Principled Libertarians Cannot Vote for Chase Oliver

or How Should a Principled Libertarian Vote?

A recent article of mine, “How Should a Principled Libertarian Vote?” does not tell you who you should vote for, but rather how you should vote. If libertarians are to take the non-aggression principle (NAP) seriously, then they should let the NAP guide all actions—including voting. Instead, many libertarians are consequentialists—they want an outcome for society that appears libertarian.

In the article, I justify libertarians voting for certain statist candidates on the grounds that voting for the status quo is not aggressive because voting for the status quo is equivalent to standing on the sidelines—not preventing the aggression of another. the NAP mandates that we abstain from aggression, not step in to prevent aggression. Consequently, principled libertarians can vote for a statist candidate as long as the candidate promises to change relevant policies for the better or not change anything at all.

I do not give voting advice in the article, but the applications are obvious. Libertarians cannot justifiably vote for this election cycle’s Libertarian Party (LP) candidate—Chase Oliver. Oliver has divergences that make him an unprincipled pick. For example, Oliver supports the so-called “fair tax,” which would create a brand-new national sales tax to replace the federal income tax. This would expand state aggression faced by those who do not currently pay an income tax—such as those who pay capital gains and those who saved money that was taxed in previous periods.

Capital gains are currently double taxed; first by corporate taxes and secondly by the capital gains tax. If a national income tax is instituted, then this income is triple taxed. Additionally, those who saved money during periods when income was taxed would then be double taxed when the sales tax is implemented.

Correction: Capital gains would also be eliminated in the FairTax policy; however, this is not always so clear in the people who support it, and it is even more uncertain that advocates would even be able to accomplish capital gains tax abolition alongside Federal income tax abolition. My point here stands. Additionally, there are some who currently pay less than the national sales tax would be. These individuals will see their taxes rise under a FairTax, and some goods which are exempt from sales taxes at the state level might possibly be taxed under this policy.

Though the “fair tax” would simplify taxes, it would do so at the expense of those who are now triple and double taxed. If exceptions for these groups are made, it would complicate taxation in a different way. Essentially, aggression is shifted from one group to another; therefore, a principled libertarian cannot support this policy even if it makes the majority of people better off.

According to iSideWith, Oliver also believes that the state should force companies to pay men and women the same.

This may not be any worse than the present regime, but this policy position should put us on alert. It seems like Oliver is more concerned with egalitarianism than principled libertarianism. This is evident in his radical egalitarian views on child liberation.

In questioning Oliver during a Q&A session at a LPPA board meeting, Oliver revealed a disturbing belief that children should be able to sue their parents for the way that they were raised. I pressed him on this position, stating that it would open up the possibility of children suing their parents for forcing them to go to church. He did not deny this but said that he found it unlikely that a court would side with a child in such a matter. Oliver must not have heard of so-called “religious abuse”—the claim that forced church attendance qualifies as abuse.

This position, though it is less interventionist than Biden’s rhetoric on children, is a radical departure from the present state of affairs where the parents are viewed in most cases to be the stewards of children with numerous government interventions. Oliver’s view would put children at odds with parents to an extent that has not been advocated by either major party candidate—essentially robbing parents of their rights and transferring them to the children and possibly the state.

Regardless, Oliver’s limited understanding of libertarian ethics makes him an embarrassing candidate. Though he can market basic libertarian principles to a leftwing audience, he makes blunders that he is more than willing to double down on. The foundation of his libertarian ethics is a shallow do-no-harm principle, which holds that harm as a broad concept should be rectified. Though the do-no-harm principle may have some overlap with libertarian ethics, it is not the same. Libertarians care about actual trespass on private property, whether it led to “harm” or not.

For example, someone may “harm” another from removing them from a property, but the harm would not constitute a trespass; therefore, it would be improper to prohibit the property owner from removing the trespasser. It would be even more improper to hold the property owner liable for any harm that was done to the trespasser in the process of removing them.

Oliver is clearly not an improvement on every relevant policy. In some ways, Oliver proposes policies that are worse than the status quo, and for that reason a libertarian should not support him. The number of divergences from libertarian ethics may seem small, but the smallest divergence is enough to revoke one’s support, especially when the divergence is on an issue where the status quo is better.

To make matters worse, Oliver is also a minarchist, meaning that he supports a minimal state that includes police, courts, and military. He is no anarchist. That is for sure. Though he is non-interventionist with respect to the military, his support of a basic watchmen state makes me wonder what other interventions he would be fine with. Obviously, in his ideal society, the watchmen state would be involved in enforcing decisions made against the parents on behalf of the children.

To complicate matters further, numerous state Libertarian affiliates—such as Montana and Colorado—have decided to remove Chase Oliver from the ballot completely—some deciding to place Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RFK) on the ballot. Is it imperative that the parties remove him from the ballot?

While it is not justifiable to vote for him, it is not imperative that state affiliates remove him from the ballot. The arrangement is that the national party nominate a libertarian candidate—someone who affirms the non-aggression principle. By nominating Oliver, the national party has violated this obligation, and the state parties cannot be held liable. However, it also means that the state parties should be justified in removing him from the ballot.

Now, does that mean that they can place RFK on the ballot? No, the candidate, according to the principles espoused here, must be either just as bad or better than the status quo.

RFK is worse than Chase, Trump, and even Biden. I have already examined some of his policies more closely in a previous article, so I will not dwell too much on them here, but if he gets his way, the bureaucracy would be more activist.

In his forward to David Stockman’s recent book, Trump’s War on Capitalism, RFK rightly laments over the corporate capture of the bureaucracy—correctly pointing out that cutting military spending and reigning in the Fed would move us in the right direction. However, RFK’s motivations are far from pure. He wants to replace the corporatists with true believers—people who genuinely want to intervene in the economy on behalf of what is right rather than for corporate interests. I am not sure which is worse. We already have a preview of what an activist FTC¹ would look like, and it isn’t good.

At the end of the day, RFK is not going to win, so why not support a lesser candidate that is more aligned with the party like Oliver? I understand that many see RFK as an opportunity to increase recognition, but if party leadership is so eager to abandon principles for attention, then why not nominate Trump? Perhaps there are state election laws that prevent that, but is that the case in all 50 states? I am not sure, but the point is that the LP should be the party of principle. Libertarians should be justified in voting for our candidates.

I plan on dealing with Trump in a separate article, but if it is in fact unprincipled to vote for Trump, then libertarians seem to be justified in abstaining, writing in a candidate, or placing some unknown libertarian on the ballot in place of Oliver and voting for that candidate.

Furthermore, state affiliates are justified in either allowing Oliver to stay on the ballot or replacing him with a candidate that people can vote for on principle.

1. This is not to say that the present FTC is completely absent of cronyism.