host of issues that the libertarian disagrees with. This is true even if there is a lesser candidate that represents the libertarian better. Unfortunately for principled libertarian voters, reality is not always so simple. The two major candidates are almost always a complex amalgamation of policy positions—each with pros and cons. What then must a libertarian do?
The libertarian must ask themselves if a candidate represents an improvement upon the status quo on all relevant margins. For example, if two candidates are running against each other and each of their policy positions overlap with the status quo, except one is pro-free trade, then the libertarian candidate should choose the pro-free trade candidate.
Applying this to the present situation is not too difficult. Libertarians are concerned over Donald Trump’s position on tariffs; however, this concern should factor less into the libertarian’s voting decision because the status quo under Joe Biden has more or less maintained the Trump administration’s policies on trade. The Biden administration has even double-downed on its predecessor’s tariff policy by proposing further tariff hikes.
Therefore, the voter is not choosing between a tariff-free present and trade-restrictionist future, but a trade-restrictionist present and a trade-restrictionist future of roughly equal proportion. Consequently, the libertarian, if they are to choose between the status quo candidate and an alternative, must leave concerns of tariffs out of consideration unless the one of the candidates is promoting a significantly greater trade restrictionist policy.
Notice how I use some subjective language such as “relevant” and “significant.” I use these words because it is not the mission here to make a judgment about which candidate is preferable. This is simply advice from a fellow libertarian, and I will leave it up to the reader to determine which candidate (if any) a principled libertarian can vote for.
Finally, a libertarian may retort, “Candidates always make promises, but they seldom follow through.” Fair enough, but what else is there to go off of? Voting history? Voting history is not always an accurate means of predicting policy due to politicians being subjected to varying political pressures over time.
Regarding political promises, I see no reason why politicians should be under a different standard than any other profession. If a politician makes a promise to their constituents and does the exact opposite when elected, then the politician should be held legally liable for a property violation tantamount to breach of contract.
Of course, politicians sometimes make promises to expand the scope of aggression and fail to fulfill them, so if the principles of a libertarian legal order are to apply, then these promises are not valid, since they are promises to aggress against someone. In that case, libertarians have cause to celebrate when politicians do not fulfill campaign promises. However, promises to maintain the status quo (do nothing) or eliminate aggression are binding.
Even though it might be imprudent to place one’s trust in a politician, voting for them based on their promises to eliminate government intervention is not an unprincipled action, even if the politician does not follow through. The politician aggresses against those whose trust he betrayed, not just the direct victims of state aggression. The voter is therefore not an accomplice, but another victim, and is therefore absolved of any wrongdoing in the act of voting.
Ultimately, none of the major candidates in 2024 (Biden, Trump, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) may meet these standards for principled libertarian voting. Remember that it is justifiable to vote for a candidate as long as they advocate for at least the status quo or an improvement upon the status quo. If they advocate for any expansion of state aggression, no matter how small it might be, then a libertarian cannot vote for that candidate. Hopefully this article helps principled libertarians decide between the major candidates, or help them in deciding to abstain, write-in, or vote for a third party.
