Didn't Vote for Marty? Too Bad!

As the new Mayor of Boston prepares to assume his office, it’s worth a moment to reflect on the election.

Final results report that Marty Walsh received 72,583 votes, while the next closest competitor, John Connolly, received 67,694.  Percentage wise, that is 51.5% for Mr. Walsh and 48.5% against.  So, what does this mean if you are one of the 48.5% that did not vote for Mr. Walsh?  Or, what if you didn't even vote at all?

Well, like any “majority rule” system:

• You will have to pay whatever sum Mr. Walsh decides to extract from you.  If you refuse to turn over your peacefully earned property, he will send men to extract it forcefully.

• You will have to live your life according to Mr. Walsh’s standards.  If you disagree with an arbitrary edict against your peaceful actions, he will send men to punish you.

These two fundamental aggressions against your property and liberty manifest in any number of ways, such as taxes and permitting fees or laws against peaceful commerce, the use of private property, or recreation.  The list could continue at length.

Why do we allow such aggressive behavior (theft and coercion) by a minority over the peaceful actions of others?  If you happen to agree with the aggressions, or if you are the one developing or executing them, you probably won’t see any problem.  However, the smallest minority is one person, and if it is your life or property rights that are bring infringed upon, what recourse do you have? 

The traditional "solution" is familiar to anyone that uses politics to attain their ends.  The problem is simply "your candidate" didn’t get elected, and you should try harder next time in order to defend your rights.

Yet, this is a flawed suggestion that will not prevent aggression - rather, it endlessly locks neighbor against neighbor in a 51% vs 49% power struggle.  Furthermore, it is often that a majority of people don't even vote!  In 2013 a total of 142,007 ballots for mayor were cast, yet Boston's estimated population is about 636,000.  This means only 11% of the people in Boston decided who would dictate the rules for 100% of people that live within an imaginary line that defines “Boston” proper.

Where else is this type of system accepted?  Can you draw an imaginary line around your neighborhood, find 10% of people “vote” for you, and then begin to forcibly extract property from your neighbors?  How is this different from what is done on a daily basis in this city?

The only real solution, then, is to reject aggressions against your own property and life, and to reject aggressions directed toward your neighbor.  Do all you can to withdrawal from the political feeding frenzy, and point out its true nature to others - theft and coercion enforced by men with badges and guns.

Further study regarding individual freedom and peaceful cooperation, and how the State aggresses against these principles, may be pursued at length in “The Anatomy of the State” by Murray Rothbard or “The Politics of Obedience” by Étienne de La Boétie.

So, when you see government workers (that are paid with stolen property) inevitably removing the outgoing mayor’s name from the innumerable signs throughout the city that bear his name (only to replace it with the new mayor's tax-funded advertisements), remember that somewhere there is a person who objects to funding such self-promotion - yet, they are stolen from just the same and are told to simply "pay their taxes" and "vote".