One of the main divisions among libertarians surrounds democracy and voting. Here are some of the fundamental questions we must ask ourselves:

• Do you believe individual liberty can exist in a society where many people do not see it as a fundamental principle? 
• Do you believe that libertarianism can be realized within a democratic political framework? 
• Do you think that allowing individuals to take part in political decision-making contradicts the concept of individual liberty? 
• And finally, do you believe that libertarians should participate in voting? 

Positive and negative freedom

We’ll come back to those, but meanwhile, consider Isaiah Berlin, one of the most influential liberal thinkers of the 20th century. He delivered a lecture at the University of Oxford titled “Two Concepts of Liberty.” The most interesting perspectives from the lecture are those regarding positive and negative freedom. 

Positive freedom denotes the right of individuals to be part of the political decision-making process, through elections, referendums, initiatives, etc. The negative one identifies the imperative for non-coercive interference in human affairs, or simply, individual liberty. 

Libertarians, undoubtedly, are in favor of the negative one. Nevertheless, the question of positive freedom, democracy, and the right of people to participate in the political decision-making process is not unanimous. 

Libertarians and democracy

Democracy is probably the most popular term in the contemporary discourse of politics. It covers a variety of meanings and interpretations. One is: the institutional mechanism which enables people to take part in politics. Another is: an ideology which grants political rights, such as the right to vote and the right to be elected as a political official.

Libertarians are generally skeptical of democracy. However, there are at least two branches within libertarianism, one negatively perceiving democracy as a great violator of individual (negative) freedom, and another, positively perceiving it, as a mechanism that enables people to take an active role in politics, and thus promote individual liberty in public policies.

The same division follows the question of voting. The first branch is more or less against voting and does not believe in social change through current political institutions. The second one is pro-voting and seeks to achieve the libertarian agenda through current political institutions. 

LEARN MORE:

Libertarians against voting

Radicals and anarchists among libertarians are often against voting and democracy since voting can be regarded as one of the mechanisms for justifying the state and political power. In this group of anti-democracy libertarians can be listed the 19th-century individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker. In the contemporary context, the leading figure of anti-democracy in the libertarian movement is Hans-Herman Hoppe. 

If you are an anarchist, it is logical to be against democracy, since the latter presupposes the existence of the state, and tacitly approves of it.

Ask yourself this key question: Should Majorities Decide?

Pro-voting libertarians

Moderate libertarians, or classical liberals, contrary to the radicals, aim at social change channeled through current political institutions. Simply, they want to pressure political elites to stipulate the changes they see fit.

Changing public opinion could potentially result in:

1) establishing a libertarian party, or at least

2) Current political parties adopting liberty-friendly programs.

Friedrich Hayek was a leading proponent of this view; he is the founding father of the theory of social change. It reasons that democracy is a mechanism for discovering the general (majority) will, and it is significant when it comes to social organization. Ideas are not powerful by themselves, and that means they cannot be actualized in a social vacuum. The final step, the political change toward free society, is actualized through the voting process.

Additionally, ignorance in the voting process can be fatal when it comes to extreme political parties. If people with liberty views decide to ignore the voting process, the chances for these extreme parties are greater, according to Hayek. 

WATCH:

So: Should libertarians vote?

Even though libertarians tend to perceive negative freedom as more important than the positive one, the fact that humans are social animals should make them rethink their relationship with democracy. Although we understand the importance of individual liberty, the need to persuade people, and collectively support pro-liberty options, that does not necessarily mean participating in the voting process and choosing the lesser evil. The right to disregard the available options is certainly valid. 

However, choosing to ignore the entire process can ultimately be counterproductive. Therefore, I think libertarians should engage in the process of voting. The reason can be summed up in Plato’s words: “One of the penalties of refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”

Are you a student interested in getting involved in pro-liberty activism? By applying to join Students For Liberty’s Local Coordinator Program, you can be supported in promoting the ideas of liberty while also developing your skills and meeting many like-minded students from across the world. Click on the button below to find out more and get involved!

This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions.