When I put election in between quotation marks I mean to say that there really wasn’t an election, at least not in the way elections are popularly conceived. Regardless of the consent of the governed, elections occur. Nobody ever “elected” to have an election. If you don’t like the options, “too bad, so sad.” To the credit of those who say this, we do not complain if the grocery store does not have what we want. Sometimes we settle for the next best thing, or some might say, the “better of two evils.”
However, the grocer analogy is not completely helpful. At least the shopper has the option to simply not buy anything. We can’t do that when it comes to political offices. We either put in our vote and hope for the best or take whatever the plurality of voters picks for us. There is no escape, and for an anarchist like me, there is no hope.
Picking a lesser of two evils in the grocery store would also imply that the lesser you choose is a good, not an evil. You chose it for the satisfaction of your ends. It is a good by virtue of the fact that you voluntarily chose it. Sitting out or choosing the lesser of two evils is not an equivalent.
I would excitedly take no president over whatever options the Republicans and Democrats choose for me. But, in the current system, I am at a loss. “Too bad, so sad.”
The same people that say, “too bad, so sad,” also say, “By not moving, you are consenting to elections, taxation, regulation, and whatever government intervention you are subject to?” Isn’t that convenient? Never mind that consent requires explicit permissions, either written or verbal decree. Apparently, passivity counts as consent! Nonsense! It does not matter if I move or not; it does not change the fact that my private property rights are initially violated and continuously violated against my will. Consequently, the aggressors take on the burden of rectifying the damage they caused. Me not moving does not change the fact that they committed trespasses against me.
Now that this election justification nonsense has been dispelled, what happened on the November 7th election?
Armstrong County
The Libertarian Party of Armstrong County had three candidates. John Thomas and Melissa Wadding for Armstrong School Board and Morgan Mogusc for Karns City Area School Board. All three lost but put up a good fight. John and Melissa ran as a ticket. John received 864 votes and Melissa received 988 votes. They received ~30% of the vote. In the day before the election, a progressive PAC funded for mass texts to be sent out in favor of John and Melissa’s opponents. In the end, the Libertarians in Armstrong reached out to plenty of new folk, got on the debate stage, and scared the establishment into pouring money into the race. I’ll count that as a win.
Additionally, Armstrong elected two new county commissioners. John Strate (R) and Anthony Shea (R) won the election along with incumbent Pat Fabian (D). Strate and Shea are definitely welcomed members on the commission. I hope that they are able to bring fiscal conservatism back to Armstrong County. I know Shea has expressed criticism in the past over the salary that commissioners receive. However, I am not going to hold my breath for positive change. Many newly elected officials fold easily when under pressure; will Strate and Shea do the same? Time will tell.
Curiously, the same progressive PAC that funded the mass texts for John and Melissa’s opponents also funded a mass anti-Shea text, claiming that Shea voted for higher taxes every year Shea served on his school board. I have not confirmed the veracity of this claim (I don’t want to click through old school board budgets right now), and why a progressive PAC would have anything wrong with raising taxes is beyond me (I know, I understand why), but this should be kept on the radar going forward, especially as former Democrat and now Republican Shea takes the position and starts voting.
Allegheny County
Joe Rockey lost the Allegheny County Executive Race. That should come of no surprise. The Democratic grip on Allegheny is unlikely to be broken anytime soon. However, one need not fret; the composition of the County Council hardly changed. Even with Innamorato as County Executive, conditions in Allegheny County will remain stable. The status quo was essentially maintained in this election.
But as I said in my blog post on the Allegheny County Executive race
Assuming companies can be convinced [to relocate], there is nothing stopping Mr. Rockey from convincing them to relocate to Allegheny County before he is elected. Why wait for the first year in office? Of course, there is a risk of a socialist becoming County Executive, but there is still the County Council that might temper the radicalism of an Innamorato administration. Regardless, Mr. Rockey can start convincing companies to move to Allegheny County now. Outside of political strategy, there is no reason to hold prosperity hostage. Also, I am sure the companies will be happy to receive some free advice.
If Rockey really cares about Allegheny County, he will do exactly what he said he would do when in office because some of his promises did not require him to be in the office of County Executive at all, but I jest. I know that some of his promises were hot air.
Fortunately, incumbent Stephen Zappala (R) won the District Attorney race, beating Soros-funded DA candidate Matt Dugan (D). Even though Zappala is far from libertarian, maintaining the status quo is better than voting in someone who threatens public safety such as Dugan.
Ohio Abortion Law
Ohio voters approved of a constitutional amendment enshrining the alleged right to abortion and reproductive healthcare decisions in general. Protect Women Ohio noted that this would enable minors to have abortion and gender reassignment surgery without the knowledge of parents. This constitutional amendment is essentially an attack on parental rights disguised an amendment protecting individual autonomy.
What is a right to abortion anyway? Or a parental right? Neither are necessarily rooted in private property rights (which all true rights stem from). Which shall trump which will be determined by where you place the beginning of self-ownership. Parents, as the creators of children, acquire what Rothbard calls a “trustee” or “guardianship” rights. Children retain the right to run away from home, but as long as they reside on the property of the parents, they must obey their parents. Consequently, if the child has an abortion or sex change against the will of the parent, the parent has a right to cut off all aid to the child and kick them out, physically remove them.
According to Protect Women Ohio, this law will give the right to minors to seek these medical procedures against the parents’ will. Perhaps if the parents could cut off aid to the children in response, this law might not be all that bad, but the abortion law was changed in spite of the positive obligations that parents currently have to care for children. Parents should be free to ostracize and cut off relation to their children if these decisions are made.
None of this is to say that abortion is unjust under libertarian law. The evictionist position posited by Walter Block is the consistent libertarian position on abortion. Women are free to physically remove a fetus from their body regardless of whether the fetus is a rights-bearing individual or not. Guests in one’s house have rights, but when they become unwelcomed guests, they have an obligation to leave, and if they are either unwilling or unable to, the owner of the house is justified in removing them. This applies to abortion as well. This is not a stretch. This is not mental gymnastics. This is a very simple derivation from the non-aggression principle.1
All of what I have said about parental rights and evictionism is, per my evaluation, orthodox Rothbardianism. However, I recognize that the issue of children’s rights is a libertarian controversy. I have some thoughts on the issue myself, but that is best served for a longer-form discussion.2 The bottom line is that this abortion constitutional amendment is in the spirit of libertarianism, but it violates the rights of parents over their children however far those rights may extend.
On a more positive note, Ohio voted to legalize weed. I know less about this ballot initiative, but assuming there are no poison pills in this legalization, then this should be considered a win for liberty.
Conclusion
Much more happened on election day, but these are the only news items I have thoughts on at the moment. It was a mixed bag, however, whatever good came out of this election will likely lead to disappointment and growth of the size and scope of government like it always does.
I have two articles on abortion. The first, entitled “Defending the Unborn in a Libertarian Society,” was in the Grove City College newspaper, The Collegian. The title is confusing considering the only thing I am “defending” in it is the right to remove a foreign object, person or not, from one’s body, but I do float the idea of giving the father a say over abortion. The second is an article published by the Libertarian Institute entitled, “Protesting Abortion Clinics? Not So Fast, Libertarians.” As one can imagine, this article drew a lot of ire.
I am working on a couple of projects relating to parental and children’s rights. Next weekend, I am traveling down to New Orleans for the annual Southern Economic Association conference to present a paper from an economic perspective on parental rights regimes.